Go Back  DVD Talk Forum > General Discussions > Religion, Politics and World Events
Reload this Page >

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Religion, Politics and World Events They make great dinner conversation, don't you think? plus Political Film

The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edition)

Old 08-25-11, 04:57 PM
  #201  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying.
I'm glad you're so sure.

I would be talking about only the amount of lobbying money spent on global warming and other environmental issues.

Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.
Well, many of them must believe cap and trade is good for their bottom line then. Otherwise, why would these companies be members of the United States Climate Action Partnership?

http://www.us-cap.org/

USCAP Members Include:

AES
Alcoa
Alstom
Boston Scientific Corporation
Chrysler
The Dow Chemical Company
Duke Energy
DuPont
Environmental Defense Fund
Exelon Corporation
Ford Motor Company
General Electric
Honeywell
Johnson & Johnson
Natural Resources Defense Council
NextEra Energy
NRG Energy
PepsiCo
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation
PNM Resources
Rio Tinto
Shell
Siemens Corporation
The Nature Conservancy
Weyerhaeuser
World Resources Institute
Yeah, a few that aren't companies so you can take them off.

Conoco, BP and Caterpillar recently left but are still committed to "the environment" for the most part. Energy giant BP said its "approach is now different, not its position on climate change."

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/02...ps-leave-uscap

I don't know why you can't accept that many companies, including many of the nation's biggest energy companies have been pushing for "climate legislation" like cap and trade. It would give you more companies you'd like to buy from.

Last edited by movielib; 08-25-11 at 06:09 PM.
Old 08-25-11, 05:24 PM
  #202  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I have mentioned Plimer as the author of Heaven and Earth, a skeptical book that has a lot of good points in it but I do think Plimer overreaches and makes some mistakes. I liked his book overall but I had more than a few criticisms, for example I think he is way off on volcanoes. It's been awhile since I read the book and I can't remember others offhand but I know there were others. He's not one of my favorites to quote from as I think he can be rather careless.

The main points of the CO2 effects on the oceans are rising temperatures and lowering pH. We need to consider their effects on life.

Those who have read these threads know that I have cited probably at least a dozen peer reviewed papers, most, if not all of which are experimental in nature. Waters of differing temperatures and pHs were used in seeing how they affected shell building invertebrates (the animals the alarmists are always saying will be devastated). These experiments have invariably shown that any effects are negligible, if there are any at all. For example, corals (the most widely cited as supposedly being in danger) have symbiotic relationships with algae. When temperatures change, corals "evict" their current algae partners and "invite in" different species of algae that allow them to keep functioning. They are very good at this. After all, they are thought to have existed for some 500 million years and have survived far worse than the tiny current changes (as I am wont to say, the alarmists have no sense of history nor do they want to have any). As far as acidification, experiments have shown that a large range of shelled invertebrates can continue to thrive in waters quite a bit more on the acidic side than anything that is happening now or is expected to happen in the foreseeable future. I remember posting a new study on sand dollars not long ago and there have been many others.

I hate to say it but I have never seen a single one of these experiment acknowledged on any alarmist site and I keep hearing the same alarms being sounded at every opportunity.

If there is anything that should have been put to rest by now in this debate, this is it.
Without links I couldn't find what specific studies you mentioned other then the sand-dollar one. So I went and examined the totality of Maria Byrne's research, as opposed to just that one study. I'm not sure the research is exactly showing what the bloggers are saying it does. This is the first sentence of the journal that strangle enough I didn't see any skeptic sites mention before they extrapolated "Climate change driven ocean acidification and hypercapnia may have a negative impact on fertilization in marine organisms because of the narcotic effect these stressors exert on sperm."

The study you cite is:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/b124760j48467523/

I found it from the skeptic site:

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/01/m...l-species.html

Note this is only for sperm survivability (fertilization) and that the skeptic site just happened to leave off This may reflect adaptation to the marked fluctuation in temperature and pH that characterises their shallow water coastal habitats. Efforts to identify potential impacts of ocean change to the life histories of coastal marine invertebrates are best to focus on more vulnerable embryonic and larval stages because of their long time in the water column where seawater chemistry and temperature have a major impact on development. from the abstract it quoted.

This skeptic site actually gives the exact opposite conclusion when they break down the article (http://www.co2science.org/articles/V14/N3/C3.php)
which interpretation further suggests that other marine fauna in still other circumstances may likewise be capable of adapting to any warming and acidification that might possibly develop throughout the world's oceans during the remaining decades of the 21st century. Again, remember what the author actually says is that the finding are only true for only shallow warm & coastal areas and NOT THE OCEAN.

Here are her findings in totality, not cherry-picked:

1. Global warming is causing ocean warming and acidification. The distribution of Heliocidaris erythrogramma coincides with the eastern Australia climate change hot spot, where disproportionate warming makes marine biota particularly vulnerable to climate change.

2. Climate change driven ocean acidification and hypercapnia may have a negative impact on fertilization in marine organisms because of the narcotic effect these stressors exert on sperm.

3. In contrast, warmer, less viscous water may have a positive influence on sperm swimming speed and so ocean warming may enhance fertilization.

4. Sea urchin fertilize fine at 7.6–8.2 pH (89%). But, as warmer warms they suffer greatly. Normal water temperature is 20 to 26C. At 24C they drop 40%, and at 26C they drop an additional 20%.

5. Although ocean acidification research has focused on impaired calcification, embryos may not reach the skeletogenic stage in a warm ocean.

6. From her research from April of this year: When exposed to the increased acidity and temperature levels projected 100 years from now they produced deformed specimens, without shells or spines. This means key sources of protein will be lost due to future changes in our oceans.

“We wondered about the impact of climate change on shelled marine animals since ocean acidification reduces the amount of carbonate ions, which they need to make their calcium carbonate skeletons.”


5. Abalone were particularly sensitive to change and did not do well in even slightly warmer and more acidic conditions (+2oC/pH 7.8).


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o.../1883.full.pdf

http://www.oceanacidification.net/ne...ocean-species/

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...5-2416316767c4

Heck, just by looking at the Royal Society of Biological Science you got a bunch of studies to pick from. Going in mostly order:

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o....full.pdf+html

Spoiler:
Ocean acidification is the lowering of pH in the oceans as a result of increasing uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide is entering the oceans at a greater rate than ever before, reducing the ocean’s natural buffering capacity and lowering pH. Previous work on the biological consequences of ocean acidification has suggested that calcification and metabolic processes are compromised in acidified seawater. By contrast, here we show, using the ophiuroid brittlestar Amphiura filiformis as a model calcifying organism, that some organisms can increase the rates of many of their biological processes (in this case, metabolism and the ability to calcify to compensate for increased seawater acidity). However, this upregulation of metabolism and calcification, potentially ameliorating some of the effects
of increased acidity comes at a substantial cost (muscle wastage) and is therefore unlikely to be sustainable in the long term.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

Spoiler:
Species-energy theory indicates that recent climate warming should have driven increases in species richness in cool and species-poor parts of the Northern Hemisphere. We confirm that the average species richness of British butterflies has increased since 1970–82, but much more slowly than predicted from changes of climate: on average, only one-third of the predicted increase has taken place. The resultant species assemblages are increasingly dominated by generalist species that were able to respond quickly. The time lag is confirmed by the successful introduction of many species to climatically suitable areas beyond their ranges. Our results imply that it may be decades or centuries before the species richness and composition of biological communities adjusts to the current climate.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

Spoiler:
Good decision making for fisheries and marine ecosystems requires a capacity to anticipate the consequences of management under different scenarios of climate change. The necessary ecological forecasting calls for ecosystem-based models capable of integrating multiple drivers across trophic levels and properly including uncertainty. The methodology presented here assesses the combined impacts of climate and fishing on marine food-web dynamics and provides estimates of the confidence envelope of the forecasts. It is applied to cod (Gadus morhua) in the Baltic Sea, which is vulnerable to climate-related decline in salinity owing to both direct and indirect effects (i.e. through species interactions) on early-life survival. A stochastic food web-model driven by regional climate scenarios is used to produce quantitative forecasts of cod dynamics in the twenty-first century. The forecasts show how exploitation would have to be adjusted in order to achieve sustainable management under different climate scenarios.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1
Spoiler:

