Nobel Prize awarded to the Science of Global Warming

The same Al Gore who just had his movie ruled unfit to show in school classrooms, right?

Patashu: The same Al Gore who just had his movie ruled unfit to show in school classrooms, right?

How predictable these deniers are, and how ignorant of the facts.

how ignorant of the facts

Do I have it right?

Al Gore was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his part to educate the people of the world about global warming- if global warming is combated, water scarcity will be reduced and future wars for resources will be reduced.

That is, his prize is in honour of reducing conflict in the future.

BTW, the prize was awarded to him (little spelling flame there - sure hope my attempt at bolding worked).

A preemptive peace so to speak and thanks for the spell correction

Popper's Ghost:

how ignorant of the facts

It goes well beyond ignorance, to dishonest fabrication.

Pim, how can you tell Patashu is a global warming denier from his comment? Am I missing something here?
What happened to Popper's comments?

please don't critisize Patashu, he is just following the right wing talking points, they don't even know what "peer reviewed research" means, all they have is bull pupu. Seriously, asking a right winger to respond with valid data is foolish. They have to check on what today's talking points are. Watch him come back with a standard talking point, they just love to display their ignorance.

Pim, how can you tell Patashu is a global warming denier from his comment?

Am I missing something here?

What happened to Popper’s comments?

Check out this US Carbon Footprint Map, an interactive United States Carbon Footprint Map, illustrating Greenest States to Cities. This site has all sorts of stats on individual State & City energy consumptions, demographics and much more down to your local US City level...

http://www.eredux.com/states/

Man, when you say there is a similarity between the deniers and the creationists, you are right!. I have a network of basketball fan friends from college, most of whom are somewhat conservative (not all). But two are libertarians, one of whom is a financial analyst. Anyway, most of them are skeptical on global warming. When I piped in one day, I was assaulted by the financial analyst, who accused me of not knowing science, being a narrow-minded ideologue who didn't rely on facts, and pointing me to a whole slew of right-wing blogs for his "facts." So, being a scientist, I checked each one bit-by-bit. All BS, and all the familiar, depressing tactics. A small group of scientists signed onto a list denying global warming. A couple of articles that couldn't get published that were circulated around the net as an example of the conspiracy of the global warming believers to suppress criticism (the one that I evaluated in detail was complete crap -- the authors don't know how to do PCA). A lot of discussion of global warming as, basically, a religion, and some discussion that scientists have to support global warming to keep their funding (like claims that you have to accept evolution to keep your job, and that evolution is cooked up to defend a materialist worldview). And of course plenty of verbal abuse.

