Learning to live with global warming: Why so Gloomy?

[zen]

April 16, 2007 issue - Judging from the media in recent months, the debate over global warming is now over. There has been a net warming of the earth over the last century and a half, and our greenhouse gas emissions are contributing at some level. Both of these statements are almost certainly true. What of it? Recently many people have said that the earth is facing a crisis requiring urgent action. This statement has nothing to do with science.There is no compelling evidence that the warming trend we've seen will amount to anything close to catastropheWhat most commentators—and many scientists—seem to miss is that the only thing we can say with certainly about climate is that it changes. The earth is always warming or cooling by as much as a few tenths of a degree a year; periods of constant average temperatures are rare. Looking back on the earth's climate history, it's apparent that there's no such thing as an optimal temperature—a climate at which everything is just right. The current alarm rests on the false assumption not only that we live in a perfect world, temperaturewise, but also that our warming forecasts for the year 2040 are somehow more reliable than the weatherman's forecast for next week.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

[Beemer]

Lindzen is known as one of the sceptics that misrepresent the IPCC report. Being funded exclusively by the U.S. government is not a feather in his cap.

[Harold7]

Great article in Newsweek Zen, but it will be almost totally ignored by the MSM and most of the American people will never see it.

Science shouldn't have a political or social agenda, but when we see Supreme Court decisions using Al Gore's Power Point movie as the basis for a decision and see it being force fed to students in the public schools... rational, objective science is smothered by Progressive Socialist propaganda aimed directly at destroying the American capitalist system.

If this were really Science, shouldn't the conlusions offered be more definitive than "most likely" or "probable" or "could"?

Isn't it the duty of Science to be little more accurate than a seer's crystal ball or a tarot card reader... maybe we should consult astrologers and get about the same confidence level of prediction.

[Theophylact]

If this were really Science, shouldn't the conlusions offered be more definitive than "most likely" or "probable" or "could"?

The words were chosen very carefully, and they actually have a specific numerical significance:

The standard terms used in this report to define the likelihood of an outcome or result where this can be estimated probabilistically are:

Terminology Likelihood of the occurrence/ outcome
Virtually certain > 99% probability of occurrence
Very likely > 90% probability
Likely > 66% probability
About as likely as not 33 to 66% probability
Unlikely < 33% probability
Very unlikely < 10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely < 1% probability

In order to provide a more specific assessment of detection and attribution of key aspects of climate change Chapter 9 of this report augments the likelihood scale above with additional terms “Highly likely” to indicate a greater than 95% likelihood of occurrence, and “More likely than not” to indicate a greater than 50% likelihood.

Where values are specified in this report as a central estimate with a plus/minus range, then by default the range represents a 95% (2-σ) confidence interval. Exceptions to this are noted in the text.

[MTAtech]

Ross Gelbspan, journalist and author, wrote a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine which was very critical of Lindzen and other global warming skeptics. In the article, Gelbspan reports Lindzen charged "oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; [and] his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels and a speech he wrote, entitled 'Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus,' was underwritten by OPEC." [3]

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension." [4]

[Pexster]

And, believe it or not, in probability theory, 100% probability means "almost certainly."

[zen]

Lindzen is known as one of the sceptics that misrepresent the IPCC report. Being funded exclusively by the U.S. government is not a feather in his cap.

Thats all you got? Id say its better than being funded by Exxon!

Whats funny is everytime someone posts something showing global warming in a different light, they attack the messenger without ever addressing the message. At this point Im not sure who to believe. I do remember the great bird flu scare awhile back. And the african killer bees. And the global cooling. And the.................... Get the picture? Media hype is just that.

[Harold7]

So Theo, what does "statistical numerical significance" have to do with all of these wildly fevered claims of catastrophe that the proponents of "Global Warming" are pushing... it still just amounts to guesswork and hyperbole.

If this were truly the language of science and scientific conclusions there woul be no room for doubt about their claims, so when the claim is 90% probable... so what... if some new data emerges that casts doubt on these claims of doom will we even hear about them or will they be couched in the same vague claims that pass for scientific accuracy now?


I expect science to produce real answers, not probabilities, if I wanted that I'd ask the bookies in Vegas for their take on the subject... there is so much more at work here than science... you seem to treat these scientists as un-biased and objective researchers with no political or social agenda to push and no research dollars to demand... it's no surprise that a former politician (VP Gore is the front man for the far left environmental movement... just what scientific credentials does he possess that make him a credible expert on the subject?

If your doctor told you that it's "most likely" that you have to have a lobotomy to cure your migraines, would you have the operation or wait for a more certain diagnosis before you make a decision?

If the designer of the next plane you fly on says it's "most likely" that the wings will stay on for the entire flight, would you take the flight?

Isn't "statistical numerical significance" just an open admission that they don't have any real answers, that they can't admit that they don't know enough about how the planet's climate works over the long term to say anything with exactitude and that they're just guessing?

[ScottW]

You'll always be able to find someone who has an alternative viewpoint and this is no different. The 99.9% of scientists who believe human activity is to blame for global warming sort of overshadows the <0.1% who believe it's a "natural" phenomenon or isn't harmful especially when you start scrutinizing the backgrounds of those "skeptics", who usually (but not always) tend to be in the back pocket of either the oil industry or government:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../306/5702/1686

"The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."

While this is of course true:
"The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it."

... we have no choice but to go with the overwhelming knowledge and research of thousands of very smart, educuated people and act on their advice. It would be grossly irresponsible to ignore their findings.

[ScottW]

Isn't "statistical numerical significance" just an open admission that they don't have any real answers, that they can't admit that they don't know enough about how the planet's climate works over the long term to say anything with exactitude and that they're just guessing?

There is no such thing as a sure thing. Period. Science offers us statistical probabilities. And right now, science is telling us that there is a 90% chance that we're in the process of screwing up our planet in a big way. If science said there was a 10% chance, your approach might be valid, but it doesn't, and it isn't.

If your doctor told you that it's "most likely" that you have to have a lobotomy to cure your migraines, would you have the operation or wait for a more certain diagnosis before you make a decision?

Your doctor would never say this. Your doctor would look at peer-reviewed studies showing that Triptan drugs like Imitrex are the cure for most migraines, not lobotomy. Similarly, when deciding how to approach global warming and climate change, a lawmaker should look at peer-reviewed studies and research and see what the bulk is concluding in the same way as that doctor. The conclusion is: CO2 from our activity is causing this problem and climate change WILL be catastrophic. Therefore the necessary course of action is clear, not uncertain or rash.

[Theophylact]

Isn't "statistical numerical significance" just an open admission that they don't have any real answers, that they can't admit that they don't know enough about how the planet's climate works over the long term to say anything with exactitude and that they're just guessing?

No.