Recent Comments

Prev  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  Next

Comments 67301 to 67350:

67301. Rob Painting at 09:06 AM on 31 December 2011
       2011 Year in Review (part 1)
       Chris G - there's an upcoming post about the Hansen paper. Shouldn't be too far away.
67302. Chris G at 08:31 AM on 31 December 2011
       2011 Year in Review (part 1)
       It's been mentioned previously at this site, but worth mentioning again. Dr Hansen has written a brief on heat waves, which shows pretty clearly that the incidence of heat waves has steadily increased over the last 30 years and is now 10 times what it was in the previous 30 years. "...there is no need to equivocate..." There is some fuzziness because there are better data available in the 1950-1980 period than prior to that time, but by that time the global heat content was already on the move. Nevertheless, the rising trend is unmistakable.
67303. Bboucher at 08:22 AM on 31 December 2011
       2011 Year in Review (part 1)
       Great work in this 2011 review. When will the climate deniers realize that their repudiation of scientific data in substantiation of man's contribution to global warming is counterproductive and putting everyone in jeopardy? Unfortunately, history has proven that nothing is done until circumstances become so dire that the impact is catastrophic. Thank you for providing informative, interesting content. I particularly enjoy the graphs and stastical analyses. Since discovering your website, I have spent hours poring over the articles, clicking on every embedded link (which I greatly appreciate). Keep up the good work.
67304. newcrusader at 08:02 AM on 31 December 2011
       2011 Year in Review (part 1)
       I live in Connecticut, a small New England state under 5300 square miles. The southwestern part of the state is a suburb of NYC- yet the eastern part of the state known as the 'Quiet corner' is known for its pastoral bucolic beauty. We ranked as the 8th worse state for climate/weather disasters in 2011. Snowstorms aren’t usually news in here — but 2011 was hardly usual. Hartford was buried under a record-setting 57 inches of snow in January, making it the all-time snowiest month in state history. Then, nearly two months before the next winter began, Connecticut was blasted by the worst October snowstorm in 200 years. The heavy wet snow, which cost the state more than $500 million, sent trees and tree limbs falling onto power lines, leaving more than 700,000 people without heat or lights. In the worst power failure in state history, many didn’t get their electricity back for more than a week. In August, tropical storm Irene pummeled the state with heavy rains and gale-force winds that caused devastating floods and turned the lights out on more than 650,000 people. Some areas were pounded with as much as eight inches of rain in just 24 hours.
67305. funglestrumpet at 07:58 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       Bernard J at 6 & 7 I could not agree more. Bernard J’s “Denialati”, are winning the war whilst losing every battle. This side of the fence has to decide whether their welfare and that of their descendants is going to be best served by continuing to play 'Mr Nice Guy' and sticking rigidly to the science, or if the time has arrived for more direct action. Though the last thing I am suggesting is that sks should sink to the level one finds elsewhere on the climate issue. Perhaps a ‘direct action’ thread could suffice as a nucleus around which some form of organisation for direct action could grow. The Occupy Wall St. Movement has gained a lot of publicity and not a small amount of public support for their unclear cause(s), yet Climate Change is about the possible deaths of countless numbers of our descendants, if not those of us still alive, and is surely a more deserving and clearer cause. I have suggested before that there is soon to be an excellent opportunity to show the ‘retarded right’ how we feel about their contempt for the rest of us and our descendants. I make no apology for the repetition. The opening ceremony of the London Olympics next year will be performed mainly by the younger generation, who will be the ones most likely to suffer the privations that climate change will heap upon the planet. If those taking part could be encouraged to carry a placard demanding action on the topic, then at least we can be sure that they will be seen by countless millions. Any national committee that bans the action could be named and shamed. Perhaps even more dramatic action could be considered, such as a refusal to take part in the opening, which the national committees would be hard pressed to ban. I honestly don’t think that the debate can keep plodding on while The Denialati keep managing to postpone action that is now so urgently needed (re the sudden release of methane in the Arctic as noted recently by Russian scientists, which, if it proves to be the long feared methane ‘burp’, then I guess it’s game over). The debate has now been going on for so long that all with an open mind will have made their mind up on the issue. By all means continue with the excellent scientific analysis, it is still important, if only to provide evidence in any future criminal proceedings regarding the actions of The Denialati. But the debate has to go up a gear if meaningful change is to happen and our descendants are not to be destined to a bleak and overheated future.
67306. muoncounter at 06:39 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       caerbannog#12: "how stunningly incompetent the "Mann method generates hockey sticks from random noise" argument really is." Especially incompetent in the face of all the other hockey sticks that are not from SVDs: atmospheric CO2, Arctic ice (blade is down), sea level (see the SkS graphics page for North Carolina), etc. It's one thing to incompetently say 'the hockey stick is generated from noise' -- its quite another to have to stick with that position over and over again. But thanks for that lucid explanation of the Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). I've described it to my Linear Algebra classes as 'the best thing since sliced bread.' Should anyone want to try to see what they obtain from random noise, try this applet on an appropriately randomly seeded matrix.