U.K. Judge Rules Gore's Climate Film Has 9 Errors By Mary Jordan Washington Post Foreign Service Friday, October 12, 2007; Page A12 LONDON, Oct. 11 -- A British judge has ruled that Al Gore's Oscar-winning film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," contains "nine errors." High Court Judge Michael Burton, deciding a lawsuit that questioned the film's suitability for showing in British classrooms, said Wednesday that the movie builds a "powerful" case that global warming is caused by humans and that urgent means are needed to counter it. But he also said Gore makes nine statements in the film that are not supported by current mainstream scientific consensus. Teachers, Burton concluded, could show the film but must alert students to what the judge called errors. The judge said that, for instance, Gore's script implies that Greenland or West Antarctica might melt in the near future, creating a sea level rise of up to 20 feet that would cause devastation from San Francisco to the Netherlands to Bangladesh. The judge called this "distinctly alarmist" and said the consensus view is that, if indeed Greenland melted, it would release this amount of water, "but only after, and over, millennia." Burton also said Gore contends that inhabitants of low-lying Pacific atolls have had to evacuate to New Zealand because of global warming. "But there is no such evidence of any such evacuation," the judge said. Another error, according to the judge, is that Gore says "a new scientific study shows that for the first time they are finding polar bears that have actually drowned swimming long distances up to 60 miles to find ice." Burton said that perhaps in the future polar bears will drown "by regression of pack-ice" but that the only study found on drowned polar bears attributed four deaths to a storm. The ruling comes amid speculation that Gore will win the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday for his work on global warming. Kalee Kreider, a spokesman for Gore, said the former vice president is "gratified that the courts verified that the central argument of 'An Inconvenient Truth' is supported by the scientific community." She said that "of the thousands and thousands of facts presented in the film, the judge apparently took issue with a handful." Kreider also said that Gore believes the film will educate a generation of young people about the "climate crisis" and that the "debate has shifted from 'Is the problem real?' to 'What can be done about it?' " Burton's ruling said that there is "now common ground that it is not simply a science film -- although it is clear that it is based substantially on scientific research and opinion -- but that it is a political film, albeit of course not party political." Burton said Gore's errors "arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis." Global warming has been a particularly big issue in Britain, where Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he wants to make his country a world leader in limiting carbon emissions. Earlier this year, British education officials began distributing DVDs of Gore's film to state schools as part of a package designed to educate 3 million secondary school students on climate change. The lawsuit was brought by Stewart Dimmock, a local school official who has two sons in state schools, in an attempt to block the education department's program. He claimed the film was inaccurate, politically biased and "sentimental mush" and therefore unsuitable for schools. Dimmock, who belongs to the tiny New Party, told reporters he was "elated" at the ruling. He said guidance and context that teachers now must give along with the film means that students will not be "indoctrinated with this political spin." But he said he was disappointed the film wasn't banned outright from schools. A spokesman for the Department of Children, Schools and Families said the agency was "delighted" that students could continue to see Gore's film. It has noted that the judge did not disagree with the film's main point -- that man-made emissions of greenhouse gases are causing serious climate consequences.

Poppers Ghost

Information? Context?
There must be other threads I have missed by Patashu.
Damn, I just can't tell. I'm not keeping up. Maybe it's because my explanatory filter isn't working.

paul

U.K. Judge Rules Gore’s Climate Film Has 9 Errors

There is much commonality between those who deny the science behind evolution and the science behind global warming and it should not come as a surprise that there exists a strong overlap between the two categories.

ex-xian, you don’t seem to have a clue, so I will kindly give you one. The link between Darwinism, HIV/AIDS and Global Warming: government funding! So what we have is basically “scientific political correctness”. I really have no axe to grind when it comes to the HIV/AIDS controversy; but consider this: HIV, the retrovirus, has been around since the 1920’s. If it’s been around since 1920, why did the AIDS epidemic start in the 80’s? Doesn’t that make you scratch your head a little? But, of course, you’re a liberal; and no one is more close-minded than a liberal, so, if the NY Times says that there’s no controversy, I’m sure that’s good enough for you. But we’re here to try and help you along.

It comes as no surprise, by the way, that the critic to whom PaV was replying his been banned and all his comments deleted.

paul fcd: Pim, how can you tell Patashu is a global warming denier from his comment? Am I missing something here? What happened to Popper's comments?

Now the truth

Stuart Dimmock v Secretary of State for Education and Skills

Nothing in the ruling supports the original statement.

Shame shame shame

Only a global warming denier would make such a claim. Although there is a possibility that it was just an ignorant comment.

The scientists believe such drownings are becoming widespread across the Arctic, an inevitable consequence of the doubling in the past 20 years of the proportion of polar bears having to swim in open seas.

The researchers returned to the vicinity a few days later after a fierce storm and found four dead bears floating in the water. “We estimate that of the order of 40 bears may have been swimming and that many of those probably drowned as a result of rough seas caused by high winds,” said the report.

Burton said Gore’s errors “arise in the context of alarmism and exaggeration in support of his political thesis.”

