We don’t say this enough in science: holy shit!
A meteor that exploded over Russia this morning was the largest recorded object to strike the Earth in more than a century, scientists say. Infrasound data collected by a network designed to watch for nuclear weapons testing suggests that today’s blast released hundreds of kilotonnes of energy. That would make it far more powerful than the nuclear weapon tested by North Korea just days ago and the largest rock crashing onto the planet since a meteor broke up over Siberia’s Tunguska river in 1908.
“It was a very, very powerful event,” says Margaret Campbell-Brown, an astronomer at the University of Western Ontario in London, Canada, who has studied data from two infrasound stations near the impact site. Her calculations show that the meteoroid was approximately 15 metres across when it entered the atmosphere, and put its mass at around 7,000 metric tonnes. “That would make it the biggest object recorded to hit the Earth since Tunguska,” she says.
Click through, my friends. There’s video of the meteor lighting up the sky and more video of the shockwave that shattered windows and injured over a thousand people. This likely happens fairly often (every few years or so) but is usually over areas that are uninhabited or covered in water. This ia also unusually well-documented because of the ubiquitous use of dash cams in Russia (a response to horrific traffic accident rates).
Much more from Phil Plait. There are the usual calls for more funding for research but part of that may already be underway with the private space mining consortium springing up.
We live in a dangerous universe. Occasionally, it reminds us.
94 comments
No ping yet
West Virginia Rebel says:
February 15, 2013 7:36 pm at 7:36 pm (UTC -4)
Bruce Willis couldn’t be reached for comment…
West Virginia Rebel recently posted..Falling Skies
HARLEY says:
February 15, 2013 8:41 pm at 8:41 pm (UTC -4)
One could hope that this might open some eyes, and kick us from space exploration to space colonization…
We can not keep our eggs all in one basket.
Miguelito says:
February 15, 2013 9:02 pm at 9:02 pm (UTC -4)
I find the timing somewhat ironic. There’s been all this talk about the asteroid passing so close by today, yet this was a pretty decent size and came in without any warning (at least I haven’t heard that anyone saw it coming).
Hal_10000 says:
February 15, 2013 9:19 pm at 9:19 pm (UTC -4)
No warning, miguelito. Rocks this size are very common and it would take an enormous effort to catalog even a significant majority in them. Spaceguard has been doing this for over a decade but it’s not quite organized enough. One of the first step of the space-mining proposal would be to orbit a fleet of telescopes to catalog lots of asteroids. it would be a big help.
HARLEY says:
February 15, 2013 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm (UTC -4)
it came in on a totally different vector than DA14……..
Hal_10000 says:
February 16, 2013 5:41 am at 5:41 am (UTC -4)
Out of the sun, like the red baron. That’s the possibility that scares the shit out of me. That we’ll get a planet killer with almost no warning. Sometimes think we should do the Arthur C. Clark thing and set off a gigaton nuke opposite earth’s orbit and used the rebounding shock waves to map everything in the solar system.
HARLEY says:
February 16, 2013 9:58 am at 9:58 am (UTC -4)
Shock wave? you talking about reading reaction to xrays or partial density off a blast?, Never hear of that one…
We really do need more funding for spacewatch, maybe this will kick that in higher gear, or at lest give the two new asteroid mining startups some real investments.
CM says:
February 16, 2013 6:58 pm at 6:58 pm (UTC -4)
Can’t they be privately funded?
Hal_10000 says:
February 17, 2013 4:51 am at 4:51 am (UTC -4)
Asteroid defense is pretty much the definition of a public good.
HARLEY says:
February 17, 2013 10:33 am at 10:33 am (UTC -4)
It is partly, private donations and a foundation, DARPA, NASA….
AlexInCT says:
February 17, 2013 12:49 pm at 12:49 pm (UTC -4)
I don’t know, but I bete they would do a much better job if they where not related to government. look at what has happened to NASA since the late 70s. Government funded used to mean good things back when, these days, it means exactly the opposite.
CM says:
February 17, 2013 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Iconoclast says:
February 17, 2013 3:34 pm at 3:34 pm (UTC -4)
Well, if an asteroid does decide to collide with us and wipe out all life on this ball of dirt, it absolutely will not be because I choose to drive a BMW Z3 instead of an f-ing Prius or Chevy Volt. Nor will it be because I choose to set my thermostat at 70 degrees in the winter and 80 in the heat of summertime. Buying BS “carbon credits” won’t stave off that asteroid, either.
AGW, on the other hand, is pure bullshit from top to bottom. Sure, the Mother Gaia’s temperature may fluctuate, and sure, my utterly evil beemer might be contributing, but there is no reason for me to take seriously the notion that I must give up my 21st Century lifestyle lest we all go up in a puff of smoke. I refuse to believe that my “carbon footprint” is stomping on anyone or anything. If you want to bellyache, go to the Chinese or the Russians — they are far more offensive to Mother Gaia than we redneck Yanks could ever hope to be.
Iconoclast says:
February 17, 2013 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm (UTC -4)
Cue all the bullshit “studies” that “prove” me wrong…
HARLEY says:
February 17, 2013 5:09 pm at 5:09 pm (UTC -4)
The Gov, special interest groups, ect, cant force me to change my life style, based on the very real threat of a tiny rock can have on our massive planet. For a change the same groups can actually provide a real benefits and spinoffs for civilization, with out stepping all over a persons right , freedoms or life style./.
CM says:
February 17, 2013 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
CM says:
February 17, 2013 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm (UTC -4)
But how does that mean that combatting and mitigating for climate change isn’t a public good? Surely whether it is or not isn’t relevant to whether you might need to change your lifestyle or not?
Hot!
2 
8
Xetrov says:
February 17, 2013 5:43 pm at 5:43 pm (UTC -4)
Meteors cause Global Warming?
HARLEY says:
February 17, 2013 5:52 pm at 5:52 pm (UTC -4)
If they are big enough, and then later cause cooling as the dust blocks sunlight.
Climate change advocates demand more and more government control of personal actions, Asteroid detection and defense, does not require change in my personal actions.
CM says:
February 17, 2013 6:09 pm at 6:09 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hal_10000 says:
February 17, 2013 8:05 pm at 8:05 pm (UTC -4)
CM, I agree that protecting the environment is also a public good in certain circumstances. Cleaning up auto exhaust for example. As PJ ORourke pointed out, it would be silly to run through traffic suing everyone. Cleaning up the air and rivers also since pollution is often a concentrated gain and a public harm.
