I've started to do some serious reading on the global warming debate, and I'm finding it absolutely fascinating.
If you're interested, here are some related links:
1. Christopher Monckton (11/5/06; first of two Sunday Telegraph articles): Climate chaos? Don't believe it.
References and detailed calculations here (PDF).
Followup emails to Lord Monckton (PDF; 77 pages of detailed questions and answers)
2. Monckton (11/12/06; second of two articles): Wrong Problem. Wrong Solution.
3. George Monbiot's response to Monckton (11/14/06): This is a dazzling debunking of climate change science. It is also wildly wrong
4. Monckton's response to Monbiot (11/14/06): At least he spelled my name right
5. Al Gore's response to Monckton (11/19/06): At stake is nothing less than the survival of human civilisation
6. Monckton's response to Gore (11/21/06): A Science-based response to Al Gore’s Global Warming Commentary in London’s Sunday Telegraph, 19 November 2006. (PDF)
Sunday
1 hour ago
Posts
41 comments:
What other really big public policy issues was Al Gore on the right side about, in the face of endless waves of sleazy self-serving lies from the opposition?
Here's two: the War on Iraq and Social Security.
Just something to keep in mind (I still can't believe he let Tipper hijack Congress with that PMRC bullcrap, though).
There are certain litmus tests which are useful for determining the credibility of scientists.
For example, Dr. Roy Spencer, a former senior scientist meteorologist from NASA once challenged Gore on his claims.
But Dr. Spencer happens to be a creationist idiot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer
i.e., do not pass go. Spencer is a proven moron, an "idling skeptic," whose skepticism is clearly derived more from the pleasure of being a toxic gadfly than from any desire to teach people about the Real World and How It Works.
Is this the same Monckton that worked for Thatcher's government who wanted everyone with HIV to be quarantined for the rest of his life?
I remember him. Had the reputation as a nut. Sort of the Pat Buchanan of London. How did he get into global warming?
(oops, didn't mean to hit return quite so quickly)
...anyway, I find it better when first approaching these issues to read what all the scientists have to say. Pro and con. Before delving into all the policy wonks.
Clearly, the political arguments have already splintered. But it seems that the science is at least relentlessly converging.
But despite what people want to believer. It's a very complicated subject. Nova had an excellent program on the effect of atmospheric shielding from the increased clouds having prevent the increased CO2 from raising temperature as much as the models predicted. (or was it Nature?)
One cause causes many causes which have many adding and many subtracting effects. It's not a linear problem. It's involves a lot of non-linear systems affecting many other non-linear systems.
In other words, we're all doomed. Wonder what's on TV tonite?
Good comments as usual Amy. I also had a really hard time with Tipper's PMRC bullcrap. This lost Gore the Zappa fans, a wierd but not insignificant voting block.
You are also absolutely right that most of those who debunk global warming have little or no credibility. The science of global warming is indeed complicated, but it is not hard to spot liars distorting the issues to aggrandize themselves and enrich the greedy.
It is well into December and we have had no snow whatsoever at my northern locale...
"One cause causes many causes which have many adding and many subtracting effects"
Oops...that would actually make it a linear problem. Clearly what I meant to say was "...which have many squaring and square-rooting and even some exponential effects."
There that sounds much better.
"You are also absolutely right that most of those who debunk global warming have little or no credibility. The science of global warming is indeed complicated, but it is not hard to spot liars distorting the issues to aggrandize themselves and enrich the greedy."
Some of the commenters here are seemingly far ahead of me on this subject. I've been carefully examining Monckton's scientific analysis for a few days now, and I haven't yet found any major flaws.
Around the 'net, there's a very lively debate over Monckton's work, and it appears he has many highly-qualified supporters.
Of course, just as with the IBWO debate, alleged qualifications and motivations aren't really the central issue. What's important is the quality of the scientific arguments, pro and con.