The amended Guidance Note contains in its introduction a new and significant passage: "[Schools] must bear in mind the following points * AIT promotes partisan political views (that is to say, one sided views about political issues) * teaching staff must be careful to ensure that they do not themselves promote those views; * in order to make sure of that, they should take care to help pupils examine the scientific evidence critically (rather than simply accepting what is said at face value) and to point out where Gore's view may be inaccurate or departs from that of mainstream scientific opinion; * where the film suggests that views should take particular action at the political level (e.g. to lobby their democratic representatives to vote for measures to cut carbon emissions), teaching staff must be careful to offer pupils a balanced presentation of opposing views and not to promote either the view expressed in the film or any other particular view.

You mean it -wasn't- ruled biased?

Geez, last time I listen to the news.

(and no, not a global warming denier at all, thanks)

I've been following this blog for years to get excellent news and scientifically sound rebuttals to the ignorance of creationism. Needless to say I'm totally flabbergasted to see you've fallen hook, line, and sinker for the outrageous hoax of man-made global warming. In this case it's ironic that the same reply that serves so well to the moronic assertion that evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics works equally well for the completely bogus pseudoscience that attempts to connect the earths constant long term cycles of heating and cooling to horse manure and SUV's.
Step outside and take a good long look at the large yellow ball in the sky. Don't stare too long though because the truth just may blind you. While you're standing outside, take a moment to get a breath of fresh air and consider a piece of advice commonly given to creationists who delve into biology discussions from a point of ignorance and consider that experts in one subject can look dismally dumb when they start asserting assumptions into another branch of science they are clueless about. Stick with evolution and you'll do just fine but please refrain from dragging the whole site and all of your hard work down with the BS of Al Gore's inconvenient hoax.

And, once again, another denier makes huge assertions, accuses an entire branch of science of involved in a massive conspiracy, demands opponents not discuss the issue, completely avoids addressing any of the points brought up by the author or any of the commenters, and provides absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up his or her bold claims. Shux is a textbook example of why evolution deniers and global warming deniers are so similar.

shux,

the completely bogus pseudoscience that attempts to connect the earths constant long term cycles of heating and cooling

I've bolded the problematic part of your diatribe. You might want to have a bit of a think about this.

I’m totally flabbergasted to see you’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the outrageous hoax of man-made global warming.

You mean it -wasn’t- ruled biased? Geez, last time I listen to the news.

# I turn to AIT, the film. The following is clear: i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme. ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton: "The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC: (1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise ("climate change"); (2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide ("greenhouse gases"); (3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and (4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects." These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world's climate scientists.

In this case it’s ironic that the same reply that serves so well to the moronic assertion that evolution is disproved by the second law of thermodynamics works equally well for the completely bogus pseudoscience that attempts to connect the earths constant long term cycles of heating and cooling to horse manure and SUV’s. Step outside and take a good long look at the large yellow ball in the sky.

You mean it -wasn’t- ruled biased?

Geez, last time I listen to the news.

Patashu said "The same Al Gore who just had his movie ruled unfit to show in school classrooms, right?"

this is right out of the right wing playbook, most right wingers are Global Warming denialists, and Patashu also says
"(and no, not a global warming denier at all, thanks)"

a non Global Warming denialist that is a right winger, Wow!

PvM.

I asked how you could tell Pashatu was a global warming denier, and you said...

"Only a global warming denier would make such a claim."

hey, thanks. really convincing.

I personally am pro global warming as long as it puts Washington D.C. under a hundred feet of water.

paul fcd: PvM. I asked how you could tell Pashatu was a global warming denier, and you said... "Only a global warming denier would make such a claim." hey, thanks. really convincing. I personally am pro global warming as long as it puts Washington D.C. under a hundred feet of water.

I personally am pro global warming as long as it puts Washington D.C. under a hundred feet of water.

When An Inconvenient Truth played at cinema (fairly) close by, I went out of my way to see it. I also took the precaution of bringing a climatologist friend along.

