Congratulations on the interesting blog. I enjoyed your discussion about the “Face on Mars” stuff. Fascinating! And your posting on Dr. Carmona is an interesting discussion of the intersection of politics and science.

Concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), I would like to know what you think about the recent comments of Robert F. Kennedy. He said that those who disagree with the consensus opinion on the subject (which as you know is that it is true and action must be taken) are “fascists” and “traitors” and should be treated as such. The penalty for treason is imprisonment or death.

What do you think about that? Should people who say that they do not believe in the AGW hypothesis be imprisoned or executed?

Keep up the good work on the blog!

Regards,
Guillermo

I think Hulme’s point is that the fact that crowded theaters CAN catch fire doesn’t make it okay to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre just because you THINK there’s a chance there COULD be a fire.

Now, of course, even if this did happen, it wouldn’t be in the next five years or so. That much is certain. It wouldn’t be a short term catastrophic event like depicted in certain fictional Hollywood productions. But on timescales longer than that of a human life, it’s a different story. The ice-albedo positive feedback loop is powerful; don’t underestimate its potential. Given enough tine and enough forcing, our successors could lose a lot of real estate before its over.

Be careful with Hulme’s quote. Taking it too literally means science is incapable of talking about hurricanes, tsunamis, and asteroid strikes. Don’t forget that crowded theaters can catch fire.

How about the sea level rising 20 feet? He presents this as if it’s what’s being predicted (as opposed to the IPCC’s 30 cm!), when it’s really an extreme worst case scenario – but of course most people don’t realize that. Someone posting here said ‘if the seas ONLY rise 20 feet’, and I suspect most readers here are somewhat more astute than average.

As British climate science Michael Hulme recently said: ‘The language of catastrophe is not the language of science.’

Some of ‘them’ are deniers; I certainly distrust the motives and logic of the ultra-religious anti-GW groups.

But is there no possibilty that a rational, informed, somewhat intelligent person could have legimate questions about AGW? Couldn’t they be called AGW skeptics?

I find it (pardon the expression) that if you ask about the MWP or the LIA, or about sunspots and solar output, or cosmic rays and cloud formation, you tend to get jumped on as a ‘denier’, a ‘tool of the polluters’, or some other type of heretic. You don’t get answers; you get a putdown.

Mark, I agree. What concerns me is that it seems like some people are too prone to tar everyone the least bit questioning about AGW with the same brush. I’ve seen Mr. Gore do that a few too many times in interviews.

“… there is nothing wrong with ignorance. As long you are aware of it and open to learn. All of us are ignorant in some areas…”

Well, I have been and continue to read everything I can find on this subject, but sometimes it seems that if I don’t suddenly have a revelation and come over to the ‘good side’, I will continue to called ignorant. Asking questions and refining the theory of evolution is called good science, but questioning anything about AGW is treated like heresy….

“If you see it as name calling, well, boohoo to you”

I appreciate your recognition of my sensitve nature….

No, I didn’t miss your point, in fact I said:

While I understand the legitimate concern over hypocritical lack of personal actions while loudly vocalizing,…

I just chose to address the comments I felt needed a response.

>First off everyone has something they consider important. Take for example the end off the earth as we know it. And that IS exactly what we are talking about. Now if you waste a single cent on that problem I’d say your acting quite irresponsably. And the main point in that argument was the fact that alot of CO2 was produced for something that was not meant to solve this dire problem. Oh by the way thank you for clearing up the fact that the didn’t send up the probe with a big bag of cash with a $ on it.

I agree that there is a potential that this will dramatically affect life as we know it. At the very least, we’re talking about potential deaths and devestation of coastal cities. However, there is still a lot of debate over the extent the results will actually be. I agree we should do something, but that doesn’t mean we stop doing everything else.

>Second, and I think more importantly are the points that you chose to gloss right over. Every low-carbon energy form is vigorously opposed by some environmental group the instant it is proposed in any given area.

I didn’t gloss right over, I didn’t see a need to address that comment. I don’t disagree with you on those issues.

>Don’t mistake my intent. I’m all for space exploration AND keeping our current standard of living. I’m just dubious when someone tells me how to live my life and they don’t change a thing in theirs. Do you get my point?

I got that the first time. See my quote above. My point is that you latched onto something trivial in the grand scheme of things. If you’re worried about AGW, how about pointing out antiquated processes at refineries burning off large quantities of fossil fuels rather than replacing the burn-off tanks with safer and cleaner technology? How much carbon dioxide is generated by tanks and Humvees in Iraq? By the way, for probes that monitor climate change on Earth, NASA and NOAA do that, and they’d do more but their budgets are controlled by the President and Congress.

if you read my posts carefully you will see that I did not call you a denier. I merely responded to your post where you took issue with the whole use of the phrase “denier”. I pointed out that anybody who denies basic science is ecactly that, a denier.

I don’t know what your opinions are on global warming or whether you are ignorant in the field or a Nobel prize winner. I simply put forward the point that the phrase denier is applicable in some cases.

Besides that I stand with my point that there is nothing wrong with ignorance. As long you are aware of it and open to learn. All of us are ignorant in some areas…

If you see it as name calling, well, boohoo to you!

All this debate reminds me of the archeological evidence of the severity of the environmental impact on the Easter Islanders. Being in a closed system, they did what all humans do, use the resources at their disposal to control their environment, and forget to look forward at the finite nature of their surroundings. There can only be so many trees to chop down, birds to eat, fish to catch, etc.
Earth is itself a closed system, and you cannot exploit the available resources and expect science to control the equilibrium. The problem with tipping the scales is that at some point, a positive feedback loop develops and it takes a very long time (and probably a large number of species’ extinctions) for equilibrium to re-establish. To all the human induced global warming doubters, I’d suggest you learn to appreciate cockroaches. Once a cascade reaction starts (say methane hydrates bubble out from the sea floor or the permafrost under Siberia), the only thing left of human inpact would be those very roaches surviving on the junk food in your cupboard.

