E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Greg Rico / Penn State
Penn State climate scientist Michael Mann focuses on the politics as well as the science behind global warming.
If anyone thinks that climate scientist Michael Mann has been cowed by last year's controversy over stolen e-mails, known as Climategate ... or by last week's election, which could lead to congressional hearings that target Mann and his colleagues ... well, think again.
"They can threaten whatever they want," the Penn State professor told me on Sunday, after his talk at the New Horizons in Science meeting at Yale University. "I'm quite confident to fight those sorts of witch-hunt attempts."
Mann is already fighting an investigation by Virginia's attorney general, who has been pressing the University of Virginia to provide copies of Mann's e-mail correspondence from the years when he was a professor there. And at least some House Republicans have signaled that they want to mount their own investigation of climate scientists.
Although Mann didn't exactly say "Bring it on," he did note that "those on the other side of the aisle will see this as an opportunity." He doesn't think scientists will be pushed on the defensive by their congressional critics.
"We should look at this as an opportunity for offense," he said.
What's all the fuss about?
Those House Republicans, as well as Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, may be anxious to expose the "climate hoax." But the way Mann sees it, there's not much question that greenhouse-gas levels are going up, that global average temperatures are rising, and that industrial activity is playing a role in that rise. "You might not gather that from the nature of the discourse today," he admitted.
During Sunday's talk, he traced the chain of evidence once again, as he and fellow scientists did in research published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Mann's modeling of climate data shows what's known as a "hockey stick" of rapidly rising temperatures. That statistical jump has been hotly contested by climate skeptics, but Mann said the sharp rise shows up in at least a dozen other studies. "It's not a hockey stick -- it's a hockey league," he joked.
At the same time, he acknowledged that there have been uncertainties in the data, as well as missteps in the way those data have been presented.
For example, one study that became the focus of the Climategate e-mail debate used tree-ring measurements as a proxy for temperatures up to 1960, but switched to a different data set after that point. Mann said that the tree-ring data stopped reflecting true temperatures 50 years ago for reasons that are not yet fully known -- but he added that it was a mistake not to show the data anyway. "That was bad," he said. (A British inquiry into Climategate criticized the "misleading" portrayal of tree-ring data as one of the few scientific lapses in the scientists' conduct. One of the researchers said in an e-mail that he picked up the tree-ring "trick" from Mann.)
The uncertainties have more to do with exactly how hot things will get if current trends continue, rather than whether or not global temperatures will heat up. Mann said it's not known just how much of a positive feedback effect a warmer, moister atmosphere and the increased cloud cover might have -- which is why projections for the global temperature rise by 2100 vary by several degrees. Also, it remains to be seen how well scientists are modeling the effect of weather patterns such as El Nino and La Nina. If the models are off, "maybe we can't trust what they're predicting" when it comes to climate change on a region-by-region level.
But under any scenario, the models point to "an array of potentially deleterious effects" that will accompany rising global temperatures, ranging from stronger storms to the loss of polar ice sheets.
"The ice sheets are not Republican or Democrat," Mann said. "They don't have a political agenda as they disappear."
During his talk, Mann flashed a picture of his daughter and a polar bear at a zoo. "I can't imagine having to tell my daughter when she's grown up that polar bears became extinct ... because we didn't act soon enough to combat a problem that we knew was real, but we couldn't convince the public because we faced so much opposition from a very well-funded, very well-organized effort to distract the public," Mann said.
What is to be done?
Mann said scientists "can do our best to call out the disinformation where we see it." One example of this was how Mann reacted to a Climategate op-ed written by former GOP vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin for The Washington Post. He persuaded the Post to publish his own op-ed, responding to Palin's claims.
Mann praised the American Geophysical Union for providing resources to help set the record straight on climate science. He said journalists also should exercise their traditional role as a "critical and independent arbiter" of the policy debate, particularly in the midst of "politically motivated inquiries that we haven't seen in this country since the 1950s."
It might sound as if Mann relishes the fight, but he acknowledged that life after Climategate has not been easy for him. His routine now includes dealing with veiled death threats as well as investigations such as the one in Virginia. (The University of Virginia has reportedly run up a legal tab totaling $350,000 to fend off the state attorney general.) Mann is doing less research, and more speaking and writing. (For example, he's one of the scientists behind the RealClimate blog.)
"I spend quite a bit of time these days on what I might generously describe as outreach," he told me. "I think not every scientist should be doing this -- but more scientists should."