On AGW, I think the public good angle is funding basic research. Others have argued for a carbon tax. My main beef with AGW policy is that I think a lot of it will be ineffective, not that I think the government doesn’t have a role in protecting the environment.
hist_ed says:
February 17, 2013 8:08 pm at 8:08 pm (UTC -4)
Hey CM, a question for ya’: The last projections I have looked at said that by 2050 the Chinese will emit about 4 times as much CO2 as the US and that India will emit about 2.5 times. The Chicoms don’t give a rat’s ass about global warming. The Indians think lifting a billion people out of poverty is more important that global warming. Short of war, blockade, or a global boycott of both countries’ goods, there is really nothing that the US, the EU or other countries can do to change those countries’ policies. What is the solution, then? Do we nuke China to save the world?
CM says:
February 17, 2013 8:38 pm at 8:38 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Mook says:
February 17, 2013 9:04 pm at 9:04 pm (UTC -4)
It’s nothing of the sort. It’s an attempt at a political power grab based on dubious science, not a “failure” of the markets. Your assertion is laughable.. There is no definitive cause and effect between CO2 emissions and global temperature change. CO2 is the same substance used by plants in photosynthesis. Unproven cause and effect of CO2 resulting in politicians demanding massive costs to be paid by mostly western countries
CM says:
February 17, 2013 9:44 pm at 9:44 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
CM says:
February 17, 2013 9:47 pm at 9:47 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Iconoclast says:
February 17, 2013 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm (UTC -4)
Not what I said…
Non sequitur.
Great comeback, Potsie.
Au contraire. The hucksters that keep telling me “the science is settled”, “we must do something before it’s too late” and so forth I perceive to be a threat to my well-being, and I take that threat very seriously.
Nope. Swallowing a proverbial camel while straining on a proverbial gnat is.
Clearly. To steal a Will Smith line from “I, Robot”: “Sorry — I’m allergic to bullshit.”
Your problem, not mine. The point you insist on dodging is that they are doing far more alleged damage than the USA, rendering anything the USA could do utterly ineffective anyway. Assuming the “problem” to be genuine, for the sake of argument.
Umm, no. Being skeptical of “science” that tells me I have to go back to an 18th Century lifestyle lest we destroy the planet has little to do with “political philosophy”.
I DO deny the quality of the science. I see it as politically-driven, and you have yet to offer a convincing argument to the contrary.
A litmus test of their gullibility, yes.
You have yet to show that there really is a “cliff” to “run off”. That is the point.
Assuming you’re on the level, heads of state can “talk” all they want. When they start telling me how to live, what freedoms I must give up “for the greater good”, then yes, my “button” gets “pressed”, and I don’t give a damn who that offends.
So their emissions are going to increase until then? 2030 is still more than a decade and a half away. What incentive do I have to sacrifice my lifestyle, when any such sacrifice would likely be negated anyway?
As I said, people can TALK all they want…
What the hell is “morality”, anyway? It’s interesting that leftists always claim that their way is the “moral” way, the obvious implication being that even to disagree with their bad-ass selves would be “immoral”.
More importantly, where is the incentive for me to buy into all this AGW crap in the first place?
CM says:
February 18, 2013 1:42 am at 1:42 am (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Xetrov says:
February 18, 2013 9:02 am at 9:02 am (UTC -4)
So, about them Meteors attacking…
Iconoclast says:
February 18, 2013 12:13 pm at 12:13 pm (UTC -4)
Rather than fisk your talking points one by one, I’ll simply remind you that you asked what made “asteroid watch” different from AGW, and I told you — AGW proponents point to things like agriculture and fossil fuels — the trappings of modern-day western civilization, IOW — as the culprit to their imagined problem, and seek to curtail said trappings. This simply doesn’t occur with asteroid watch. An asteroid doesn’t give a care what kind of car I drive, but the AGW apologists incessantly wring their hands over how I choose to live my life.
That is the difference.
I don’t expect to convince you of anything, and I certainly don’t expect you to respect my viewpoint, but things like this make me very skeptical:
I can find dozens of such statements, but none of them will make you budge one iota. You go ahead and pretend that you’ve researched it to the best of your ability and actually understand the issues and the science, and I’ll continue to see this as primarily a political, ideological movement that is simpy masquerading as “science”.
In the mean time, this thread is about asteroids, not AGW.
CM says:
February 18, 2013 4:13 pm at 4:13 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
CM says:
February 18, 2013 8:59 pm at 8:59 pm (UTC -4)
Cool interective map
stogy says:
February 19, 2013 2:24 am at 2:24 am (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
stogy says:
February 19, 2013 2:32 am at 2:32 am (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dave D says:
February 19, 2013 1:07 pm at 1:07 pm (UTC -4)
Stogy: Your ability to do an “unbiased” and “critical” review of AGW in any shape or form is highly questionable. Almost as doubful as CW, who is a true acolyte to the faith. I am a scientist and work with TONS of scientists that doubt the mechanism and contribution of AGW to any real global warming. The globe may be warming for many reasons. Most of us just don’t want to trash western capitalism just to attempt marginal “solutions”. My neighbor is a PhD meteorologist and he has doubts. Collectivist just can’t look at this objectively. Sorry. Not interested in your views on this.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 3:09 pm at 3:09 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 3:46 pm at 3:46 pm (UTC -4)
CM:
stogy:
Well, kids, what we have here are examples of what I like to call “self-serving bullshit”…
I have grown quite weary of liberal do-gooders — people who want to take away my freedoms and liberties by giving Big Government as much power as possible to meddle in my private life — telling me how “open-minded”, “educated” and “knowledgeable” they are on a given topic, the obvious pretense being that those of us who are uppity enough to disagree must be “closed-minded”, “uneducated” and/or “ignorant”. And when I respond accordingly, I get charming feedback such as this:
Frankly, replies such as that remind me of the smell of napalm in the morning…
The Truth about Skeptical Science
Here is a fairly thorough fisking of the web site’s talking points.
Of course, it goes without saying that this won’t convince our resident True Believers such as CM and stogy — they’re self-proclaimed experts, after all, and no doubt have a barrage of countering links locked and loaded, ready to fire on command, and thus demonstrating just how “open-minded” they are. No, this is simply for the benefit of lurkers.