We link spatially explicit climate change predictions to a dynamic metapopulation model. Predictions of species' responses to climate change, incorporating metapopulation dynamics and elements of dispersal, allow us to explore the range margin dynamics for two lagomorphs of conservation concern. Although the lagomorphs have very different distribution patterns, shifts at the edge of the range were more pronounced than shifts in the overall metapopulation. For Romerolagus diazi (volcano rabbit), the lower elevation range limit shifted upslope by approximately 700 m. This reduced the area occupied by the metapopulation, as the mountain peak currently lacks suitable vegetation. For Lepus timidus (European mountain hare), we modelled the British metapopulation. Increasing the dispersive estimate caused the metapopulation to shift faster on the northern range margin (leading edge). By contrast, it caused the metapopulation to respond to climate change slower, rather than faster, on the southern range margin (trailing edge). The differential responses of the leading and trailing range margins and the relative sensitivity of range limits to climate change compared with that of the metapopulation centroid have important implications for where conservation monitoring should be targeted. Our study demonstrates the importance and possibility of moving from simple bioclimatic envelope models to second-generation models that incorporate both dynamic climate change and metapopulation dynamics.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

This research is funny because while they say other things may suffer, kelp forests will thrive!
Spoiler:

Predictions about the ecological consequences of oceanic uptake of CO2 have been preoccupied with the effects of ocean acidification on calcifying organisms, particularly those critical to the formation of habitats (e.g. coral reefs) or their maintenance (e.g. grazing echinoderms). This focus overlooks the direct effects of CO2 on non-calcareous taxa, particularly those that play critical roles in ecosystem shifts. We used two experiments to investigate whether increased CO2 could exacerbate kelp loss by facilitating non-calcareous algae that, we hypothesized, (i) inhibit the recovery of kelp forests on an urbanized coast, and (ii) form more extensive covers and greater biomass under moderate future CO2 and associated temperature increases. Our experimental removal of turfs from a phase-shifted system (i.e. kelp- to turf-dominated) revealed that the number of kelp recruits increased, thereby indicating that turfs can inhibit kelp recruitment. Future CO2 and temperature interacted synergistically to have a positive effect on the abundance of algal turfs, whereby they had twice the biomass and occupied over four times more available space than under current conditions. We suggest that the current preoccupation with the negative effects of ocean acidification on marine calcifiers overlooks potentially profound effects of increasing CO2 and temperature on non-calcifying organisms.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

Good study on the different risks and different adaptions likely needed to happen.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

Larvae will likely thrive!
Spoiler:

Little is known about how fishes and other non-calcifying marine organisms will respond to the increased levels of dissolved CO2 and reduced sea water pH that are predicted to occur over the coming century. We reared eggs and larvae of the orange clownfish, Amphiprion percula, in sea water simulating a range of ocean acidification scenarios for the next 50–100 years (current day, 550, 750 and 1030 ppm atmospheric CO2). CO2 acidification had no detectable effect on embryonic duration, egg survival and size at hatching. In contrast, CO2 acidification tended to increase the growth rate of larvae. By the time of settlement (11 days post-hatching), larvae from some parental pairs were 15 to 18 per cent longer and 47 to 52 per cent heavier in acidified water compared with controls. Larvae from other parents were unaffected by CO2 acidification. Elevated CO2 and reduced pH had no effect on the maximum swimming speed of settlement-stage larvae. There was, however, a weak positive relationship between length and swimming speed. Large size is usually considered to be advantageous for larvae and newly settled juveniles. Consequently, these results suggest that levels of ocean acidification likely to be experienced in the near future might not, in isolation, significantly disadvantage the growth and performance of larvae from benthic-spawning marine fishes.


http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.o...b-e84fc54804b1

Spoiler:
Climate change has had a significant impact globally on the timing of ecological events such as reproduction and migration in many species. Here, we examined the phenology of reproductive migrations in 10 amphibian species at a wetland in South Carolina, USA using a 30 year dataset. We show for the first time that two autumn-breeding amphibians are breeding increasingly later in recent years, coincident with an estimated 1.2°C increase in local overnight air temperatures during the September through February pre-breeding and breeding periods. Additionally, two winter-breeding species in the same community are breeding increasingly earlier. Four of the 10 species studied have shifted their reproductive timing an estimated 15.3 to 76.4 days in the past 30 years. This has resulted in rates of phenological change that range from 5.9 to 37.2 days per decade, providing examples of some of the greatest rates of changing phenology in ecological events reported to date. Owing to the opposing direction of the shifts in reproductive timing, our results suggest an alteration in the degree of temporal niche overlap experienced by amphibian larvae in this community. Reproductive timing can drive community dynamics in larval amphibians and our results identify an important pathway by which climate change may affect amphibian communities


So science says mostly bad for marine life, with a few things doing really well (not surprising since that is a basic enough rule for any sort of environmental change I can think of). Using a citation trace I see the study you claim to be ignored by science, it appears that marine biologists and researchers had no issue finding it and getting the correct data from it.

If you can find the other studies you mentioned I'll happily go through them. Climate research I'm still new at, but thankfully everything I've ever learned from medical research and a decade of being an active skeptic lets me at least be able to understand journal publications.
Old 08-25-11, 05:30 PM
  #203  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
Not anywhere near as much as energy companies, that's for damned sure. The environmentalist groups have nowhere near the ROI on lobbying. Lobbying corporate interests means billions in extra profit.
Environmental groups have talked starving nations from feeding their poor because of claims that "evil genetically modified" food will kill them all. They have their own agendas and wield a powerful sword for sure...
Old 08-25-11, 05:44 PM
  #204  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

They are in the threads over the years. I'm not going to dig them out.

Instead I offer you the Ocean Acidification Data Base. Tons more studies than I have cited. Note that some are within the realm of possibility and some go way beyond anything that is at all likely to happen.

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidi...dification.php

There are links to the various aspects of the project.

See, particularly Results and Conclusions:

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidi...on/results.php

More specifically:

Studies on Ocean acidification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/subject_o.php

Calcification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/c/subject_c.php

Marine Biota:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/marinebiota.php

Click on by subcategory and get reviews of papers.

Enjoy.

(Yes, you find get the usual smears from the likes of DeSmogBlog and ExxonSecrets.)

Last edited by movielib; 08-25-11 at 06:04 PM.
Old 08-25-11, 05:45 PM
  #205  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I'm glad you're so sure.

I would be talking about only the amount of lobbying money spent on global warming and other environmental issues.


Well, many of them must believe cap and trade is good for their bottom line then. Otherwise, why would these companies be members of the United States Climate Action Partnership?

http://www.us-cap.org/


Yeah, a few that aren't companies so you can take them off. Note this says "members include" so there are likely more beyond these most prominent ones.

Conoco, BP and Caterpillar recently left but are still committed to "the environment" for the most part. Energy giant BP said its "approach is now different, not its position on climate change."

http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2010/02...ps-leave-uscap

I don't know why you can't accept that many companies, including many of the nation's biggest energy companies have been pushing for "climate legislation" like cap and trade. It would give you more companies you'd like to buy from.
Don't forget that many companies get great press and get vocal animal/environmental/civil/consumer rights groups off their backs by giving grants and cash to researchers. You can always repair your financials in a company.... it is your company image that you protect with your life.
Old 08-25-11, 05:49 PM
  #206  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
They are in the threads over the years. I'm not going to dig them out.

Instead I offer you the Ocean Acidification Data Base.

http://www.co2science.org/data/acidi...dification.php

There are links to the various aspects of the project.

Studies on Ocean acidification:

http://www.co2science.org/subject/o/subject_o.php

Click on by subcategory and get reviews of papers.

