Doomsayer Environmentalists are Always Wrong

[Data Cable]

I know it's a bit of postcromancy, but...

Jun 9, 2008 17:48:07 GMT -4 Jason said:

WHO now acknowledges that the predicted worldwide heterosexual epidemic of AIDS is now seen as very unlikely [...] ...the images of population-destroying pandemics of AIDS popular in mid '80s and '90s opinion pieces have turned out to be false.

So does that make them failed predictions... or successful warnings?

[PeterB]

Jul 1, 2008 11:17:25 GMT -4 Jason said:

An interesting opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal today, concerning how belief in global warming is a religion.
The points of similarity the article makes are:

• Global Warming theory is not falsifiable - literally anything climate-related can be seen as evidence in its favor.
  
• The catastrophy predicted is diluvian in nature (in other words, a big flood).
  
• The proposed "solutions" involve radical changes in personal behavior with an ascetic, virtue-centric bent (self denial of current pleasures).
  
• Global Warming is seen by many believers as the result of hubris and its cures as penance for past environmental sins. Our successess are undeserved and our prosperity is morally suspect.

And he doesn't even touch on modern indulgences - "carbon offsets".

He also raises the idea that global warming alarmism is a rebuke to capitalism, and therefore idealogically convenient for many.

I know wdmundt is gone, but does anyone else care to point out where he's wrong?

It's an interesting article, Jason, and it's a useful place for me to start with my views on global warming. Like the Krauthammer piece, I don't necessarily buy all the arguments of global warming doomsayers. But I also don't think it's a good idea to be pumping out so much in the way of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere either.

The main reason for my skepticism about global warming is the clear evidence that it was considerably warmer on occasions even in the last millennium. The classic example I've read of is grapes being grown in Scotland (which must have led to a pleasant change of character for the Scots in that interlude).

But tempering that skepticism is concern that the rate of warming on this occasion is faster than would have occurred in past warming episodes. This means that while lands closer to the poles may be opened up to agriculture, we may lose more agricultural land nearer the Equator, meaning a net loss of agricultural land. On top of that is the stress this fast rate of warming can cause plants and animals, to the extent that although there might be more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the stressed plants can't take advantage of what should be improved growing conditions.

I agree with the view of the article you link here that there's a strong streak of virtuous self-denial in the actions and pronouncements of more extreme environmentalists. I sometimes wonder whether these are the same people who opposed infrastructure developments in Third World countries because they liked the lifestyle people in those countries lived (like cooking over fires of dried cow pats, and thus breathing in poo fumes). Now that countries like China and India are developing anyway, these desires for a low-tech lifestyle seem to be being transferred to those of us in the First World.

If these people were serious about getting us to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, one thing they wouldn't oppose is nuclear power, which I happily support. But I'm sure many of the arguments they present in opposition to it are fallacious.

But there is at least some logic to some of their arguments. Many of us in the First World lead absurdly profligate lifestyles, and it makes me uneasy that many people make their living in the Third World off the waste of people who live as profligately as me. There are many ways First World people could reduce resource use (and consequently greenhouse gas emissions) without any serious effect on quality of lifestyle.

My personal view, of course, is that I like my lifestyle, and I'm not about to throw it away in a noble but meaningless gesture. Instead, the activities I undertake are strictly economical. As incandescant light bulbs blow, I'm replacing them with compact fluoros. We've replaced the light curtains with heavier curtains. We hang the washing out to dry rather than using the tumble dryer. We've re-installed wire screen doors, meaning that for most of summer we can cool the house using breezes rather than air-con. We've also just bought a new fridge, whose electricity consumption should be a lot less than the old rattler my wife owned. When we've paid off the mortgage in a couple of years, we'll have money to spare to undertake a few more projects, like probably installing a solar or heat pump hot water system. And when I've regained a bit of health, I'd like to put in a bit of a vege patch in the garden, and ride the bike to the shops rather than driving (3 km each way is a bit far to walk). All things designed to slightly reduce our impact on the world, but nothing which seriously impacts on our lifestyle.

Now turning to the article linked above, I have a couple of comments about these statements:

The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades.