Can you please tell me very specifically why you think Monckton's scientific analysis is wrong?
Certainty tends to dwell on the periphery of understanding. This applies equally to Amy and Geoff, just as it applies equally Monckton and Gore. Usually where our certainties are most passionately displayed, our insecurities lurk very nearby. Neither topic is as clear-cut as any of the above personally profess it to be.
Hill, to his credit though, acknowledges that his conviction is held only personally, and he owes us a photo before he can ask the scientific community join him in his belief.
pd
Okay, let's play devil's advocate for a moment. Let's say the earth DOESN'T warm and sea-level DOESN'T rise. In the meantime, we've reduced CO2 emissions by switching to LESS WASTEFUL systems - hydrogen cars, solar arrays, fuel-cell distributed power, etc. What have we lost? There will be some losers - coal, petroleum...but there will also be some winners..solar, hydrogen. Shouldn't our society favor those systems that pollute less? Pollution and CO2 are externalities that industry (for the most part) doesn't have to pay. They get free use of the atmosphere to dipose of their waste. I don't get that. I have to pay to put my garbage somewhere. Solar (for example) doesn't NEED to pollute the atmosphere to provide its product. Shouldn't governments be subsidizing THAT instead of hydrocarbon based fuels? We are letting coal companies shear the tops off mountains and fill the stream with the overburden. That's just insane. Look we put a man on the moon and brought him back safely. You're telling me our technology can't produce energy without polluting the atmosphere. We just haven't been challenged to. We give subsidies to whomever donates the most to our campaigns. Is that a good use of govt. fund?
All that being said, I ask, why do all the nay-sayers about global warming have some back-story that lends doubt to their credibility? It's not like there is a group of climate scientists against another group of climate scientists. It's 'scientists' with axes to grind against a consensus of climate scientists.
Tom, you ask "Can you please tell me very specifically why you think Monckton's scientific analysis is wrong?"
Unless we are climate scientists I don't think we should. We simply do not know enough to put forth a good discussion. However, like we do with the IBWO, if the consensus of those that have a great deal of experience believe the bird in the Luneau video is a PIWO, those without as much experience should accept their result. Bird ID is a bit less complicated than climate science, but I think you get my point.
I personally believe that most of the global warmup is NOT caused by man (and even if it were, it would be ALL NATURAL, as man is.)
But, just for fun, tell me how much the temperature has risen, compared to the last 2000 years. Also, how much has the sea level risen? Is NYC under water now?
How do today's temperatures, and the temperature trend, compare with trends over the last 2000 years.
How accurate are the interpretations of those temperatures in the last two millenia?
Also, for you Gore fans, who is the "legal controlling authority"?
Wealthy monks? ;-}
[To explain my prejudices, and we ALL have them, as most of what we say is based on a premise of some sort, I am a libertarian, small "l", and Social Security is an illegal program that should be stopped now!)
It is well into December and we have had no snow whatsoever at my northern locale...
That would be well within the norm, as the norm has a wide variance.
Also, beware of anecdotal statements such as "...never seen it so hot in Texas as this past year..." or "...still no snow at Cornell and it's already past Thanksgiving."
These have absolutely nothing to do with global warming.
Neither topic is as clear-cut as any of the above personally profess it to be.
Good try, Pd, but there is no relationship between the stupidity of IBWO believers and the complexity of global warming.
The extinction of the IBWO is evident and not at all complex
Global warming seemingly has much in common with the IBWO controversy. As one of "experts" called before Imhof's panel yesterday to debunk global warming explained, it's all just "mass delusion."
"Look we put a man on the moon and brought him back safely."
And how certain--or rather, gullible--are you? Some are convinced all the photos are a hoax. What proof do you have that they're not?
Personally I'm skeptical of anybody who is strongly opinionated. People pick and choose what they want to believe and then search for evidence to support their belief. I suspect most readers of this blog with strong opinions on the Ivory-bill also have strong opinions on politics, social issues, other scientific issues, religion, etc.