Enjoy.
Since I already found either a lie, or incompetence, of epic proportions from that site I plan on keeping my skepticism while poking about.
Old 08-25-11, 06:14 PM
  #207  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Since I already found either a lie, or incompetence, of epic proportions from that site I plan on keeping my skepticism while poking about.
That's fine. That's what I find on alarmist sites. It's going to happen on all sites sometimes. My experience is that it's a lot worse on alarmist sites.

Last edited by movielib; 08-25-11 at 06:29 PM.
Old 08-25-11, 06:34 PM
  #208  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Don't forget that many companies get great press and get vocal animal/environmental/civil/consumer rights groups off their backs by giving grants and cash to researchers. You can always repair your financials in a company.... it is your company image that you protect with your life.
I'm well aware of greenwash.
Old 08-25-11, 07:15 PM
  #209  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
That's fine. That's what I find on alarmist sites.
That's why I try and stick to science sites (Most everything I got was from a biology journal) and why I try and post journals from the source and not cut-up by someone doing an opinion editorial (not you... you didn't to the hacking and misleading). I think I should also get a few bonus points for getting quotes from the author of the journal in question where she clearly states her opinion and posting the full abstracts without those pesky important parts cut out.

And case in point. I seriously can't make stuff like this up and why I stress ALWAYS going to the source.

I found the post you made in 2010. You pulled it word for word from here (there same site you just told me to use).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php
Spoiler:

Acidified Seawater's Effects on Coral Larvae and Polyps Reference
Suwa, R., Nakamura, M., Morita, M., Shimada, K., Iguchi, A., Sakai, K. and Suzuki, A. 2010. Effects of acidified seawater on early life stages of scleractinian corals (Genus Acropora). Fisheries Science 76: 93-99.

What was done
The authors employed controlled infusions of pure CO2 to create mean pH values of 8.03 ± 0.03, 7.64 ± 0.12 and 7.31 ± 0.11 (corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400-475, 905-1660 and 2115-3585 ppm, respectively) in filtered seawater that flowed continuously through three sets of multiple tanks into which they had introduced the gametes of two Acropora coral species (A. digitifera and A. tenuis) they had collected during a natural spawning event, after which (seven days later) they determined their percent survival. Then, after ten more days, they documented the size of the developing polyps; and after 14 days they documented the percentage of polyps that had acquired zooxanthellae that the researchers had collected from the giant clam T. crocea and released into the several treatment tanks.

What was learned
Suwa et al. report that "A. digitifera larval survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments," and the graphs of their data indicate that survivorship in A. tenuis was actually about 18.5% greater in the lowest pH (highest CO2) treatment than in the ambient seawater treatment. At the end of the subsequent ten-day study, however, polyp size was reduced in the lowest pH treatment, but by only about 14%, which is not too bad for an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 2115-3585 ppm. And in the A. tenuis coral, this reduction in individual size was more than compensated by the even greater percentage increase in survivorship. In addition, after only four days of being exposed to the zooxanthellae derived from giant clams, all polyps in all treatments had acquired a full complement of the symbiotic zooxanthella.

What it means
In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Reference
Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2009. CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future. Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, Pueblo West, Colorado, USA, 132 p.


I'd like to show the "What it means" part clearly so I'm posting it again.

In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Look how many time they use bits of info to make a complete first sentence. The reason they did that was because they couldn't use the full abstract or it would sort of invalidate most everything they were trying pretend the article was saying. The article is clearly saying while the larvae itself survives, the research says "successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival." and that "metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases."


Here it it not butchered in the form of a complete abstract. I'll bold the good parts again just because they didn't want you to actually read them and for its delightful comic effect.

Ocean acidification may negatively impact the early life stages of some marine invertebrates including corals. Although reduced growth of juvenile corals in acidified seawater has been reported, coral larvae have been reported to demonstrate some level of tolerance to reduced pH. We hypothesize that the observed tolerance of coral larvae to low pH may be partly explained by reduced metabolic rates in acidified seawater because both calcifying and non-calcifying marine invertebrates could show metabolic depression under reduced pH in order to enhance their survival. In this study, after 3-d and 7-d exposure to three different pH levels (8.0, 7.6, and 7.3), we found that the oxygen consumption of Acropora digitifera larvae tended to be suppressed with reduced pH, although a statistically significant difference was not observed between pH conditions. Larval metamorphosis was also observed, confirming that successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival. Results also showed that the metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases.

And just to make sure I'm not taking anything out of context that the author didn't mean, I decided to email them in Japan with a link to http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

I'll let you all know if they respond.
Old 08-25-11, 07:50 PM
  #210  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Polar bear scientist back to work. He will no longer manage federal contracts. Future administrative actions may still be taken.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/25/139953...d-back-to-work

'Polarbeargate' Scientist To Head Back To Work
by Nell Greenfieldboyce
August 25, 2011

The polar bear scientist who has spent more than a month suspended from his government job has now been told that he should report back to work on Friday — although NPR has learned that his job is changing and he will no longer manage federal contracts.

"Chuck is planning to go to work. He just doesn't know what the work is going to be," says attorney Jeff Ruch of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, which is providing legal representation for wildlife biologist Charles Monnett.

In 2006, Monnett published a report on his sightings of apparently drowned polar bears in the Arctic. The dead polar bears became a powerful — and controversial — symbol of the danger of melting ice and climate change.

Monnett was put on administrative leave on July 18 by the agency he works for at the Department of the Interior. The move came as Monnett was being investigated by the department's Office of Inspector General.

That investigation is ongoing, and it is not clear what aspects of Monnett's research or management work are still under scrutiny. Monnett's supporters say what's become known as "polarbeargate" is a witch hunt into a scientist whose research has political implications.

Investigators have repeatedly asked Monnett questions about his dead-polar-bear report. They have also asked about his contract management duties.

According to Monnett's legal team, investigators suggested he improperly steered a federal research contract to a polar bear scientist at the University of Alberta who gave him comments on his soon-to-be-famous dead-polar-bear report prior to its publication.

Also, in a letter to Monnett, an agent with the inspector general's office said that Monnett had admitted to helping the scientist prepare a proposal for the contract, then inappropriately served on a committee that reviewed that proposal.

Monnett's lawyers say he followed standard procedures at his office and that this sole-source contract was under negotiation long before the two scientists corresponded about Monnett's dead-polar-bear report.

Ruch says Monnett got a phone call on Thursday telling him to report back to his office and that the administrative leave is being suspended. "He thinks in some sense it is a vindication that they acted in undue haste," says Ruch.

However, Ruch says Monnett is concerned that he does not yet know what his duties will be upon his return.

Melissa Schwartz, a spokeswoman for the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement, confirmed in an email that Monnett's administrative leave is coming to an end.

"He was informed that he will have no role in developing or managing contracts and will instead be in our environmental assessment division," Schwartz said in the email.

"The return of an employee to work does not suggest that future administrative actions cannot/will not be taken," Schwartz added. "Federal regulations create a presumption against lengthy administrative leaves. Lengthier administrative leaves are reserved for exceptional situations when all other options are considered insufficient to adequately protect the government's interests."

When he was placed on leave, Monnett had been managing approximately $50 million worth of government-funded studies, according to a complaint that his lawyers filed with the Department of the Interior last month.

That complaint alleged that Department of the Interior officials are guilty of scientific and scholarly misconduct because of their treatment of Monnett. An inquiry is being conducted into those allegations, according to a letter sent to Ruch by the Department of the Interior's scientific integrity officer.

Ruch said that Monnett is concerned about the continuing investigation: "The fact that he's been identified as the subject as an ongoing investigation is going to leave a shadow over him no matter what he does."

That complaint alleged that Department of the Interior officials are guilty of scientific and scholarly misconduct because of their treatment of Monnett. An inquiry is being conducted into those allegations, according to a letter sent to Ruch by the Department of the Interior's scientific integrity officer.

