Skeptic Project

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

Some climate alarmists claim that cyclones, such as Cyclone Yasi, are a result of man-made CO2 emissions.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas's ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain's future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia's infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma's military regime hadn't allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL IS A FRINGE NEWSPAPER

BYE SPED

Nothing in that article really speaks to GW denialism, only to the extent of it's effects.

"We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on."

Doesn't really sound like a controversial position to me.

http://img199.imageshack.us/img199/8992/trollfacez.jpg" />

Sil,

Yes, that impression you have is wrong.

Assuming you want to look into it Muertos's article is a decent introduction to the issue (especially as you know and likely respect his opinion) and has some links to relevant websites that should be a good place to start.

http://conspiracyscience.com/blog/2010/05/18/conspiracyscience-com-addresses-global-warming-denial/</p>

I do recommend RealClimate since its run by climate scientists themselves, but it does get a bit "sciency" that might be hard to follow so other websites might be a better place to go for a "laymans" understanding to start with.

I also suggest the following youtube channels if you fancy watching some good videos on the subject.

POTHOLER54:
http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54</p>

This is my favourite, definitely one to watch.
Most of his recent videos are regarding Global Warming skepticism/denialism.

GREENMAN3610:
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610</p>

This is good as well, though I find POTHOLER54's better.

The thing to remember when reading a GW skeptic article, interview or whatever... remember what typical CT's do. They make it sound so simple that you realise that if true scientists are either lying, delusional, stupid, ignorant and/or incompetent. Basically if some unqualified guy on the internet can understand that GW isn't happening or humans aren't responsible, consider why this is such a fringe contrarian stance in mainstream science. Consider that the reason top climate scientists don't agree with this is because what that person has been told isn't true or the truth has been twisted.

He has as AT LEAST as much credibility since he is a science journalist and has been for many years, yes. And yes we do know his identity since he made a video about his history and past work.

Is the writer of the WSJ article a climate scientist or qualified in anything relevant?

As I said Sil, if you are familiar with GW "skeptic" arguments and how they work its obvious what the purpose of this article was intended to achieve. And yes there is consensus. There's consensus on evolution and on 911 as well, but you'll still find a bunch of contrarian experts claiming the opposite and if you didn't know better how would you know?

The article claims we don't know things we really do, thats the point. Articles such as this act like all these scientists from all over the world are just incompetent, stupid or ignorant alarmists (or worse lying) and the truth instead is so simple unqualified people can understand it and the small fringe minority are correct, but are persecuted for it!

Articles like this act like they are taking a middle ground not making strong claims either way, which makes them seem more reasonable. But if you know what it is they are talking about and know what you're looking at, you see its obvious articles such as this have an objective to play down the science of global warming to create seeds of doubt towards climate science. This sets back us being able to do anything about it significantly. This writer might not be doing it intentionally but is certainly repeating typical stuff from known GW "skeptics".

Its like Intelligent Design, if you know the rhetoric of Creationists and know why Intelligent Design is creationism you can spot one a mile off even if someone unfamiliar with them can't. Sometimes it can take a while to explain to someone that doesn't know better why Intelligent Design IS Creationism and why the new form sounding like, "teach the strengths and weakness'" often not mentioning Intelligent Design at all is also Creationism.

I do strongly suggest Potholer54's videos, he always backs up his points with the relevant journals and is easy to understand. It is a great way to see just how dishonest GW skeptics actually are and why people defending them is so infuriating.

Falkner please just stop trying to automatically take the opposite stance to whatever it is I post without knowing anything about the subject matter (yes it is obvious to me).

Would you be saying this to Muertos when he was here? I do wonder.. I didn't hear your objections to his arguments or articles about Global Warming, no, apparently its just me. I'm not saying anything he hasn't said before and in fact he got much more pissed off with Global Warming deniers than I did. He would be arguing the same thing.

Oh and to answer your question:

Are you defending a position that says only the worst case scenarios are legitimate

Im defending mainstream scientific opinion (maybe you should check what that actually is) rather than a handful of (albiet loud) contrarian scientists on the matter.