And this thread is still supposed to be about asteroids and/or meteors.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 4:18 pm at 4:18 pm (UTC -4)
You insufferable twit, the reason I deliberately chose not to get into a detailed fisking was to try and avoid the ire of one JimK over the hijacking of yet another thread into an endless AGW circle-jerk. I specifically tried to get the discussion back on topic by reiterating my initial response to your question about the difference between asteroid watch and AGW, but, being the stubborn twit to appear to be, you couldn’t just accept my explanation, but had to dive right back into your AGW nonsense.
This is NOT an AGW thread, and we’re not interested in your AGW pontificating.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 4:20 pm at 4:20 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 4:32 pm at 4:32 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 5:13 pm at 5:13 pm (UTC -4)
The notion that we have to “do something” to “fix” it is NOT a public good. It’s potentially a path to tyranny. The idea that it’s “broken” because of man, and must therefore be “fixed” is the pure bullshit part. The “A” in “AGW’ does stand for “anthropogenic”, after all, and that is what I call “bullshit from top to bottom”. Not “global warming” or “climate change”, but the “anthopogenic” part.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm (UTC -4)
Oh, and a valid reason is not an “excuse”.
stogy says:
February 19, 2013 7:19 pm at 7:19 pm (UTC -4)
I want a climate change thread. Bring it on!
Hal_10000 says:
February 19, 2013 7:40 pm at 7:40 pm (UTC -4)
Ugh, this again?
Xetrov says:
February 19, 2013 7:44 pm at 7:44 pm (UTC -4)
I have seen your future. And still no one will change their minds.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 8:04 pm at 8:04 pm (UTC -4)
As I keep saying, whether something can or should be done is irrelevant to determining whether it’s a public good or not. It’s an different discussion.
Sure. But that’s not relevant to whether it’s a ‘public good’ or not.
For someone who won’t accept the science because it’s too mixed in with politics, you are determined to do the same thing yourself.
Why is it bullshit? What else explains the warming? And how do you explain historical warming if CO2 wasn’t relevant?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/its-not-us-advanced.htm
I started reading your SPPI link. The main ‘counter-point’ made in the first climate myth (“It’s the sun”) claims that Cook ignore indirect effects from solar activity. Even though in the opening paragraph of that entry:
“The Sun has both direct and indirect influences over the Earth’s temperature”.
That took all of 12 seconds to debunk.
Yep, it’s the Voldemort of topics. You know it Hal.
Nobody on the left here has the power to start an AGW thread, and if it rears it’s ugly head in another thread all of a sudden all these standards of ‘topic changing’ are applied, even though that happens constantly.
“Shut it down, shut it down”.
It would be hilarious if it wasn’t so sad.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 8:07 pm at 8:07 pm (UTC -4)
Not the point.
Section8 says:
February 19, 2013 8:29 pm at 8:29 pm (UTC -4)
I so wish a meteor would hit this thread. That would be the best public good ever.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 8:32 pm at 8:32 pm (UTC -4)
;-)
You do provide further evidence of my point though. You’d bend over backwards to avoid ANY discussion of this topic. For some reason massive global subsidisation is the only way to go. Costs certainly shouldn’t be allocated appropriately. On all other matters, the exact opposite should apply.
Section8 says:
February 19, 2013 8:46 pm at 8:46 pm (UTC -4)
Who me? It’s more of a matter of not wanting to piss away the night playing or watching a game of stalemate, and to top it of it’s not just watching a new version, but the same version for the 100th time. Now if you’ll excuse I have to head back into the basement. I have some drywall mud I have to keep an eye on. I will thank all of you, however, for renewing my interest in drywall mud as I really need to get my project done.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 8:48 pm at 8:48 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 8:52 pm at 8:52 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hal_10000 says:
February 19, 2013 10:26 pm at 10:26 pm (UTC -4)
I’m always considered a lefty on this subject. :)
CM says:
February 19, 2013 10:30 pm at 10:30 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Hal_10000 says:
February 19, 2013 10:30 pm at 10:30 pm (UTC -4)
Incidentally, I just read Nate Silver’s book, where he talks about global warming. One of the interest parts is that he points out just using CO2 levels to predict temperatures linearly is only slightly less accurate than the models (and more accurate then the early 90′s versions). The interesting thing is that the answer is now converging toward the real skeptics like Bailey, who’ve been saying 0.15 C per decade.
CM says:
February 19, 2013 10:31 pm at 10:31 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm (UTC -4)
So you simply hijack any thread you can, because you have some sort of fetish for the topic. Which begs the question, who the fuck are you to dictate what is discussed on this blog? You want to yammer on incessantly about AGW?? There are blogs out there that specialize on the topic — go find one and pour your ever-loving guts out. Don’t worry your pretty little head over our apathy toward the issue. Go find an AGW-friendly circle-jerk blog and cry on their shoulder over how evil and selfish we are for not believing the latest Chicken Little prognostications from the “scientific” community.
Iconoclast says:
February 19, 2013 11:37 pm at 11:37 pm (UTC -4)
Well, it was absolutely true when it was written, back in March of 2010. There were no “intermediate” and “advanced” tabs on Skeptical Science back then, as a trip through the Wayback Machine can easily prove.
The guy who wrote the rebuttal has a life, and hasn’t made it his life’s mission to slavishly follow after Cook and continually refute his nonsense. It doesn’t diminish the observatin that Skeptical Science is an alarmist web site.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 2:12 am at 2:12 am (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
stogy says:
February 20, 2013 3:15 am at 3:15 am (UTC -4)
heh…! At least I had the courtesy to ask!
Last time I was involved in a climate change discussion here, Alex used the argument that it was warming on Mars, so therefore climate change was bunk (an argument disproved by his own link). He also use the old chestnut that climate change theory was at odds with the 2nd law of thermodynamics, proving only that he understood neither climate change nor the laws of thermodynamics. Surprising for someone with his scientific credentials and all.
Absolutely no one here corrected him. Challenged him. Asked him to justify his arguments. Or supported me when I asked him to do the same. These were bad arguments, not backed by evidence or reason. It was unbelievably pathetic. There are better arguments – climate sensitivity, misjudging the effects of forcings, and forecast confidence.