67307. Philippe Chantreau at 06:26 AM on 31 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       I think R Gates' post reveals a big problem. Wehner does not say much more than scientific facts can not be disagreed upon because they don't fit in ideology. But the very fact of aggreeing with that is perceived as leaning "left." That's very alarming. This is truly a behavior that was normally reserved to religious dogma. I wish I could say that the left is not guilty of comparable errors in different areas, but these can be found. The biggest enemy of mankind in the 21st century may very well be ideology. In the 20th century, ideologies, possibly for the 1st time, killed more people than micro-organisms. Tens of millions of people, between the 2 world wars battlefields, Staline, Franco, etc, etc. Now we've balked a little at the savagery of these manifestations, but others are creeping up on us. If we don't stop being so enamored of our beautiful ideological constructs that we have to force-fit reality in them by all sorts of self-fooling methods, we don't stand a chance as a species in the long term.
67308. rdr95 at 06:23 AM on 31 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       " I think most conservatives are distrustful of big government projects; they are wary of spending money in far away places outside the oversight of their democracy. " Perhaps we need to separate 'old' (pre-Thatcherite) conservatives from the modern version. A true conservative was, I believe, originally someone who was skeptical and resistant to change. A good many of them could be reasoned with, however, and would accept change if it was made clear that the facts overwhelmingly supported that change. The conservative movement in North America has largely been taken over by people who simply won't accept the data. So I don't see them as conservative in the original sense. Data contrary to their POV are viewed as lies, part of a conspiracy against what they see as the truth. Thus any scientists who produce such data must be part of the conspiracy. The same is true for any economists who dare suggest (with data) that tax cuts are not always a good thing and that public intervention is sometimes a good thing. I wonder if this ability to dismiss data traces back to the postmodernist philosophy that invaded universities back in the 60s. Ironically, it was introduced by people of a decidedly leftist view, but it quickly spread throughout much of academia and then into the mainstream. Too bad we can't set the clock back and squash it before it spread. I am not sure that libertarians and true conservatives really have much in common. Libertarians are fine examples of where postmodernism can take you. As are the neocons. Both are really radicals, not conservative at all. Until something is done to weaken the hold that postmodernism has on public discourse, depending on the facts as a winning strategy is unlikely to be very successful.
67309. Mel at 05:15 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       What bothers me most about this is how the attacks on Mann were amplified in mainstream media. Here’s an example from Canada; On December 12, 2009, Licia Corbella, a senior editor of the Calgary Herald, published a column entitled ‘Real scientists should care more about fraud’. In her column, she stated that Michael Mann “…is already a discredited scientist, as his hockey stick graph was proved to be false years ago.” This was particularly hard to swallow given the profound ignorance Corbella had previously demonstrated regarding climate science. In a column entitled ‘Check the record and it's hard to take Suzuki seriously’ published in February 2008 in the Calgary Herald and the Vancouver Sun, she stated “…according to ice core data, when CO2 levels were 16 times higher than they are today, Earth was covered in ice.” The bottom line is that Corbella’s slanderous statements and remarkable version of the ice core records were widely read in what are usually considered to be respectable newspapers. Both the Calgary Herald and the Vancouver Sun refused to publish any ‘letters to the editor’ that countered Corbella’s attack on Mann and I know that my letters were not the only responses that were submitted.
