It's a Small World: Kepler Spacecraft Discovers First Known Earth-Size Exoplanets: Scientific American

It's a Small World: Kepler Spacecraft Discovers First Known Earth-Size Exoplanets: Scientific American

From a related article: The message is simple, says Sara Seager, a planet hunter at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the discovery team: Planets abound wherever we look. “We think every star has planets.”

That is consistent with a back-of-the-envelope calculation I made a year ago, http://bit.ly/aprDiM, that was itself backed up 2 weeks later by findings of a team of astronomers from Yale and the Harvard-Smithsonian Institute for Astrophysics (http://bit.ly/qU3Qel). In all, living in the era of powerful ground-based and space telescopes is really freakin cool, man!

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

Edge: WHAT MAKES PEOPLE VOTE REPUBLICAN? By Jonathan Haidt

This is a very illuminating essay on psychology that helps explain the bases of one's political leanings.

Ceding Liberty to Terror: Senate Votes Against Due-Process Rights - Conor Friedersdorf - Politics - The Atlantic

Too many people - sadly, but in some ways understandably - don't pay close attention to politics and public policy. As a citizen in this democracy, and to ensure the robustness of that democracy, you really should. Because when you do not, your passivity and inattention can cost you your liberty. As in, all of it and permanently.

Wednesday, 55 United States senators (43 Republicans and 12 Democrats) voted to make it lawful for the president to order any American held indefinitely as a terrorist, without formal charges, evidence presented in open court, a trial by jury, or a standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt." Effectively, they just voted for authoritarianism. If you think that's okay, by all means, carry on with the more important things in your life that divert your attention from the decisions that the people you elect to decide such things on your behalf make.

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

How the GOP Became the Party of the Rich | Politics News | Rolling Stone

This piece shows how 30+ years of economic policy, driven mainly by Republicans, have benefited and favored those at the top of the economic ladder. While it may be the case that the Occupy Movement so far lacks a coherent, unified message or set of grievances for which it seeks redress, one cannot read this article and not apprehend why it is that the Occupy protests exist.

Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Despite Rick Perry, consensus on climate change keeps strengthening - Ezra Klein - The Washington Post

Text of another climate "debate" on facebook in which I participated. (College credit may be available)

Below I've provided the facebook comments thread relating to a discussion that occurred in response to the posting of an article about Rick Perry's expressed disbelief in climate science. I invested quite a bit of time researching sources and writing my comments with the intent that those involved in the discussion, and other readers, walk away from it with a higher level of understanding of climate science and the so-called climate debate. There are instances where my impatience seeps into my language.

A couple sections of my comments (particularly on water vapor and CO2 lag) are taken from sources such as skepticalscience.com and Dave Roberts' column in Grist. Attribution was not diligently given to all cited or borrowed text; I was posting to facebook after all, not writing an academic paper.

http://www.facebook.com/markedandsam/posts/237733142935595?notif_t=share_reply

--David Smith---

I mean, we could just look at what's actually happening, according to NASA:
http://sanfrancisco.ibtimes.com/articles/189649/20110730/global-warming-hoax-nasa-earth-releasing-heat-space.htm

---Robert Hachtel---

Well it must be a hoax. Sent that article to my friend with an advance degree in the scientific mucky muck and he just posted something about where this article orginated from. This is what he says:

"The only thing bad I see about that article is the title. The balance of the article discusses the limitations on conclusions that can be drawn from Spencer’s paper. If someone is using that International Business Times article as proof climate change isn’t occurring as modeled, then he’s not read nor understood the article, and presumably he hasn’t read and understood the conclusion of Spencer’s paper. I have.

Spencer’s paper concludes

"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

The final conclusion of the paper is that there are unresolved uncertainties about radiative forcings and radiative feedback. Climate scientists will be reviewing and analyzing Spencer’s research to determine the strength of the data and the appropriateness of his conclusions. And real scientists don’t fear or shy away from this. The data Spencer collected and analyzed will be factored into climate models if the data are good. Real scientists are concerned with getting the models right and as accurate as possible based on data and our ever-increasing understanding of Earth’s climate system. Refinement of existing assumptions and conclusions is part of the scientific process."

---Robert Hachtel---

Ughhh. Should have never set the alarm for a sleeping giant. This is his expertise not mine. It's above my pay grade.

---David Smith---

Well "3/4 of the world's experts" sounds like a bullshit #, so I'll give your friend about as much credibility as I give Gore, and all the scientists whose funding and jobs rely on there being a man made problem.
Why don't you ask him what the energy transfer coefficient of Co2 is in comparison to Water Vapor? Or Aluminum, used in alloys for distributing power through computers and power lines.

---Me---

You may ask me yourself.