Update for 12:10 a.m. ET Nov. 9: During his talk, Mann praised the AGU for its role in the climate change debate, but some of that praise may have been based on reports about a campaign against global warming skeptics -- reports that the AGU later said were "inaccurate." In my report, I've revised the reference to the AGU role to reflect what the AGU says that role actually is.
The New Horizons in Science meeting is part of ScienceWriters 2010 and is organized by the Council for the Advancement of Science Writing. I'm CASW's treasurer.
To learn more about climate change, Mann recommends the Skeptical Science website, which offers mobile apps and browser add-ons. My recommendation? Msnbc.com's climate change coverage, naturally.
Connect with the Cosmic Log community by "liking" the log's Facebook page or following @b0yle on Twitter. You can also check out "The Case for Pluto," my book about the controversial dwarf planet and the search for new worlds.
Leave a Comment:
There is NO link between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer or heart disease. Oh wait, that was the last big FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) campaign.
I can't wait to see which House politician is going to step forward as the "McCarthy" of the "climate hoax". That's just what this country needs, a bunch of numb-nuts trying to discredit scientific research and further demonize science in general. Oh well, little Johnny is too busy playing Grand Theft Auto or Call to Duty: Black Ops to really give a damn anyway. Many thanks to Michael Mann for continuing to fight back in the face of overwhelming ignorance.
Mark, perhaps you should use a different example than McCarthy. After the fall of the Soviet Union, documentation from the KGB showed that McCarthy was correct.
McCarthyism was paranoia, pure and simple. And elements of it still remain in the American psyche.
There was never a communist threat to American "liberty"...communist principles being a scourge of the "free world"...HA !... war was the only threat...nuclear war.
Whenever the facts become inconvenient, deny, deny, deny and then deny some more.
Well then, Mr. Fact Finder, find us some facts.
You left wing religious nuts look more insane all of the time. If you actually read those emails with your own eyes you would see a cover up and no scientific data at all. All the climate disruption religous kooks have are computer models that are clearly worthless. The lack of an investigation by a credible (read noninsane socialist) into the matter will never happen, because no socialist will ever debate, they only dehumanize and destroy like the bigots they are. Your story changes too much as well. Global cooling, global warming, global climate change, climate disruption. Define any of those if you can in a way that actually shows things are changing in some way that wasnt already happening. Also when was the last time one of you nut jobs actually answered a question like hasnt the planet been warming for 11,000 years? The truth is the weather has been changing as long as there has been weather. The watermelon environmental block has staked their future on this and cant let it go. Also more evidence that it is BS is how come all the ways to mitigate what ever you are saying is happening to the climate gives more power to the government? Also how come none of the celbrities that are driving the debate and have the money to go carbon free are doing so?
It turns out if you actually were informed that McCarthty was right. Your closed mind is now exposed, and you look just like the religious nuts who tried Gallileo.
Dave, could you try that one more time in english.
The lesson of McCarthyism was not that there actually were communists. That still did not justify the witch-hunt and the lies. It did not justify a Senator going after anyone he didn't like, whetehr he had any evidence against them or not.
Likewise, climate change science should be based on the evidence, not on who can successfully smear whon.
Jeez Dave, you need medicine and not just because that rant was disturbing. Your understanding of the history of climate science and what data exists is clearly lacking. I would propose that there are those whose whole lives and identities are bound up in proving global warming wrong, just as you have proposed there are those who are bound up in proving it right. The difference is who has the data to back up their claim. I'll give you a hint - it's not the flat earth society. The opponents of AGW have nothing but poor statistics and zombie lies that they continue to purvey to gullible fools.
If the critiques you have against climate science had merit, then likewise you should have the same critiques of every other branch of science from physics to chemistry to genetics and oncology. That's because it seems you are arguing against the very process of science. That's why I know you don't understand your arguments well enough to be making them.
If I change the variables and corrupt the date in the equation process, I can make X = to anything that allows me to get more grant money. That what going on in the scientific community. It has become an industry to it self, and has corrupted it self, so people like AL Gore can beat their chest. They lie to us about the truth, so they can increase their wealth at our expense while they globe trot around the world in their private jumbo jets. Their leader has become a billionaire telling you that you should not run your A/C and drive a smaller car while he waste enough energy to power a small town. If you look at the historical record, there is about 20,000 years between ice age's and we are about 9,000 years from the last. That means it should get warmer for about a thousand years and the start getting colder as we move back towards an ice age again. IF you use their corrupt data, then global warming is actually saving us from the next ice age.