I agree, IBWO_Agnostic,
I certainly don't believe that global warming is a proven fact, but I do think there's some fairly strong arguments that if it isn't occurring already, that it's a serious threat. Basing policy on the threat of possible global warming has a vast number of upsides, far outweighing the downsides in the long run.
"People pick and choose what they want to believe and then search for evidence to support their belief."
I think the IBWO debate is a good example of where this can be true, but often isn't. I think almost all of us chose to believe in the IBWO FOUND! announcement when it first came out. I base my skepticism on the facts, despite wanting to believe they live.
pd:
If you take the time to read Monckton's writing, you will see that he believes the topic is anything but "clear-cut".
ibwo_agnostic wrote: "It's 'scientists' with axes to grind against a consensus of climate scientists."
There is clearly no consensus of climate scientists.
Take a look at the open letter here, and note the long list of signers. Can you tell me specifically what "axe" is motivating each individual?
ibwo_agnostic also wrote: "...Unless we are climate scientists I don't think we should. We simply do not know enough to put forth a good discussion."
Don't sell yourself short. Any reasonably intelligent person with a high school education should be able to understand most of Monckton's main points.
For the record, I do not find much in common with the "global warming controversy" and the "IBWO controversy." (see 10:21 anonymous for a succinct summation). Perhaps the only important similarity is that there are some individuals making incredibly dubious claims and pointing to their Ph.D's as if that answers all the obvious questions.
The "GW controversy" has much more in common with the "evolution controversy". It has become highly polarized in the public's mind and among the beltway elites as a liberal vs. conservative controversy. And as is the case with evolutionary biology, it is trivial to find clueless Republicans (scientists, politicians, and "journalists") and apologists making dumbass arguments to the effect that "liberal scientists have an anti-business agenda" without providing any evidence for this "conspiracy."
Instead, these apologists tend to quote-mine the publications of scientists for "contradictions" and "admissions" which, the apologists claim, "prove" that the entire contruct (i.e., "evolution" or "global warming") is some sort of manufactured dogma which dumb liberal scientists support because they are dumb, liberal and dogmatic.
That such widespread smears are found compelling by a sizable portion of Americans is an indicator of weakness.
For me, it boils down to this: the behavior of human beings is incredibly disruptive to the planet they live on. You can see the changes wrought by human beings from space. Human population and industrialization around the world is growing, not shrinking.
Is there *any* evidence that the combined activities of human beings are impacting the atmosphere of earth? Yes. We can quibble about how much but the consensus answer is overwhelmingly: yes.
Is there *any* evidence that the changes human beings are making to earth and its atmosphere are having an adverse unintended effect on the health of ecosystems on earth? Yes. Again, we can quibble about the extent and the how's and why's and relative proximity of the causes and the degree to which the evidence is "convincing" to skeptics but the consensus of informed scientists is overwhelmingly: yes, there is such evidence.
The only reason anybody CARES about the "controversy" is that the stakes are high. The stakes are high for certain businesses, which fear that regulations on their emissions will make them less profitable. They are high for countries, who fear that less profitable businesses in their territories will make them "weak."
Of course, such "fears" from these segments of society attach to ANY and EVERY governmental regulation that affects the bottom line of the polluting industries. The whining and weeping is heard around the world EVERY TIME from these players, who are among the wealthiest members of the earth's population and will remain so whether global warming occurs or not. The only difference is simply whether they will remain insanely rich or merely holyjeebus rich.
On the other hand, we know that it is possible to reduce the impact of humans on the earth's atmosphere (and oceans and forests). If there is evidence that such a reduction could decrease certain events such as a dramatic rise in global temperatures which, if it occurred, would have severe consequences for huge populations of humans and other animals around the globe, then we are presented with a scenario of risk assessment. Weighing risks and deciding how to react in the face of such risks is standard public policy.
