I mostly agree with David Siegel’s observations about climate change at RealClearPolitics. Here are his bullet points:
- Weather is not climate.
- Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous.
- There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works.
- New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
- CO2 has very little to do with it.
- There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.â€
- Sea level will probably continue to rise — but not quickly, and not much.
- The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others.
- No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems.
- The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry.
and
- Global warming is real.
- Freak storms are going to cause a lot of damage.
- Most of the doom and gloom stories are predictions based on wrong assumptions.
- All the decarbonization we can do won’t change the temperature much.
- Geo-engineering only makes sense if you are a true believer.
- We have much bigger real problems to pay attention to.
- Alternative energy solutions should evolve naturally, without subsidies.
- We shouldn’t penalize developing nations who burn fossil fuels.
- Nuclear is the future power source.
from which he concludes we should do nothing whatever to “decarbonize” which is where he and I part company. For geopolitical and reasons of prudent stewardship of resources if for no other reasons we should end our subsidies for consuming fossil fuels. Those take thousands of different forms including the full court press for “infrastructure improvement” (defined as roads and bridges). There are other kinds of infrastructure projects that don’t subsidize the consumption of fossil fuels. Tackle those first.
You forgot the most important point: If global warming is caused by humans, it ccan be reduced or eliminated by stopping the rampant breeding instead of subsidizing it, as our tax policies still do.
Yes, the African population is going to quadruple in the next 85 years because of US tax policy. It’s great to have a clear-eyed visionary like you on board, jimbino.
I agree with you, Dave. I don’t have the STEM chops to form an independent opinion of any value on the models and predictions. But what is unarguable, it seems to me, is that fossil fuel is a limited resource; that oil has a multitude of uses beyond being burned to make energy and thus we should not piss it all away unnecessarily; that burning fossil fuels has distinct negative health effects; and that regardless of whether we end up using geo-engineering it’s something we should be studying.
In other words, regardless of the truth of various models, we are helped not harmed by many of the prescriptions of the global warming movement. So why don’t we see if we can’t reach consensus on a range of actions which are good in themselves?
The author you cite engages in a classic blog tactic. He cites a rebuttal and claims it is all name calling, assuming no one will actually go there and read the rebuttal. In fact, the article rebuts nearly all of his points in detail and with links to the articles which show how he is wrong. The guy admits he has no scientific expertise, but he spent 400 hours reading on climate science, mostly Anthony Watt, and now he is an expert. I guess you can believe an “expert” like Siegel. Hell, 400 hours really impresses me too, or you could read the science guys who put years into it. Took actual math and physics courses. Went out and collected data.
https://medium.com/@miriamob/climate-change-is-real-and-important-646b663adcf#.s4x5pbf1q
Steve
Weather is not climate.
He just figured this out?
Natural variation in weather and climate is tremendous.
There it is again, this “the sky is blue” sort of statement, as though the world’s scientists are unaware of this and haven’t made it abundantly clear at every opportunity.
There is tremendous uncertainty as to how the climate really works.
This is argument from ambiguity. Please ask Siegel to quantify the following: “tremendous”, “really” and “works”.
New research shows fluctuations in energy from the sun correlate very strongly with changes in earth’s temperature, better than CO2 levels.
Siegel admits in his essay he deliberately relies on Global Warming deniers for his data and bases this assertion on what some have suggested might happen in the future.
CO2 has very little to do with it.
Argument by assertion, and one agreed with by effectively no climatologists in our galaxy.
There is no such thing as “carbon pollution.â€
That depends on one’s definition and it’s irrelevant to the science anyway.
Sea level will probably continue to rise — but not quickly, and not much.
I guess he hasn’t noticed parts of Miami regularly flood with the tide.
The Arctic experiences natural variation as well, with some years warmer earlier than others.
And?
No one has demonstrated any unnatural damage to reef or marine systems.
What are the criteria for “demonstrating” and “unnatural”? Sure seems like slippery talk, there.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and others are pursuing a political agenda and a PR campaign, not scientific inquiry.
This would mean tens of thousands of scientists around the planet are part of the political agenda as the IPCC reports are summaries of their work. All those rich climatologists lining their pockets with trillions in wealth. Wait, they’re secret fascists who want to set up an authoritarian state ruled by liberal scientists like themselves! It’s one of those two, I can never remember which.