And it was not only that no one here looked like being able to assemble an intelligible argument at the time, but that you weren’t willing to shoot down bad ones that agreed with your own point of view that I quit coming here for about two years. It was pretty saddening that “right-thinking” didn’t appear to involve any actual…. you know… thinking! I was pretty angry that this was Lee’s legacy. Fingers in ears, lalalala. He challenged me more than any other political commentator ever had – and a lot of my views and ideas about the world changed, and yeah, I became a lot more libertarian and less left. And watching how he gave it back to diehard Republicans with both barrels (“you can’t blame a liberal for acting like a liberal, but…”), simply because he couldn’t stand lazy thinking (apart from when he was drunk), was fascinating. I learned a lot.
You’ll be relieved to know that I don’t plan to make the mistake of quitting again any time soon. I doubt any of you will change your minds on global climate change, but at least you might be able to assemble some intelligent arguments.
There are significant voices on the right who have already accepted the overwhelming evidence the climate change is happening. Conservative, libertarian voices are necessary to make sure that stupid policies are not implemented that will do nothing to improve the environment, and pull the rug out from under the economy.
I don’t think either CM or I actually support collectivist solutions. I do support slight gaming of the system to encourage free market solutions – tax incentives to support encouraging the development of alternatives to fossil fuels. regulations and additional incentives to encourage retrofitting.
No one is asking you to give up your iPads or live in a cave.
stogy says:
February 20, 2013 3:39 am at 3:39 am (UTC -4)
There’s a reasonable review and discussion of the chapter on Skeptical Science for anyone who doesn’t want to buy the book.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 4:35 am at 4:35 am (UTC -4)
Just read that chapter. Predictably excellent.
Stogy, your post above hit on many good points too. Some intelligent arguments would be nice, at least something to support the strong general opinion that it’s all bullshit. But as you’d see if checked out Xetrov’s “I have seen your future” link, I failed to get anything resembling ‘thinking’ out of that lot. I was hoping someone might take up the challenge here. Seriously, dive into a random page or two and weep.
That one is 80 odd pages, I think there is another one but 50 pages. Woeful stuff.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 4:43 am at 4:43 am (UTC -4)
Mann wasn’t too happy with the chapter!
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-e-mann/nate-silver-climate-change_b_1909482.html
Iconoclast says:
February 20, 2013 9:13 am at 9:13 am (UTC -4)
Global Warming Petition Project
I’m sure you and stogy can patiently explain to us neanderthals how you two are right and the 30-odd thousand scientists who signed this petition are wrong…
Iconoclast says:
February 20, 2013 9:56 am at 9:56 am (UTC -4)
Nope. You brought climate change into this discussion, not me. I merely responded to your question. That you didn’tlike the response is both to be expected and utterly inconsequential. Furthermore, if it were truly an “irrelevant rant” as you assert, you could have just ignored it for the “irrelevant rant” that it allegedly was. But you responded to it, thereby making it relevant, assuming it was irrelevant previously.
The only thing I am attempting to “dictate” is keeping the discussion on topic, which is meteors, not AGW. I am not fairing very well, obviously.
It ain’t for a lack of trying. After all, the discussion does indeed appear to be AGW, still.
Hey, you are the one moaning and groaning over the lack of AGW discussions in this venue, and you clearly seem to want to discuss it, for whatever reason. I am just providing you with some friendly suggestions as to where you can vent your desires, that’s all. If you’d rather remain here and be frustrated as you tilt at AGW windmills, by all means, don’t let me stop you.
Actually, it is, your denial notwithstanding.
Then find an anti-AGW site then. Whatever floats your boat. The point is, for better or worse, AGW is simply not considered a fruitful topic here, by all indications, and wringing your hands over that observation simply isn’t productive. Yammering, “Shut it down, shut it down” over and over again may be cathartic for you, but it rudely misses the point: This simply isn’t (wasn’t, it apparently is now) an AGW discussion.
Section8 says:
February 20, 2013 11:38 am at 11:38 am (UTC -4)
And this is why you post at many leftist sites correct? Because after all you’re not a leftist, so it would make sense you would post on sites where you don’t agree with the aggregate of the audience.
Here’s my take on the whole thing.
1) Climate Change is not the only science out there, yet for the left that seems to be the case. Take a discussion on meteors for example. The label anti science is used for anyone that doesn’t hop on board and subscribe to any doomsday climate change model. The entire debate in general begins with an insult.
2) When someone claims the left say the “science is settled”, they’re mocked since it’s supposedly not settled, but then if you don’t think it is settled, you’re part of the conspiracy theory crowd.
3) Models are not perfect. They are a prediction of the future based on knowledge on hand at the time. How much FAITH we put into them should definitely be up for debate considering the cost of the “cure” for these predictions.
4) The US and Exxon and are not holding back any innovation. If some country has an engine that runs on water and emits water, by all means put it on the market. If not, go invent one. Point being, combustible engines are not a market failure, it’s about the best we can do at the moment given technology. If you have a better way, no one is holding you back.
5) The science of climate change is of interest to the left because it can be used as a crisis to promote control and wealth distribution. Meteorites don’t have a group or country that can be targeted for retribution or social justice, and you can see the interest in discussing a possible need to defend against such devastation goes out the window regardless of how dangerous they can be even if remotely dangerous.
6) Is the world warming? It looks like it has. Will it continue? Don’t know. Was some of it due to man? Quite possibly. Are all effects of it a guaranteed negative? Absolutely not. Should citizens of counties who lose sleep at night over this invent a non combustible engine to save us all. Absolutely. Now get to work. I can assure you if it works and reasonably priced, anyone who can afford it will buy it.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 2:56 pm at 2:56 pm (UTC -4)
Being that climate is another example of a public good.
You merely did no such thing. You went off into the consequences of taking action to combat/mitigate climate change and effects. There was no need to. Accepting that the climate is a ‘public good’ does not necessitate a discussion about merits of action.
You’re right, my subsequent response was utterly inconsequential.
Whether I ignored it or not is irrelevant to whether climate is a public good, or the fact that you decided to make this into a discussion about how it’s all bullshit from top to bottom.
See above.
Nobody is stopping you talking about meteors. Knock yourself out. Hopefully it will stop you being so disingenuous.
