Week 12 (Blog)

Global Warmind skepticism? Kyle is proof that some people still refuse to get it, but I guess there is not help for everyone. Some of the following proposals are ridiculous in nature while others make for good brain fodder. The interesting thing here is that some of the arguments presented here (or close variants) are ones that I've used as excuses for not believing other things.

April 28, 2006

SciAm Blog: Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part III

Scientific American's blog has a "summary of misgivings about whether global warming is occurring and whether it is caused by human activity." The list is extensive, so I am only going to include the main sections, but there is quite a bit of more detail in the original list. Also, in case anyone wants to participate, there is a poll on which arguments against global warming are the most compelling:

SciAm Blog: Are You a Global Warming Skeptic? Part III: As promised, here is the updated list of misgivings about whether global warming is occurring and whether it is caused by human activity. I've incorporated comments from the first and second threads and from private emails, and I've reshuffled some of the categories. I've done my best to be fair in representing the variety of opinion.

I think most people would agree that some of these arguments are stronger than others. What we need to do is find some way to rank them. As a start, I've set up a poll. After you take a look at the arguments, I invite you to go to the polling site and select which broad category you find the most persuasive. For completeness, I've included a response option for those who do think that anthropogenic warming is occurring, although I don't intend for this to be a broad survey of opinion. The poll is imperfect: for instance, the difference among categories II, III, and IV is a matter of degree. But I think it would help focus the discussion if we got a rough-and-ready sense of which line of argument is considered the most important.

View poll (The poll is a bit of a hack, so please bear with me. ...)

1. Warming may not actually be occurring. Most respondents seemed to agree that the global average temperature is rising, but some did not.
   
   1. This past winter was so cold. Where's the warming?
   2. Temperatures were higher 1,000 years ago in Western Europe.
   3. The global average temperature has been decreasing since 1998. This is the start of a cooling trend predicted by Theodore Landscheidt.
   4. Ground temperature readings are subject to systematic errors such as the urban heat island effect or localized natural temperature variation.
   5. Ground temperature readings contradict satellite measurements.
   6. Reports of changes in polar climate are anecdotal and could be localized effects.
      
2. The present warming could be a natural uptick. Respondents pointed out that climate conditions fluctuate because of volcanism, the obliquity cycle, changes in solar output, and internal (chaotic) variability. If pre-industrial fluctuations were natural, then industrial-age ones could be, too. One respondent put it this way: "Every time I read that we have had 'the hottest summer in 100 years' I wonder what caused that hot summer 100 years ago." Some people are too special.
   
   1. It is not, in fact, historically anomalous. Evidence suggesting as much is shaky.
   2. It could be explained by any number of natural processes.
      
3. CO2 emissions cannot explain the warming. This is complementary to the previous category: instead of arguing for a natural cause, the respondents here argued against an anthropogenic one.
   
   1. The emissions are too puny. But our forests are down by 2/3rds.
      
   2. Historical climate data rule out a significant role for CO2.
   3. CO2 levels might be driven by temperature, rather than the other way around. For instance, warm oceans can hold less CO2.
   4. The physics of CO2 absorption is too poorly understood to blame it for warming.
      
4. Climate models are unconvincing. In this category, I put the argument that, whatever the inherent plausibility of anthropogenic global warming, climate scientists have yet to present a solid case.
   
   1. Models do not capture the complexity of the climate system.
   2. Proper application of the scientific method does not support anthropogenic warming.
      
5. Warming is a good thing, so we shouldn't try to stop it. It might be good in a absolute sense or in a relative one. "Again last night I had that strange dream, where everything was exactly as it seemed/concerns about the world getting warmer, people thought that they were just being rewarded/for treating others as they'd like to be treated/obeying stop signs and curing diseases/for mailing letters with the address of the sender, now we can swim any day in November"
   
   1. It will increase humidity in tropical deserts and improve the lot of high-latitude regions.
   2. Higher CO2 levels encourage plant growth, and that's good.
   3. Historically, humanity has done better when the climate was warm, such as at the height of the Roman Empire, than when it was cold, such as the early medieval period. WTF?!?
      