How much more flirting with debased liars are you going to engage in, Dave? That he repeatedly cites a denier site as a scientific publication ought to discredit this guy. And please don’t tell me to read his essay as I already have. Cite a section and it can be debunked in five minutes.
And yet the predictions never come true……..
Not much of a model. Not much of a theory. All the rest is hand waiving.
It’s fine to study it, Michael. It’s malpractice to implement destructive policies.
If I told you I had a theory that the world would have too much food, check that, on further review, not enough. And even though we’ve got plenty now, sometime in the future, maybe, well you see I’ve got this kinda crude, non- predictive model that says some day we won’t have enough food, ………….so what I need you to do is recognize this latent calamity and preemptively commit suicide……..even though no one else will………I don’t think you would do it.
You would know if these peoples motives were pure if they put forth actionable alternatives, like nuclear, vs just calling for taxes and wealth redistribution. Else we are just destroying the manufacturing base, reducing productivity, and lowering living standards. 28% reduction in CO2 in the US? My ass. It’s a charade.
For some it’s a religion just like the one you love to castigate. For some it’s a taxing mechanism. For some a central control mechanism. For very, very few it’s a scientifically based problem requiring viable technical solutions and genuine international cooperation. You don’t hear much from them.
The current summit is just theater. Non-binding. Unenforceable. Not passable in the Senate. And two huge contributors to CO2 emissions, China and India, (not to mention Brazil or other emerging countries) have absolutely no intention of doing a damned thing.
So let people duel on internet sites. Let Obama preen for the cameras. No material progress has been made in 50 years. And none will be made today. Oh, and we are not under water………
Predictions about future consequences depend a great deal on how sensitive the climate is to CO2. The IPCC (the authority on what the science says) calls this ECS or the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. ECS “quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
The IPCC goes on to state that ECS “…is likely in the range 1.5°C to 4.5°C (high confidence), extremely unlikely less than 1°C (high confidence), and very unlikely greater than 6°C (medium confidence) 16. ”
The IPCC does not give a best estimate in that range because: “…because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.” Studies in this context means the models.
Confidence levels are defined using five qualifiers: “very low, low, medium, high, and very high….For a given evidence and agreement statement, different confidence levels can be assigned, but increasing levels of evidence and degrees of agreement are correlated with increasing confidence.”
And probabilities: “virtually certain 99–100% probability, very likely 90–100%, likely 66–100%, about as likely as not 33–66%, unlikely 0–33%, very unlikely 0–10%, exceptionally unlikely 0–1%. Additional terms (extremely likely: 95–100%, more likely than not >50–100%, and extremely unlikely 0–5%) may also be used when appropriate.
So, read the IPCC conclusion again. The upper and lower bounds for climate sensitivity are between 1 and 6 degrees with no best estimate. The future effects of an ECS of 1 degree vs. 6 is massive, even assuming scientists can predict the effects for a given ECS (hint: they can’t with much certainty).
So, anyone who claims to know what the effects of climate change will be is either ignorant or pushing an agenda. Unfortunately policymaking and politics abhor uncertainty and ambiguity, so convenient narratives are created that (coincidentally!) align with preferred policies.
Finally, it’s important to point out the uncertainty works both ways – the effects could be a lot less or they could be a lot worse than what we think.
And all this assumes the scientist have accurately characterized the range of ECS and the uncertainty involved. The confidence levels and probabilities are based on expert assessment of the available evidence….
“And yet the predictions never come true”
You keep saying this. I don’t think that phrase means what you think it means. The predictions are coming true, just not the far out of line straw men you guys like to joust against. For example, there was no pause.
“So, anyone who claims to know what the effects of climate change will be is either ignorant or pushing an agenda.”
We can’t know everything, but there are a lot of things we already know. We have seen ocean levels rise 3 inches over the last 2 decades. That is faster than was predicted based upon earlier measurements (many other changes are also happening faster than expected) and is accelerating. What will happen to Florida if water levels rise 3-5 feet? You are correct, no one knows for sure, but I am betting it is not good. We also have coral bleaching, which is mostly temperature related. (I had thought acidification more important since it would hurt calcification, but the biologists say it is temperature.) Beyond that hotter certainly means more fires. However, change probably won’t always be negative and some areas may benefit with changes in weather pattern. Perhaps the Sahara blooms again. Might make up for the dying pine forests.
Steve