Ruch said that Monnett is concerned about the continuing investigation: "The fact that he's been identified as the subject as an ongoing investigation is going to leave a shadow over him no matter what he does."
Old 08-25-11, 07:56 PM
  #211  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
That's why I try and stick to science sites (Most everything I got was from a biology journal) and why I try and post journals from the source and not cut-up by someone doing an opinion editorial (not you... you didn't to the hacking and misleading). I think I should also get a few bonus points for getting quotes from the author of the journal in question where she clearly states her opinion and posting the full abstracts without those pesky important parts cut out.

And case in point. I seriously can't make stuff like this up and why I stress ALWAYS going to the source.

I found the post you made in 2010. You pulled it word for word from here (there same site you just told me to use).

http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php
Spoiler:

Acidified Seawater's Effects on Coral Larvae and Polyps Reference
Suwa, R., Nakamura, M., Morita, M., Shimada, K., Iguchi, A., Sakai, K. and Suzuki, A. 2010. Effects of acidified seawater on early life stages of scleractinian corals (Genus Acropora). Fisheries Science 76: 93-99.

What was done
The authors employed controlled infusions of pure CO2 to create mean pH values of 8.03 ± 0.03, 7.64 ± 0.12 and 7.31 ± 0.11 (corresponding to atmospheric CO2 concentrations of 400-475, 905-1660 and 2115-3585 ppm, respectively) in filtered seawater that flowed continuously through three sets of multiple tanks into which they had introduced the gametes of two Acropora coral species (A. digitifera and A. tenuis) they had collected during a natural spawning event, after which (seven days later) they determined their percent survival. Then, after ten more days, they documented the size of the developing polyps; and after 14 days they documented the percentage of polyps that had acquired zooxanthellae that the researchers had collected from the giant clam T. crocea and released into the several treatment tanks.

What was learned
Suwa et al. report that "A. digitifera larval survival rate did not differ significantly among pH treatments," and the graphs of their data indicate that survivorship in A. tenuis was actually about 18.5% greater in the lowest pH (highest CO2) treatment than in the ambient seawater treatment. At the end of the subsequent ten-day study, however, polyp size was reduced in the lowest pH treatment, but by only about 14%, which is not too bad for an atmospheric CO2 concentration in the range of 2115-3585 ppm. And in the A. tenuis coral, this reduction in individual size was more than compensated by the even greater percentage increase in survivorship. In addition, after only four days of being exposed to the zooxanthellae derived from giant clams, all polyps in all treatments had acquired a full complement of the symbiotic zooxanthella.

What it means
In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Reference
Idso, C.D. and Idso, S.B. 2009. CO2, Global Warming and Species Extinctions: Prospects for the Future. Vales Lake Publishing, LLC, Pueblo West, Colorado, USA, 132 p.


I'd like to show the "What it means" part clearly so I'm posting it again.

In discussing their findings, the seven scientists say they indicate that "the survival of coral larvae may not be strongly affected by pH change," or "in other words," as they continue, "coral larvae may be able to tolerate ambient pH decreases of at least 0.7 pH units," which, in fact, is something that will likely never occur, as it implies atmospheric CO2 concentrations in the range of 2115 to 3585 ppm. In addition, if such high concentrations ever were to occur, they would be a long, long time in coming, giving corals far more than sufficient time to acclimate -- and even evolve (Idso and Idso, 2009) -- to adequately cope with the slowly developing situation.

Look how many time they use bits of info to make a complete first sentence. The reason they did that was because they couldn't use the full abstract or it would sort of invalidate most everything they were trying pretend the article was saying. The article is clearly saying while the larvae itself survives, the research says "successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival." and that "metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases."


Here it it not butchered in the form of a complete abstract. I'll bold the good parts again just because they didn't want you to actually read them and for its delightful comic effect.

Ocean acidification may negatively impact the early life stages of some marine invertebrates including corals. Although reduced growth of juvenile corals in acidified seawater has been reported, coral larvae have been reported to demonstrate some level of tolerance to reduced pH. We hypothesize that the observed tolerance of coral larvae to low pH may be partly explained by reduced metabolic rates in acidified seawater because both calcifying and non-calcifying marine invertebrates could show metabolic depression under reduced pH in order to enhance their survival. In this study, after 3-d and 7-d exposure to three different pH levels (8.0, 7.6, and 7.3), we found that the oxygen consumption of Acropora digitifera larvae tended to be suppressed with reduced pH, although a statistically significant difference was not observed between pH conditions. Larval metamorphosis was also observed, confirming that successful recruitment is impaired when metamorphosis is disrupted, despite larval survival. Results also showed that the metamorphosis rate significantly decreased under acidified seawater conditions after both short (2 h) and long (7 d) term exposure. These results imply that acidified seawater impacts larval physiology, suggesting that suppressed metabolism and metamorphosis may alter the dispersal potential of larvae and subsequently reduce the resilience of coral communities in the near future as the ocean pH decreases.

And just to make sure I'm not taking anything out of context that the author didn't mean, I decided to email them in Japan with a link to http://www.co2science.org/articles/V13/N12/B2.php

I'll let you all know if they respond.
I did trust this site. It appears I was mistaken. I probably have been too eager to trust my side. I will endeavor to be more discerning and careful in the future.

Like everyone I do not like to admit to being wrong but I like to think I can do so.

I am going to email them with your findings and ask them to respond. I will let you know if they respond. If they can explain I expect they will.

This should all be very interesting.
Old 08-26-11, 07:17 AM
  #212  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

You knew it would happen. Hurricane Irene blamed on global warming.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-mckibben.html

Global Warming’s Heavy Cost
Aug 25, 2011 9:29 PM EDT
Hurricane Irene’s dangerous power can be traced to global warming says Bill McKibben—and Obama is at fault for his failed leadership on the environment.

Irene’s got a middle name, and it’s Global Warming.
If you want to read the dreary rest of it, go to the link. You can also find out all about McKibben and his friends being arrested for protesting the proposed Keystone Pipeline which would carry oil from the from the Canadian oil sands of Alberta to the US. Arrests are into the hundreds and include Margot Kidder.

With recent reports of ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) being at decades low numbers and with a hurricane not having gone ashore into the United States for more than 1000 days, it takes a lot of chutzpah to trumpet this storm in this way, even though it is unusual for a hurricane to take the path Irene is expected to take. But it's hardly unprecedented.

Upon reading McKibben's first words I was immediately taken back to Ross Gelbspan's bizarre 2005 article which began...:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...44&method=full

Katrina's real name
By Ross Gelbspan
August 30, 2005

The hurricane that struck Louisiana yesterday was nicknamed Katrina by the National Weather Service. Its real name is global warming.
...and blamed global warming for everything that had happened around that time.

Give credit to McKibben for demoting global warming from being the "name" to only the "middle name."

BTW, where does the middle name of Irene go? Irglobalwarmingene?

Last edited by movielib; 08-26-11 at 07:58 AM.
Old 08-26-11, 08:08 AM
  #213  
DVD Talk Hero
 
CRM114's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 42,731
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Environmental groups have talked starving nations from feeding their poor because of claims that "evil genetically modified" food will kill them all. They have their own agendas and wield a powerful sword for sure...
How does that dispute the fact that the lobbying dollars pales in dollars spent by giant corporations and industries? No one is disputing the environmentalist groups get things done but it's obvious who holds the real power in the nation's government.
Old 08-26-11, 02:10 PM
  #214  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by CRM114 View Post
How does that dispute the fact that the lobbying dollars pales in dollars spent by giant corporations and industries? No one is disputing the environmentalist groups get things done but it's obvious who holds the real power in the nation's government.
I'm not sure it does dispute anything really. My point wasn't so much to say you were wrong in saying that the corporate side has more cash & lobbiests (I've no idea), but only to mention that environmental groups certainly have some money and can wield tremendous influence of their own.

You use both the word "fact" and "obvious" as if you provided a fact (a number, a link, a article, a blog or even an educated guess) that would let us conclude something at face-value.

I'm not saying your point isn't 100% correct... I just have not seen any evidence yet to judge it.
Old 08-26-11, 02:37 PM
  #215  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
You knew it would happen. Hurricane Irene blamed on global warming.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-mckibben.html


If you want to read the dreary rest of it, go to the link. You can also find out all about McKibben and his friends being arrested for protesting the proposed Keystone Pipeline which would carry oil from the from the Canadian oil sands of Alberta to the US. Arrests are into the hundreds and include Margot Kidder.