67310. mace at 05:05 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       More like a shepherds crook than a hockey stick, but it's a nice visualisation
67311. caerbannog at 04:47 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       Steve McIntyre was a hired gun out of the Fraser Institute; he packed a statistical toolkit to unravel formulas that produced an inevitable hockey blade - from any data. (Disclaimer: The material below is a non-rigorous, "arm-wavy" attempt to explain in plain English to non-mathematical types, why the "Mann generates hockey sticks from any data" argument is bogus -- it is by no means a "proper and correct" explanation from a rigorous mathematical perspective.) I should weigh in here, since I have some relevant experience with the SVD (Singular Value Decomposition) algorithm (the algorithm Mann used to "merge down" his North American tree-ring data). Although it is possible for Mann's SVD implementation to produce a "hockey-stick-shaped" leading principal component from random noise, no competent analyst would ever confuse such a "noise" hockey-stick with the genuine article. When an SVD run produces a "hockey stick" leading principal component, the full SVD output will tell you two things about that "hockey-stick" leading principal component: its shape, and even more importantly, its *size*. Mann's method applied to tree-ring data produces a *big* hockey stick; if you get a hockey stick when you apply Mann's SVD to random noise, that hockey-stick will be tiny -- much smaller than the genuine Mann tree-ring hockey-stick. To determine the hockey-stick "size" (aka magnitude), you need to look at the magnitude of the leading singular value. Each principal component aka singular vector has an associated singular value. The size of the singular value will tell you whether the associated principal component represents a "lot" of the data or just a "little" of the data. If you look at the leading singular values for a bunch of "noise hockey-stick" runs, you will see that those leading singular values are *much* smaller than the singular value associated with Mann's tree-ring leading principal component. If your SVD produces a small leading singular value, with the other singular values trailing off gradually in magnitude, then you will know that your data vectors are mostly uncorrelated with each other (i.e. they will have little or no "common temperature" signal). That's the signature of random noise. OTOH, if your SVD produces a large leading singular value, with the remaining singular values decaying very quickly to near-zero magnitudes, you will know that your data vectors are highly correlated with each other, and most likely share strong common temperature signal. Can you guess what Mann's singular values looked like? You can see a plot of the first ten (out of 70) of Mann's singular values here: The blue circles represent the singular values (actually eigenvalues which are singular-values squared, but that doesn't matter here) generated by Mann's "short-centered" SVD procedure (the procedure skeptics claim produces hockey-sticks from noise). As you can see, the singular values decay (roll off) rapidly to near zero. Nearly all of the information in the tree-ring data set (70 tree-ring time-series) is captured by just the first three or so singular values. That's a good indication that the 70 tree-ring time-series in Mann's data set are highly correlated and thus share a strong common temperature signal. Note: The singular values not plotted (singular values 11-70) are all *very* close to zero. If the above plot had shown all 70 singular values instead of the first 10, the "sharp roll-off" nature of Mann's tree-ring singular value spectrum would be even more obvious. Some time ago, I experimented a bit with SciLab (scilab.org) and was able to generate my own "noise hockey sticks". But when I looked at my singular values, I found that those "noise hockey-stick" singular values looked *nothing* like Mann's tree-ring hockey-stick singular values. The leading singular value (associated with the "hockey-stick" leading principal component) generated from random noise was always very small (a small fraction of Mann's leading singular value), no matter how "hockey-stick-shaped" the leading principal component was. The remaining singular-values trailed off very slowly in size (producing a clear "random noise" singular-value signature). The bottom line is, unless you look at the singular values, you can't say *anything* about your data. You can't simply look at the principal components (aka singular vectors) without considering the associated singular value magnitudes and draw any reasonable conclusions about whether your data vectors contain a "common signal" or are just random noise. Without the information provided by the singular values, you simply can't tell (no matter what your principal-components look like). But that's exactly what skeptics did when they attacked Mann by claiming that his procedure generates hockey sticks from random noise. They never bothered to compare their "noise hockey stick" singular values with Mann's "tree-ring" singular values. Those of you out there who are familiar with the SVD and know how to interpret its output will fully appreciate what a spectacular blunder this is. Unfortunately, for most people, the SVD is obscure enough to them that they will never appreciate how stunningly incompetent the "Mann method generates hockey sticks from random noise" argument really is.
67312. EOttawa at 04:35 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       @8 owl905: While I find your observation about the change in McIntyre's focus interesting, I am skeptical of your suggestion about his being a 'hired gun'. Yours is the first inference I've ever seen of the Fraser Institute (or any specific party) funding McIntyre directly. On the other hand, McKitrick's links to the think tank are public knowledge. I appreciate SkS's avoidance of innuendo. It is all too easy (especially given the article's subject matter) to slip into bad habits.
67313. Mercury Scientist at 01:56 AM on 31 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       @5: Great Alley - Rohrbacher video. Thanks for posting. For those who don't have time for the whole 10-minute video, go to 5:46. Alley to Rohrbacher: "If you sort of go to the far fringe, it just might be about where you are..." Brilliant!
67314. John Brookes at 00:11 AM on 31 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       It would be good if more conservatives would agree on the basics, and then at least we could disagree on how to tackle climate change, rather than worry about it being real. Still, we probably shouldn't laud any conservatives who accept climate change as real and human caused. It would lower their standing among other conservatives.
67315. Eric (skeptic) at 23:25 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Tom, I think "harm" often refers to a country disadvantage, hence the need for a carbon-based tariff. Second there is a frictional adjustment and possible recession, but the economy should adjust quickly using the rebate money. I see your point about increased costs although that can be accomodated somewhat by efficiency incentives from the smart grid, incentives to reduce congestion and commuting in general, and energy supplier incentives (tax, regulatory, etc).