I'd dispute that the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding. My understanding is that several major ice shelves (shelfs?) have collapsed, and the name Larsen comes to mind. In any case, I understand that while some parts of Antarctic ice have thickened, this is a consequence of greater snowfall caused by greater evaporation due to warming of the oceans which are the source of the ice.

In the case of cold winters in Europe, my understanding is that increased melting of Greenland ice adversely affects the Gulf Stream, which is what's responsible for giving much of Europe its temperate climate. Stop the Gulf Stream, and more of Europe ends up with a climate more like Russia, even as the rest of the world warms.

In years gone by, I put a fair amount of credence in what Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist said). The treatment he received at the hands of the environmental lobby was poor. Many of his critics played the man and not the ball (to use an Australian Rules Football term) - they criticised the man's qualifications rather than the arguments he presented. However, that in itself didn't make Lomborg right. I hope that those who criticised him have come to understand the damage they did to their credibility by their actions.

My other main criticism is for governments, particularly my own Federal Government. The Rudd Government has made a lot of its environmental credentials since coming to power, but has conspicuously failed to take hard decisions about the environment. There are two ways to view this. Either the problem isn't serious, and their environmental claims were simply an electioneering ploy which paid dividends. Or the problem *is* serious, and they're simply putting off dealing with the problem because they're scared to say how much of a sacrifice is going to have to be made by the people who voted them into power, with the result that the longer they put things off, the worse the pain will be.

[Jason]

Jul 2, 2008 0:55:56 GMT -4 Data Cable said:

I know it's a bit of postcromancy, but...

Jun 9, 2008 17:48:07 GMT -4 Jason said:

WHO now acknowledges that the predicted worldwide heterosexual epidemic of AIDS is now seen as very unlikely [...] ...the images of population-destroying pandemics of AIDS popular in mid '80s and '90s opinion pieces have turned out to be false.

So does that make them failed predictions... or successful warnings?

I guess the answer hinges on whether you believe the threat of AIDS changed human sexual behavior enough to avoid the predicted catastrophe. My first take on that is that society has become more sexualized since the mid '80s, not less.

[Jason]

Jul 2, 2008 7:08:38 GMT -4 PeterB said:

The main reason for my skepticism about global warming is the clear evidence that it was considerably warmer on occasions even in the last millennium. The classic example I've read of is grapes being grown in Scotland (which must have led to a pleasant change of character for the Scots in that interlude).

Another classic example is the vikings colonizing Greenland and calling their North American colony in Newfoundland "Vinland" because they could grow grapes there around AD 1000. Obviously the climate was warmer at the time than it is now.

I agree with the view of the article you link here that there's a strong streak of virtuous self-denial in the actions and pronouncements of more extreme environmentalists. I sometimes wonder whether these are the same people who opposed infrastructure developments in Third World countries because they liked the lifestyle people in those countries lived (like cooking over fires of dried cow pats, and thus breathing in poo fumes).

Right. It's not that they wanted to live the lifestyle themselves - they just romanticized the notion of living what they viewed as a simpler life.
I for one prefer having indoor plumbing, low infant mortality, long life expectancy, air conditioning, and the internet.

Now that countries like China and India are developing anyway, these desires for a low-tech lifestyle seem to be being transferred to those of us in the First World.

Which brings up one of the primary problems with the Kyoto treaty - it completely exempted China and India.

But there is at least some logic to some of their arguments. Many of us in the First World lead absurdly profligate lifestyles, and it makes me uneasy that many people make their living in the Third World off the waste of people who live as profligately as me. There are many ways First World people could reduce resource use (and consequently greenhouse gas emissions) without any serious effect on quality of lifestyle.

And I think that reigning in our lifestyle where it could and probably should be done should be brought about by social change, not by government regulation, and not because of fear of some future catastrophe that will never actually materialize but because of the recognition that some things can be done better.

I'd dispute that the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding. My understanding is that several major ice shelves (shelfs?) have collapsed, and the name Larsen comes to mind.