   4. For most of its history, Earth has been warmer than today. Animals and plants seemed to do just fine in those periods of warm climate. One respondent wrote: "Our present chilly climate is the aberration when judged on a geological time scale."
   5. It staves off the next glaciation, which we're due for. Or does it set off the chain reaction which causes it sooner?
      
   6. Claims that global warming has worsened storm damage, or will do so, are overblown. If damage seems to have increased, it is simply because more people live in storm-prone regions and their plight is more widely publicized than before. Wasn't Katrina the worst hurricane seen thus-far... In terms of ferocity and wind speed. What about the tsunami which was arguably one of the worst ones.
      
   7. Attempts to stop global warming would do more damage they than avert. Warming might be bad, but it is better than the alternative, be it Kyoto or some other mitigation strategy. The underlying assumption here is that the null strategy -- letting people move away from shorelines as sea levels gradually rise and adopt non-carbon energy sources as commodity prices dictate, without any explicit climate policy -- carries the least net costs. And kills more of us. Thanks, Mr. Wizard.
      
6. Kyoto is useless, or worse. Many of the complaints were specific to the Kyoto Protocol, which has set up a cap-and-trade system for greenhouse gases. Although these comments don't really pertain to the science, I include them because some respondents linked their mistrust of climate science to their misgivings about Kyoto.
   
   1. It would bankrupt us. One correspondent said Kyoto mandates "a practically unlimited expenditure of effort (and money, naturally)."
   2. It may not bankrupt us per se, but it would divert resources from other, better-established priorities.
   3. It is an inefficient response to climate change. We are better off dealing with the consequences directly. For instance, an increased malarial threat could be handled by mosquito control measures.
   4. It reeks of social engineering: holier-than-thou environmentalists telling people how to lead their lives.
   5. It would reduce warming by 0.02 degrees C or a similarly meager amount.
   6. It exempts developing countries, whose emissions intensity and growth rates are much higher than those of developed countries. In effect, Kyoto lets developed countries outsource their emissions.
   7. It "demands that developed countries send money to Third World dictators for greenhouse gas credits."
   8. People may claim to support it, but their energy-wasting habits belie their true sentiments.
      
7. People who argue that human activity causes global warming can't be trusted. So... is cause and effect now just a horrible ruse? Now we get to what seems to be the single biggest complaint: doubts as to the competence or motivation of scientists and others who accept anthropogenic climate change. Many respondents perceive scientists as jumping to conclusions, haughtily dismissing doubters, refusing to take the time to explain things, and adopting absolutist positions. One respondent wrote: "What data would convince me? I don't know if data is the problem as much as needing to perceive an objective voice." This is an interesting perspective seeing as humans have been on the earth for a tiny period and we are pretty arrogant all the time and scientists are constantly jumping to conclusions only to rescind them and change their minds a year or two later. I'm not saying that I buy it, but I can see where it could get its credibility.
   
   1. Climate scientists have lost their credibility by making bad calls.
   2. Climate scientists behave unscientifically.
   3. Activists and journalists have gone overboard.

I should point out that the above taxonomy doesn't capture all the responses. Some people simply asked questions about climate science, proposed that other human activities be incorporated into models, or commented on the motivations of the skeptics themselves. We can return to these thoughts as the discussion unfolds.

Posted by Mark Thoma at 02:11 AM

Week 11 (Blog)

Here's an interesting subject... (along the lines of several of my other posts, sorry)

April 16, 2006

A Little More Rain on the Hybrid Parade

Seems like others are starting to figure out what I pointed out last year (A Little Rain on the Prius Parade look down), that hybrids aren't necessarily all they're cracked up to be...

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/16/opinion/16kitman.html Below

J.S.

Wednesday, May 04, 2005

A Little Rain on the Prius Parade

As an ardent environmentalist, it may surprise you that I am not entirely sold on the hybrid revolution that has been initiated by the wildly popular Toyota Prius. Before I explain why, let me be clear that I think the Prius is a great car and there are many reasons to buy it independent of its fuel efficiency (e.g. it’s very quiet, it drives well, and who can’t appreciate the button instead of the key ignition?). The fact that the Prius is now somewhat of a status symbol while sales of Hummers have dropped precipitously is an unambiguously great thing.