Her opinion was that the film was well-made, interesting and on the whole did not stray too far from the facts. Councils of perfection aside, neither she nor I expected it to be 100% accurate given that the science will have progressed since the movie was made, and that it is a broad topic that takes time to cover in depth. Apart from the occasional oversimplification and lack of context, very little in the movie jarred with what either of us knew.

As to climate-'scepticism'; it has long depressed me that the objections to AGW have become so similar to anti-evolutionary arguments that it is almost possible to refute most of them with a link to TalkOrigins.org. Like both ID and those people who deny the link between HIV and AIDS, their views are supported not by science but by ideology and politics.

If someone really believed that the whole thing is a "man-made scam", I fail to understand how then they can justify believing one word of evolutionary theory? In comparison to all the climate studies ever done, getting the scientific community to fake the results necessary to make it appear as though things evolve is a doddle. After all, it is a lot easier to manipulate the contents of a test-tube than the snow-cap of a mountain.

It is fundamental to the scientific method that we admit facts that do not agree with our prior judgements, and the facts suggest that anthropogenic global warming is the best explanation of the data at this time. To claim people are making it up is as absurd as claiming there's a world-wide cabal of biologists faking evidence for evolution and suppressing the truth of creation.

If someone really believed that the whole thing is a “man-made scam”, I fail to understand how then they can justify believing one word of evolutionary theory?

However putting DC under a 100 feet of water will affect much more of the world that just DC.

David B. wrote:

"After all, it is a lot easier to manipulate the contents of a test-tube than the snow-cap of a mountain."

While I agree with most of what you wrote, I must take exception to the above comment.

I agree that any massive scientific conspiracy is unlikely on just about any topic. Not only would it be impossible to control all of the evidence, but it would be even more impossible to get every scientist to agree on a single political or religious agenda.

However, when it comes to global warming, I can imagine the possiblility of some well-funded group messing with the snow caps on some mountains or even the ice sheets. It might not take too many millions of dollars to fake some critical evidence, or at least cast some doubt. However, it would be virtually impossible for anyone, no matter how well funded, to control the results of every sequencing project undertaken on every organism. There is a vast wealth of evolutionary information in the genomes of every living thing. No one can control this. One fossil find might be faked, but not every sequence ever obtained. Likewise, it would be virtually impossibe to control the results of every developmental study ever performed. Since these studies often have important medical implications, someone would have to blow the whistle fairly quickly if any mistakes were made.

In order to appreciate the magnitude of the problem, one must be aware of the magnitude of the evidence for evolution and it's availability to the average person. I teach DNA sequenceing to undergraduates. It only take a modest investment in equipment and virtually anyone can do it. You don't need a huge government grant. You could do it in your basement if you could afford the equipment (which proibably costs much less than the house you already own). That's why creationists spend so much time doing DNA sequencing, because it's so easy and they can so easily obtain all of the evidence they need in order to overthrow those evil Darwinists. Oh wait, never mind.

Speaking from an admitted position of ignorance, my reading is that the global warming models in fact rest (or are strongly influenced by) some reasonable but not fully established assumptions. There's the matter of how sensitive global climate is to small perturbations in atmospheric makeup. Which feedback processes are positive, which are negative? There are extrapolations from small-scale experiments or local conditions. The longer-term (decades) statistical data are sketchy in important ways.

And so there's little doubt the world is getting warmer, more doubt about the degree to which human activities are responsible, and a great deal of doubt about what economic changes would best address slowing such effects, how fast these would happen and how much they would cost. Whether or not global warming is itself "bad" seems entirely conditional on one's vested interests. I find it hard to credit the presumption that it will be harmful to all interests across the board.

What's most inconvenient about Gore's truth is that ameliorative actions threaten to lop drastic chunks off the profits of major industries. But profits are hardly evil. One needn't be a blind warming-denier to wonder just how much net total benefit would be purchased by the very real, very large costs we'd have to pay to restructure, say, automobile transportation alone, or power generation alone. Perhaps aggressive human population controls would be most cost effective?