EDIT:

we are unsure of the extent anthropogenic climate change will have

Well that certainly is true, I don't know any legitimate scientist that claims we know the full "extent" of GW, but this article makes it seem like climate scientists haven't considered various other obvious options for what could be causing the warming (like the sun, other planets, heating and cooling cycles and ocean currents) yet are wildly exaggerating things because they are "alarmists", which is patently ridiculous at best and at worst intentionally misleading.

"Falkner please just stop trying to automatically take the opposite stance to whatever it is I post without knowing anything about the subject matter (yes it is obvious to me)."

http://img143.imageshack.us/img143/2003/normalparanoia.jpg" />

Then my only interest in this thread is done.

hat maybe something other than Co2 might be the cause of the warming. The science is clear, for example solar radiation forcing is minimal and does not account for the warming, the idea that scientists just haven't thought of something like that is ridiculous.

Just to be totally fair, we do have strong saturation rates of Methane in the atmosphere which resonates much more powerful frequencies in the UV band. The reasons for these high levels of Methane in the atmosphere are not totally well known, but its total saturation band is fairly thin, so it doesn't get much attention.

YOU WILL ALL AGREE WITH ED OR YOU WILL BURN IN THE PITS OF DENIALIST HELL

Genogza,

1. The "science" has nothing to do with a carbon tax and not all climate scientists agree with all the (political) measures to combat climate change.

2. What "predictions" are you referring to? I bet the quotes they use in this WSJ article is out of context just like every other time skeptics quote scientists. I would never take this as written, as their conclusion is that the scientists are just too incompetent and biased to figure out something people with no training whatsoever can understand so easily. I would be extremely surprised if you were to find the source for the quotes and find this article's characterisation of them accurate.

I recommend you watch this video about how the media misunderstands the affect of GW on the weather compared to what is in the scientific literature:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pa8duiMiS0

Compare the above video to the WSJ article and see if it still sounds reasonable.

This video is also interesting as it refers to a case where the media attributes a natural disaster to GW when it was actually nothing to do with it at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVMotOYMTD4

The thing you should realise is that "skeptics" like Bjorn Lomborg (not a scientist), who says he believes in a carbon tax and that we should spent 100 Billion dollars a year to fight climate change, has at the same time been trying to downplay the science. He is a strange example of a skeptic in this way and who knows why he does it. But he has misrepresented the facts of GW just like any other known "skeptic", so much so its difficult to know whether its incompetence or just dishonesty.

This WSJ article refers to the vast majority of climate scientists about the consensus of GW as "alarmists" and suggests they have missed other obvious mechanisms to account for warming as if these scientists are just too "alarmist" to consider anything other than Co2. The main bulk of the article is suggesting that models based on the idea of GW don't match reality, therefore suggesting that maybe the models are wrong and it either isn't warming or its not that bad. This is simply typical of any GW "skeptic", hence my reaction to it.

Also, about my use of the word denialist. This is a derogatory term. No one refers to themselves as a denialist. Truthers and Creationists don't nor do "AIDS denialists" or anti-vaxxers. They always call themselves "skeptics". So Alex Jones will say he is a skeptic the same way Bjorn Lomborg would, but they both share very different beliefs. A denialist is therefore an insult attributed to someone you believe intentionally ignores data or is so biased towards their position that over and over ignore information that they don't like. If you don't like my term denialist to refer to certain people, that's fine. But the issue is not that I have given them a derogatory label, but rather whether they really are ignoring data and/or misrepresenting facts. So when I called Penn from P&T a denialist, the question is merely if he was ignoring data and misrepresenting the facts of GW. The answer is a definite yes on both counts.

I love how you think your trolls are smart, Matt. Go look after your kid.

We know you've never tried to prove that, so forget about it. And you are wrong about Patrick Moore, you didn't understand what you were reading but we know you wont debate anything, especially as you said you are just trolling me now anyway.

You can't even accept what Dunning said in a direct quote, I don't really care what you think.