With recent reports of ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) being at decades low numbers and with a hurricane not having gone ashore into the United States for more than 1000 days, it takes a lot of chutzpah to trumpet this storm in this way, even though it is unusual for a hurricane to take the path Irene is expected to take. But it's hardly unprecedented.

Upon reading McKibben's first words I was immediately taken back to Ross Gelbspan's bizarre 2005 article which began...:

http://www.heatisonline.org/contents...44&method=full



...and blamed global warming for everything that had happened around that time.

Give credit to McKibben for demoting global warming from being the "name" to only the "middle name."

BTW, where does the middle name of Irene go? Irglobalwarmingene?
So he's basically an activist that writes books and collect "honorary degrees" that had a past life as a journalist? I think we can both agree this guy is basically worthless.

See, we can get back to common ground.
Old 08-28-11, 10:10 AM
  #216  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

There is no doubt that Hurricane (now Tropical Storm) Irene (the first hurricane to make landfall in the US in 1075 or so days - the longest such period since the Civil War) is a major storm that is doing a huge amount of damage (partly because its path carries it over such a populated area). It has taken an unusual path although hardly unprecedented (and there have been far worse storms on this path, just not for quite awhile).

There is also no doubt that meteorologist Paul Douglas (Minneapolis) is a CAGW alarmist (for example, see http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...douglas_us.php)

But Douglas thinks the media is hyping this storm way beyond its actual effect.

http://www.startribune.com/blogs/128532828.html

A Hurricane of Hype
Posted by: Paul Douglas Updated: August 27, 2011 - 3:20 PM

It's a hurricane, not Armageddon. Good grief. A Category 1 storm, you'd think "Irene" was the worst storm America has ever endured. It will cause more problems along the East Coast, but it will be closer to a severe winter nor'easter than anything even remotely similar to Katrina in 2005. Low-lying areas from coastal Delaware to New Jersey, Long Island and metro New York City may flood, a storm surge of 2-4 feet possible. Friday night I heard some alleged "experts" talking about a 6-12 foot storm surge. Say what? That's just irresponsible (hype). Sometimes I think cable networks are more interested in showing off their reporters and weather toys than conveying some sense of perspective to viewers. Irene will be remembered at the Hype-a-cane of 2011.

...

Hurricane of Hype

Everyone wants to err on the side of caution and keeping people safe. I get that. But some of the stuff I heard Friday night on the national media made me a little crazy. An 8-12 ft. storm surge at New York Harbor? Not even close. "Storm of the Century?" Nope. The result? "Weather "experts" are crying wolf!" Apathy sets in, which could be tragic the next time a (real) monster-storm churns up the East Coast.

And can we stop with the reporters on the beach, reminding us that it's windy? They urge viewers to evacuate, yet there they are, clinging to light poles, incoherent above the wailing winds.

Really?

Any hurricane is a big deal, but Irene hits Long Island today as a Category 1 storm, capable of a 2-4 foot storm surge in New York Harbor. Expect lowland flooding, but this will NOT be the "Big One".

Meanwhile, back here in (hurricane-free) fly-over country a pretty nice Sunday is shaping up: partly sunny with only an isolated T-shower. More numerous T-storms are possible late Monday into midweek as temperatures mellow into the 80s. No all-day rains in sight, no 90s looking out 2 weeks.

Summer is mellowing nicely; the worst of the heat, humidity & severe storms behind us.
I've been watching Fox News the last few days and even it has no sense of perspective on this. Whatever gets viewers, right?

Last edited by movielib; 08-28-11 at 10:17 AM.
Old 08-28-11, 06:53 PM
  #217  
DVD Talk Legend
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Twin Cities, US of A
Posts: 13,618
Received 71 Likes on 57 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Douglas is a running joke in the area due to his incessant alarmism on anything weather related (snowmageddon, snowpocalypse, snownami have all been coined at his expense), so this is notable. Then again, if it was making landfall in South Minneapolis he might have jumped right aboard the hyper-storm bandwagon.
Old 08-28-11, 08:43 PM
  #218  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 41,569
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
But Douglas thinks the media is hyping this storm way beyond its actual effect.
It was something that was going to affect New York City. Of course the media was paying disproportionate attention to it.
Old 08-29-11, 05:45 PM
  #219  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

This is likely the most honest account of Global Warming I've ever stumbled upon. Its from a Libertarian think-tank called the Reason Foundation and the journey one of a prominent Climate Skeptic expert, their Science Correspondent, who became a non-alarmist believer. It discusses both the liberal notion of an "evil Exxon" conspiracy and the conservative "no consensus of global warming"

Honestly it should be a sticky as the first thread in here. It is long, but well worth the read.

Here is his bio, showing his science reporting and climate skeptic credentials.

http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all

Spoiler:

Science Correspondent

Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column.

Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years.

From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific and business topics. His articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, TechCentralStation, National Review, Reader's Digest and many other publications.

Prior to joining Reason in 1997, Bailey produced several weekly national public television series including Think Tank and TechnoPolitics, as well as several documentaries for PBS television and ABC News. In 1993, he was the Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Bailey won a 2004 Southern California Journalism Award for best magazine feature for his story, "The Battle For Your Brain," which delved into the ethical and political conflicts over new brain enhancement technologies. In 2005, Bailey won a first place Southern California Journalism Award for best online commentary for his series on creationism, "Creation Summer Camp."

Bailey is the editor of several books, including Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Prima Publishing, 2002), Earth Report 2000: Revisiting The True State of The Planet (McGraw Hill, 1999), and The True State of the Planet (The Free Press, 1995). He is the author of ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martins Press, 1993).

Bailey has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including the NBC Nightly News, PBS' Newshour, several National Public Radio programs, and various C-SPAN programs. He has lectured at Harvard University, Yale University, Morehouse University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and many other places.

In 2004, Bailey testified before a congressional committee on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy."

He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

Bailey lives in Washington, DC, and Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife Pamela.


Here is the great article

http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/2...n-alleged-exxo

Spoiler:
Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.


Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

"Exxon Misleads on Climate Change," according to Reuters earlier this week. The story, headlined around the globe, was based on a letter sent by the British Royal Society to the oil giant ExxonMobil accusing it of funding groups that misinform the public about the reality of man-made global warming. The prestigious Royal Society is the world's oldest scientific organization. The letter is from Bob Ward, the Society's senior manager for policy communication. Apparently speaking on behalf of the Society, Ward expresses his "disappointment at the inaccurate and misleading view of climate change" conveyed by an ExxonMobil's 2005 Corporate Citizenship report. Ward also says that he did a quick analysis of public policy organizations listed in ExxonMobil's 2005 Worldwide Corporate Giving report and found that "25 offered views consistent with the scientific literature" whereas Ward says he found 39 groups featuring information that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

It's safe to say that Ward may count the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine and Reason Online as one of the 39 groups that he believes misleads the public on the issue of climate change. If that's the case, then at least some of the information that Ward says "misrepresents" climate change science may be past articles written by me. So the question is: Why did I do it? Did ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond hand me brown paper bags filled with stacks of unmarked bills in the back of taxis while whispering, "Ron, we're counting on your widely read and highly influential articles to help stave off the Green onslaught against our soaring profits"? Or was I a simple-minded dupe, passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches at the Palm by corrupt scientists who had been paid off by the oil giant? Or perhaps I am just generally skeptical of end-of-the-world scenarios and believe, as Carl Sagan famously did, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

I have been Reason's science correspondent for nearly eight years now. Well before I joined the magazine, I had been reporting and opining on environmental science and policy issues for various publications and as a producer of a number of national PBS television series. As far as I can tell my first published expression of skepticism with regard to catastrophic global warming was in a review of environmentalist Bill McKibben's The End of Nature that I wrote as a staff writer for Forbes magazine in October, 1989 (unfortunately not available online). In that review, I noted that NASA climate modeler James Hansen had testified before Congress a year earlier that he had detected global warming. In my review, I noted, "Hansen is a reputable scientist, but his views are by no means universally accepted." I then quoted a number of climatologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming including MIT's Richard Lindzen and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Andrew Solow. Lindzen told me at the time, "We have no evidence whatsoever that greenhouse warming has begun." (Lindzen is still skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming.) I would talk with them and many other climate scientists over the next decade and half as I continued to cover this issue.