Given that the benefits of reducing pollution generally are undisputed, weighing the risks and uncertainties seems to me to lead to a straightforward conclusion. It happens to be Al Gore's conclusion as well, which is not surprising for the reasons I alluded to above.
Perhaps a "global warming skeptic" can explain to me: what consequences do we "risk" facing if we decide to take steps to reduce emissions and pollution of our atmosphere generally?
Is this the same Monckton that worked for Thatcher's government who wanted everyone with HIV to be quarantined for the rest of his life?
Yeah. "Lord" Monckton -- what a joke.
Whether I can identify "flaws" in Lord Monckton's garbage is irrelevant.
How odd that "Lord" Monckton allows himself to go freaking apeshxt hysterical over HIV and proposes a radical solution with immediate and plainly horrible consequences for a group of mostly working-class and poor people (certainly not "Lord" Monckton), but when it comes to global warming and its consequences, "Lord" Monckton suddenly rises up on the alleged side of "reason".
Another rightwing hypocrite with a big megaphone, a big mouth, and lots of well-heeled enablers. Yawn.
Shall we begin:
Arthur B. Robinson. He is an avowed Christian fundamentalist.
Dr. Sallie Baliunas:
Baliunas' extra-academic positions at several think tanks funded by energy industry organizations such as the American Petroleum Institute are often cited by her opponents as a source of bias on her part. Baliunas is a member of at least nine organizations which receive financial support from the petroleum industry
Siegfried Frederick Singer (born September 27, 1924 in Vienna) is an atmospheric physicist. He is best known as President and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, a non-profit group which disputes the prevailing scientific opinion on climate change. In a February 2001 letter to the Washington Post, Singer denied receiving funding from the oil industry, except for consulting work some 20 years prior. SEPP, however, received multiple grants from ExxonMobil, including in 1998 and 2000.
I'm sorry, I can't get give this more time. but perhaps you get where I'm coming from. Sure, not all are hacks, but (too) many are.
"Whether I can identify "flaws" in Lord Monckton's garbage is irrelevant."
Actually, it's extremely relevant.
If his scientific analysis is "garbage", then it should be easy for you to point out some specific, major flaws. What are they?
"Sure, not all are hacks, but (too) many are."
Well, you did say "why do all the nay-sayers about global warming have some back-story that lends doubt to their credibility?"
...and just from that letter alone, you still have 50+ names to go...
I see. I'll try to refrain from hyperbole in the future.
Actually, it's extremely relevant.
No, it's not. "Lord" Monckton is a journalist who has proven in the past that he is incapable of controlling his biases and prone to making enormous errors in judgment which border on the insane. His criticisms of ANYTHING are best ignored, in the interest of saving time, if nothing else.
If his scientific analysis is "garbage", then it should be easy for you to point out some specific, major flaws.
The logic is bad, Tom. Bill Dembski's "irreducible complexity" argument for intelligent design is complete trash but it is not "easy" to "point out" the "specific major" flaws. That is because the math which Bill recites is difficult and, to a layperson, arcane.
So let's be clear: "Lord" Monckton is a known documented producer of wacked-out self-serving rightwing nutjob garbage. I simply have NO INTEREST in what "Lord" Monckton has to say on the subject of global warming or anything else, much as I have NO INTEREST in what Rick Santorum claims are the terrible consequences of allowing gay people to get married.
If "Lord" Monckton's points are so obvious and damning, surely there is no shortage of informed climatologists on both ends of the political spectrum who will unhesitatingly agree with his plain irrefutable claims about the gross dishonesty of Al Gore et al.
I should be able to simply call up at random five or six tenured research climatologists/meterologists at random from a reputable university and find out whether Lord Monckton or Al Gore has better support for his/her positions.
I'm not going to bother doing that. But if I did -- what do you suppose the results would be, and how would you explain the results?