I don't doubt something is going on with our environment/climate, but unfortunately science is about facts and when you lie about something or massage the data, then all of your work is questioned. There have been a LOT of lies on both sides of this issue and for someone who thinks about things and doesn't just eat the crap shoveled at him, we need to get to the bottom of what has gone on.
I strongly suspect there would be a lot more money in it if scientists willing to corrupt the data simply went and worked for the oil industry, provided phony studies showing that there's nothing at all to worry about.
Seeing as how that's where you get your climate data from.
Actually, I got my data from the historical sources like discovery, wikpedia, archeology today and others. All you have to do is look at the data and throw out the theories. What has happened in the past will happen again as it is about cycles.
Every person in the US should read "Doubt is their Product", by Dr. David Michaels (current director of OSHA). It reveals how big business, with their legal accomplices, in this country have made an industry of discrediting valid science in the quest for maintaining the status quo in exploiting our citizens. The various fossil fuels industries are leading the way with an example given by the tobacco industry. Those who buy into their misinterpretations, bending of facts, and down-right lies, are the reason we have no effective environmental policy in this country - because industry knows they can get away with it, with the blessings of the nitwits who think there are no climate issues.
Mr. Messbarger:
I am sure, if you can give us an alternative fuel that will take the place of carbon at the same price and convenience the consumer is accustomed to, it will come on line tomorrow. The consumer will purchase it, be it from large corporations or not.
And speaking of consumers, those that will put smoke with tar and nicotine in their lungs and then sue a company for lung cancer can not accept responsiblity for their own actions. What parent has ever told their kids, "Go ahead and smoke. It's good for you."? Then, what kids have ever listened to their parents?
The Environmental policy in America is one of the most stringent in the world. What good is a policy though when the information given to the policy makers is not correct or is corrupted by "the limelight" of such people as Mann and Gore?
DelFairchild,
I could name several alternative fuel sources that could replace oil. The problem is people, such as yourself, are convinced that nothing but oil will do, so not nearly enough resources are committed to alternatives. If some catastrophe befell the world that made it impossible to use oil, or the oil suddenly disappeared, you could bet your last farthing that some alternative would be shortly on the scene, as long as their was profit to be made. Also remember, the oil industry, in particular, cannot make any money if the oil stays in the ground. What are they going to tell you about the climate affects?
Only one in ten people who smoke started smoking after the age of twenty-one. All others were children when they made the decision to become addicted to nicotine. You blame them. The tobacco companies are in the business to sell cigarettes. You think they just make them and put them out on the shelves for people to purchase? You cannot be so simple as to think it is just the smokers fault. A twelve year old is enticed into starting smoking by premises that the tobacco industry has brought into action to attract smokers. Child smokers. Check TobaccoDocuments.com. Look up what the industry did to attract their target market - 12 to 15 year olds. Then maybe you won't be so sure you are right.
If our environmental policy is so stringent, answer me this. Why is it that a business can do millions upon milliions of dollars in damages by dumping hazardous wastes into water aquifers and only pay a minute portion of the clean-up costs? Wouldn't it be better for everyone, except the business, if they didn't pollute to begin with? They can get away with contaminating the environment, as long as they will threaten to lay-off their workers if the penalties are too great.
My request if you just think you know something, keep it to yourself. As it is you are contributing to the damage by your misinformed attitude.
Alternatives can't be made at competitive prices because of the campaign of doubt, which is directed at undermining demand, and creating a backlash against subsidies for nascent businesses. I'd like to see how oil would have come online in the late 19th century if there was a monopolistic, well-entrenched competitor who demanded that oil try and grow in their shadow without being subsidized.
These subsidies are best seen as investments, which is what they really are. Oil will always be there, so what is wrong with creating a new industry? There can only be more jobs.
Of course there are several companies growing without subsidies, as well. It will only be a matter of time before the alternatives are attractive to the population at large. This is why there is a disinformation campaign against the science of global warming. The whole Climategate situation amounts to a tempest in a teapot and much ado about nothing. The only people upset with the scientists are people who don't know the first thing about science. The "errors" in the IPCC report were insignificant to the overall conclusions. These errors were found by the scientists, by the way, not the media. They represent the kinds of errors one would typically expect to find in such a large gathering of information from around the world. The report has been re-issued with the corrections and the conclusions drawn from it are solid.