First, what one chooses to believe of the truths of nature as revealed by science, and whether and how much credit you give me, or Gore for that matter, is irrelevant. My credibility is established by my command of the science at issue acquired through dozens of hundreds of hours of study, analysis, and writing in the areas of environmental science, public health and law over 17 years. And to paraphrase astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, the truths of the natural world as revealed by science do not depend for their existence on whether humans believe them. On an historical note, the political aspect to the “debate” about the science of anthropogenic climate change is nothing new. In 1920, Albert Einstein wrote, “Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on party affiliation.” Where does science stand today on acceptance of Einstein's theory of general relativity?

Second, Bob’s second-to-last comment is the text of an email I wrote to him. In it I refer to the paper by Spencer and Braswell (http://bit.ly/pX9Wo2) mentioned in the International Business Times (IBT) piece that has given rise to premature declarations by anthropogenic climate change deniers/skeptics that current models overestimate climate sensitivity to forcing by atmospheric CO2 concentration (denoted [CO2]). As I note, the IBT piece describes concerns with the robustness of Spencer’s statistical analysis and the reliability of his conclusions. As other scientists evaluate Spencer’s research methodology and conclusions, we will gain a better sense of the strengths and weaknesses of his paper and its underlying data. That, in a nutshell, is the scientific method. Global Circulation Models (GCMs) undergo constant revisions and updates as data is collected and research advances our understanding of Earth’s climate system. Interestingly, in his paper Spencer himself offers his conclusion with a degree of caution not exhibited by those who are jumping on the bandwagon that his paper is some conclusive stake in the heart of predictions of current models and observations: “we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem.”

Third, to your question about “energy transfer coefficients.” Energy transfer coefficient is a formula in thermodynamics to calculate heat transfer by convection or phase change between a fluid and a solid. It looks like this

h = q / {(A)(ΔT)}

where
q = heat flow in input or lost heat flow, J/s = W
h = heat transfer coefficient, W/(m^2K)
A = heat transfer surface area, m^2
ΔT = difference in temperature between the solid surface and surrounding fluid area, K

I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you mean something other than heat transfer coefficient, because in terms of the physical and atmospheric chemical processes involved in climate measurements and models, heat transfer coefficients of H2O and CO2 are meaningless.

Fourth, the “3/4 of the world’s experts” number is indeed bullshit. It is, in fact, higher. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009: http://bit.ly/qmF26b). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL). Further, the National Academies of Science of 19 countries and more than 27 scientific organizations endorse the consensus position that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities."

Finally, the article at the top of this discussion indicates that Rick Perry “believes” anthropogenic climate change is an unproven theory. That anyone would put any stock in a belief or opinion by Rick Perry about science is laughable. I wrote yesterday: “Of course a man who earned nothing higher than a C in college science classes at Texas A&M, and who believes prayers, rather than meteorological processes, cause rain doesn't believe in scientists. By the same token, it seems probable that, having earned a D in economics and run up a $28 billion deficit while governor, he doesn't believe in economists either.”

---Robert Hachtel---

Let this be a lesson kids. Don't poke the bear at the Zoo.

---Erikka Youngstrom---

I wonder what Phil Jones, the head of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia "thinks"... where do you think his vote landed?

---Erikka Youngstrom---

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/24/hiding-evidence-of-global-cooling/ This is why "experts" are in question, in case you missed this.

---Me---

Consider that there have now been six inquiries into the "climategate" matter. Penn State established an independent inquiry into the accusations against scientist Michael Mann and found "no credible evidence" (http://bit.ly/rnUHRU) of improper research conduct. A British government investigation run by the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee found that while the CRU scientists could have been more transparent and responsive to freedom-of-information requests, there was no evidence of scientific misconduct (http://bit.ly/nAVeEI). The U.K.'s Royal Society (its equivalent of the United States' National Academies) ran an investigation (http://nyti.ms/nL5sBE) that found "no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice." The University of East Anglia appointed (http://bit.ly/oCGx5c) respected civil servant Sir Muir Russell to run an exhaustive, six-month independent inquiry; he concluded (http://bit.ly/pI1RHV) that "the honesty and rigour of CRU as scientists are not in doubt ... We have not found any evidence of behaviour that might undermine the conclusions of the IPCC assessments."

All those results are suggestive, but let's face it, they're mostly British. Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.) wanted an American investigation of all the American scientists involved in these purported dirty deeds. So he asked the Department of Commerce's inspector general to get to the bottom of it. On Feb. 18, the results of that investigation were released. "In our review of the CRU emails," the IG's office said in its letter to Inhofe (http://bit.ly/oRzlga), "we did not find any evidence that NOAA inappropriately manipulated data ... or failed to adhere to appropriate peer review procedures." Senator Inhofe’s statement about the report indicates that he accepted its findings. Having been denied an opportunity to use the CRU emails to claim that scientists have manipulated data or squelched scientific debate, the senator limited his remarks to issues of foot dragging on FOIA requests.