67316. Tom Curtis at 21:59 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Eric (skeptic) @43, "harm" is a loaded term. There is no question that such a scheme would have costs. First and most obviously it would have administrative costs that would either come from general revenue, or by reducing slightly the rebates, therefore ensuring the rebates did not quite compensate for imposed costs. Second, such a scheme would result in a switch to renewable energy/nuclear power generation which have a higher base cost (excluding externalities) than the current fossil fuel mix. Because they are low to zero carbon emission technologies, they would not generate money for the rebate even though their higher costs will feed into the overall cost of electricity. In fact, the more successful the scheme is, the lower the carbon tax contribution to the overall increase in power costs, and hence the lower the rebate as a proportion of increased costs. Of course, some of the initial adjustment to higher energy costs will be through increased energy efficiency. Further increased usage of renewables may bring unit costs down so that production costs of energy are below current levels. So it is possible a carbon tax could result in a net benefit economically. But probably it will result in a small cost.
67317. Eric (skeptic) at 21:42 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       There’s an intellectually credible case to be made that it’s unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties I have yet to see an explanation of how a high carbon tax and rebate (e.g. proposed by Hansen) would harm the economy. It would also require a tariff based on the carbon intensity of imports. I think economic harm could come from the political process especially horse trading on tariffs.
67318. Paul D at 21:32 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       R Gates said: "Furthermore, I agree with many, though not all of his points. It this age of political polarization, with the world being cast in black & white terms..." Not the world. Mainly just the US.
67319. Tom Curtis at 19:40 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       R Gates @40:

       "World English Dictionary extremist (ɪkˈstriːmɪst) — n 1. a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical — adj 2. of, relating to, or characterized by immoderate or excessive actions, opinions, etc"

       I do not hold with the Humpty Dumpty theory of word mastery, as apparently you do. Instead I use words according to their meaning, and according to its meaning, "extremist" is pejorative and vilifying. I am equally inclined to use dichotomies according to their correct meaning. On the basis that Lenin and Trotsky occupied the extreme left of the political spectrum, it is very clear that main stream US politics occurs within a range from center left to a very hard right. (Note this spectrum reflects economic policy, and not the authoritarian-libertarian scale.) (See politicalcompass.org) Finally, agreement with Mr. Wehner, and certainly not qualified agreement in no way indicates that you are left of center. His stated position in the articles in question amounts only to a qualified acceptance of the science, and scientific fact knows no politics. The most left wing policy position Mr Wehner espouses is the view that,

       " It’s reasonable to argue that a meaningful deal to cut carbon emissions among the worst emitting nations (China, the United States, the EU, India, and Russia among them) is almost surely beyond reach and that our focus should be on adaptation and relatively low-cost investments in technologies rather than drastic carbon cuts."

       Next you'll be asking for credit as a radical lefty because you did not disagree with all of George W Bush's expenditure to help rebuild New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.
67320. R. Gates at 18:39 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Tom Curtis @ 39: Leaving aside my own political views for a moment, my characterization of the 30% on the left and right ends of the political spectrum as "extremists" is not meant to indicate that those holding this "extreme" positions on the ends of the spectrum may or may not be correct in their positions, and certainly is was not an attempt to vilify anyone. Additionally, your perception that "moderate" views held by "liberals" are indeed that "moderate" comes from your own position on the political spectrum. The 30-40-30 split in American politics is a simple statement of fact, without any desire to suggest that the any one of these positions is right or wrong, nor in need of "vilification". The very fact that I opened my post with the statement that I agree with many of Mr. Wehner's positions ought to indicate that I tend to lean (at least on some issues) somewhere left of center, but certainly someone far right of center might easily label me as "extremist". But I am ultimately a realist, and know that consensus is the only way that America ever moves forward, and thus, in that spirit, I applaud Mr. Wehner, but sadly, America currently is not in a "consensus" mood, though perhaps, with enough disgust at the gridlock in Washington, we shall once more find our way to it.
67321. John Brookes at 18:04 PM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       There is a problem with dodgy thinking in democracies. People are susceptible to superficially attractive arguments. This doesn't matter if politicians and the media choose not to use factually wrong but attractive arguments. But if they do, we have a real problem. Take taxation. During the decade long boom leading up to the GFC, governments should have taxed more. Its easy to see in hindsight, now that governments around the world find themselves with unsustainable levels of debt. But it should have been foreseeable, and politicians on both sides should have spurned tax cuts, arguing instead for caution. But if you want to win an election, you should promise tax cuts, and the media should cheer you on. Its the same with global warming - its easy to be irresponsible and encourage people to deny that we have a problem. The Republicans in the US, and the Coalition in Australia have decided to play the populist card. The Murdoch media has gone along with this. It is annoying, to say the least.