Yes, the problem is me pointing it out, not the fact that most of you run away and hide when the topic comes up, or when it gets down to supporting the accusations/insinuations. Riiiiiiiiight. Good one.
Well I guess I should say thanks for all the friendliness then.
Nonsense. People don’t say things like “bullshit from top to bottom” when they’re apathetic about something. They don’t go out of their way to invest so much faith into such unlikely and implausible scenarios.
Found plenty.
I wasn’t attempting to be ‘productive’. Just calling you all out. No different to what you and others attempt to do regularly.
It never is. Which is EXACTLY my point. Whenever it starts up, people clamber over each other to shut it down as soon as possible. If everyone here was on the right, it would be like climate change never existed. “Ignore it and it’ll go away”
CM says:
February 20, 2013 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm (UTC -4)
Hahahaha, nice try. But we weren’t talking about leftist sites, it was specific to this subject.
Thanks for posting your other comments (they look quite ‘productive’). I don’t have time now but I’d like to respond to them later when I do get a chance.
Hal_10000 says:
February 20, 2013 4:47 pm at 4:47 pm (UTC -4)
I read that and I think that Mann’s criticism was off base. He seemed to mostly have his boxers in a bunch because SIlver consulted a climate skeptic Mann doesn’t like. I found Silver’s treatment of the subject very fair and I think did a good job of explaining both the limits of climate models and the inaccuracy of many of the criticisms.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 6:52 pm at 6:52 pm (UTC -4)
Silver then tweeted about his frustration over Mann’s comments, and Mann tweeted him in response. Awesome how we can be privvy to all this.
CM says:
February 20, 2013 7:33 pm at 7:33 pm (UTC -4)
Not sure I understand this. Obviously I can’t speak for anyone else, but who on the left pretends it’s the “only science out there”? Of course there is a shitload of science involved in meteors (and possible impacts etc) but is there a group of people denying the science because they believe it’s ALL political?
I agree, it seems very difficult to have any sort of discussion about any of this, good faith is hardly ever extended. Anyone who doesn’t automatically reject all the science is automatically deemed a “collectivist”, and that’s putting it nicely. In this case it was Iconoclast that came right out of the gate in super-aggressive “fuck you” mode (which I seem to get immediately, everytime, now), and then suggesting that I’m pretending to have researched it to the best of my ability (“and actually understand the issues and the science”). If that’s displaying extreme bad faith, I don’t know what is.
The reason they are mocked is because “the science is settled” is such a bullshit denier meme.
Some of it is settled (the planet is warming, we’re largely responsible), and that’s what Gore was referring to. Unfortunately, it’s never used in that context. It’s misused, just like ‘consensus’. Silver talks about both of these in his chapter.
Models certainly aren’t perfect. I’ve never seen a climate scientist say anything close to that. However some people seem to take the approach that because they aren’t perfect, they should be eliminated. Which is ludicrous.
Models are only one tool used to forecast what might happen. Even if they were eliminated, we’d still have a good idea because we know what happened in the past. People don’t seem to realise that. They seem to think that if they can get rid of the models, the scientists will have to throw their hands and say “well, now we’re not sure at all”.
As stogy said, the accuracy of models is one area of uncertainty. However people seem to miss the point about what that uncertainty actually means.
Given the significant adverse consequences of climate change, it’s a hell of a risk to just assume someone will invent something to sort it all out. And of course if even we stopped pumping CO2 into the atmosphere tomorrow, we’ve still got decades of warming already in the pipeline. We’ve already banked a whole heap warming. What we’re talking about is how much more we’re going to have to cope with.
Combustible engines are not a market failure, but the inability of the market to correctly allocate costs is a significant market failure. The market provides no incentive to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. Why some people on the right want to staunchly protect this massive market failure, and continue to fight for the largest subsidisation system the world has ever known (at such huge cost to everyone, but mostly those that don’t get the benefits of the subsidisation), is beyond me. It seems completely contrary to what they argue about everything else.
5) The science of climate change is of interest to the left because it can be used as a crisis to promote control and wealth distribution. Meteorites don’t have a group or country that can be targeted for retribution or social justice, and you can see the interest in discussing a possible need to defend against such devastation goes out the window regardless of how dangerous they can be even if remotely dangerous.
6) Is the world warming? It looks like it has. Will it continue? Don’t know. Was some of it due to man? Quite possibly. Are all effects of it a guaranteed negative? Absolutely not. Should citizens of counties who lose sleep at night over this invent a non combustible engine to save us all. Absolutely. Now get to work. I can assure you if it works and reasonably priced, anyone who can afford it will buy it.
I can think of all the people I personally know on the left that are interested in climate science, and not one of them is interested in “control and wealth distribution”. I certainly don’t want that as a goal. Why cannot I just be concerned about what all the science tells us, and what it means for my grandkids etc?
Where is there any argument when it comes to meteorites? Who opposes the need to defend against them? Interest in a discussion is usually generated by differing viewpoints.
The difference is – we may not get hit by a large enough meteorite for a thousand years. Or even longer. But we KNOW what’s coming with climate change. Not in exact detail, but certainly enough to start making some decisions about it.
But we do know, and as Nate says in his chapter “its not rocket science”. It’s fairly simple physics. As the concentrations of greenhouse gases continue to increase in our atmosphere, the greenhouse effect is intensified, and the earth continues to heat up. That’s not even remotely controversial. We’ve known it for a long time.
More than quite possibly – we can assess the CO2 and determine the human fingerprint.
And I’ve never seen a scientist claim anything else. However:
(1) The negatives would seem to far far outweigh the positives (and in some parts of the world, there will only be negatives)
(2) All significant changes will mean significant changes to how we live. Why would we want to do that if we can avoid it?
Right, but can you tell me when that will happen? Can you promise that it’ll happen in the next couple of decades?
Hot!
2 
8
CM says:
February 20, 2013 7:37 pm at 7:37 pm (UTC -4)
Positives v negatives
Section8 says:
February 20, 2013 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm (UTC -4)
Isn’t that man made global warming in a nutshell? It’s not settled except for the part that it’s warming and man is responsible for it? Either it is or it isn’t. Pick one.
What’s going to happen in the next couple of decades? Are we all going to die? That would be quite a market incentive to come up with something if you ask me.
