Related to our story on the US Chamber of Commerce challenging the EPA on CO2, we asked this question:
Do you support the idea of putting “global warming” on trial with the EPA?
After getting over 2200 responses over two days, I’ve closed the poll. Here are the results:
It would not seem to be a very productive exercise. Even most skeptics agree that the globe has been generally warming over the last 200 to 20 years and that temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder. Having a debate on the causation might be possible but it even then assigning blame between CO2, changes in land use, natural cycles or something unknown would be nearly impossible.
We should know something more in the next 10-15 years given additional data. Patience is a virtue.
Thanks
William
I think we have a better and stronger concensus than those promoting AGW. Take that Al Gore.
There is no doubt that AGW is a blatant scam. What is most interesting, is why has this nonsense been promoted so strongly ?
Is there a single underlying cause, such as the nuclear power lobby ? … or perhaps a source of reseach dollars for whatever topic can be thought of, that can be linked to climate in whatever way possible ? … or a way to sell more newspapers ? … or a way for financial markets and corporates to make a fortune from carbon taxes and carbon trading ? … or just plain stupidity ? … or a combination of these ?
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
In the absence of scientific research, the only sensible answer to the question “is man primarily responsible for climate change” is the Scottish verdict, “not proven”.
Unfortunately this is not an option.
A law trial and the accompanying media circus is not a substitute for a political debate: where citizens democratically choose between and develop a number of policy choices. Short-circuiting this process by claiming “the science is settled” is characteristic of one side of this debate (perhaps revealing a fear of democracy).
So be careful for what you wish for; a “trial” does not magically create new science, only science can do that. And a “trial” robs us of our democratic right to determine our future.
of choices
It would be interesting to see how this poll would go over at one of the pro-AGW sites.
I think the poll results were a foregone conclusion with respect to WUWT readers. The only question was, how close to 100% would the “yes” votes be? It would be much more interesting to see this same poll administered over at RealClimate. I think many there would be torn between “yes” and “no.”
Mike,
It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.
William “Even most skeptics agree that the globe has been generally warming over the last 200 to 20 years”
I think you are pushing it a bit. Yes I suppose that the globe has been generally warming. But it has most certainly been warmer in the recent past.
“and that temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder.” Nope, wouldn’t argree with you there.
Mike,
I think people are RC are so in denial and so sure of themselves that they would also vote YES to this question.
What if we lose?
There should be some outside the EPA put on trial, too, for long term damage to science – the jewel of human intellect. Once again it will fall to science and the will to be free to try to lead us out of another dark age that has a greater potential to empoverish and destroy than the one that we thought the enlightenment had banished forever. Ironically, its a too-little-to-do, well-off class whose well-being came from western economic strides that is out to destroy the economy. Even Marx only wanted the poor to be able to get something out the wonders of economic development.
I believe the wrong question was asked.
It’s not the subject of AGW so much as the EPA handling of the subject.
Did they take a balanced view of the subject before coming to an endangerment finding or were they selective in the evidence they heard?
DaveE.
I lost my long winded post. Here’s the short version.
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
I think people overlook this too often. The scam is not the CO2 creating warming. The scam is the exaggeration of the claimed warming and the overstatement of the certainty by which it is known followed by the single minded jump to increased government control over every aspect of our lives.
I didn’t vote so whomever voted twice, thanks.
A trial would turn into a circus as there is plenty of information to dispute climatology’s claims of the effects and magnitude of warming. Certainly, the idiotic mitigation plans need to be put on trial as everyone agrees they cannot work and do nothing but give politicians more power and control.
That’s the real scam in my opinion.
William (14:16:58) :
“We should know something more in the next 10-15 years given additional data. Patience is a virtue”
Very true William,
Unfortunately, policy is being written/developed right now….and they (AGW crowd) won’t wait because we have only 4 more months before the ‘tipping’ point…
Mike,
Real climate would probably censor my vote. I’ve made many quiet careful comments there only to have them clipped. RC is a advocate only website which fronts as a science site. There is no question they would tolerate only an advocate approved result.
This is the inevitable result of the warmist crowd’s running away from any neutral, moderated debate. The few debates the alarmists entered were total disasters for their side. Now they evade debates because of the spankings they got from the skeptics’ side.
I don’t like having anything settled by legal action. You are never certain of the outcome, no matter how strong your case is [and the warmists’ case is by far the weakest; their very first response was to try to get the case thrown out of court].