My next prominent foray into the topic was Chapter 9, "The Sky is Falling," in my book Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (1993). Among much lengthy discussion of the science and politics of climate change, I noted that the satellite record temperature showed warming of 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade, which was one-fifth the 0.3 degrees per decade rate projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's First Assessment Report in 1990. The satellite data comes from climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville who would become my go-to guys on the subject. As will become evident below, I tend to trust empirical data over computer models.

In 1993, I accepted the offer to become the first Warren Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI allowed me several months to do research for a technology policy book that unfortunately I was never able to finish. However, this established a fruitful relationship in which I eventually became the editor of a number of volumes on environmental policy and science with CEI. The idea was to offer good scientific evidence and policy prescriptions in contrast with the environmental alarmism and misinformation being propounded in the Worldwatch Institute's annual State of the World reports. Each volume contained chapters dealing with global trends in population, food, forest area, air pollution, fisheries, and so forth. The deal basically was that CEI paid me a fixed amount and I found and got final say on all the authors and that CEI could not edit what they had to say. I found commercial publishers for each volume.

Naturally each book contained a chapter on the issue of man-made global warming. The first book is The True State of the Planet (Free Press, 1995). The global warming chapter was written by University of Arizona climatologist Robert Balling. The chapter relied heavily on the satellite data which found that the atmosphere had cooled by a statistically significant -0.13 degrees Celsius since 1979. Adjusting for the cooling that resulted from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo that had propelled tons of sulfur particles to stratosphere, Christy calculated a slight warming trend of +0.09 degrees Celsius per decade. This was much less than the models were projecting.

The next volume, Earth Report 2000 (McGraw-Hill, 2000) contained a chapter on global warming by Roy Spencer who was then the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Spencer pointed out that recently corrected satellite data found a slight warming trend of +0.01 degrees per decade between 1979 and 1997 and when one included the very warm El Nino year of 1998, the trend rose to +0.06 degrees per decade. This trend was only one-fourth the per - decade trend predicted by the models. Spencer added that various weather balloon temperature datasets showed a cooling trend of between -0.07 and -0.2 degrees per decade.

In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil has been a supporter of the Reason Foundation. Folks at the foundation confirmed when I called yesterday that the company has donated a little over $250,000 since 2000. The company's latest contributions were $10,000 in 2003 and $20,000 this past January. The last contribution poses a possible conundrum for hard-line corporate conspiracy theorists because it arrived about five months after I declared, "We're All Global Warmers Now." I would suggest that ExxonMobil supports the Reason Foundation because my colleagues robustly defend the free enterprise system. "Follow the money" is often pretty good advice when evaluating the source of information, but in the think tank and public policy magazine realm money tends follow opinion, rather than the other way around.

As further disclosure, I have worked with various organizations that I am told have also received grants from ExxonMobil, including CEI and the online publication TCSDaily (formerly TechCentralStation). At no time did anyone at those organizations ask me to change any of my reporting on global warming science or policy (or any other reporting on other topics for that matter). Back in the early 1990s, someone (whose name I have long forgotten) at Exxon asked me to write an article on global warming for the company's in-house magazine for $5,000. I absolutely refused. Finally, with regard to disclosure, I should mention that I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil that I bought on the advice of my stockbroker wife in October 2002 for $34.53 per share. I am happy to report that her advice was sound--those shares are going for about $64.00 today.

So if corporate shilling doesn't explain my stubborn skepticism about global warming, what does? Looking back over my reporting on the issue, I would argue the consistent theme is my reliance on temperature datasets as a way to either validate or invalidate the projections of computer climate models. Up until the last year or so, the satellite data and weather balloon data pointed to relatively modest global warming much below the trends predicted by most climate models. If those trends were correct then there was no imminent "planetary emergency." When the trends were shown to be incorrect last year, I "converted" into a global warmer. In the past year, a great deal of new evidence-reductions in arctic ice cover, growing Siberian lakes and so forth--has also tended to confirm the conclusion in my mind that man-made global warming may become a problem. Because of this accumulating evidence I am much less certain than Christy and Spencer are that the future warming is unlikely to be a significant problem.

And then there is also the matter of my intellectual commitments. We all have them. Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That's because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem. Since it doesn't seem pertinent to the purpose of this column, I will leave the policy discussion of how to handle man-made climate change to another time.

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.

So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.
Old 08-29-11, 06:48 PM
  #220  
DVD Talk Hero
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Madison, WI ("77 square miles surrounded by reality")
Posts: 30,012
Received 3 Likes on 2 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
This is likely the most honest account of Global Warming I've ever stumbled upon. Its from a Libertarian think-tank called the Reason Foundation and the journey one of a prominent Climate Skeptic expert, their Science Correspondent, who became a non-alarmist believer. It discusses both the liberal notion of an "evil Exxon" conspiracy and the conservative "no consensus of global warming"

Honestly it should be a sticky as the first thread in here. It is long, but well worth the read.

Here is his bio, showing his science reporting and climate skeptic credentials.

http://reason.com/people/ronald-bailey/all

Spoiler:

Science Correspondent

Ronald Bailey is the award-winning science correspondent for Reason magazine and Reason.com, where he writes a weekly science and technology column.

Bailey is the author of the book Liberation Biology: The Moral and Scientific Case for the Biotech Revolution (Prometheus, 2005), and his work was featured in The Best American Science and Nature Writing 2004.

In 2006, Bailey was shortlisted by the editors of Nature Biotechnology as one of the personalities who have made the "most significant contributions" to biotechnology in the last 10 years.

From 1987 to 1990, Bailey was a staff writer for Forbes magazine, covering economic, scientific and business topics. His articles and reviews have appeared in The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Commentary, The Public Interest, Smithsonian, TechCentralStation, National Review, Reader's Digest and many other publications.

Prior to joining Reason in 1997, Bailey produced several weekly national public television series including Think Tank and TechnoPolitics, as well as several documentaries for PBS television and ABC News. In 1993, he was the Warren T. Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

Bailey won a 2004 Southern California Journalism Award for best magazine feature for his story, "The Battle For Your Brain," which delved into the ethical and political conflicts over new brain enhancement technologies. In 2005, Bailey won a first place Southern California Journalism Award for best online commentary for his series on creationism, "Creation Summer Camp."

Bailey is the editor of several books, including Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths: How the Environmental Movement Uses False Science to Scare Us to Death (Prima Publishing, 2002), Earth Report 2000: Revisiting The True State of The Planet (McGraw Hill, 1999), and The True State of the Planet (The Free Press, 1995). He is the author of ECOSCAM: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (St. Martins Press, 1993).

Bailey has appeared on numerous television and radio programs, including the NBC Nightly News, PBS' Newshour, several National Public Radio programs, and various C-SPAN programs. He has lectured at Harvard University, Yale University, Morehouse University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Rutgers University, the University of Virginia, and many other places.

In 2004, Bailey testified before a congressional committee on "The Impact of Science on Public Policy."

He is a member of the Society of Environmental Journalists and the American Society for Bioethics and Humanities.

Bailey lives in Washington, DC, and Charlottesville, Virginia, with his wife Pamela.


Here is the great article

http://reason.com/archives/2006/09/2...n-alleged-exxo

Spoiler:
Confessions of an Alleged ExxonMobil Whore
Actually no one paid me to be wrong about global warming. Or anything else.