67322. owl905 at 16:55 PM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       Steve McIntyre was a hired gun out of the Fraser Institute; he packed a statistical toolkit to unravel formulas that produced an inevitable hockey blade - from any data. As the Rounds piled up, his attack shifted to the data (notably the Briffa backfire). His current universe has degraded into e-mail gossip smears. The biggest problem with an audit of his critique is the utter failure to produce a reconstruction that could anchor his attacks. The irony is that he abandoned his main attack - on the formula - and by implication gave it a measure of approval. Indeed, if the flaw was in the formula there was no need for a decade of data attacks (his latest claim versus the hockey team is that they all use the same flawed data). Mann's reconstruction has been wiggled and jiggled by subsequent independent lines of research ... but the observations and data match his thesis. And mock McIntyre.
67323. Tom Curtis at 15:56 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       With respect to R Gates @38, while the 30/40/30 split may indeed hold in American politics, the characterization of liberals as "extremists" is grotesque and defamatory. It is part of the problem in American politics that moderate views such as are held by American liberals are vilified as being extreme. Frankly, anyone who can vilify center left views as extremist turns out, IMO, to be part of the problem. In consequence I can find little to respect in the opinions of R Gates.
67324. R. Gates at 15:27 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Mr. Wehner has written a thoughtful, intelligent, and well-reasoned essay, and I applaud his honesty and bravery. Furthermore, I agree with many, though not all of his points. It this age of political polarization, with the world being cast in black & white terms, such moderate, and reasonable approaches will be rejected by the extremes at both ends. We have a case of 30-40-30 politics and political thinking. 30% extremists on one side, 40% moderate in the middle, and 30% extremists on the other. Unfortunately, in a bi-polar political reality that America finds itself in, to win an election, you need to cater to enough of your parties 30% to squeak out oa victory. Embracing reasonable views such as Mr. Wehner's, risks losing the 30% you need for a victory. Perhaps more than anything, Mr. Wehner and others like him, coming from the "left", prove that more than ever, it's time for a true Independent 3rd Party.
67325. Bernard J. at 14:32 PM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       Following on from my previous post... That such politically-driven obfuscation of scientific fact can occur in both the USA and in Australia (amongst other countries) indicates a fundamental failing in both our societies. I suspect that as well as future generations cursing our current national propensities for overweening social self-indulgence, future historians will be less than complimentary about the decision-making processes of which we are apparently so proud. It seems that in its capacity to achieve sensible conclusions, science has much to teach political democracy. This is reflected in the incredulity so many scientists experience when lay people accept the misrepresentation of solid work such as Mann's. It is telling that the situation appears to be different in France. I suspect at least some amongst those aforementioned future generations would be less horrified, on reflection and with their benefit of hindsight, if Micro$oft Vista (another famously buggy operating system) had been introduced to the world in 2000 at the end of a gun... If only it wasn't oxymoronic to introduce rational thinking to the US and Australia in the same way.
67326. Bernard J. at 13:49 PM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       

       What, ultimately, is the outcome of all this? He suddenly becomes less talkative. "Those who attack us have won in the sense that they have succeeded in delaying any action on global warming by ten, twenty, maybe thirty years," he concedes with worry as he sees his country succumbing to anti-science. "Denying either anthropogenic climate change or evolution has become a condition of admission to the Republican Party. That’s something quite new and very scary".

       And therein lies the rub. The Denialati have already won. It matters not to the eventual inevitable public vindication of the science, because the vested interests and the ideologues have achieved the delay they sought. And those ten to thirty years represent the difference between a relatively livable world to bequest to future generations, and one where the global indices of human suffering and of ecological integrity are seriously compromised. It only remains to be seen by how much humanity intends to allow those indices to be seriously compromised.
67327. muoncounter at 13:15 PM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Wehner's 12/22 follow-up post is very disappointing. I agree ... that global warming is a manageable risk, not an existential crisis. And I have argued that there are significant uncertainties on how the climate system will respond a century or more from now. But for some on the right ... to insist that AGW is a hoax, the product (more or less) of a massive conspiracy, is, I believe, damaging to conservatism. That is something I do care about. This is not about what is damaging to one part of the political spectrum. What you should care about is the fact that inaction due to these perceived uncertainties is exactly what will turn 'manageable risk' into existential crises. Contemporary liberalism can do as it will. But for conservatism, facts–those stubborn facts–need to be our guiding star. When have facts ever been the guiding star in any ideological debate? Look no further than the tripe put out by the all-conservative-all-the-time American Enterprise Institute, who happily liken those who understand and accept AGW science to a religious cult: All the trappings of religion are there. Original sin: Mankind is responsible for these prophesied disasters, especially those slobs who live on suburban cul-de-sacs and drive their SUVs to strip malls and tacky chain restaurants. Yep, those stubborn facts. Some guiding star.