Also, I'd appreciate an answer (from anybody) to the following question: what consequences do we "risk" facing if we decide to take steps to reduce emissions and pollution of our atmosphere generally?
The Medieval Warming Period was warmer than now and it was followed by the Little Ice Age, which was cooler than now. Both are well documented historical events that occurred within the past 1000 years (the evidence can easily be Googled). Because both predated the industrial revolution, neither event had anything to do with human activities. Therefore it remains uncertain how much the current spate of global warming can be attributed to human activities or natural climatic oscillations. NOBODY KNOWS! I don't see much point in believing strongly one way or the other.
We do know that emissions of greenhouse gases have increased considerably within the past century, and that greenhouse gases affect surface temperatures. So it's reasonable to conclude--but without certainty--that humans may have caused the recent increase in surface temperatures, and I think it's prudent to do something about it rather than nothing, but that's my opinion.
Monckton is correct that the Medieval Warming Period was intentionally ignored in the infamous "hockey stick" graph and that some of the climatic changes predicted by computer models were unrealistic. But just because some scientists have selected data to support their personal views doesn't mean that all the data demonstrating recent global warming is flawed. I would caution against swallowing Monckton's one-sided arguments.
My $0.02.
..and just from that letter alone, you still have 50+ names to go...
Strange that you should ask for this kind of documentation regarding a hypothesis that you might feel strongly about.
Can you repudiate each record and each recorder of IBWOs since 1944?
Just curious, Don
It's not strange at all, Don.
I've never suggested that all IBWO sighters since 1944 have some "axe to grind".
I think a good many of them are just honestly mistaken (and some of the long-ago ones may even have been correct).
"I should be able to simply call up at random five or six tenured research climatologists/meterologists at random from a reputable university and find out whether Lord Monckton or Al Gore has better support for his/her positions."
I strongly encourage you to do this.
If they fairly compared Monckton's and Gore's analysis on pure scientific merit, I predict that Monckton's analysis would prevail.
I'm impressed Amy. Your views on global warming and its skeptics are on target. I fully share your lack of interest in the annoying views of Lord Monckton and his ilk.
Tom, my understanding of the current state of global warming science is that while there is extreme disagreement about timing, exact mechanisms, etc., the consensus among the vast majority of scientists worldwide is that human-induced global warming has occurred, will accelerate, and poses a significant risk to humanity. The relatively few prominent doubters seem, for the most part, to have suspiciously close ties to religious nutjobs, the petrochemical industry, or both (the Bush administration).
If they fairly compared Monckton's and Gore's analysis on pure scientific merit, I predict that Monckton's analysis would prevail.
Well you've built in a hypothetical there that begs my question. Without any prior restrictions on the type of analysis these researchers perform ("fair" or "unfair" by your standards): what result would you predict from my proposed polling experiment, and why?
And let's be clear about Al Gore's position: "catastrophic" global warming is a possibility, human activity may be contributing to the excessive warming, and reducing emissions may help forestall excessive warming of the earth.
My impression is that professional climate researchers -- like evolutionary biologists -- have sufficient understanding of both the straighforward political and the complex scientific nature of the "controversy" to wade through the baloney from either side.
"It is well into December and we have had no snow whatsoever at my northern locale...
That would be well within the norm, as the norm has a wide variance."
No, it is not normal, or, if so, has only become normal in very recent years now that global warming has progressed.
"beware of anecdotal statements...These have absolutely nothing to do with global warming."
Unusual climatic extremes are plausibly explained as a RESULT of global warming and thus may very well soon prove to have everything to do with it. That many anecdotes are irrelevant does not give global warming apologists wholesale license to disregard instances of warming such as unprecedented melting of glaciers and arctic ice.
All species are transient entities. Biological systems are very good at correcting themselves. Human self destruction by global warming, over population or whatever is merely going to speed up the process. And possibly a majority of the earth’s species will be better for the extinction of such an imbalanced higher order predator / parasite.