"Campaigns of doubt" have no traction on cost of production, cost to market, or suitableness of purpose for the end user. There are good solid economic and technical reasons why most "alternatives" have remained merely niche alternatives and not major players in the energy markets. Largely it is because none of the so-called "alternatives" can come within $1 per 100,000 BTU of the cost of petroleum fuels.
BTW, there was an entrenched alternative to petroleum in the 19th century. It was called whale oil. Another entrenched alternative was coal and coal gas. Now while coal is still a major player in fixed source energy generation, petroleum has completely displaced whale oil as a mobile source fuel and lubricant. No subsidies required. It simply was cheaper and more convenient to the end users' purposes.
You could not name several fuels whcih could replace petroleumbased fuel if a gun was to your head.
Hunter,
Sorry my error, I meant alternative energy sources. Of course, if you weren't playing with your gun you might have recognized my meaning.
Well he has the CO2 level going up part right. Though he doesn't explain how temperatures have been going down for a decade. But he might be on to something about industrial activity having a role. All those buildings and roads do have a Urban Heat Island effect and all those poorly sited thermometers in cities and airports pick up on that "man made" temperature rise. Rural thermometers do not show rising temperatures. So I guess cities are somehow more sensitive to CO2 than the countryside?
One quote I didn't use from Mann was "In no conceivable way has the globe been cooling down over the last 10 years." Could you please point me to the data indicating that it is? That would be based on global mean temperatures. Today, Ralph Cicerone, president of the National Academy of Sciences, showed an upward-pointing graph including last year's temperatures. He pointed out that the mean temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere did indeed decline from 2008 to 2009, but that the mean temps in the Southern Hemisphere were the highest ever recorded.
Aha, now I see the graphs. 5-year running mean took a slight dip in Northern Hemisphere ... There's quite a bit of variability in year-to-year change, but there is definitely no steady decline:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
economykiller
There has not been a downward trend in global temperatures in over 30 years. This year will likely be the warmest on record.
Climate scientists have long ago ruled out urban heat island effects as being able to change our overall conclusions about global warming. You do not knowing these people. So your assumption that they are all incompetent liars is a bit of a stretch.
The steady decline for the last ten years is a zombie lie that refuses to be silenced. When it is debunked the purveyors of the lie simply move on to other blogs to spread it there anew. This is part of the decentralized disinformation campaign that Mann talks about. The lie began with a statistical aberration in global mean temperature data beginning in the year 1998. That year it was a record breaker for global mean temps. The next several years after that were cooler, though the ten years after 1998 had several years in the top ten hottest of all time as well. If one graphs the temp data beginning in 1998 and graphs the decade that follows, the slope of the line does indeed go down. However - graphing any other set of ten years that includes 1998, say 1992-2002, etc., produces a graph with a positive slope. Graphing all of the data up to the present also shows a positive slope right through the decade in question. 1998 was simply so hot that it throws off the statistical slope of the line if you only look at the small set of data immediately after it.
This kind of statistical maneuvering is much worse than anything supposedly done in the Climategate saga, yet the same people who deride those scientists as making up false data will happily manipulate this data set to make it say what they want - even in the face of overwhelming evidence that their conclusions are false.
radagast, the first book we read in my first college level statistics course was titled "How to Lie with Statistics". There was an entire chapter dedicated to how those with intent to deceive manipulate graphs by cherry picking the endpoints or the start and end years used to calculate annual running averages. It's a great read (considering it's about statistics). But it will not be of interest to those who prefer ignorance.
Finally! Proof college is good for something, it makes us all better liars!
Not to mention they adjusted the temps the wrong way about 10 years ago and you can't trust NASA's temps:
"How GISS adjusts temperature records in two adjacent sites"
http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/02/05/giss-manipulates-climate-data-in-mackay/
"Climategate: NOAA and NASA Complicit in Data Manipulation"
http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-noaa-and-nasa-complicit-in-data-manipulation/?singlepage=true
When you have done something wrong and have gotten caught, the best Defense is an Offense. Every kid knows that!
So that explains why the energy companies have been funding offensive misinformation campaigns for decades - they know they've done something wrong?!