Anyone that stands up in the glare of the mainstream media and pronounces that there is no such thing as man-made environmental change is flying in the face of reality, and is either willfully ignorant, or criminaly dishonest.

First off everyone has something they consider important. Take for example the end off the earth as we know it. And that IS exactly what we are talking about. Now if you waste a single cent on that problem I’d say your acting quite irresponsably. And the main point in that argument was the fact that alot of CO2 was produced for something that was not meant to solve this dire problem. Oh by the way thank you for clearing up the fact that the didn’t send up the probe with a big bag of cash with a $ on it.

Second, and I think more importantly are the points that you chose to gloss right over. Every low-carbon energy form is vigorously opposed by some environmental group the instant it is proposed in any given area.

ie. Nuclear power. hmmm. When is the last time a reactor went on line in this country?

How about the wind farms off the coast of the Kennedy compound that Mr. Green himself Robert Kennedy jr. opposes. How about the wind farms in So Cal that were opposed because a bird may fly into it?

Don’t mistake my intent. I’m all for space exploration AND keeping our current standard of living. I’m just dubious when someone tells me how to live my life and they don’t change a thing in theirs. Do you get my point?

Whether or not you are ignorant I cannot say without more information, but I can say that you are rather rude.

Let’s see; you don’t know me, don’t know one thing about me, but you can deduce from one or two comments I have made that I am not a skeptic, but a denier, because I dare to express any doubt about AGW, and that I am ignorant.

When exactly did I deny that human activity generates CO2? When exactly did I claim that CO2 had NO effect on temperature? Look in vain, oh wise one, because I never did.

Your post only reenforces my point. No attempt to address questions, just name calling and dismissal.

While I understand the legitimate concern over hypocritical lack of personal actions while loudly vocalizing, I don’t agree with your particular example. For starters, your statement “money that is about to be shot out of our solar system” is so incredibly stupid it defies comprehension. What, did NASA load a big bag of cash and strap it to the probe? ALL the money spent on the New Horizons mission (and every other NASA mission) has been spent here on Earth. There may be some minimal amount of economic value tied up in the materials making up the space equipment that has been lost to space (parked on the moon, crashed into Venus or Mars, etc), but that is negligible compared to the value of the scientific knowledge gained. Any other economic expenses of the program are spent on Earth and continue to cycle in the economy.

As for the priority chosen of visiting Pluto and other KBOs vs. studying Earth more, there are plenty of important issues and balancing priorities is not easy. But we would be stupid to give up everything else until we solve this “one problem”, unless that one problem is so crucial to our species survival that failure is immediately detrimental. Plus, there’s the actual dollars spent vs what alternative they would accomplish. The New Horizons program budget including every dollar already spent and every dollar to ever be spent on the program will be spent in about a week in Iraq.

If you want to be called a skeptic you need to be able to understand the state of knowledge in a certain area. It is fine to be ignorant, as long you are open to learn.

“Global warming deniers”? Is that like “Holocaust deniers”? Nice loaded sideswipe, Phil.

Is this the way to do science? Name-calling and smearing anyone who dares disagree? I guess we’re only supposed to be skeptical about issues that Phil disagrees with…

I’ve just watched a short interview on TV, concerning GW and the likelihood that Ice-melt in the Antarctic, and also in the Arctic and Greenland, is happening faster than previously thought. This was espoused by the Director of the British Antarctic Survey, Dr Chris Rapley and shown on ABC TV, (Australian). At least this is topical, just a pity it is only a small item in the realm of things. But every little bit helps.

Where have I heard that before? Ahh yes, every little puff of CO2 helps to build up millions of tonnes of……..

Ivan.

If you want a good look at some of the immediate effects of the warming and some of the anti-science of the Bush administration then the video at the above link is well worth the watch

Now, I don’t really do these types of investigations, so I can’t comment too much on them. However, I can say that the one serious published shot at global warming I am familiar with is Lindzen’s IRIS hypothesis paper. If you have not heard of it, the IRIS hypothesis claims that an increase in temperature leads to increased precipitation efficiency in tropical convection, shrinking the size of storm anvils. High-level cirrus warms the planet, so a warming trend triggering a decrease in cirrus coverage should snuff itself out through enhanced radiative cooling. Lindzen was able to publish it for the world to read, despite claims of science suppression. Of course, the IRIS hypothesis was shot down quite brutally because of some highly questionable assumptions and methodology, but that’s another topic. My point is that the only recent substantial article challenging global warming I have seen wasn’t all that spectacular. That’s why I personally turn a critical eye to those claiming that there are swarms of rigorous papers floating around refuting mainstream climate science.

So, any other science-based things you want to discuss?

I see on the next post up that we just sent a probe to Pluto. How much co2 was released into our atmosphere in the construction and launch of that? That thing is going to look at a chunk of ice billions of miles away. If NASA was so worried about the end of the earth due to GW, how about taking that money that is about to be shot out of our solar system and making a probe that looks at the earth? Better still how about a few thousand thermometers stuck around the earth? That comes from someone who has a limited budget and sticks to it.

Will any of you be the first in line to get that nuke plant in your area?

How about giving money to the companies to fight the lawsuits over wind farms?

I’d have alot easier time believing in GW if the same people who are constantly shouting about it from the mountain tops would stop doing so much to stop solutions that are available now.