The Prius (and other recent hybrids) are being touted as extremely fuel efficient and therefore, as an effective means of decreasing our dependence on oil and our CO2 emissions. Sales are way up and a wide variety of government-sponsored rebates for the purchase of “green” cars are currently in the works. The fact is, however, that hybrids are not really much more efficient than many conventional gas cars that have been around for decades. At this point, from a strictly environmental standpoint it’s likely that the added cost is not justified.

The Prius is listed at 60mpg city and 51mpg highway, but these numbers are for “ideal” conditions and are not realized in practice. I know two people who own a Prius and they get low 40s on the highway and mid-high 40s in the city (I’ve been told that the Honda Civics hybrids get slightly better mileage). While very good numbers, particularly when compared to SUVs, this mileage is not much better than for conventional compacts. Many Hondas and Toyotas get close to 40mpg and even a number of American brands get in the mid-30s. So for a Prius we’re only really talking about a 10-20% increase in efficiency over many other less expensive models when driving on the highway. While the city mileage is certainly better, people drive far fewer city miles, and there are many more public transportation options in cities. So the improvement in city mileage doesn’t cut into the bulk of gasoline demand, which is for highway commuting.

Let’s look at an average commuter who drives 12,000 miles per year. If we’re comparing a Honda Accord to a Prius the savings in gasoline is in the range of 30-60 gallons a year. A gallon of gasoline emits about 5-6 pounds of carbon and I’ll round that off to 10 since there’s also energy used in gasoline production. So that’s 300-600 pounds of extra carbon a year.

(Note: I am ignoring the possibility that once consumers purchase a highly fuel efficient car they may actually increase their amount of driving since it has now become cheaper, and therefore, cut into some of the CO2 reductions brought about by the higher mileage. Also, I am not taking into account the extra energy that goes into producing the lithium battery for the Prius and the CO2 that results.)

Now the question is: With the sticker price of a Prius roughly $4,000 more than a standard Accord with similar features is this a good deal for 600 pounds less carbon? (I’ll go with the high number)

(Note: while hybrid owners save money in gas they also have to pay a lot for battery replacements so I’m going to assume these costs and benefits cancel each other out.)

The way to answer this question is to determine how much it would cost to decrease CO2 emissions by an equivalent amount in some other fashion. One excellent way to accomplish this is by planting trees. Although estimating the precise amount of CO2 sequestration from trees is extremely complex, the amount of trees needed to annually absorb 600 pounds of carbon is very small; a tiny fraction of an acre.

So here’s my conclusion: If decreasing CO2 in the atmosphere is your primary motive it’s much more efficient to forego the Prius (and buy an Accord, Civic, or Corolla- perhaps even a used one) and spend the extra money on tree planting and the general preservation of open space.

This takes us to a general point on the issue of CO2 emissions that seems to have gotten lost in the larger debate these days. With such a focus on hybrids and the complete lack of political will to increase mileage standards (which is the most important thing we should be doing on this front) the role of forests in carbon sequestration is no longer at the forefront in the public’s consciousness (when was last time we heard about preserving the Amazon Rainforest?). This is unfortunate because not only do forests and open space decrease CO2 in the atmosphere, but they also provide a host of other environmental benefits (such as biodiversity preservation and watershed protection), and payment for these services can be an excellent way to help the poor in developing countries (although of course we can also plant trees here as well). Some amount of global warming is now inevitable and many species are going to need large areas to roam in order to adapt to the shifting climate; therefore, habitat preservation and expansion should be a top priority. what would this policy look like?? Instead of extra highways and wider streets, more parks and landscaping in our cities... Sounds rather nice to me...

In addition, there are literally dozens of home energy conservation options (retrofitting windows, purchasing more efficient appliances, better insulation) that would cut down CO2 by as much as driving hybrids for a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, much of the resistance to implementing these commonsense and relatively simple fixes is due to the shortcomings of human psychology; it’s much more sexy and feels more substantive to buy a hybrid car than to make basic home improvements. I like this option because it doesn't make me feel like a dick for not being able to sell my car and purchase a new one.