All species are transient entities. Biological systems are very good at correcting themselves.
The smaller the organisms are, the better they adapt. Long after the last atom of CO2 is released from the last cockroach's chitonous spiracles, there will be microbes reproducing on earth. They will keep reproducing, somewhere, until the sun explodes and probably for some time after that.
"Without any prior restrictions on the type of analysis these researchers perform ("fair" or "unfair" by your standards): what result would you predict from my proposed polling experiment, and why?"
I don't know. To eliminate the guesswork, I think you should actually do the experiment (ideally electronically, so we could see the exact wording of all questions and responses).
Better yet, I wish some polling organization would attempt to find out the specific, private views of a large sample size (say 500 climatologists/meteorologists).
As an aside, if you could have polled the top 50 bird identification experts in the world as of May 1, 2005 about the Luneau video, I think you would have found a now-surprising number who thought it was an IBWO.
"And let's be clear about Al Gore's position: "catastrophic" global warming is a possibility, human activity may be contributing to the excessive warming, and reducing emissions may help forestall excessive warming of the earth."
I see no reason why Monckton wouldn't agree with the cautious wording above, but I think Gore has used much stronger wording than that.
In a quick 'net search, I found this quote from Gore: "I don't want to diminish the threat of terrorism at all, it is extremely serious, but on a long-term global basis, global warming is the most serious problem we are facing."
If I could snap my fingers and permanently solve worldwide terrorism or global warming, I'd personally pick worldwide terrorism.
(I beg of you, let's not careen off into any discussion on terrorism.)
About 1000-1200 AD the Vikings had a 5000 person colony on the west central coast of Greenland. They grazed cattle, sheep, and grew barley. To grow barley you need at least climatic "zone 2". Now this area is "high arctic" or climate "zone 0". And this was BEFORE the Industrial Revolution and modern man's polution. So clearly there are natural climate cycles. This Medieval Warming Period is usually totally ignored by proponents of global warming, as it is very inconvenient for their theory.
With the climate getting warmer, this may even be a "good thing" in that vast areas of northern Asia, Europe, and Canada will soon be warm enough to grow crops to sustain the growing human population. Can you imagine the crys of alarm if things were getting "colder" and the entire Canadian grain belt and the northern plains of the USA were soon going to have to stop production due to the shortened and cooler growing season?
And only a few tens of thousands of years ago the Canadian Arctic Islands were dense cool climate rain forests, similar to coastal Washington State and BC as evidenced by the many petrified huge stumps easily found on the islands today. And where is the repeat of the disasterous hurricane season which almost "had" to occur as global warming was causing the Gulf of Mexico's waters to be so warm? Fortunately this year's hurricane season has been a near total "dud". Bottom line? Climate change always has been, is now, and always will be. Adapt and be intelligent and diligent in terms of stopping/reversing pollution, but try not to get caught up any "manias".
If I could snap my fingers and permanently solve worldwide terrorism or global warming, I'd personally pick worldwide terrorism.
This sort of hypothetical is (as you allude to in your comment) unproductive. I could make a convincing counter-argument but it would require clarifying precisely what is meant by "global warming" and "worldwide terrorism."
I understand Gore's point to be that over the long-term the habitability of the planet for humans is a more fundamental issue then whether humans are fighting with each other.
However -- and I have zero doubt that Gore would agree unequivocally with this statement -- if "terrorism" in the future includes lunatics setting off hundreds of thermonuclear bombs off, differences in the "long term" impact of either threat cease to be meaningful.
It must be noted, I think, that the political party most closely associated with critics of "global warming" is also the political party of a very unpopular President whose "gut-based" decisions have led directly to a dramatic increase in terrorist activity and violent deaths in certain parts of the world.
Perhaps an unprecedented terrorist act involving hundreds of oil well and refinery fires will give climatologists some additional data to work into their models ...
"All species are transient entities..."