When a great majority of the hundreds of scientists who are also climate change skeptics (and every bit as qualified as their alarmist counterparts) become climate change proponents, then maybe I'll start wringing my hands. If THIS fact is inconvenient, then just deny, deny, deny, and deny some more!
pay attention tens of thousands of scientists have signe petitions declare man made global climate change is made up by the multibillion dollar climate industry.
dave
First of all, those tens of thousands were not all scientists, and secondly, that's not what the petition said. Thirdly, that was quite awhile ago. And lastly, that petition drive was run by a biased organization.
I saw the petition drive online, if that was the one you are talking about. There was no way to confirm the status or identity of anyone who signed it. It was a sham from the start. I could have signed the petition as Batman with a PhD in knitting if I wanted to.
I run in scientific circles and I have never met a scientist who questions AGW, so I would love to get the name and area of study of some of these supposed scientists who are skeptics.
I will say this, I live in Northern Canada and I can tell you that the melting of polar ice and the opening of the northwest passage are very real. The cause might still be up for debate but the fact is it's happening. Transport companies are already trying to figure out how and where they can take advantage of new shipping lanes.
Whoo-hoo! Open shipping direct from Canada across the pole to Russia. Sorry polar bears no more ice for you. Better hope your offspring grow some brown fur and blend back in with the scenery.
radagast, the group behind the petition drive is from Cave Junction Oregon. Their business is selling survivalist information regarding nuclear holocaust (that's why they're in Cave Junction). The number of scientists who signed the petition is about 0.3% of all scientists with MS degree or better in the US. 99.7% of scientists did not sign that stupid petition.
Well, I don't know what to think. Really, I am completely conflicted over this issue. For years I was a stalwart "Global Warming" believer. I could see it and feel it.
But then I read Michael Crichton's book on Global Warming (he doesnt' believe in it) and his arguments were pretty convincing so now I don't know what to think.
Yes yes yes, I know Chricton's book was a work of fiction. But he had a glossary at the back with a number of references, etc. It was very convincing.
Sheeesh.
It is very complicated, and any knowledgable person could form an argument to sway the non-scientist either way. You have to listen to more than one person, to consider their credentials and motivations, and to try to understand some of the basic science yourself. That should lead any unbiased person to the realization that anthopogenic global warming will happen, even if we do not know for sure how serious the problem will be.
Thanks Jock, I'll try to do more research. I appreciate the civil response and the useful suggestions.
For myself, I can't wait to use Crichton's understanding of quantum theory to time travel to alternate universes forwards and backwards of us in time.
The neat about this in that as I write this, Team Vanderbilt runs the climate prediction program from BOINC on my computer so all of the posturing may soon be laid to rest.
@ economy, its called global warming, not regional warming. People can doubt the planet is warming all they want but with ice caps melting at an ever increasing rate you can deny the planets temp is increasing over time till you are blue in the face.
Just dont be surprised when you drown while you have your head stuck in the sand.
Instead of idiots denying the planet is warming perhaps they should be more concerned with the reason, is it because of mans activity? Or is it a natural cycle that we have no control over?
I am sure that man has contributed as to what extent I couldnt say but I am beginning to believe that it isnt as big of a factor as once thought.
Only time will tell.
Climate scientists are very concerned about the reason, and have been doing research on it for decades. The AGW prediction is not based simply on the fact that the temperature is going up. Of course that would not be enough to show an anthropogenic cause. The predictions are based on our knowledge of the mechanism of climate change, and the very clear evidence that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas, and has been associated with warming trends before.
If we settle for the position that "only time will tell," then by the time we have crystal clear incontrovertible results, the experiment will be over and we'll be toast. We don't have a spare planet to use as a "control". We've only got this one. So for a suggested protocol, lets do everything we possibly can to lower CO2 levels and see if maybe after a few years the global average temperature starts to go down. Would that be proof enough for ya?
Why do we consider the current global temperature (or some earlier global temperature) in any sense an optimum temperature? For sure the Earth has been much warmer, and much colder, than it is today. We're currently in a short interstitial period between glaciations halfway to the Equator in this Cenozoic era of Ice Ages. Life was more prolific during the ten degree warmer Mesozoic. How do we decide which temperature we like best? Do we hold a vote? If so, I vote for warmer than today (it is global chilly here this morning).