None of this is to suggest that fuel efficiency and hybrid technology are not important; they are. People who are investing now in hybrid cars are fueling the demand, which will hopefully lead to successive generations of new technology that will have much higher mileage, perhaps even approaching 100mpg. When this happens hybrid cars will clearly be worth the added cost on every dimension. In the meantime, I recognize that what’s optimum from an economic standpoint is not always what’s politically or socially most practical; consumer trends and human psychology are powerful forces. That said, I think the money being spent on consumer rebates for hybrids would be better spent on direct public investments in R&D for hybrid technology, the protection and expansion of the world’s forests and critical habitats, and paying people to make energy conserving home improvements. Here's some room for improvement: hybrid SUVs that get lower mpg than my mom's forester... Can we say "pointless?" I think we can!! Any company that is proud of the fact that it has made a hybrid with an mpg of 12 needs to have a long think about the purpose of hybrids. As for a vehicle with an mpg approaching 100, check out this baby: 157 mpg and still achieves 0-63 in 20 seconds... Yes, it utilizes diesel fuel which is dirtier than gasoline fuel, but look at how little of it you would use... Break it down by looking at my truck and my normal driving activities... My truck gets 23 mpg, I get just about 320 miles. If my truck got 157 mpg, that means I could go almost 2200 miles on one fill up... I consider my family to be light drivers... We drive about 300 miles in a typical month, which means we fill up once a month (14 gallons). If the truck got 157 mpg, we'd have to fill up every six months... Sure, we may drive an extra time to Louisville, but I do not think that it would significantly affect our driving frequency or distance. That's a lot of fuel saved. Therefore (to address the dirtiness issue I brought up earlier), even though the fuel used is "dirtier," I do not think that we would be polluting more based on the miles driven and amount of pollutant released. Diesel fuel would have to be a whopping six times dirtier...

J.S.

*Thanks a lot to James Manley, Duncan Callaway, and Meredith Fowlie for their insightful comments and to Molly Norton for reminding me to write about this issue.

P.S. For a really good use of hybrids check out this article on NYC taxis.

Posted 07/08/2005 @ 12:29am

Sweet Victory: NYC Makes Way for Hybrids

Frustrated by exorbitant gas prices, Kwame Corsi, a taxi driver from the Bronx, had been waiting years for the chance to drive a hybrid car. In New York, where 93 percent of the city's cabs are Crown Victorias (large Ford models that guzzle a gallon every twelve miles), drivers like Corsi often pay up to $100 dollars a day on fuel. Up until last week, New York City's Taxi and Limousine Commission had refused to grant medallions for hybrid taxis.

Now, thanks to the City Council's unanimous decision to approve the "Clean Air Taxis Act ," Corsi will get his wish and New Yorkers will literally breathe easier. New York, which was ranked by the American Lung Association as one of America's most polluted cities in 2004, suffers from the highest asthma mortality rate in the country. But under the new law, which will put hybrids on the street by this fall, the harmful emissions spewed out by New York's fleet of 13,000 cabs will be dramatically reduced. According to the Sierra Club, hybrids are particularly well-suited for New York City, because the greatest difference in emissions from hybrids comes under conditions of slow traffic and idling. Way to utilize available technologies!! This makes much more sense than commuters who buy Priuses.

"The New York yellow taxi is an American icon. What better way to showcase a great solution to our air pollution and oil dependence problems?" said Mark Izeman of the NRDC in a press release from the Coalition Advocating for Smart Transportation (CAST), a group that has been at the forefront of the fight for green cabs in New York City. Lets not get carried away, there are non-hybrid vehciles that get 36-38 mpg.

New York's high profile win is the latest in a string of victories for the "Green Fleets" movement. A few weeks ago, legislators in Charlotte, NC voted to hybridize the city's municipal fleet, and Denver, Seattle, and Madison have also made strides in converting their fleets to green.

As is increasingly the case, cities across the country are making progressive strides in the face of an obstinate administration that refuses to declare its independence from oil. It's time to tell Congress to seriously invest in a clean energy plan. Take action by supporting the Apollo Alliance and clicking here to send a letter to your Senators and Congressmen.