Hello from the UK.

Sorry about this being long and sorry if the format is wring - I have little experience at blogging.

I am a mature (in age, at least 60+) student studying for a BSc in Earth Sciences at the Open University in my own time and at my own cost after a career in industrial chemistry. In my career I have had to draw together information from many disciplines so I am used to looking at original peer-reviewed papers. I worked in a nuclear power station where I was the senior technical chemist. I do not claim to be a "Research" scientist but I do believe I can follow a technical or scientific argument.

I have looked into creationism (esp. YEC, ID) and find it scientifically lacking. I suspect this comes as no great surprise to most readers (English understatement). I am looking forward to doing a final year course on Evolution next year and learning in a more formal way what I have already deduced: that the theory of evolution is soundly based in science, although subject to change as in any science.

I would probably be looked on as being "right" rather than "left" wing although I hate labels. If anyone wanted to put a label on me, they might say I believed in theistic evolution but again, labels are of little value.

I am pretty well convinced that the overall temperature of the Earth has increased by about 0.7 deg C in the last 100 plus years (with a band of uncertainty which does not include zero). I wish that some of the science behind palaeoclimate reconstructions was more open to review and in particular I am concerned about the extreme position taken by some climate scientists which tries to dismisses warm and cold cycles in the historical past. I am aware of the NAS study on aspects of this, along with the separate statistical assessment. I know enough earth sciences and geology to know that gross changes have occurred in the geological past as well as in the Holocene.

I accept the concept of "greenhouse" warming - without it the Earth would not be habitable. The main greenhouse gas is, of course, water with methane and carbon dioxide way behind. I find the modeling work done on global weather far from convincing because so much is not known about even simple things like clouds and the models are trying to deal with a chaotic system with multiple unknown feed-backs. I note that the IPCC does not use "predictions" but prefers the word "projections" as if it were trying to move away from the idea that models can actually be replied upon to predict the future.

I note that the IPCC puts a greater than 90% probability (Fischer would turn in his grave) that the global warming seen has been caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide. I am more convinced by the arguments of scientists like Dr Pielke Snr. which suggest while anthropogenic carbon dioxide has an effect there are other effects unrelated to that such as changes in land use (e.g. as implicated in the loss of snow on Mount Kilimanjaro). Natural variations in the Sun seem to be significant although a detailed mechanism not immediately obvious (as perhaps with Darwin and genetics?).

What concerns me is that a number of individuals and organizations for a variety of motives, are so concerned about the current state of the world that they are prepared to go beyond what the science is showing. Thus, Mr Gore and Dr James Hansen are happy to talk about 20 foot rises in sea-level with Manhattan and Pacific Islands under water when the evidence from a large number of peer reviewed studies is that measured rises in sea level are a few mm per annum or a foot or thereabouts in a century and there has been little or no change in sea-level in Tuvalu and elsewhere. It seems that other factors (removal of water from aquifers and the volcanic origins of many Pacific islands) are countering the small rise in sea-level.

The "Snows of Kilimanjaro" and polar bears are other examples where visually appealing stories are told without considering the science behind them. Mr Gore's film has a poster with a hurricane coming out of a smokestack with the unspoken implication that carbon dioxide is generating hurricanes. Peer reviewed papers have been produced in Science, Nature and other prestigious journals which argue both sides. As a project I have looked at the number of hurricanes making landfall on the continental USA from 1850 - 2006. Whatever trends there have been slight and probably not statistically significant. I am not the first person to note this.

It concerns me when politicians and scientists say there is a "consensus". Since when was science decided by consensus? If it is then you people have lost the argument on creation and evolution. When Hitler brought a large number of scientists together to criticize Albert Einstein (a Jew) he is alleged to have replied on the lines - if I was wrong it only needed one.

