From National Review online, the story a modern opera, though not by Wagner.
Image from Wikimedia
Exaggeration and alarmism have been a chronic weakness of environmentalism since it became an organized movement in the 1960s. Every ecological problem was instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis, from the population bomb to the imminent resource depletion of the “limits to growth” fad of the 1970s to acid rain to ozone depletion, always with an overlay of moral condemnation of anyone who dissented from environmental correctness. With global warming, the environmental movement thought it had hit the jackpot — a crisis sufficiently long-range that it could not be falsified and broad enough to justify massive political controls on resource use at a global level. Former Colorado senator Tim Wirth was unusually candid when he remarked in the early days of the climate campaign that “we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” (Not surprisingly, after Wirth left the Senate and the Clinton administration he ended up at the United Nations.)
The global-warming thrill ride looks to be coming to an end, undone by the same politically motivated serial exaggeration and moral preening that discredited previous apocalypses. On the heels of the East Anglia University “Climategate” scandal have come a series of embarrassing retractions from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) regarding some of the most loudly trumpeted signs and wonders of global warming, such as the ludicrous claim that Himalayan glaciers would disappear within 30 years, that nearly half of the Amazon jungle was at imminent risk of destruction from a warming planet, and that there was a clear linkage between climate change and weather-related economic losses. The sources for these claims turned out to be environmental advocacy groups — not rigorous, peer-reviewed science.
Read the complete essay at National Review Online
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think you guys are dellusional if you think the global warming political movement is dead. The politicians from all stripes are playing games with you and the civil war is near, repent! Buy carbon credits…
1. Does this mean that AGW has reached a tipping point?
2. Re KeithGuy (12:39:26) :
“You can fool some of the people all of te time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Abraham Lincoln.”
There is a 4th point that Lincoln didn’t say and that is
If caught trying to fool people then all of your pronouncements will be viewed in that light
Politicians needn’t fear but both science and environmentalism are likely to take foundation shaking hits.
The facts do not matter!!
For those who believe (or hope) that Cap and Trade is dead this year go to:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903526.html
We need to keep in mind that once the government get their greedy hands on our energy supply with a scaled back program, they will in time expand the program and take total control along the lines of the House bill with the ultimate ruin of our economy along the lines of other Countries (think of other countries that have nationalized their energy supply like Cuba, Russia, Mexico, Venzuela, etc).
Congress, including some naive Republicans, are deaf as to what is happening with the CRU and IPCC reports because the MSM continues to ignore and cover up Climategate and IPCC distortions.
We need to be proactive to stop all cap and trade initiatives or carbon tax.
Well I listen to a lot of radio; and they interview a lot of “politicians” and a lot of Republicans (dems too); even some “Conservatives”, and it never ceases to amaze me, that these people (all of them) just keep charging ahead; as if the only problem is that it is “a bit alarmist”.
Yes we’ve had some warming; we’ll continue to have some warming, and some cooling; and some things humans do aren’t very good for the environment; and all of that will continue; and nothing much we do or can do, will have ny real influence.
But too many people will continue to believe that “the science is settled”, and too many others think they just haven’t got the statistics quite right yet; maybe an adjustment of the trend line slope; tweak that R^2 a little bit, and pretty soon we will have it right.
Well I think the science is quite wrong; it’s the water stupid; and almost nothing else matters very much, so long as the sun continues to rise in the east, and set in the west.
I’m sick of those who think we just don’t have the story quite right; and even sicker of those who think government tinkering can influence the outcome. Well they can destroy economies; but they can’t influence the climate.
R. Gates (12:42:59) :
…see the underlying physics, which are actually quite simple. Either the earth is taking in more net energy from the sun each day than it is emitting back into space or it is not and if it is not, then either that imbalance is being caused by an increasingly dense blanket of CO2 and methane or it is not, and if is, then either that dense blanket of CO2 is human caused or it is not. These are simple questions, and have nothing to do with political leanings…
In a lab, the science behind CO2’s behavior as a GHG is quite simple. Applying it to our atmosphere is not. In fact, by most accounts, an increase in CO2 by itself would cause a minor increase in equilibrium temperature.
BUT, that is not what Hansen/Patchouli/RC/CRU/IPCC/etc is saying. They are saying that it could cause run away warming (tipping point theory) or, at least, an increase many times over what the simple science would say due to forcings. There is also not a comprehensive, proven, energy budget as you describe today.
If it were as simple as you think it is, the AGW/CAGW crowd would not have to rely on computer models to support their theories
“Exaggeration and alarmism” are traits of organised environmentalism,says the first sentence.
The second sentence claims: “Every” ecological issue was “instantly transformed into a potential world-ending crisis”.
Who was supposed to be exaggerating,again?
R. Gates, I’m not a “conservative” nor a “liberal” nor a “republican” nor a “democrat” nor any other political label, not even “independent” fits since most “independents” compromise their principles too much.
I stand for political decisions informed by hard science facts not wishful thinking driven by monied or fear based agendas nor doomsaying by soothsayers using digital tree ring entrails in their future casting predictions of doom.
Show the proof of the alleged AGW hypothesis or quit the wining about doom and gloom as if it’s true and certain.