Life in the Green Lane

IF you make your way over to the Javits Convention Center for the New York International Automobile Show — or if you've gone to any auto show in the last year or so — you'll know that hybrid cars are the hippest automotive fashion statement to come along in years. They've become synonymous with the worthy goal of reducing gasoline consumption and dependence on foreign oil and all that this means for a better environment and more stable geopolitics.

And yet like fat-free desserts, which sound healthy but can still make you fat, the hybrid car can make people feel as if they're doing something good, even when they're doing nothing special at all. As consumers and governments at every level climb onto the hybrid bandwagon, there is the very real danger of elevating the technology at the expense of the intended outcome — saving gas.

Few things these days say "environmentally aware consumer" so loudly as the fuel-sipping Toyota Prius. With its two power sources — one a gasoline-powered internal combustion engine, the other a battery-driven electric motor — the best-selling Prius (and other hybrids sold by Honda and Ford and due soon from several other car makers) can go further on a gallon and emit fewer pollutants in around-town use than most conventional automobiles because under certain circumstances they run on battery power and consume less fuel. For this reason, federal, state and local governments have been bending over backward to encourage the sale of hybrids, with a bewildering array of tax breaks, traffic lanes and parking spaces dedicated to hybrid owners.

But just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on imported oil any more than a nonhybrid car. The truth is, it depends on the hybrid and the nonhybrid cars you are comparing, as well as on how you use the vehicles. There are good hybrids and bad ones. Fuel-efficient conventional cars are often better than hybrid S.U.V.'s — just look at how many miles per gallon the vehicle gets.

Being a professional car-tester, which is to say a person who gets asked for unpaid car-buying advice practically every day, I know these distinctions have already been lost on many car buyers. And I fear they're well on their way to being lost on our governments, too.

Lately, right-minded people have been calling me and telling me they're thinking about buying the Lexus 400H, a new hybrid S.U.V. When I tell them that they'd get better mileage in some conventional S.U.V.'s, and even better mileage with a passenger car, they protest, "But it's a hybrid!" I remind them that the 21 miles per gallon I saw while driving the Lexus is not particularly brilliant, efficiency-wise — hybrid or not. Because the Lexus 400H is a relatively heavy car and because its electric motor is deployed to provide speed more than efficiency, it will never be a mileage champ.

The car that started the hybrid craze, the Toyota Prius, is lauded for squeezing 40 or more miles out of a gallon of gas, and it really can. But only when it's being driven around town, where its electric motor does its best and most active work. On a cross-country excursion in a Prius, the staff of Automobile Magazine discovered mileage plummeted on the Interstate. In fact, the car's computer, which controls the engine and the motor, allowing them to run together or separately, was programmed to direct the Prius to spend most of its highway time running on gasoline because at higher speeds the batteries quickly get exhausted. Indeed, the gasoline engine worked so hard that we calculated we might have used less fuel on our journey if we had been driving Toyota's conventionally powered, similarly sized Corolla — which costs thousands less. For the owner who does the majority of her driving on the highway, the Prius's potential for fuel economy will never be realized and its price premium never recovered.

For years, most of the world's big car makers have shied away from building hybrids because while they are technologically intriguing, they are also an inelegant engineering solution — the use of two energy sources assures extra weight, extra complexity and extra expense (as much as $6,000 more per car.) The hybrid car's electric battery packs rob space from passengers and cargo and although they can be recycled, not every owner can be counted on to do the right thing at the end of their vehicle's service life. And an unrecycled hybrid battery pack, which weighs more than 100 pounds, poses a major environmental hazard.

Just because a car has so-called hybrid technology doesn't mean it's doing more to help the environment or to reduce the country's dependence on oil.

Week 10 (Blog)

Well, I was hopeful for some more interesting material for this week's entry (stuff more like the overwhelming amount from the 22nd) and nada, so I'm falling back to this which reflects my general thoughts at this point... the comments were terribly ridiculous as well. So much argument out of something taken too seriously ... seesh, I understood what he meant! Just read it in its intention, then get a kick out of the amount of arguing it illicited... This got better reaction than did some of the other stuff posted that WAS serious...