It concerns me when there seems to be little discussion on whether spending the odd trillion dollars to reduce carbon dioxide is REALLY the best way forward compared with adapting to the changes that until now have been small (less than 1 deg C) and there are other serious issues in the world such as lack of clean water and malaria which could be solved with a fraction of this money.

I feel I am a scientist who is willing to look at the science. It rarely follows stereotypes.

I see followers of religion: Christian, Muslims and others distort science to try to disprove evolution. I see others distorting science to make a primarily political point about how man is abusing this planet which will lead to disaster in "only a few short years".

I do not like what I see from either front.

Please do not assume that just because I am a Christian that I must be an evolution-denier and a global warming denier. There are a range of people outside academia who try to follow the disciplines of science. Sometimes it would be easier if it were more simple - it would be a lot less fascinating!

best wishes

Alan

Flint,

Agreed. Global warming will not be all bad. The overall temperature will increase, but some areas will be warmer and some will be colder. Climate patterns will change as well. Some areas will get more rainfall and some areas will get less. Change is not intrinsically good or bad in and of itself. However, large scale rapid changes will have a high cost. Humans will have to adapt quickly or they will lose significant investments.

It really doesn't matter how much of the change is being driven by human activities either. What we need to do is reduce the effect of human impacts, regardless. Even if most of the change is just part of a natural cycle, human activities that increase the effect should still be curtailed. If we are lucky, that may be enough to make a difference. If not, then at least we didn't make the problem any worse.

It concerns me when politicians and scientists say there is a “consensus”.

Alan,

Thanks for your comments. I mostly agree. However, I would like to point out that I am not advocating an alarmist position. It seems to me that at least some climate change can be directly attributable to anthropomorphic sources. I agree that the changes have not been dramatic so far, but the rate of change is already far in excess of any natural change so far documented. In addition, it is important to remember that the effect is not expected to be linear. There are probably significant tipping points that, once reached, will have much more extreme consequences and will be much harder to undo. It seems to me to be hightly irresponsible to continue to contribute to global warming when, as you point out, current models don't even make good prediction as to exactly how bad it will get.

We will eventually have to find alternative sources of energy when oil runs out anyway. Why not invest some more money now while it can have some effect on global warming? Don't forget, it will be much harder to fight malaria if it spreads throughout North America due to global warming.

Perhaps aggressive human population controls would be most cost effective?

It really doesn’t matter how much of the change is being driven by human activities either. What we need to do is reduce the effect of human impacts, regardless.

If we are lucky, that may be enough to make a difference. If not, then at least we didn’t make the problem any worse.

Popper's Ghost

Thank you for your comments. Surprisingly enough I was actually aware that Panda's Thumb is not a climatological site.

Those who have tried commenting at realclimate have found their posts cut and often their comments distorted or removed and themselves banned - a bit like a certain site that you are no doubt aware of in the more usual context of Panda's Thumb ...

The point I was making was that a Christian can be a serious scientist who looks at evolution and AGW and comes to different, seriously considered, views on both which happen to differ. I am not trying to convince anyone - that would suggest that I know it all when I know that I know that I don't.

Some of the comments earlier in this thread seemed to me to fall into the trap of thinking that anyone who "denies" anthropogenic global warming, and especially if they are a Christian, is going to "deny" AIDS/HIV and be a creationist - i.e. it's a way of thinking about things. Sorry. Human beings can be far more subtle and nuanced than that. In order to try to get the point across I felt I needed to show that I had thought some of the issues through and followed the technical literature since the lack of such was being criticised. I failed to get my point across. My bad, as you would say. Maybe I would say mea culpa.

Talking about consensus, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles which present science which provides an alternative to the more extreme AGW approach. I deliberately did not follow your lead and say "challenge" because science is not (or should not be) a dual with challenges. It can be a slow and careful accumulation of evidence for/against the prevailing paradigm.