Correctly allocate cost to what? Do the we’re all gonna die crowd have empty pockets? I don’t know, it seems like there are plenty of left wingers with all kinds of cash. Like say Turner, Gore, or any exec over at Google. Maybe write them letters and tell them to spend less time flying around in private jets and put more money into a cost effective clean machine. Or maybe NZ can lead the way. There isn’t one person on the right here would say we’d need to put a stop alternative research done by anyone as long as it’s not part of the tax and control piece the the left rely on (and why they love climate science). Not one. Not Alex, not Iconoclast, not me, no one. As far as subsidies, I’m not for them regardless of the industry it benefits, but I’m not for the taxing and penalties either.
Or it could be 2 years from now and no way to stop it. Admittedly I will agree that’s extremely remote and not worthy of getting into a panic over. There are a lot less variables though in the mix of what would happen getting hit by a large meteor as opposed to climate change. Also the effects would be devastating immediately without having time to react or prepare.
I’ll just say I don’t buy that for a bit. That ranks up there with saying guys in frat houses generally have no interest in pussy.
Anyhow, this well be my last post on the matter. You can claim you win and walk away with whatever virtual trophy you just won. But based on seeing these threads over and over again none of us are walking away from this any different than we did walking in.
Mississippi Yankee says:
February 20, 2013 10:18 pm at 10:18 pm (UTC -4)
Not to interrupt on ya’lls perfect circle jerk but…
Why is the temperature rising on Venus, Mars and Jupiter too?
Izzit Booosh’s fault?
CM says:
February 20, 2013 11:52 pm at 11:52 pm (UTC -4)
Those aspects are not in dispute. What isn’t “settled” is the exact ongoing rate of change (it isn’t linear, we aren’t exactly sure about how significant the feedbacks will be, or where ‘runaway’ warming will happen). And that will determine the effects, so naturally we’re also not 100% sure about that.
But, and this is what is so often misrepresented, these uncertainties aren’t about the difference between no climate change and extreme climate change, they’re just about how long we have before it gets real bad.
In the next couple of decades we’ll be adding more warming for later on. It might be the difference between being able to arrest the warming at 2 degrees, or 4 degrees. A planet 4 degrees warmer will be like an entirely different planet. Vast areas will be uninhabitable.
But still, because the effects are quite minor now (relative t what’s coming), the market doesn’t account for it at all. This is not something that the market can deal with.
Allocate the costs of greenhouse gas emissions. The costs to the climate. The costs of what climate change result in. Our industrial development has been heavily subsidised, and now we (as in the entire planet, including those in countries yet to ‘develop’) are looking down the barrel at the costs of that development. But even though we know now that industrial development (and running developed economies) does result in these costs, many people on the right still fight tooth and nail for those costs to be ignored (let alone allocated appropriately).
Calling them the “we’re all gonna die crowd” suggests you’re one of those who want to keep ignoring the costs, and keep free-riding. We’re not “all gonna die”. Saying so is the same as pointing your fingers in your ears.
Thing is, this is a problem we ALL have to deal with. It’s a global problem. Unless it’s dealt with globally, it’s going to lead to a free-rider problem.
Certain individuals flying less would be good, but it’s not going to come anywhere close to making a difference. That’s a symbolic argument.
Tax and control – ah, you mean attempting to allocate costs using a free market model?
You’re continuing in bad faith if you keep repeating “they love climate science”. Again, that’s just putting your fingers in your ears.
You wouldn’t say you need to put a stop to alternative research? I don’t understand that. Why would you anyway? You make it sound like someone would need to be thankful about that. Huh?
You benefit significantly from two centuries of subsidised industrial development. And you sound like you absolutely want to continue to benefit from that continued subsidy, despite the costs that will need to be borne later. Why? Because it’s ‘hidden’. Well it WAS hidden, but it isn’t now.
Taking action on climate change is just sensible and basic risk management. The longer we leave it, the fewer options we have. If you’re worried about sudden changes to the way we live, then let’s get started slowly, and absorb the costs over a longer period. If we leave it, the costs will be higher, and the period over which we need to bear the costs will be shorter. To do nothing, given the understanding we have, is simply irrational.
Insurance companies are already factoring in climate change risk in their calculations. As are other financial institutions. Not because they’re “collectivists”. Quite the opposite – they’re have a vested interest in being at the forefront of knowing what is going to happen.
I’ll just say I don’t buy that for a bit. That ranks up there with saying guys in frat houses generally have no interest in pussy.
Fine. Then we simply cannot have a discussion in good faith. Which is exactly what I always find. Apparently just being concerned at what is happening to the planet, and what it will be like for my grandkids, and their kids etc, is not acceptable. To me, that’s just bizarre.
But if you’ve got yourself into a situation where you can ONLY engage on this in bad faith, then there’s obviously nothing I or anyone else can do about it. Just don’t be surprised when decisions start getting made without you at the table.
Yeah, that was a standard tactic at MW forums too.
Given that I don’t think you understood half of what I posted, and with the whole bad faith thing (which means the ‘discussion’ is over before it begins) that’s not a surprise at all. Although where have you seen “these threads” “over and over again”? Not at this blog, that’s for sure. I’ve been here for like 15 months and there are maybe 2?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-other-planets-solar-system.htm
First of all, it’s not “me” that’s right, I’m pointing to the huge body of science on the subject. Massive massive difference.
Second:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
Wow Iconoclast, you’re seemingly just willing to swallow ANYTHING on this topic. How ironic that you say that it’s ME who has “pretended” to do any research. Putting up that petition is about as weak and lame as it gets.
stogy says:
February 21, 2013 2:37 pm at 2:37 pm (UTC -4)
Damn! Sorry I am missing this. I am doing consultancy work at the moment, which means when there is work, there really is work.
I see the “30,00 scientists” petition thing came up again. I am really really lame. It has been discredited for years – and many of the real scientists on it have been trying to get their names taken off it forever. Thanks for linking to a takedown, CM.
There’s a really funny guy on the climate blogs called Poptech, who has a HUUUUUUUGE list of articles questioning climate science. Only thing is, once you look at the articles, almost none of them question the climate science. He has even included at least one paper where the projections were revised…. upwards! as being a paper that questions the science. But he trots out the “list” at every opportunity, and won’t even let the authors of the papers tell him he can’t use their work this way. This is the level of “fake scepticism” we are dealing with.