Ronald Bailey | September 22, 2006

"Exxon Misleads on Climate Change," according to Reuters earlier this week. The story, headlined around the globe, was based on a letter sent by the British Royal Society to the oil giant ExxonMobil accusing it of funding groups that misinform the public about the reality of man-made global warming. The prestigious Royal Society is the world's oldest scientific organization. The letter is from Bob Ward, the Society's senior manager for policy communication. Apparently speaking on behalf of the Society, Ward expresses his "disappointment at the inaccurate and misleading view of climate change" conveyed by an ExxonMobil's 2005 Corporate Citizenship report. Ward also says that he did a quick analysis of public policy organizations listed in ExxonMobil's 2005 Worldwide Corporate Giving report and found that "25 offered views consistent with the scientific literature" whereas Ward says he found 39 groups featuring information that "misrepresented the science of climate change."

It's safe to say that Ward may count the Reason Foundation, the nonprofit that publishes Reason magazine and Reason Online as one of the 39 groups that he believes misleads the public on the issue of climate change. If that's the case, then at least some of the information that Ward says "misrepresents" climate change science may be past articles written by me. So the question is: Why did I do it? Did ExxonMobil CEO Lee Raymond hand me brown paper bags filled with stacks of unmarked bills in the back of taxis while whispering, "Ron, we're counting on your widely read and highly influential articles to help stave off the Green onslaught against our soaring profits"? Or was I a simple-minded dupe, passing along misinformation supplied to me during expensive lunches at the Palm by corrupt scientists who had been paid off by the oil giant? Or perhaps I am just generally skeptical of end-of-the-world scenarios and believe, as Carl Sagan famously did, that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"?

I have been Reason's science correspondent for nearly eight years now. Well before I joined the magazine, I had been reporting and opining on environmental science and policy issues for various publications and as a producer of a number of national PBS television series. As far as I can tell my first published expression of skepticism with regard to catastrophic global warming was in a review of environmentalist Bill McKibben's The End of Nature that I wrote as a staff writer for Forbes magazine in October, 1989 (unfortunately not available online). In that review, I noted that NASA climate modeler James Hansen had testified before Congress a year earlier that he had detected global warming. In my review, I noted, "Hansen is a reputable scientist, but his views are by no means universally accepted." I then quoted a number of climatologists who were skeptical of man-made global warming including MIT's Richard Lindzen and Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution's Andrew Solow. Lindzen told me at the time, "We have no evidence whatsoever that greenhouse warming has begun." (Lindzen is still skeptical of catastrophic man-made global warming.) I would talk with them and many other climate scientists over the next decade and half as I continued to cover this issue.

My next prominent foray into the topic was Chapter 9, "The Sky is Falling," in my book Eco-Scam: The False Prophets of Ecological Apocalypse (1993). Among much lengthy discussion of the science and politics of climate change, I noted that the satellite record temperature showed warming of 0.06 degrees Celsius per decade, which was one-fifth the 0.3 degrees per decade rate projected by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's First Assessment Report in 1990. The satellite data comes from climatologists John Christy and Roy Spencer from the University of Alabama at Huntsville who would become my go-to guys on the subject. As will become evident below, I tend to trust empirical data over computer models.

In 1993, I accepted the offer to become the first Warren Brookes Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). CEI allowed me several months to do research for a technology policy book that unfortunately I was never able to finish. However, this established a fruitful relationship in which I eventually became the editor of a number of volumes on environmental policy and science with CEI. The idea was to offer good scientific evidence and policy prescriptions in contrast with the environmental alarmism and misinformation being propounded in the Worldwatch Institute's annual State of the World reports. Each volume contained chapters dealing with global trends in population, food, forest area, air pollution, fisheries, and so forth. The deal basically was that CEI paid me a fixed amount and I found and got final say on all the authors and that CEI could not edit what they had to say. I found commercial publishers for each volume.

Naturally each book contained a chapter on the issue of man-made global warming. The first book is The True State of the Planet (Free Press, 1995). The global warming chapter was written by University of Arizona climatologist Robert Balling. The chapter relied heavily on the satellite data which found that the atmosphere had cooled by a statistically significant -0.13 degrees Celsius since 1979. Adjusting for the cooling that resulted from the explosion of Mount Pinatubo that had propelled tons of sulfur particles to stratosphere, Christy calculated a slight warming trend of +0.09 degrees Celsius per decade. This was much less than the models were projecting.

The next volume, Earth Report 2000 (McGraw-Hill, 2000) contained a chapter on global warming by Roy Spencer who was then the senior scientist for climate studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. Spencer pointed out that recently corrected satellite data found a slight warming trend of +0.01 degrees per decade between 1979 and 1997 and when one included the very warm El Nino year of 1998, the trend rose to +0.06 degrees per decade. This trend was only one-fourth the per - decade trend predicted by the models. Spencer added that various weather balloon temperature datasets showed a cooling trend of between -0.07 and -0.2 degrees per decade.

In 2002 came Global Warming and Other Eco-Myths (Prima Publishing). The global warming contributor was University of Alabama at Huntsville climatologist John Christy who is also the principal investigator for the satellite temperature measurements. Christy pointed out, "Since 1979, the global temperature trend is a modest +0.06 degrees Celsius per decade through March 2002." The myth about global warming was not that it was not happening, but that it was unlikely to be catastrophic for humanity or the planet. Christy concluded: "No global warming disaster is looming. Humans are causing an increase in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, which will likely cause a very slow rise in global temperatures with which we can easily cope."

So there was a contradiction in climate science. The models projected and the surface thermometer records were showing significant warming. On the other hand, the satellite dataset and various weather balloon datasets showed only very modest warming. Which was right? In 2001, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued a report at the request of the Bush Administration that found that a lot of proxy data indicated that warming was taking place. However, the NAS also noted that the divergence between the satellite data and the thermometer data was troubling. "The finding that surface and troposphere temperature trends have been as different as observed over intervals as long as a decade or two is difficult to reconcile with our current understanding of the processes that control the vertical distribution of temperature in the atmosphere," declared the report. The NAS added, "Because of the large and still uncertain level of natural variability inherent in the climate record and the uncertainties in the time histories of the various forcing agents (and particularly aerosols), a causal linkage between the buildup of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and the observed climate changes during the 20th century cannot be unequivocally established."

Given this divergence in the various temperature records, climate scientists naturally spent a lot of time and intellectual energy in trying to explain it. In August 2005, Science magazine published three papers that went a long way toward resolving the issue. One paper found that Christy and Spencer had failed to take proper account of satellite drift, which produced a spurious cooling trend to their dataset. Another found that the operation of weather balloons also tended to add spurious cooling to their data. When the corrections were made the satellite and weather balloon datasets were in better agreement with the surface thermometer datasets that showed higher warming trends.

On the day that the studies were released I wrote a column for Reason in which I declared that my skepticism of man-made global warming was at an end. The column was titled, "We're All Global Warmers Now." The first line read: "Anyone still holding onto the idea that there is no global warming ought to hang it up." The bottom line? Christy and Spencer's corrected dataset finds warming of +0.123 degrees per decade. The corrected balloon data tend to support Christy and Spencer. However, the scientific team that found the errors in the satellite data corrects it to find warming of +0.193 degrees per decade. And the surface measurements show a warming trend of 0.15 degrees per decade. In the column, I quote Christy saying, "The new warming trend is still well below ideas of dramatic or catastrophic warming."

Then in May 2006, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration issued a report of which John Christy was a co-author that further reconciled the differences in temperature trends. The report found that "global-average temperature increased at a rate of about 0.12 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.16 degrees C per decade since 1979. In the tropics, temperature increased at about 0.11 degrees C per decade since 1958, and about 0.13 degrees C per decade since 1979." I blogged the report at Reason ' s Hit & Run the day the report was issued. I also noted that Christy told the Washington Post that he has a "minimalist interpretation" of the report because Earth is not heating up rapidly at this point.

Just to bring my intellectual journey in reporting and opining about the global warming issue up to date, I reviewed former vice-president Al Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth for Reason. I agreed that Gore has "won the climate debate" and that "on balance Gore gets it more right than wrong on the science" though I argued he exaggerates just how bad future global warming is likely to be. However, I agree that the balance of the evidence pretty clearly indicates that humanity is contributing to global warming chiefly by means of loading up the atmosphere with extra carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels.