67328. caerbannog at 12:35 PM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       ubrew12@4: The Aquarium of the Pacific is just inside Dana Rohrabacher's Congressional district. Here is a video clip of Rohrabacher, in his full glory, questioning Dr. Richard Alley at a Congressional hearing. (Warning: Secure all hot beverages before watching it!) Rohrabacher, btw, is now serving in his 12th term, and IIRC has never had to sweat re-election. Keep that in mind as you watch the video. There are lots of hard-core Rohrabacher supporters living pretty close to where Mann will be speaking, so heckling wouldn't be unexpected. In fact, given the political views of many in that area (especially to the south, in Orange County), there's the possibility of being treated to a bit of a right-wing "freak-show" outside the venue. Folks attending might want to have their videocam/iphone/android devices handy. There's the potential of getting some very "YouTube worthy" video footage.
67329. ubrew12 at 11:49 AM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       caerbannog@1: Sad to think that Long Beach would have residents who would heckle Dr. Mann. Long Beach, and its magnificent harbor, are literally on the front lines of this debate.
67330. kampmannpeine at 09:51 AM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       it is a shame that US seems to succumb to those issues. however my impression is: world is changing ... hopefully :)
67331. Tom Curtis at 09:38 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       guinganbresil @26, I recommend you play DDT ban myth bingo, making sure to follow the links, until you know better than to regurgitate falsehoods about DDT.
67332. pbjamm at 09:03 AM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       caerbannog@1 Thank you for the heads up on that! Tix purchased!
67333. scaddenp at 08:15 AM on 30 December 2011
       Medieval project gone wrong
       markx - the critical take-away is that MCA was different from what we see today. While many more proxy temperature records would be a big help, it seems LIA was truly global (though much less pronounced in SH) and resulted from global negative forcings. MCA is reproduced reasonably well in models from known forcings, (see CH6 of AR4) but while there were global forcings, there was obviously also strong regional factors at play as well.
67334. kampmannpeine at 07:13 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Thank you for this excellent contribution on this topic. it seems that after BEST the minds in USA and elswhere are changing. See also the excellent article of Susan Hassol at the AGU-Fall meeting 2011 (http://vimeo.com/33298236 ) - I am eager to experience when the GERMAN EIKE is changing their attitudes :)
67335. ubrew12 at 07:05 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Manzi (quoted in Wehner): "Global warming is a real risk, but its impact over the next century could plausibly range from negligible to severe." All us 'alarmists' have been saying is: why gamble with your only home? Wehner goes on to claim: "There's an intellectually credible case to be made that it's unwise to embrace massive, harmful changes to our economy in the face of significant uncertainties based on incomplete knowledge of how the climate system will respond in the middle part of the 22nd century." As long as we're talking about 'uncertainties': where does the unanimous conservative 'certainty' of 'massive, harmful changes to our economy' come from? The most credible accounting of these changes, the Stern Review, places the cost at 2% of global GDP, which is 1/5th to 1/20th the cost of doing nothing. And that was before photovoltaic costs started plunging. This is what kills me about this 'conversation' we are having with American conservatives. We're so happy to find one of them admitting that AGW is real that we'll publish his claim that until we know, with certainty, what the climate will be 140 years from now, it would be 'unwise' to impose 'certainly harmful' green technologies on poor Americans. Regarding conservative actions over the last 15 years (deregulation of banking, disinterest in derivative and housing bubbles, invasions over 'certain WMD', Supply-Side economics) the most inevitable certainty of all has been the certainty of AGW, the one certainty conservatives still doubt! Wehner, like most of his ilk, plays fast and loose with the concept of 'certainty', and their record is not exactly good.
67336. hank at 07:01 AM on 30 December 2011
       Climate Solutions by Rob Painting
       > solar powered ventilation system for our house. I'd like to see more on that, whenever > carbon per acre per year You might find something through http://nnrg.org/NW-Neutral (They aren't yet considering biodiversity but it's a start)
67337. caerbannog at 06:46 AM on 30 December 2011
       Michael Mann, hounded researcher
       A quick advance heads-up for those who live in Southern California (or will be in SoCal in February). Dr. Mann will be speaking at the Aquarium of the Pacific in Long Beach (near Los Angeles) on Feb 15. Details here. I wouldn't be surprised if this event brings some noisy detractors out of the woodwork, so anyone who happens to be in this neck of the woods (or what passes for woods in SoCal) on Feb 15 should consider dropping by and giving Dr. Mann a show of support.
67338. Carbon500 at 06:44 AM on 30 December 2011
       Infrared Iris Never Bloomed
       Has anyone used a 'modern' version of John Tyndall's 1861 experiment to demonstrate the effects of CO2? More specifically, is there any laboratory data relating to the effect of the additional 75ppm of CO2 added to the atmosphere since 1958? Any comments would be much appreciated - thank you.
67339. John Hartz at 06:25 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Suggested reading: “Capitalism vs. the Climate”, The Nation (USA) magazine, Nov 28, 2011 print edition. Click here to access this in-depth and thought-provoking cover story by Naomi Klein.