Well John,
You raise a fair question. In response I would say that as global temperatures rise, some places will indeed see balmier weather, but also some areas will begin to experience dangerous extremes. Even higher temperatures in the tropics than they have now will lead to increased prevalence of diseases such as malaria and yellow fever. If indeed the polar ice caps melt, as has been predicted in some worst case scenarios, ocean levels will rise by several feet, inundating half of Florida as well as other coastal regions around the world. Also, because major weather evnts like hurricanes and tornados are driven by temperature and moisture content of the air, they will become bigger and increasingly more dangerous, but hey that's no big deal if the rest of us have nicer days during the middle of winter, right?
Right MikeyMike. Devil take the hindmost has always been my philosophy.
Most of the climate models show the greatest temperature changes occurring at high latitudes. Not much changes in the tropics as carbon dioxide levels rise. This shouldn't be much of a surprise. As evaporation increases, those pesky things called clouds increase, increasing albedo and thus reflecting more solar energy back into space before it can reach the surface. This negative feedback is most pronounced in the tropics.
Of course if you don't put much faith in current computer models (I certainly don't), then we can look back in time to periods when the Earth was much warmer than today. The tropics just weren't all that much hotter than they are now, but the high latitudes were much nicer. Subtropic vegetation extended into Siberia, Alaska, and Northern Canada. We really don't have to guess what would happen with a 10 degree global temperature rise. We can look at the geologic record and see what happened when global temperatures were 10 degrees higher than they are today.
Alarmed people seem to believe temperatures are soaring to record levels. But actually, the Earth has been much hotter in the past. It has been very much colder too, in the more recent past. All things considered, I prefer warmer rather than colder. Can hillbillies morph into swamp people? I believe that they can. History is also replete with great migrations. I have confidence that people can follow their individually preferred micro-climates as conditions change. They did in the past. Certainly today's greater technology makes the task easier than ever.
Global Warming alarmists appear to believe that they can geo-engineer the global climate to some static number they have picked out of the air. I suspect that may be true to some extent. I merely disagree on the choice of number. I think that the era when dinosaurs roamed had a better, more prolific, climate than the alternate freezing and thawing of the modern epoch.
The evidence shows that the Arctic ahs been ice free many times in the last everal thousand years. Polar bears lived through it.
we are not facing a global climate catastrophe casued by CO2, no matter what little white lies dr. Mann is selling.
I'm personally eager to see the Republicans hold hearings. Perhaps after they discuss global warming they can have hearings on the earth being flat and 6000 years old, and how sheep's bladders prevent earthquakes.
THE EARTH'S NOT FLAT?
But seriously, IMHO nothing good can come out of Congressional witch-hunts. This is posturing for their corporate sponsors who are fighting the green movement tooth and nail.
This is one thing I do know without uncertainty. For the GOP money talks and science walks.
They should be addressing unemployment, the economy, not wasting time and money pimping for big business.
Next thing you know they'll be claiming that Earth is indeed the center of the universe.
we're not the center of the universe?
Best comment in this thread, but Susan you are forgetting before they hold their meetings they will be waiting for a sign from God so they know that they have his blessings, hopefully a few doves will be flying overhead.
I know that there are alot of people who will call me foolish, stupid and other less nice names. However, the research that I have done shows that there have been periods of warming and cooling over the past 2000 or so years. Why that time period? Well, there are some fairly decent records covering that time. Romans, Persians, China and other groups. Now I know that temps were not recorded, but, weather and climate were recorded. Now this means that humans were involved but not in a way that could cause change. Yes the ice caps are shrinking right now, but this has happened in the past. We are also in a period of heightened sunspot activity. There are more people on earth than ever before. Does all of this mean that "Global Warming" is because of us, people? Don't know. Even the climate scientist don't "know". They can believe, they can suppose, they can conclude, but proof, as in beyond a scientific doubt, no. And before anybody starts screaming, yes we are in a warming trend. But what is causing it? How long will it last? Remember, scientific process, observe, record, correlate, and then form a theory and test it. Not have a theory and collect data that will support it. Doesnot matter which side of an issue. And before someone says that all on the scientists say... Remember that in the 18th, 19th and a good part of the 20th centuries all the scientists said that the brains of the Black race were smaller than the white race and thus not as smart. Which we all know is a bunch of bull. Sorry if I insulted anybody, not what I was trying to do. Jury is still out, we should know in about two to three hundred years.
Science can never PROVE anything, but it can give us fair warning of problems we may face. No, we will not know FOR SURE if AGW will serious until after it happens, but then it will be too late to do anything about it. Science is showing us right now that we probably have a problem. Ignoring the science or hoping that it is wrong is not going to make it all better.