There’s also the magnificent Lord Monckton, well known to you all for his cures for HIV and the common cold, who was reprimanded by the British Parliament for saying he was from the house of Lords, who tours the world spouting off whatever coal magnate is sponsoring him wants him to say. He sounds so good when he’s in full flight. But then once you actually look at what he said, there is a ton of shaky misrepresentations of the science coupled with accusations of ad hominems (that didn’t actually happen at all). Did I mention he was thrown out of Doha for dressing up as an Arab and stealing someone else’s place at the recent climate talks? Oh what a fantastic crew you sceptics have!
For some better quality blog science climate change articles, I would direct you all to <a href="Denial Depot which is really becoming the go to source for everything climate related for fake sceptics. Dr Inferno is true a god among men.
CM, do you read Tamino? As a practicing climate statistician with a commitment to exposing the egregious use of stats to prove anything at all, he does it really well.
CM says:
February 21, 2013 2:45 pm at 2:45 pm (UTC -4)
;-)
CM says:
February 21, 2013 2:52 pm at 2:52 pm (UTC -4)
Yes, Denial Depot is very good, and yes have been reading (and doing my best to understand) Tamino for a few years now.
Don’t forget this pearler:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kevin-grandia/the-30000-global-warming_b_243092.html
stogy says:
February 21, 2013 3:08 pm at 3:08 pm (UTC -4)
MY, let’s just assume for a moment that you didn’t just pull this off some bullshit website with half-assed arguments and think about what you would actually need to do to turn this into an argument against global warming.
So the first thing you would do would be to confirm whether the data was correct. Is it actually warming on those planets, by how much, and what the trends are. Do they match?
Then look at the data on other planets? Are they warming as well? Or cooling? [actually, quite a number of them are cooling].
Then you would say: do temperature trends on earth match the variations in solar radiation? [They don't, and they haven't for some time].
The BEST climate project last year – which was funded by the Koch brothers – made a big point of dismissing solar variance as a cause of warming, when they came to the quite unexpected conclusion (having been funded by biggest oil) that the climate is in fact warming and we are the primary cause.
And then you would have to ask why you wouldn’t question some of your more right-wing friends claims, particularly when some of them are saying it isn’t warming at all, others are saying it is but we aren’t the cause, and then yet another group are saying it is but there is nothing we can do about it. And quite a few of those people are hopping back and forward between the arguments without a second thought about being consistent.
This.is.lazy.thinking. I think you can do better. I really don’t care whether you come to the same conclusions as me. Just put up a decent sign of brain cell activity.
stogy says:
February 21, 2013 3:11 pm at 3:11 pm (UTC -4)
What a bunch of kidders! All harmless fun, eh?
stogy says:
February 21, 2013 3:16 pm at 3:16 pm (UTC -4)
That’s right – it’s all just a big dick-waving contest. You were the only one here who is approaching this with a modicum of reason. It’s too bad that no one here is actually listening to each other. It’s just my dick’s bigger…
sad
Mississippi Yankee says:
February 21, 2013 7:50 pm at 7:50 pm (UTC -4)
Not lazy at all, and if you or the other “cunt-like troll” had bothered to read/re-quote the first sentence of my comment:
“Not to interrupt on ya’lls perfect circle jerk but…”
You may have seen (if you possessed an ounce of shame) that I was criticizing you both for highjacking not only this thread but for all intents and purposes the entire blog.
Seen many blog post this week? Even “publish or die” Hall has stayed away in droves.
Drive away dissent with bullshit…Bravo Assholes!
CM says:
February 21, 2013 8:19 pm at 8:19 pm (UTC -4)
WTF?
If you’re ALL about the “thread-hijackig” what was with the:
Charlie don’t surf.
Where was the bullshit?
HARLEY says:
February 21, 2013 9:56 pm at 9:56 pm (UTC -4)
MY , S8, i told you before to quit playing with the tar-baby…. you see what happens?
Mississippi Yankee says:
February 21, 2013 10:13 pm at 10:13 pm (UTC -4)
LOL.
In my defense I only poked this present ‘tar-baby’ because the phrase “cunt-like troll” was stuck in my head (and it had to get out) plus hanging that moniker on these agenda driven fools is way cheaper than therapy.
Iconoclast says:
February 21, 2013 11:18 pm at 11:18 pm (UTC -4)
I, for one, am simply savoring the irony…
It certainly looks like you got your wish, the perfect opportunity for you to wave your dick around…
Well, of course, I should have known (slapping forehead), all of this so-called “skepticism” is backed by Evil Big Oil. However, it doesn’t matter that Al Gore sold his Current TV network to oil-funded al Jazeera — that’s different (although I haven’t a clue as to how or why). The fact that one of the Grand Poobahs of Global Warming Oil-And-Fossil-Fuels-Are-Absolute-Evil alarmism pocketed himself a half-billion dollars of oil money absolutely cannot be used as a reason for some of us to be skeptical of the whole affair. Nope, we’re “deniers” and “anti-science”, and really need to get with the program…
Global Warming may indeed be a real threat, but I see the political opportunists seeking to capitalize on this on-going, never-ending “crisis” as a much more immediate threat.
It’s interesting how nothing on the alarmism side is fraudulent (and some people get rather miffed at even implying that normal human condition dynamics could create something even approaching fraud-like behavior on their side, even if unintentional), and virtually everything on the skepticism side is fraudulent.
This looks like a threat. The way I see it, if you were truly interested in “good faith” discussion, you would not have responded to my initial posting, which you have described as bad-faithed from the start. You could have taken a higher road, but didn’t. Responding to my allegedly bad-faithed rant could itself be taken as a sign of bad faith, therefore you forfeited your right to point fingers re: “good faith” vs “bad faith”. Like I said earlier, you made my “irrelevant rant” relevant by responding to it.
At this point, I can admit that I overstated my case when I asserted AGW to be “pure bullshit from top to bottom”, but at least I tried to differentiate AGW from “climate change”, which was what your initial inquiry was about. Maybe to you, they’re one and the same. But again, the point I was making is that it’s much easier to politicize something like AGW than a meteor or asteroid collision, and that’s what makes AGW dangerous. Not the warming itself, or the alleged damage to the environment, but the opportunities a long-term crisis represents to political opportunists.