April 11, 2006

Bugs Bunny, Daffy Duck and Global Warming

When it comes to global warming, there's times when I feel like I'm in the middle of one of those old Looney Tunes exchanges:

Bugs Bunny: Shoot him [pointing to Daffy Duck]

Daffy Duck: Shoot him [pointing to Bugs]

Bugs: Shoot him

Daffy: Shoot him

Bugs: Shoot me

Daffy: NO, SHOOT ME!

BANG!

Maybe it's because of stories like this...

For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco. Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years 1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Scientists: Global warming is a problem

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: No it isn't

Scientists: Yes it is

Me: OK, maybe it is

Scientist: No it isn't

BANG?

Comments

The Daily Telegraph?

Come ON.

Posted by: M1EK | April 11, 2006 at 11:39 AM

M1EK,

Granted, a conservative slant, but the purpose was more toward pointing out that reputable sources with large audiences are sending mixed messages. Simply because it's conservative doesn't mean it's wrong. That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative.

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 12:05 PM

Bob Carter is a willful misleader.

WMI = 9.0275

_______________

Willful Misleader Index (WMI)

Scale: 1-10

1 = Ideologue who only selectively reading work with words that appeal to narrow worldview.

5 = Innocent, new to issue, seeking information.

10 = Shill, paid mendacicizer, employee of PR firm.

_______________

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 11, 2006 at 02:40 PM

okay, so are the scientists shooting you or your reader? I'm confused.

Posted by: DW | April 11, 2006 at 02:51 PM

I find the fact that you see yourself in opposition with "the scientists" to be very enlightening.

And it is of course emblematic of a wider social dynamic.

Posted by: odograph | April 11, 2006 at 03:16 PM

No, Tim, the Telegraph is willfully political. The NYTimes has an unconscious liberal (really just an elitist urban) bias. Not the same thing at all.

The NYTimes would report the true state of science even if it opposed their political aims. We already know the Telegraph won't.

Posted by: M1EK | April 11, 2006 at 03:45 PM

M1EK,

ALL English newspapers are political (I just checked with my English friend to make sure I could say that comfortably)--The Telegraph, the Guardian, The Independent, The Times, all of them. My point is, poeple read them and take what is written as fact--even if they are slanted. And the facts on global warming are confusing. But, instead of dismissing entire news sources based on their slant, I instead prefer to try to decipher fact from opinion. And in an article/editorial that claims to use "temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia"--a reputable source--I have an obligation to ask, IS THAT FACT? I don't know at this point, but I am sure there are plenty of people out there that believe it.

DW,

That bang was supposed to be the global warming explosion (hence the question mark).

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 04:08 PM

"That would be like saying that anything the NY Times is wrong because it has a larger liberal readership than conservative."

And you would believe anything in the NYTimes because?

Posted by: Robert Schwartz | April 11, 2006 at 07:04 PM

Tim, the easy questions to ask are:

- how many sets of climate records exist?
- do those records agree in a simple numeric sense?
- given those sets, do scientists agree on the extrapolation to an "earth temperature?"
- does Bob Carter use a standard extrapolation?

I'd guess, as a casual observer that questions like "how do we average the air column" and "how do we average the ocean water column" would lead to an array of answers. Do they agree on 1998-2005 cooling?

For what it's worth, this graph shows a climb:

http://www.earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/

Posted by: odograph | April 11, 2006 at 07:47 PM

Tim, the issue is that Bob Carter is a willful misleader and he uses the language of the obfuscators and propagandists to mislead the reader.

If one is more inclined in a worldview to get an emotional response from certain phrases, one is more apt to be duped by this sort of language, used liberally in this op-ed; in my experience, this sort of reader fails to follow-up on the 'facts' given, thus locking in their dupedness.

I'm not sure why you wrote this post, as it is confusing and lacks the clarity of thought that I associate with your posts.

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 11, 2006 at 08:28 PM

Dano,

If I'm batting .900, I'll take it.