There are billions of doom scenarios that could befall the planet, do we worry about them all? Nope. Why should we fear nonsense doom and gloom that has no substantial evidence?
As far as I can tell asteroids, even small ones, are a much bigger concern and the monies wasted on the alleged AGW hypothesis could be better spent on building up surveillance and possible asteroid defense infrastructure so that we are prepared for the next big strike asteroid to hit Earth. Maybe it will hit your city?
If you actually read the materials at this site and others you’d have answers to some of the big questions you ask, or at least some serious clues. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE) has some very interesting and potent results that you might want to look into. See the articles here about it.
After years of looking I see zero conclusive evidence of the alleged AGW Hypothesis. If you have such evidence please show it.
A basic principle in the scientific method is that those that put forward a hypothesis (or those that support the hypothesis) must prove it and this is the case especially when they are using their hypothesis to scare the entire planet into global carbon fear based hysteria and attempting global political domination with a literal “carbon taxing and enforcement new world order government” as they attempted for Copenhagen.
So far nada peep of solid evidence that the alleged “blanket of C02” can do what is claimed of it or that it’s man made. Actually the ERBE shows it doesn’t work the way that the scientists making the dire predictions thought.
Proving causation is much more difficult than showing a correlation.
The planet is NOT a simple equation. It is a set of very complex interacting systems that can’t be predicted due to the fact that it’s component systems generate internal randomness – aka chaos – which makes prediction impossible.
Simple and complex systems that generate internal randomness have been proven to be impossible to predict by Dr. Stephen Wolfram (see chapter two of A New Kind of Science). The only way to know their outcome is to observe them in real time as they unfold. This is the result of internal randomness which can’t be predicted.
Once you understand that then you can see that when you mix all of the sub-systems that make up the planet Earth’s eco-system (and the influences of the Moon, Sol and surprisingly even the Milky Way via cosmic rays influencing clouds which along with other forms of water form over 85% of the greenhouse effect on Earth) you might be able to grasp the futility of attempting to predict the future of the environment… it ends up being no different than soothsaying with entrails… all due to randomness generated within simple and complex systems.
Chaos ruins all predictions of the future climate of Earth… simple fact of life that no computer program or equation will ever solve. Not ever, because you must let the systems with internally generated randomness run in order to know their outcome – and that’s a mathematically proven fact.
pwl
http://www.PathsToKnowledge.net?s=soothsaying
From the article, “…. these revelations do not in and of themselves mean that the idea of ……….. is false.” Amazing statement that, for they made it right after acknowledging the Tim Wirth statement: “we’ve got to ride the global-warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing — in terms of economic policy and environmental policy.” The revelation of the falsification of science or the use of non-scientific data to prove a theory of course does not on to its self falsify the theory! But taken in the context of the elitist attitude that the means justifies the ends, as expressed by Tim Wirth and others of his ilk, wouldn’t it be prudent to assume ALL their theoretical models are flawed , ALL their assumptions are faulty, and ALL their outrageously exaggerated claims are – – well, just that and throw the whole bag of worms in the trash – – and start over?
In other words, based on EVERYTHING that has been exposed by all the opened “gates” we KNOW that, at best, they do NOT KNOW that humans/CO2 have any effect on global environments and at worst, they know we/it does NOT! But hey, we here (mostly) know it’s NEVER been about the science or even the theory. It’s about power and the flow of money and how policy defines each, as so clearly stated by Mr. Wirth! That’s the REAL story and why the house of cards will eventually collapse. It’s the essence of the difference between the truth and the facts – “The truth is (always) more important than the facts.” Frank Lloyd Wright
DirkH (12:53:11) :
Here is the analysis of the paper by the people at Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
It would really take a few physicists to review that paper and see if the guys at RC are right or wrong.
Can anyone provide a link to the Tim Wirth quote above in the post? I’ve seen it quoted on the blogs, but have never seen the interview it was in. I didn’t see it in the link–did I just miss it?
A pox on the apocalypsers…
John of Kent (12:20:13) :
“Talk about couting chickens! It is not the end of climate alarmism yet.”
There are other forces at work that may make the ‘Climate Debate’ a moot point.
I.E. Chinese coal production had been increasing at an exponential rate. It appears that the production rate may not be sustainable.
China’s massive investment in nuclear power as well as massive investment in wind as well as massive investments in replacing 27% efficient coal fired plants with 44% efficient coal fired plants would tend to confirm this.
Europes coal mines with the exception of Ukraine,Kazakstan and Russia are in decline.
The ‘doomsday’ scenarios were all based on
A) An unrestrained growth of CO2 emissions
B) Strong climate feedback mechanisms
Condition ‘A’ currently appears unlikely to happen looking at what investments the Chinese are making for purely economic reasons.
Condition ‘B’ is continually being whittled down by ‘better science’.
“NickB. (13:18:16) :
[…]
If it were as simple as you think it is, the AGW/CAGW crowd would not have to rely on computer models to support their theories.”
Also, they would not have to sex up the “most heavily scrutinized document in the history of mankind” (the IPCC AR4) with spurious claims.