But since the warmist side hides out from debate, there isn’t much other recourse, is there? One of the great advantages to legal action is being able to subpoena witnesses; the discovery process [I look forward to Michael Mann, Al Gore and Caspar Amman trying to explain themselves], and the subpoenaing of supporting data and methodologies. Also interesting would be knowing who is funding these *cough* “public servants.” Who do they answer to? The taxpaying public? Or George Soros, the Heinz Foundation, and their ilk? Those sucking at the public teat can not serve two masters. Exposing the payola will open the public’s eyes.
Most people will not lie under oath. Al, Mike and Caspar are going to find out how few friends they really have in academia. And no institution or government agency will be able to get away with derailing someone’s career for truthfully answering questions under oath. Testifying in a trial like this means job security.
If this actually goes to trial [by no means certain at this point] it will be very interesting. Win or lose, it will be an inflection point for the anthropogenic global warming claims.
wattsupwiththat (14:32:15) :
It would never happen at RC, they aren’t really interested in the broad opinion of their readers, only the narrow one, which is why they routinely censor comments from many individuals, including me.
By the way, Tamino took a shot at WUWT readers today in a post titled “Loony Bin.” He concludes his post with:
But the comments to that post are — well, right out of the loony bin. Read a few if you’re up for a good laugh, but be careful … you could feel your I.Q. dropping.
D. King (14:39:59) :
“What if we lose?”
We’re already losing. But only because we’ve been bringing the wrong weapons to the fight.
They bring knives…we bring feather pillows. Time to change that.
With all due respect I have to disagree with Anthony. I recognized Global Warming as a blatant scam almost as soon as I heard the phrase for the first time. C02 doesn’t “cause” warming any more than a lumpy sweater does. At least not the commonly understood meaning of “cause.” Silly, frankly.
Andrew
REPLY: There is an effect from Co2, but it is logaritmic, and we’ve very nearly hit the plateau. See this graphic:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/co2_temperature_curve_saturation.png
The blue circles are where the Mauna Loa Co2 record is overlaid. – Anthony
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/
…and he can’t find a way out.
Anthony
wattsupwiththat (15:04:14) :
Tamino is projecting his anger at me because Lucia is kicking his butt here…
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2009/two-box-models-the-2nd-law-of-thermodynamics/
…and he can’t find a way out.
He did find a way out. He banned her from his board!
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/08/22/constant/
REPLY: It is not a “blatant scam” as there is full truth to the fact that CO2 does cause a warming effect. However the magnitude and cause/effects looks to be overhyped and oversold. – Anthony
The basis for any good scam. Start with the truth, then bend it to your needs by over hyping and overselling. Make no mistake – this is nothing but a giant scam to gain everything from research money to political power. Only a tiny few actually care about the climate and they are largely just followers.
J Clarke
Cap & Trade = tax, tax, tax.
CO2 reduction = rationing of carbon fuels
The combination of tax and rationing will cause a price hike of carbon fuels opening the market for wind, solar and bio fuels which will further increase the energy prices and all other products and services that rely on energy.
To control the entire system a massive Government Organization is needed.
So in the end this scheme is all about an unprecedented grab for Government Power and free money (a lot of free money) for the happy few like Gore.
It will absolutely do nothing to our climate and it does not have to because our climate is fine.
But it will ruin our economies, it will destroy jobs, ruin our middle class and put us all in shackles.
In the Third World and Asia, these policies will cause famine on an epic scale.
CO2 is not a threat to the climate and certainly not a threat to human health.
Therefore it is a hoax only invented to scare the people and herd them like cattle.
The Chamber of Commerce has stated however that they do not intend to question the science behind AGW/Climate Change, only if the use of cars is damaging to public health.
I think they should question the science because the science is fundamentally flawed.
If they don’t this is only a show trial which will end without anay gain.
William said: “Even most skeptics agree that…temperatures now are very warm and not neccesarily getting colder.
Er…no.
This particular sceptic is an archaeologist whose speciality is the prehistory of NW Europe. A soid chunk of that covers how the post glacial (Holocene) climate affected human behaviour and migration patterns. What we have right now isn’t even close to being “very warm”.
Could anyone think that a trial would be anything more than a show trial? The deck will be stacked from the get go.
The problem is that there are a group of people in the world that think they should be running it, and it p**ses them off that the rest of us don’t see it. The little ceasars of the world are convinced they are smarter and more ideologically pure than the rest of us. AGW is just the latest wedge they are using to try to gain more control. This is no different than the Club of Rome, Population Bomb, or Nuclear Winter. A thousand page health care bill is nothing, wait till you see what’s coming if they get their way.