Incidentally, I seem to remember that the consensus of science, with strong political support, was that miasmas in the air caused the terrible outbreak of Asiatic cholera in London in the 1850s (530 deaths). The solution was found by careful epidemiological research against all the best (junk) science by a Dr Snow, resulting in the removal of the handle of the Broad Street pump. Fat lot of good consensus did for the 530 souls ... That is not to say that the majority is always wrong: just that in science the truth has little to do with a democratic vote.

best wishes

Alan

To David Stanton

Hi David

There is much that I could discuss with you in your comment but that was not my purpose in writing initially. (See reply to Poppers Ghost). Cannot resist a couple of comments though ...

Malaria used to be a serious problem in both the USA and in the UK and it had little to do with temperature and global warming: it was a problem in the Little Ice Age with frost fairs for weeks on the River Thames. Another area where Mr Gore and I differ!

Yes, we should shepherd our resources and use them wisely. We should think of realistic alternatives to just burning anything we can get our hands on - cow dung, brushwood, coal, oil etc. They all have their problems. We ought to think about how we can use nuclear power - something that some, but not all, greens shy away from.

But with the current knowledge we have I think we should be doing that NOW anyway, regardless of whether it might do any good in halting global warming.

best wishes

Alan

PS Why did the spell check accept "serous" for "serious"? Another place where we are divided by a common language?

Surprisingly enough I was actually aware that Panda’s Thumb is not a climatological site.

Those who have tried commenting at realclimate have found their posts cut and often their comments distorted or removed and themselves banned

I am not trying to convince anyone

Some of the comments earlier in this thread seemed to me to fall into the trap of thinking

Incidentally, I seem to remember that the consensus of science, with strong political support, was that miasmas in the air caused the terrible outbreak of Asiatic cholera in London in the 1850s (530 deaths).

That is not to say that the majority is always wrong: just that in science the truth has little to do with a democratic vote.

PS Why did the spell check accept “serous” for “serious”?

In order to try to get the point across I felt I needed to show that I had thought some of the issues through and followed the technical literature since the lack of such was being criticised. I failed to get my point across.

Alan Bates said "Talking about consensus, there are plenty of peer-reviewed articles which present science which provides an alternative to the more extreme AGW approach"

could you post a few links to these peer reviewed publications, I certainly would like to see them, that us if they exist.

Alan and Popper's Ghost,

You guys make some good points. I agree that there are definate costs associated with trying to reduce greenhouse emissions. However, let's not forget that there could be some very big costs associated with not controlling them. Possibly the most important factor might be the rate of climate change, which we might still be able to have some effect on. That would at least buy us more time to develop alternative technologies.

If anthropogenic sources are significant, then controlling them could be one of the only ways in which we could attempt to delay reaching some tipping points as well. Pumping money into R and D and development of infrastructure for alternative fuels would seem to be a timely strategy regardless.

I was not aware that malaria had ever been a problem in the US or the UK. Do you think that the odds of it becoming a significant problem in these areas again could be affected by global warming, or am I being too simplistic here?

Alan and Popper’s Ghost, You guys make some good points.... However, let’s not forget

I was not aware that malaria had ever been a problem in the US or the UK.

Do you think that the odds of it becoming a significant problem in these areas again could be affected by global warming, or am I being too simplistic here?

Which brings us to the biggest reason the right hates Mr. Gore: in his case the smear campaign has failed. He's taken everything they could throw at him, and emerged more respected, and more credible, than ever. And it drives them crazy.

Thanks Popper's Ghost.