ExxonMobil has been a supporter of the Reason Foundation. Folks at the foundation confirmed when I called yesterday that the company has donated a little over $250,000 since 2000. The company's latest contributions were $10,000 in 2003 and $20,000 this past January. The last contribution poses a possible conundrum for hard-line corporate conspiracy theorists because it arrived about five months after I declared, "We're All Global Warmers Now." I would suggest that ExxonMobil supports the Reason Foundation because my colleagues robustly defend the free enterprise system. "Follow the money" is often pretty good advice when evaluating the source of information, but in the think tank and public policy magazine realm money tends follow opinion, rather than the other way around.

As further disclosure, I have worked with various organizations that I am told have also received grants from ExxonMobil, including CEI and the online publication TCSDaily (formerly TechCentralStation). At no time did anyone at those organizations ask me to change any of my reporting on global warming science or policy (or any other reporting on other topics for that matter). Back in the early 1990s, someone (whose name I have long forgotten) at Exxon asked me to write an article on global warming for the company's in-house magazine for $5,000. I absolutely refused. Finally, with regard to disclosure, I should mention that I own 50 shares of ExxonMobil that I bought on the advice of my stockbroker wife in October 2002 for $34.53 per share. I am happy to report that her advice was sound--those shares are going for about $64.00 today.

So if corporate shilling doesn't explain my stubborn skepticism about global warming, what does? Looking back over my reporting on the issue, I would argue the consistent theme is my reliance on temperature datasets as a way to either validate or invalidate the projections of computer climate models. Up until the last year or so, the satellite data and weather balloon data pointed to relatively modest global warming much below the trends predicted by most climate models. If those trends were correct then there was no imminent "planetary emergency." When the trends were shown to be incorrect last year, I "converted" into a global warmer. In the past year, a great deal of new evidence-reductions in arctic ice cover, growing Siberian lakes and so forth--has also tended to confirm the conclusion in my mind that man-made global warming may become a problem. Because of this accumulating evidence I am much less certain than Christy and Spencer are that the future warming is unlikely to be a significant problem.

And then there is also the matter of my intellectual commitments. We all have them. Since I work for a self-described libertarian magazine that should indicate to even the dimmest reader that I tend to have a healthy skepticism of government "solutions" to problems, including government solutions to environmental problems. I have long argued that the evidence shows that most environmental problems occur in open access commons-that is, people pollute air, rivers, overfish, cut rainforests, and so forth because no one owns them and therefore no one has an interest in protecting them. One can solve environmental problems caused by open access situations by either privatizing the commons or regulating it. It will not surprise anyone that I generally favor privatization. That's because I believe that the overwhelming balance of the evidence shows that centralized top-down regulation tends to be costly, slow, often ineffective, and highly politicized. As a skeptic of government action, I had hoped that the scientific evidence would lead to the conclusion that global warming would not be much of a problem, so that humanity could avoid the messy and highly politicized process of deciding what to do about it. Unhappily, I now believe that balance of evidence shows that global warming could well be a significant problem. Since it doesn't seem pertinent to the purpose of this column, I will leave the policy discussion of how to handle man-made climate change to another time.

So I didn't get any stacks of $20 dollar bills in brown paper bags from ExxonMobil (don't believe any photoshopped pictures you may see to the contrary). I also don't think that I was duped by paid-off scientists. Except for climatologist Robert Balling, as the embedded links above show, the sleuths at Exxonsecrets have uncovered no payments to the scientists I chiefly relied upon in my reporting over the years. But was I too skeptical, demanding too much evidence or ignoring evidence that cut against what I wanted to believe? Perhaps. In hindsight I can only plead that there is no magic formula for deciding when enough evidence has accumulated that a fair-minded person must change his or her mind on a controversial scientific issue. With regard to global warming it finally did for me in the last year. That was far too late for many and still too early for others. However, I can't resist pointing out that I became a "convert" on global warming nearly a year before some other prominent journalistic skeptics such as Gregg Easterbrook and Michael Shermer changed their minds.

So then not a whore, just virtuously wrong. Looking to the future, I can't promise that my reporting will always be right (no reporter can, but I will strive to make it so), but my reporting has always been honest and I promise that it always will be.
I have been a Reason subscriber since 1980 and I have read Bailey for years, his articles and his books. I have great admiration for him and I have agreed with him most of the time throughout the years. I know about his "conversion" (which was rather mild) but I don't agree with it.

Please note that his article was written almost five years ago and a lot has happened since then.
Old 08-29-11, 07:09 PM
  #221  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by movielib View Post
I have been a Reason subscriber since 1980 and I have read Bailey for years, his articles and his books. I have great admiration for him and I have agreed with him most of the time throughout the years. I know about his "conversion" (which was rather mild) but I don't agree with it.

Please note that his article was written almost five years ago and a lot has happened since then.
It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from. It's also a good summary of the debate up until 2006 written in a rather fair way (yes, just his opinion... but an rather educated one).

I bookmarked his blogs and I plan on catching up with his work in the next few weeks or so.
Old 08-29-11, 09:08 PM
  #222  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 41,569
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
It was just a well written piece that was a great snap-shot of 2006. His points on Exxon had a ring of truth that I was hoping JasonF's might get some insight from.
I think you've got me confused with CRM. I don't think there's any sort of malicious quid pro quo going on. I think people gravitate to organizations that coincide with their preconceptions (on both sides of this debate, and others). I also think corporations support those institutions that align with their goals -- not out of a desire to corrupt the process, but because they want to further those interests. So I've never thought that any but a tiny, tiny minority of skeptic scientists are corrupt and looking for an industry payoff (nor do I think any but a tiny, tiny minority of global warming scientists are corrupt as well, though to hear some people tell it, global warming is all a big money-making scheme for Al Gore).

Now, what I do think happens -- on both sides -- is that people get entrenched in their positions and so heavily invested in them that they lose the ability to see that they might be wrong. Not because they are corrupt, but because they are human, and people generally don't like to rethink things ideas and concepts that they have internalized. And for that reason -- because Bailey was willing to take a step back and rethink his positions, and in a way that probably did not make him popular with his peers -- I did find his article to be very interesting and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it.
Old 08-29-11, 09:19 PM
  #223  
DVD Talk Godfather
 
DVD Polizei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Posts: 53,733
Received 143 Likes on 106 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Not to belittle Global Warming (as I am about to die in a few days from it according the latest scientific reports)...but Margot Kidder is still alive? No way!
Old 08-29-11, 09:24 PM
  #224  
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
 
Navinabob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Bay Area, California
Posts: 8,939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by JasonF View Post
I think you've got me confused with CRM. I don't think there's any sort of malicious quid pro quo going on. I think people gravitate to organizations that coincide with their preconceptions (on both sides of this debate, and others). I also think corporations support those institutions that align with their goals -- not out of a desire to corrupt the process, but because they want to further those interests. So I've never thought that any but a tiny, tiny minority of skeptic scientists are corrupt and looking for an industry payoff (nor do I think any but a tiny, tiny minority of global warming scientists are corrupt as well, though to hear some people tell it, global warming is all a big money-making scheme for Al Gore).

Now, what I do think happens -- on both sides -- is that people get entrenched in their positions and so heavily invested in them that they lose the ability to see that they might be wrong. Not because they are corrupt, but because they are human, and people generally don't like to rethink things ideas and concepts that they have internalized. And for that reason -- because Bailey was willing to take a step back and rethink his positions, and in a way that probably did not make him popular with his peers -- I did find his article to be very interesting and well worth reading. Thanks for posting it.
Sorry, yeah... I got posts mixed up. I didn't mean any harm.
Old 08-30-11, 12:42 AM
  #225  
DVD Talk Hero
 
JasonF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 41,569
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Re: The One and Only Global Warming Thread, Part 11 (CO2 Kills 10 Billion People Edit

Originally Posted by Navinabob View Post
Sorry, yeah... I got posts mixed up. I didn't mean any harm.
No worries!

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.