67340. Riccardo at 06:00 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       John Hartz @28 thank for sharing Menken's thoughts, so prescient of contemporary drift of our democracies toward populism. An unwelcome corollary of populism is that who's in office or in charge of something do not take any responsability because he's just representing the will of the people. What Menken ironically call the perfection of democracy actually is the end of it.
67341. william5331 at 05:46 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Lets stop banging our heads against a wall, trying to convince the climate change deniers. Instead ---- Even the most stubborn conservative can hardly deny that fossil fuel is a non renewable resource, that we are destroying mountains and rivers to get at coal, that we are hostage to some pretty shonky regimes that just happen to have fossil fuel resources, that we are destroying the society of other fossil fuel rich countries by supporting their local Mafia, that we are pumping massive amounts of arsenic, mercury and even radioactivity into the atmosphere from our coal fired power plants etc. etc. The very measures that would address the above problems would also address climate change http://mtkass.blogspot.com/2010/10/forget-climate-change.html
67342. Philippe Chantreau at 05:39 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       Guiganbresil "Both viewpoints have their irrational extremes - blatant environmental abuse for petty profit on the one hand, and wholesale abuse of human rights on the other." Funny, considering that blatant environemental abuse is iself so often associated with Human rights abuse. As for that DDT issue, why did you believe the version that you just tried to regurgitate here? How much did you research it? Concerning those who supposedly see fossil fuels as an opportunity to benefit mankind, it is patent that the amount of evidence they would need to change their viewpoint is infinite. That seems to be especially the case for those who sit at the top of the pyramid of "benefit."
67343. muoncounter at 05:07 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       This is more than a top-down, leadership-driven issue. Not many (especially those outside the US) may be aware that a fundamental shift in US environmental/political life took place in the November 2010 mid-term elections. An electorate fed up with what they were told was 'big government' was seduced into electing a large number of inexperienced, ideologically-driven folks both as their US representatives and their state government. As a result, environmental policy is now more of a mixed bag of conflicting priorities than ever. This report is an excellent summary, providing a context for some of the political struggles on the larger stage. Our biggest challenges are: (1) State budget crises that will severely limit environmental agencies’ capacity to implement and enforce the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and other environmental laws; (2) Unprecedented ideological opposition to environmental progress among too many state legislators across the Midwest; and (3) The public’s focus on job creation and retention rather than environmental and other quality of life issues. This is an example of the principle that "All politics is local": Politicians must appeal to the simple, mundane and everyday concerns of those who elect them into office. Those personal issues, rather than big and intangible ideas, are often what voters care most about... Climate change will remain 'big and intangible' - until we figure out a way to make it personal; and that's a tall order, as this year of disastrous weather was very personal indeed.
67344. John Hartz at 04:47 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       The Mencken quote in the following letter-to-the-editor is priceless. Paul Krugman’s “Republicans against science” (Views, Aug. 30) states that “odds are that one of these years the world’s greatest nation will find itself ruled by a party that is aggressively anti-science, indeed anti-knowledge.” This line reminds me of the great H.L. Mencken’s words in the Baltimore Evening Sun in 1920: “As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people....On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” Woodrow Wilson was president at the time; to be followed by Warren Harding, Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. We all know what happened next. Peter W. Gerrard, Kehlen, Luxembourg Letters to the International Herald Tribune Politics and Science
67345. CBDunkerson at 04:22 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       guinganbresil wrote: "the banning of DDT in 1972 (~90,000,000 premature deaths, billions suffering from malaria)..." Nonsense. This is the same kind of ridiculous fiction we regularly see applied to global warming. The 'ban' in 1972 prohibited the use of DDT for agricultural spraying in the United States. How has that caused millions of deaths / billions to suffer malaria? Spraying for public health reasons, i.e. to control malaria, remains legal in the U.S. to this day and the 'ban' never involved any form of spraying outside the US. "Some see the Earth essentially as a gift to mankind - one that deserves stewardship and respect, but is essentially for our benefit. On the other hand, some see humans as interlopers mooching off the Earth - so the Earth should be protected from bad human activity." Actually, I think most environmentalists see it more in terms of 'do not foul your own nest'.
67346. guinganbresil at 04:06 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       I think there is a fundamental difference in how the left and right look at the relationship between mankind and the Earth. Some see the Earth essentially as a gift to mankind - one that deserves stewardship and respect, but is essentially for our benefit. On the other hand, some see humans as interlopers mooching off the Earth - so the Earth should be protected from bad human activity. Both viewpoints have their irrational extremes - blatant environmental abuse for petty profit on the one hand, and wholesale abuse of human rights on the other... If you must make a judgement call, just compare a two of examples: Exxon Valdez spill (~250,000 sea birds, ~3,000 sea mammals) to the banning of DDT in 1972 (~90,000,000 premature deaths, billions suffering from malaria)... I believe this dichotomy in viewpoint underpins the difference in the conservative vs. liberal response to AGW. Some see fossil fuels (and nuclear...) as a opportunity to benefit mankind - quite a bit of evidence would be needed to convince them to abandon the use without an attractive alternative. The other viewpoint would easily accept that something that benefits humans must be adverse to the environment... and must be stopped.