The middle of the road stance is, surely, adaptation. And there are some unlikely allies in this: read Stewart Brand’s latest ‘Whole Earth Discipline‘, and it is clear that there is a splintering of the entire movement from within.
Brand advocates moving to cities (concentrate service delivery, allow opportunity, release women from rural idiocy, and generate real wealth), nuclear power (deal with concentrated waste instead of millions of smokestacks) and generally drives a Sherman tank through a whole bunch of environmental shibboleths.
Add to this the ‘Resilient Community‘ effort from John Robb and crew, and we have a large part of the adaptation recipe right there before us.
The analogy here should be to the Reformation, which blew apart a corrupt and arrogant medaeival Catholic Church for ever. Climategate is about 1517 on that scale: the nailing up of Luther’s theses. There’s a bit of water to go under the bridge until we get to the 1520’s, when Henry VIII figured out that he could get a twofer: his old marriage declared null, and (by declaring himeself head of the Church in England), he could clip the ticket on the Church’s takings. Which he finally got, 100%, by the dissolution of the monasteries, in 1536-8.
The AGW frenzy is fed by funding, just as was the Catholic Church. It’s fun and cathartic to do the iconoclastic stuff – tear down the brazen images, paint over the elaborate frescoes, and generally try to eradicate the outward vestiges of the belief system.
But it’s a better ploy, after that emotion subsides, to go after the AGW funding. Cut off the oxygen. The neat thing is, it makes better economic sense, too. Instead of wasting a lot of scarce dollars on researching ‘the effects of climate change on the mating habits of the Greater Nebraskan Loon’, it would be better use of that dosh to get one of Henry VIII’s twofers: say, accelerate production of electric cars/build many small-scale nuclear plants And stop giving petrodollars to unfriendly regimes.
Oh wait. ‘Accelerate’. My bad. Work on the braking software, too.
“Ray (13:27:41) :
DirkH (12:53:11) :
Here is the analysis of the paper by the people at Real Climate:
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=Ferenc_Miskolczi
It would really take a few physicists to review that paper and see if the guys at RC are right or wrong.”
Ray, i don’t consider RealClimate impartial in any way. And no, thank you, won’t go there, it’s a waste of time. It’s as censored as it gets over there.
The fight is not over, it just starts, or better – it’s allways the same:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_%281946%29
We here, have an old friesean phrase “Lever dod as slav”.
Translation is: “Better to be dead than to be a sklave”.
Twilight of the Climate Gods… heh, somebody’s pinched my phrase!
Now back to read the article….
Engiiner (12:19:54) :
Many readers know that the Club of Rome, which became an elitist organization seeking to use CO2, global warming and other “threats” to promote one-world government as a solution to the “tragedy of the commons,” was the moral imperative behind Maurice Strong, Al Gore, and yes, Obama.
There is also GLOBE International, a trans-national quango of politicians fixing UN climate policy behind closed doors.
Oh BTW Ray , Gavin Schmidt proudly boasted that F. Miskolczi had made glaring mathematical errors that Gavin would not expose just yet but give it to some students to find and debunk. That’s quite a while ago now and of course nothing came after that announcement.
Don’t know if i read that on the RC thread you mentioned -i might have visited in december or not, i’m not sure- or in the WUWT thread for discussion of Miskolczi that you funnily didn’t mention and that you may find by entering Miskolczi in that little search box up there.
RC really looks like the emperor’s new clothes to me.
No, I don’t believe its over. But it doesn’t hurt to continue to point out the fallacies of some of the recent adventures of our quasi-scientific environmentalists. It would be a great help now if some were made accountable. IMHO
DirkH (13:34:20) :
I know how bent they are at RC but their wiki page is a nice place to know exactly what their arguments are… to better refute them.
As Cap. Kirk said once… “I’ve never trusted Klingons, and I never Will”
We can use some warming on the farm. Newsbusters
True environmentalism most definitely does not equate with climate alarmism.
Any fake “environmentalists” who want to argue with me, be forewarned: I am a true hardcore environmentalist – (i.e. not of the flaky climate freak variety). You folks are threatening nature by generating massive instability – you’re creating a backlash against fake environmentalism that threatens legitimate (i.e. true) environmentalism – next thing you know the backlash will start going after our rivers & parks …and I’ll place the blame right where it belongs: on you.
When they come after the bully, they will bring baseball bats. Why did you instigate this? Time to smarten up & start being sober. Offload the climate freaks – & get back to being pure. Deny ongoing incentive to leverage control away with more boom-&-bust bubble-cycles by being sensible. Think of the trees and realize that stability in human society is good for the longevity of parks – (just think what one nuke would do [& not only to humans]). Stability in human civilization is good for trees & parks.
Paul Vaughan
Ecologist
There is a diminishing effectiveness as thickness is added to the blanket. (Logarithmic effect.) The blanket is diffuse and amounts to a coarse net. Thus there will be nothing to worry about unless there are positive feedbacks, which are a far-fetched concept supported mostly by models, and contravened, mostly, by observations.
The earth is more likely to have a built-in thermostat (negative feedbacks) in the form of clouds. So the “simple underlying physics” is a misleading half-story. If that was All there was to it there would be no debate.