This is a new low for the blog.
Tom, I find it very strange that I find your critique of the IBWO "rediscovery" so useful yet cannot endorse any of your comments on WMDs, global warming, or terrorism.
With the climate getting warmer, this may even be a "good thing" in that vast areas of northern Asia, Europe, and Canada will soon be warm enough to grow crops to sustain the growing human population.
Is this what global warming critics consider a "good argument" for maintaining the status quo?
My understanding is that there is plenty of food in the world already. People starve because they can't afford to have the food brought directly to them, unlike America's cows.
I see no reason why Monckton wouldn't agree with the cautious wording above, but I think Gore has used much stronger wording than that.
For the record, Tom, I am on board with a general distaste for fearmongering and extreme rhetoric. I do not doubt that Al Gore's rhetoric has crossed the line occasionally but I think he keeps it mostly under control.
Consider the title of his book: "An Inconvenient Truth."
Compare that with the title of a book published by the nationally-broadcast conservative pundit, Ramesh Ponnoru: "The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life."
I also recognize that there is plenty of polemical climatological garbage out there that has been promoted by the left. Most egregious, in my opinion, was the promotion of that bogus disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow by the Democratic fundraising organization, MoveOn.
So yeah, there is fearmongering and polemics to be found among so-called "promoters" of global warming. That should come as a surprise to nobody. What should come as a surprise is that groups who spend enormous amounts of effort to "combat" the global warming promoters spend very little effort "combatting" promoters of much more dubious scenarios and associated ill-conceived "solutions" which have immediate, foreseeable and harmful results to human beings.
So Al Gore relies on some not-entirely hard-boiled or "debatable" or even "controversial" or even a few WRONG scientific facts to promote his views that the environment should be preserved? Big deal.
He's not denying that HIV causes AIDS or advocating that HIV carriers be quarantined. He's not promoting the idea that homosexuality is purely a "lifestyle choice" or a "curable mental illness." He's not promoting "intelligent design" as an "alternative" to evolution. He's not advocating that single people remain abstinent until age 30. He's not telling NASA that they shouldn't talk about the Big Bang as if it actually happened. And he's not relying -- to the best of my knowledge -- on conclusions generated by poorly credentialed unpublished pseudo-scientists with a political agenda who have been shown over and over and over again to be bald-faced liars.
He's telling people that good science is important and good science has a role in public policy. A legitimate robust scientific debate is a good thing but policy can't always wait for everybody to unanimously agree. Also, it's much better for everyone if the proven cranks and "fake expert" pundit types get flagged and sent to the sidelines sooner rather than later.
http://www.realclimate.org/ is an excellent website for information on the science and debate of this issue. It’s a forum for climate scientists. Articles and commentaries include citations and links. Check out the comments on the “Medieval Warming Period” found on the “Index” page.
MR
A survey something like what you describe can be found here:
http://www.nrep.org/globsurv.htm
Members of The National Registry of Environmental Professionals aren't all climatologists, but they all have some professional involvement in an environmental field. The organization has some fairly stringent membership requirements.
Of nearly 800 members surveyed:
82 percent of environmental professionals think global warming is a real, measurable, climactic trend currently in effect;
66 percent consider the rate at which global warming may be occurring is a serious problem facing the planet; and
67 percent of professionals surveyed agree the U.S. is not doing enough to address the effects of global warming.
"A survey something like what you describe can be found here..."
Thanks.
It looks like 793 of about 12,000 people filled out this survey.
From your provided link: "Company presidents, engineers, scientists, health & safety officers and departmental managers, just to name a few, all took part in the survey". It's unclear to me how many of those 793 could have been expected to have formed an independent opinion after examing the facts in the global warming debate.
One mildly interesting tidbit:
"59 percent respond that current climactic activity exceeding norms calibrated by over 100 years of weather data collection can be, in large part, attributed to human activity."
Post a Comment