I guess you have more faith in Collectivism and Government than I do. You have already expressed your doubts about the free market, whether it’s even capable of providing a solution. I fear government action and “decisions made without me at the table” in the here and now more than I do the possibility of a harsher climate decades from now.
Dave D says:
February 22, 2013 9:57 am at 9:57 am (UTC -4)
What’s the bigger problem decades from now:
1) 0.2634567 degrees Celcius of extra global temperature.
2) A collapsing economy/wildly inflated US dollar brought on by wreckless/immature spending/policy by the current administration to buy votes.
stogy says:
February 22, 2013 1:23 pm at 1:23 pm (UTC -4)
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Dave D says:
February 22, 2013 4:17 pm at 4:17 pm (UTC -4)
That’s 2-4 degrees projected (with huge error and disagreement between models, from what I have seen) over the next century. And only a small fraction of that is NOT attributed to natural GW. “Decades” can be anywhere from 20 to 100+ years. Your thinking and data fits right in with the accuracy of your models! And my ridiculous amount of sigfigs was intended to mock the accuracy of these things, too.
CM says:
February 23, 2013 3:04 pm at 3:04 pm (UTC -4)
So long as the work stands up to scrutiny, it shouldn’t matter where it comes from. The process of peer-review and publication, and subsequent responses, is by no means perfect, but has apparently worked really well over a whole lot of fields. Almost all climate science denial is based on Blog Science – pseudo-science carried out with heavy inbuilt political bias and no quality control to even begin to ensure it’s robust.
You suggest is might indeed be a real threat, and immediately put crisis in quotes as if it’s back to not being a threat again?
What we know for sure is that the longer we leave it, the greater chance that we’ll be forced to treat it as a crisis. If we start now, we can start to manage it without treating it like a crisis.
That’s obviously a huge exaggeration.
What’s interesting to me is that deniers are so willing to constantly make accusations and insinuations about fraud and motive, but can never seem to back them up. Where is the fraud? If you can never point to it, don’t you realise how it comes across?
The ‘skeptic side’ doesn’t deal in fraud (true skeptics don’t discount what doesn’t suit them). But there certainly is a lot of fraud and misinformation on the political blogs dedicated to climate science (the deniers). They aren’t involved in the actual scientific process though, so they can get away with zero accountability and applying no standards whatsoever. As stogy says, they can apparently get away with applying theories that contradict each other. It’s apparently ok, because the goal (stopping Marxist Collectvists who want everyone to live in caves etc etc) is all that counts.
That’s the reality. And it’s not good.
Yikes. Ok, you turn yourself inside out to justify your approach.
“pure bullshit from top to bottom” is a pretty good indicator that you’re not able to consider and engage on this topic objectively.
‘You go ahead and pretend that you’ve researched it to the best of your ability and actually understand the issues and the science, and I’ll continue to see this as primarily a political, ideological movement that is simply masquerading as “science” confirms it.
Well good on you for the first part of that.
As for the second, I probably should have just said ‘climate’ to be accurate. But I don’t see how it makes any meaningful difference.
I do understand that you have that concern.
Not sure why the term “collectivism” is relevant to this discussion. I’m certainly not in support of an entire global collectivist system replacing capitalism because of climate change. I just don’t see any alternative to global action on climate change. It’s not even about it being the ‘least worst option’, it’s the only option. If we’re practicing sensible risk management that is.
I just can’t see how it’s going to work. It doesn’t make logical sense to me, particularly when you consider this issue from a risk management perspective. The free market doesn’t solve global problems, let along long-term global problems.
Twenty-five years after an international ban on aerosols, the ozone hole over NZ is shrinking. It is believed that the depleted ozone layer has in part been responsible for a 14 per cent jump in melanoma over the past decade.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10833172
How would that have occurred without the world’s governments signing up to a ban? That’s a great example of collective action on an issue.
Ironically of course in that case:
“…..solving one manmade problem may have hastened another – ozone depletion may have protected Antarctica from the worst of greenhouse gas-related warming and kept its centre cooler.
Now the hole is repairing itself, the white continent’s northern latitudes have “warmed up a lot”, making it one of the world’s fastest-warming regions.”
I don’t want decisions to be made without you at the table either.
Where do you get that from Dave? What natural processes will be occurring at a far greater level than previously, unrelated to the human fingerprint?
Globally – climate change effects by a considerable margin. There’s no doubt about it.
Mississippi Yankee says:
February 23, 2013 6:57 pm at 6:57 pm (UTC -4)
CM, you should really see someone about your OCD…seriously
CM says:
February 23, 2013 7:52 pm at 7:52 pm (UTC -4)
I did. They told me I should come here and post. ;-)
stogy says:
February 23, 2013 9:17 pm at 9:17 pm (UTC -4)
There are alarmists who continually misrepresent the science, and people who no-doubt want to get their hands into whatever assets might come their way. But this doesn’t invalidate the science. There are also some reasonable sceptics, but generally you can tell them because they don’t jump back and forward between different contradictory arguments, they are actually doing the science without misrepresenting the work of other scientists and they write peer reviewed articles for recognised climate journals.
Generally these are people who don’t make headlines, because they are questioning one or two areas of uncertainty at a time. Their work will be judged by how well it stands up in the field. And if one of them does overturn the consensus, they will pretty much be famous and funded forever – a big incentive if I ever heard one.
Did anyone get around to reading this? A conservative response to climate change? I thought it was rather good.
Mook says:
February 24, 2013 12:51 pm at 12:51 pm (UTC -4)
Of course you would, because Adler is no conservative, unless you define David Frum is a conservative. No conservative could possibly advocate that the govt is the sole or primary “solution”. Below are some excerpts from academic Jonathan Adler, the kind of RINO lefty that libs loves to quote, just like when they point to “conservative” David Frum and David Brooks:
So the solution is government-led Solyndra-like investment “prizes” coupled with new taxes and regulations? Yeah, that idea is bound to turn out great, huh?
—————–
stogy wrote:
Regardless of the merits of the AGW argument, that statement is as backassward wrong as it can be. Because AGW alarmism generates govt. grants (you think govt is likely to subsidize viewpoints that demonstrate that LESS govt intervention is needed?) and potential massive amounts of tax revenue through carbon credit taxes and the like. If it turns out that there is no urgent need to tax and spend on more then current financial incentives to promote global warming alarmism would dry up.