Here's a 2002 USA Today article that confirms the expansion of Antarctic sea ice at that time.
And a more recent article here. Follow the link to the full story for a more detailed breakdown, which includes the following:

Though there was a flurry of media interest in 2002 when the Larsen Ice sheet broke up and the ice extent declined rapidly, it was very temporary. That break up which caused a big temporary decline in the southern ice extent was not due to greenhouse warming but a big spike of solar activity, which caused significant warming of low and middle latitudes, a shrinking or the polar vortices in both hemispheres and actually even a temporary break-down for the first time ever of the southern vortex. This caused an increase in the winds and currents leading to the ice break-up. As the sun quieted, the ice quickly returned and has resumed its slow increase.

Note that it was an increase in the winds and currents which caused the breakup, not an increase in temperature.

In any case, I understand that while some parts of Antarctic ice have thickened, this is a consequence of greater snowfall caused by greater evaporation due to warming of the oceans which are the source of the ice.

I've googled a few articles that say snowfall has increased and other articles that say it hasn't.
For example: Antarctic Snowfall Snafu Derails Climate Models and STUDY SHOWS SNOWFALL HASN'T INCREASED OVER ANTARCTICA IN LAST 50 YEARS, both from 2006. Most of the articles I found that claimed increasing snowfall were from 2005.
This article is from this year and seems to say that there is an increase in snowfall, but only at the penninsula, not in the interior. It goes on to state that "Clearly, this paper adds to the evidence that suggests that we simply, as of yet, do not have a firm grasp on the climate changes and their drivers that are effecting Antarctica, past, present, or, much less, future." That seems the clearest conclusion to me.

In years gone by, I put a fair amount of credence in what Bjorn Lomborg (The Skeptical Environmentalist said). The treatment he received at the hands of the environmental lobby was poor. Many of his critics played the man and not the ball (to use an Australian Rules Football term) - they criticised the man's qualifications rather than the arguments he presented. However, that in itself didn't make Lomborg right. I hope that those who criticised him have come to understand the damage they did to their credibility by their actions.

Lomborg doesn't argue that Global Warming isn't occurring, merely that other problems should be a higher priority.

[Ginnie]

Another classic example is the vikings colonizing Greenland and calling their North American colony in Newfoundland "Vinland" because they could grow grapes there around AD 1000. Obviously the climate was warmer at the time than it is now.

Actually, there are different thoughts on the Vinland nomenclature.
1. That "Vinland" is actually farther south, maybe the New England area...
2. In the same way that "Greenland" was really not that 'green', it was named to entice settlers.
3. "vin" can also mean 'meadow' in Norse. Not surprisingly, today the Viking settlement excavated in Newfoundland is near L'anse-aux-Meadows. Now, originally it was called "L'Anse-aux-Méduses " which is old french for 'jellyfish cove' but later settlers used the Meadows part instead, probably because it fit the landscape of the area.
fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Authentic_Viking_recreation.jpg
4. Berries grow in abundance in Newfoundland. Tons of them, of many different varieties. The term 'vin' might have been chosen because of grapes similarity to other berries.

As far as I know, there is absolutely no evidence of grapes growing in Newfoundland in the present or the past. I'd be interested in any evidence to the contrary though.

[Jason]

Jul 2, 2008 18:16:11 GMT -4 Ginnie said:

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Authentic_Viking_recreation.jpg

"Authentic Viking recreation"? What makes a recreation of a Viking "authentic"?

The wikipedia entry you point to itself acknowledges that some historians said that it was called Vinland because grapes where grown there and that because it was colonized during the medeival warm period that grapes may indeed have been grown there.

[Halcyon Dayz, FCD]

Jun 24, 2008 16:31:01 GMT -4 echnaton said:

Merriam-Webster says one usage of fascism is "a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control"

While it is not a traditional use of the word as it describes the early 20th century political movements, it is fairly common modern usage.

I apologise for my grumpiness, but I live in a country that was once under the boot.
The f-word is very offensive.

There is a lot more to fascism then just authoritarianism.
Using the word willy-nilly deflates its meaning until it becomes meaningless.
The danger with that is that someday real fascism will sound as something relatively innocuous.
Your dictionary citation demonstrates that that process is well on its way.