Yes science has been wrong before. But that doesn't mean it is safe to assume it is wrong this time. We should look at the current science objectively, regardless of what has happened in the past.
Yes, climate scientists know very well that the climate changes naturally all of the time. They also know that fact says nothing about whether or not we can affect it ALSO.
MAC, the damge done to the earth by mankinds' pouring hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere goes beyond just the affect on temperature. CO2 when combined with water vapor in the atmospere forms carbonic acid, which falls as acid rain. Acid rain is disrupting soil chemistry which harms forest and farm productivity along with life in rivers and streams. That's why GHW Bush signed the first cap and trade law in 1990 to combat acid rain in the northeast US. If you don't believe me, look it up. Acid rain is also causing acidification of the ocean which is damage coral reefs. Unlimited CO2 pollution damages our food supply. It also contributes to global warming.
The sham petition was the same stupid propaganda they Discovery Institute tried to do to raise false doubts about evolution. Claims about hacked emails proving fraud have been grossly exaggerated and misrepresented. They amount to quotes out of context.
The real way to avoid conflict in the future?
Before those uppity scientists publish any more papers, force them to send copies to the Vatican and to the Discovery Institute for their imprimatur that it doesn't disagree with the Bible. Then send it to Adnan Oktar to ensure it's okay by the Quran. Then send it to the Cato Institute and Heritage Foundation to make sure it's okay by Ayn Rand (and the oil, gas, and companies). Then to the various worker's parties to make sure Marx isn't turning over in his grave. Finally, we need to figure out the proper experts to consult for tea leaves, Ouija boards, and chicken guts.
Dear Mr Mann,
Is it back to "global warming", or is it "climate change", or "global climate disruption"? Just wonderin'.
Will the climate change? Sure will. It has changed in the past, following both the Milankovitch cycles and other disruptions (volcanic activity, mass methane releases), and it will happen in the future. Our world will continue to evolve; it is the course of Nature.
The real question is why should we continue to pollute the only place we have to live?
The real answer to the why I listed seems to be so that few can continue to reap huge rewards by enslaving us to their product; something with an artificially controlled price and whose application should solely be towards the production of plastics (oil) or geologists speaking of how it was created (coal). There are no other reason why we are so enslaved to those products beyond the whims and wants of the elite.
So with your brain wrapped around that, does it make sense to or not to release astounding levels of pollution into our environment? The few profit while air, sea, and land increase in toxicity, and the many suffer because they are blinded by ignorance and the slogan of "it will cost you too much" throw upon them by the profiting few.
When the air is so foul it cannot be breathed, can we use money in its place? When the water is undrinkable, will money replace the polluted water? When there is no place left for food to flourish, will money suffice for food? If you can eat, drink and breathe money, count your blessings.
Powering the world off of goo sucked out of the ground or a rock mined from the ground was great, in the 1870. It is now the 21st century. Wake up people, we have but one Earth and we need to be zealous stewards of its well being. An ounce of prevention is worth more than a pound of cure.
Derek
Derek, oil and coal are organic. Zealots tell us that organic is good. Zealots also romanticize filthy savages living short and brutish lives due to lack of a high energy civilization. Zealots who want to shut down our high energy civilization are actually saying they want most of us to live a short brutish life freezing in the dark, then die off to the "natural" carrying capacity of the Earth (about 20 million people at most). I say, save us some trouble, volunteer to be first in line to die self-hating zealot.
JohnCarter
I have known many environmentalists all of my life, and I have never met anyone remotely like the fantasy you describe. Perhaps your stereotypes would dissipate if you actually talked to people with an open mind.
That global warming induces climate change has always been part of the science. It's a big shock, though, to the guys who just read headlines (and a bigger shock to those who get their "news" from the conservative blog-o-sphere / echo chamber).
Temperature has not been "going down for a decade." That's just stupid. Repeating stuff from the echo-chamber does not make it true.
Regarding smoking, there was a time - decades ago - that cigarette companies paid "experts" to lie and to give phony criticisms about the dangers of smoking. They knew it was dangerous and deliberately tried to mislead the public about it. They even promoted it as healthful. Oh, yea, and the free enterprise religionists were supporting the corporate interests over public safety then, too
There is a difference between the skeptic and the denialist. The denialist will accept any argument no matter how stupid, without making the slightest effort to confirm it (a la Glenn Beck), if it agrees with his preconceptions. Likewise, he will reject any argument, no matter how strong the evidence, if it conflicts with this prejudices. Most of these guys start with their religious truth "government is evil and needs to be minimized" and then reject outright any science that might suggest problems that can't be solved by that type of approach.