Posted by: Tim Haab | April 11, 2006 at 09:10 PM

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

this might be the graph Mr Carter was using...and the global temp clearly shows a slight decline in global mean temp between 1998 and 2005.

have fun all. :)

Posted by: joshua corning | April 11, 2006 at 09:32 PM

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

and this little toy from nasa clearly shows the slight decline between 1998 and 2004...it doesn't have 2005 on it

Posted by: joshua corning | April 11, 2006 at 09:38 PM

Nice one Joshua. That graph is pretty telling when you read it alongside Carter's story isn't it? Carter talks about a trend up from 1920-1940 and then down from 1940-1960 and then up again as if these are just all random ups and downs that even out, but if you look at the whole century it looks like a pretty strong solid rise in the first half, a little bit of choppy consolidation in the middle and then a second strong solid rise in the second half.

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

Posted by: David Jeffery | April 11, 2006 at 10:13 PM

If that was a graph of the Daily Tele's circulation or stock price I don't think its CEO would be describing it in quite the same way as Carter does!

Well if people were claiming that such a rise was unprecedented then that CEO would.

The question is not if there is a rise but if that rise is outside of historical norms, which it is not.

That rushing sound you are hearing between your ears would be the whole argument of human induced global warming being flushed down the toilet.

But take a look at the second graph I pointed to...the one from nasa. It shows the same temp in 1980 and 2003.

ouch! That has got to hurt.

But i should not be so mean to you David. I mean at least you are honest and forward enough to actually make a reasoned arguement. Unlike say dano who's response is to first attack Bob Carter, calling him a "willful misleader" without actaully expaining why or how or where and then to attack Tim's post as "confusing and lacks...clarity" again without actually putting forth a reasoned arguement.

Posted by: joshua corning | April 12, 2006 at 11:26 PM

speaking about scientists here is one that might agree with Carter.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Posted by: joshua corning | April 12, 2006 at 11:49 PM

A while back Joshua, I put forward:

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

You rejected that, saying in part:

"Trying to postulate this pure idea of good basic science verses inpure bad political motivated science is a lie. It is all political and you can never get away from it, and the best solution in removing the curruption of science is to not fund it. Let the ideas fight it out in the private sector rather then giveing a certian side the goverment seal of approval depending on who happens to be in office."

... I think you've kind of abandoned the right to name scientists ..according to you it is all a lie.

Posted by: odograph | April 13, 2006 at 09:57 AM

"The goal, the princple, should be support for basic research held to a high non-political scientific standard."

I agree that science should be held to high non-political standard...but in the context you were trying to defend federal funding of science and i was simply pointing out that federal funding by default puts it on political grounds and the only clean way of removing politics from science is to stop funding it with public dollars.

But yeah quote me out of context to make your BS stick...that is constructive.

Posted by: joshua corning | April 13, 2006 at 01:45 PM

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

Posted by: odograph | April 13, 2006 at 03:04 PM

That was before you pointed to a NASA sudy, right?

Nasa story?? You must mean the little toy I found here:

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/temperature/

...hey i never said it wasn't political...i only ment to point out that it seems to conflict with the hockey teams "consensous" and agrees with the points made by Bob Carter.

But you would have to be crazy to think that what NASA does is not political.

Ever hear of the space race and the cold war?

Posted by: joshua cornings | April 13, 2006 at 07:43 PM

In related news, Global Warming Skeptics Take a Page from Big Tobacco's Disinformation Playbook

Posted by: odograph | April 14, 2006 at 09:54 AM

Well there is a corrilation with cancer and smoking...probably becouse smoking couses cancer.

Trouble with global warming is that there is no corrilation between increased CO2 and rising tempretures...i mean why was it hotter 800 years ago when CO2 consentraions were lower?...and why the platous instead of a steady gain in temp? and why did most of the temp gain over the last 200 years happen when there was the least amount of CO2? And why did the Temp rise start before the industrial revolution, before large amounts of were poured into the atmosphere?

Posted by: joshua corning | April 14, 2006 at 02:12 PM

Why should I care when someone repeats tobacco lobby talking points?

Posted by: odograph | April 14, 2006 at 06:42 PM

odo, he's just showing you how easy it is to incorporate Tobacco FUD phrases and disinformation tactics into a different issue (although I think Philip Morris would object to the every-other-word-misspelled tactic, tho...).

Best,

D

Posted by: Dano | April 14, 2006 at 07:17 PM