67347. Stephen Baines at 02:47 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       I agree with DB about the messaging from the leadership. The poll numbers that mc cites for republicans who disbelieve AGW really increased over the last decade. It also responded to things like Al Gore's movie, the 2007 IPCC release and "climatgate" reaction. All that indicates the influence of top down messaging (working against other headwinds). Basically, I think the recent marketing strategy of the conservative/republican leadership (since ca 1994) has increasignly been to elicit broad populist distrust of targeted issues that can be characterized as elitist, intellectual or liberal. These issues are characterized as attempts to impose a different set of core values on "regular people" or that they reflect self interest on the part of the elite (implicitly at the expense of the regular folk through taxes, regulation). The focus on specific ersonalities (Gore, Hillary, Pelosi, Obama) allows them to paint movie villains that fit these preconceptions neatly and provide a focus for distrust. "Scientists", with their white coats, crazy hair and evil laughs, are easy targets too. Linking these personalities to specific issues then becomes a form of branding by association. AGW, Al Gore and Dr. Frankenstein become inseparable. It's a strategy that can be applied to a large range of issues with relative ease because it builds on a set of preexisting inclinations and a few carefully crafted characterizations developed over a long period of time. Especially in the current economic climate, it effectively generates anger and activism among the rank and file, while also serving monied special interests that fill the campaign coffers. Its quite brilliant from a purely strategic point of view. The democrats try to mimic it, but I think their rank and file are less susceptible to this approach. The problem is that this broad brush strategy generates such wide ranging cynicism about intelligent discourse and such political and social polarization that any basis for policy discussion and compromise gets "boxed in" by partisan fervor, even within the party itself. Also, because the strategy seems to be based primarily on locating convenient targets that elicit both populist distrust of the other party and special interest dollars, reality and policy positions can easily become divorced from each other. Eventually both things make it hard for the leadership to lead in a meaningful way. Personally, I think we're seeing the downside in congress and in the Republican primary race right now. The need to resort to transparent tricks like referring to the rich only as "job creators," also highlights the inherent tensions in this appraoch. I'd like to think it will eventually force a reconsideration or recalibration of strategies that will enable conservatives to see the point of embracing the science behind AGW and other issues. But that could be slow.
67348. climatehawk1 at 02:06 AM on 30 December 2011
       The Debunking Handbook Part 2: The Familiarity Backfire Effect
       I think the formula of simply stating "Mythbusting facts" works well.
67349. markx at 01:42 AM on 30 December 2011
       Medieval project gone wrong
       Thanks Tom #44, for the references. I see Mann has maps there (original paper on both MWP (MCA) and LIA) showing the position and types of the proxies – and I see the maps were derived from the models (6 climate simulations with the coupled atmosphere-ocean climate model GISS-ER (S12) Following a control run to establish stable initial conditions, six transient runs extending from 850 to 1900) I must say it worried me a bit that there are not a vast number of proxies for the MWA, and those (especially the few ice cores) seem to be in areas which did tend to show warming. But it is certainly beyond me to discuss such modelling and such a detailed paper any further. I note Mann did provide some explanation of the pattern in some more good maps in figure 3, (showing the difference between the MWP and the LIA For comparison with model simulation results, it is useful to eliminate the influence of the choice of modern reference period by examining the pattern of the MCA-LIA difference itself (Fig. 3). The MCA-LIA pattern highlights the extent to which the MCA is both more “La Niña–like ……(and)…. suggestive of the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and closely related Arctic Oscillation (AO) sea-level pressure (SLP) ……
67350. muoncounter at 01:12 AM on 30 December 2011
       A thoughtful conservative perspective on climate
       DB: "the issue more properly is not that there isn't more American conservatives that agree with AGW" The polls say otherwise. "their elected representatives that have kowtowed to the "special interests"" Who was it that said we get the kind of government that we deserve? de Tocqueville: ... a democracy could see "a multitude of men," uniformly alike, equal, "constantly circling for petty pleasures," unaware of fellow citizens, and subject to the will of a powerful state which exerted an "immense protective power". That is an accurate description of the current state of our government; just substitute 'corporate greed' for 'state.'

Prev  1339  1340  1341  1342  1343  1344  1345  1346  1347  1348  1349  1350  1351  1352  1353  1354  Next