[echnaton]

The danger with that is that someday real fascism will sound as something relatively innocuous.
Your dictionary citation demonstrates that that process is well on its way.

I certainly acknowledge your point about dilution of meaning. My experience in the U.S. is that people normally reserve "Nazi" to expresses what you are saying. I never use "Nazi" lightly and like you feel it is appropriate to chastise those that do. We tend to use Fascist in a historical context in reference to Franco's Spain and Mussolini's Italy. Which were more about autocratic nationalism than Germany. But the use for fascism I cited is seen in the U.S. to refer to ideas that would take away liberties or seek to arbitrarily extend to powers of the government.

[Ginnie]

Jul 3, 2008 10:37:49 GMT -4 Jason said:

Jul 2, 2008 18:16:11 GMT -4 Ginnie said:

fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Authentic_Viking_recreation.jpg

"Authentic Viking recreation"? What makes a recreation of a Viking "authentic"?

The wikipedia entry you point to itself acknowledges that some historians said that it was called Vinland because grapes where grown there and that because it was colonized during the medeival warm period that grapes may indeed have been grown there.

Well, that's somethin' I guess...
Some historians also believe the Vinland Map is authentic. ;D

[Jason]

Australian Researchers Warn of Global Cooling

[echnaton]

From the article,

"[The paper] supports the contention that the level of activity on the Sun will significantly diminish sometime in the next decade and remain low for about 20 - 30 years."

But after the 30 years more years of our obnoxious behavior of wanting to live our lives without the nanny state telling us how to do it , there will be hell to pay.

[Jason]

I found it quite amusing that the faculty at Cornell Univeristy recently made this statement:

Climate change and its effects on ecosystems is the No. 1 crisis facing the world, according to Cornell faculty -- but it is a phenomenon not easily reversed. The most important problem that is more easily solved? Insufficient education in science, critical thinking and environmental issues.

One has to wonder if sufficient education in science, critical thinking and environmental issues would change their minds as to what the number one priority is.

The list of problems the facutly came up with reads like a liberal manifesto. Notably absent is any mention of terrorism except as a smokescreen to remove civil liberties.

When are we going to see idealogical diversity at our universities?

[dmundt]

One has to wonder if sufficient education in science, critical thinking and environmental issues would change their minds as to what the number one priority is.

It would certainly help with those stuck in an ideological position opposed to all of the relevant scientific communities of the world.

When are we going to see idealogical diversity at our universities?

Oh, boo hoo. Educated people don't agree with conservative, non-scientific ideology. It must be a liberal plot.

In fact, universities are run much more like businesses today -- and this is not a good thing, as it causes the primary function to be the quest for the almighty buck, rather than education.

[dmundt]

Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change


A new NASA-led study shows that human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe to lakes declining in productivity in Africa.

www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/human_impact.html

Yes, those crazy kooks at NASA are at it again. How dare they contradict conservative ideology?

[Jason]

Jul 15, 2008 18:09:46 GMT -4 @dmundt said:

Earth Impacts Linked to Human-Caused Climate Change

A new NASA-led study shows that human-caused climate change has impacted a wide range of Earth's natural systems, from permafrost thawing to plants blooming earlier across Europe to lakes declining in productivity in Africa.

www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2008/human_impact.html

Yes, those crazy kooks at NASA are at it again. How dare they contradict conservative ideology?

Nice try, but no gumball here.

There's no actual proof in the article that human activity is causing the warming described. Instead we get vague hand waves like "...found that the spatial patterns of observed impacts closely match temperature trends across the globe, to a degree beyond what can be attributed to natural variability." Really? Can we see the data then, and an explanation of how you've eliminated all possible natural causes? Well, not in this article.

That paragraph, by the way, concludes with "observed global-scale impacts are very likely due to human-caused warming."
Not are caused by humans - "very likely." Nice weasel words there.

As I've maintained from the beginning, my beef isn't that the climate might be changing, its the idea that human activity is causing the change. Articles about lakes drying up and polar bears suffering are generally worthless without proof of what caused it and what can be done to stop it.
Proof of the causal link to human behavior appears to still be absent, therefore my skepticism is not unreasonable.