A giant step forward would be convincing these "honest skeptics" that repeating stupid stuff they heard on FOX or read in the blog-o-sphere / echo chamber is not "research."
Dear Alan,
We need some equal credentialed scientists / oil company shills to give us the alternative view. We don't get near enough of that from the echo chamber.
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/ExxonMobil-GlobalWarming-tobacco.html
Yea, something like - what is it? - 2%? 3% of climate scientists are skeptical? How many of them are employed as political analysts by Cato Institute, Heartland Institute, Heritage Foundation, AEI, CEI, etc vs an academic / government institution? Anyway, if you send an email to one of these loyal American "think tanks," I'm sure they'll be happy to give you the best counter-opinion that carbon fuel money can buy.
In the mid cretaceous (110 - 90 MY ago) CO2 was at least 1000 ppm and the temps were
11 deg F warmer on average than today and it rained a lot more...DUHHHHH !
http://www.igsb.uiowa.edu/inforsch/greenhse/grnhouse.htm
Also during the Cretaceous, the middle part of the US was underwater.
It's called the Western Interior Seaway, and during that time it stretched from the Arctic to the Gulf of Mexico, covering all of present-day Texas, all of Mississippi, Nebraska, Montana, the Dakotas, and parts of many other states.
We don't have it now because all that water is locked up in the ice caps. We have less CO2 now because all that carbon got locked up in the dead matter that became today's oil. Now we're taking that CO2 and releasing it back into the atmosphere, and just think about what that means for the ice caps.
Human civilization has only been around for 10,000 years at best, and humanity as a species hasn't been around too much longer. Everything about our current society requires the weather to stay the way it has for the last 2000 years, and requires the ocean levels to stay where they've been. Change that, and there's trouble.
AGW isn't like fairies, it doesn't cease to exist because you don't believe in it.
If the climate is changing, it's changing. What we need to do as humans is accept this change, and learn how our agricultural production will survive.
Purdue University agricultural researchers have done some interesting work with regard to agricultural production in a warmer world. They found it increases, and increases rather dramatically, with rises in carbon dioxide. This should be no surprise, simply look at the explosion of life which has followed every other period of global warming throughout the history of the Earth. Plants treat CO2 as food. Americans are the obese of the land because there is so much food for them to consume. Plants are no different. Give them more food in a warmer and wetter world and they will proliferate.
Of course, a warmer and wetter world means disruption of our crop and agriculture patterns, and it also means a whole lot of people's current homes would be underwater.
JohnCarter
Unfortunately, everyone in the wolrd doesn't live in the Midwest. Carbon dioxide only increases plant growth when carbon dioxide is a limiting factor. In much of the world it is not. In most of the tropics and much of southern Asia and the American Southwest, climate change will cause crop falures because of high temperatures and drought. Famine, war, and refugee crises will likely follow. The world is no quite so simple as you want to believe.
All those actual climate scientists are just alarmists. More plant food means more food for us.
http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/u/5/g093lhtpEFo
Not for the tropics, it doesn't.
jock, I agree. I was being facetious.
Every time he opens his mouth he climbs higher and just has further to fall. Watch out for it. Don't be standing underneath. The climate scam is broken. The Earth is showing us. It cannot be put back together again.
i dont have the answers, nor the data... but living up in Winnipeg, looking out my door at the dusty grey of the landscape, and remembering that as little as 5 years ago by the time november hit, we had a foot or 2 of snow - i can assure you things are much warmer. Guess it takes living in extreme climates to notice extreme changes to it.
just a silly little question...tho' genuine.
If the trees have not shown a direct correlation in the last 50 years, as Professor Mann says, how can we know if they truly reflected the temperature in the past ? And doesn't the hockey stick graph rest on the link between tree ring cores and temperature ?
I am truly confused!
ust a silly little question...tho' genuine.
If the trees have not shown a direct correlation in the last 50 years, as Professor Mann says, how can we know if they truly reflected the temperature in the past ? And doesn't the hockey stick graph rest on the link between tree ring cores and temperature ?
I am truly confused!