So, I guess I'm not the only one who is concerned about the possibility of malarial outbreaks in heavily populated areas where it has not been prevalent for a long time. There could be a significant cost to this, especiallty if it means that major medical resources will have to be dedicated to fighting new outbreaks. And, as the article points out, this could occur for many other diseases as well.

the 100 feet of water thing is what we call a "joke". It might not be funny, but you didn't get it.

the 100 feet of water thing is what we call a “joke”. It might not be funny

but you didn’t get it

P.S. When you tell a joke and someone doesn't get it, the normal thing to do is to explain it -- point out the irony, contradiction, double or uncommon meaning, or other surprising element that the person missed. So why don't you explain just what clever thing it was we didn't get. I mean, I can understand that there might be some faint amusement from the notion of you being willing to trade the bad aspects of global warming for the elimination George Bush and Dick Cheney, or all the top federal Republican Party members, or all Democratic Congresspersons if you swing that way; perhaps even the entire federal government if you're a libertarian -- but then we would have to know that for it to be funny; it might be amusing at a libertarian convention, especially since they tend to be callous, self-centered, victim-blaming, and unfriendly to the poor and minorities, and so they might appreciate the imagery of the entire population of Washington DC drowning. But as we aren't all libertarians, the whole city seems rather broad. See, rather than being funny, that just makes you seem callous and rather obtuse as to what drowning Washington DC would entail. So why, exactly, would you find that deluge satisfying? It seems that the "joke" ought to have at least hinted at that.

Ok, you're right.

How about this one. Popper's Ghost, a rabbi, and a priest walk into a bar...

To Poppers Ghost

Thank you for the helpful comment on "serous" - shows I am not a biologist.

I had to leave off last night at midnight and this is my first chance to comment further. I do not intend to say much more because what I felt was a sincere comment has been battered for reasons that are not clear to me. I tried to make what I felt was a reasonable point. I failed and seemed to have stirred up an argument which was not my intention. My choice of words does not seem to fit in the style on this site which is fine - I am only a visitor. I will go back to lurk mode.

When I have a bit more time (I am studying for an exam this week worth 1/6th of an honours degree)_I will respond to the question about whether or not there are peer-reviewed papers that are inconsistent with aspects of the AGW hypothesis and in particular with the more extreme expressions of Dr Hansen and Mr Gore. The questioner seemed to doubt it and it will take me some time to pull a list together - I am not a wandering troll with all of this already laid out ready to respond.

best wishes

Alan

How about this one. Popper’s Ghost, a rabbi, and a priest walk into a bar…

Hey, I just said “there’s an argument about cost”; I didn’t say I necessarily agree with it. :-)

I follow Real Climate daily and sometimes post comments there. My observation is that politely expressed views do indeed eventually appear. Neither personal attacks nor, usually, off-topic comments are allowed, with occasionally some posts partially edited by the moderators. On some occasions the moderation on that site requires as long as 26 hours.

There are at least two classes of commenters there, just as there are here. There are those amateurs who have studied some aspects of climatology rather thoroughly and are often willing to help the somewhat confused and bewildered clarify some aspect of the climate sciences.

The claim that Dr. James E. Hansen engages in excess or hyperbole is simply wrong. He is a careful and responsible scientist.

If Alan wishes to carry on further regarding any aspects on climatology, I recommend that he move to Real Climate where there are several ready to provide guidance regarding the science.

Biologists might care about the climatological predictions since these appear to be related to the Sixth Mass Extinction.

Hey, I just said “there’s an argument about cost”; I didn’t say I necessarily agree with it. :-)

To paraphrase an old caution, it’s not nice messing with mother market mechanism.

what I felt was a sincere comment has been battered for reasons that are not clear to me

Virtually every news outlet has misreported and selectively reported this ruling.

I was not aware that malaria had ever been a problem in the US or the UK. Do you think that the odds of it becoming a significant problem in these areas again could be affected by global warming, or am I being too simplistic here?

Since when was science decided by consensus?

IPCC puts a greater than 90% probability (Fischer would turn in his grave)

And before I get hammered on a biology site, I'm aware that Anopheles mosquito comprises several species. It came out wrong.

Alan Bates said "I will respond to the question about whether or not there are peer-reviewed papers..."

Find any?, I didn't!