Whatever legitimate issues there may be about the responsiveness or transparency of this particular group of scientists, there was nothing in this controversy -- nothing -- that cast even the slightest doubt on the basic findings of climate science.

(Excerpted from the following article by Dave Roberts http://bit.ly/nhlnPh, and from http://bit.ly/oRzlga)

---David Smith---

Rob, You're a tourist at the Zoo at best, not the bear. Bears don't need to call in backup.

Eric - Wouldn't the rate at which an element retains/transfer infrared waves play a roll in it's ability to trap heat within the atmosphere? And you wouldn't argue that water vapor is a lessor or even equal "greenhouse" gas, trapping far more infrared than CO2. Odd then that the green movement would have pushed so hard in the early days for replacing Co2 emissions with....water vapor, isn't it?

Plus, CO2 only absorbs Infrared of a very specific range of micro-wavelength if I remember correctly, a range of infrared that hardly any of is reflected by the surface back into the atmosphere to be trapped. Perhaps that's why CO2 level course changes in the atmosphere have never preceded temperature change, they always follow them.

"A survey of 3146 earth scientists"
What's an "Earth scientist?" I've never seen that Ph.D program. How many geologists and oceanographers did they have to find to bulk up the numbers on a Climate theory?
Is 3146 of people included in this made up catagory a majority? How many are there total? Is this like that IPCC report where objecting scientists were included anyway as supporters, and many weren't actually "Scientists" at all?

For a scientist, you seem to lack a nose for bullshit. Your sources can be bought, just like Exxon is supposedly paying off the lead author of the IPCC report and the co-founder of Greenpeace. I've even seen a peer reviewed experiment where a thermal camera caught more heat radiating from a jar of air with higher concentrations of Co2, claiming to be evidence that higher concentrations of CO2 TRAP more heat.

I guess my BS flag went up when all the kooks and big wigs with billions of dollars on the line said the debate was over, when nothing was proven, and te historical record trended toward the counter argument.

---David Smith---

I guess what I meant was "heat coefficients" (J/g*deg K)
Or, the rate at which an element absorbs/releases heat energy.


Such as is for these atmospheric elements and others:


Water--4.1813
Methane--2.34
Nitrogen gas--1.040
Oxygen gas--.918
Aluminum--.897
CO2--.839
Carbon--.644
Copper--.385
Mercury--.1395
All of which anybody can look up.

Now we can apply a simple formula:
Amount of Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2).

c = the specific heat coefficient, m = mass, T1 - T2 = change in temperature.

And determine what effect adding more of one element opposed to others would have. So is it really smart to be adding more water vapor to the air than CO2, if the goal is hampering the Greenhouse effect?

Even if CO2 slowed the heat dispersal through the atmosphere, potentially allowing the H2O to absorb more, the H2o would obviously already BE hotter than the CO2, meaning this theory violates the second law of Thermodynamics: Heat flows to where it's cooler. Doesn't it?
 

---Erikka Youngstrom---

Eric - "Whatever legitimate issues there may be about the responsiveness or transparency of this particular group of scientists, there was nothing in this controversy -- nothing -- that cast even the slightest doubt on the basic findings of climate science." On the contrary, this event has shaken the confidence of many. Thus, this debate.

---Me---

Respectfully, Erikka, this isn’t a “debate.” A debate would entail two equally qualified and credentialed parties presenting their arguments point and counter-point based on competing bodies of empirical evidence and verifiable data. That is not what’s occurring here. And I intend no disrespect to either you or Dave. But on one hand there is Dave, who studied communications at Texas State. Despite having no apparent background and no demonstrable expertise in any Earth science discipline, Dave takes a position contrary to the consensus view endorsed by 27 international science organizations and the National Academies of Science of 19 countries because he *chooses* to believe--as his evident partisan predispositions impel him to--in the conspiratorial notion that climate scientists the world over have conspired for decades to produce a climate change “hoax” in order to ensure continued funding of their research and livelihood, rather than to explain and understand the phenomenon of anthropogenic global climate change and its potentially dire consequences for the biosphere. Though he proffers no evidence of the supposed conspiracy, to his credit, Dave, despite an initial terminological misstep, appears to have learned some science to at least ask a germane question about H2O vapor, which I’ll address while I attempt to refrain from 1) describing the acuity of my nose to detect barely scientifically literate bullshit when I encounter it and 2) citing the analogy of the teen who watches a martial arts matinée, then under the delusion that he knows kung fu, gets his ass kicked when he picks a fight with a real black belt. On the other hand, there is I, who studied environmental science & engineering and decision analytics for six years at UNC, Harvard and M.I.T. before earning my law degree. In response to Dave’s disbelief about the percentage of scientists who endorse the consensus view, I offered a published study of a survey of respondents, 90% of whom hold a Ph.D., that showed the percentages of Earth scientists generally, and climatologists specifically, who agree with the consensus view. In response to that, Dave questions what an Earth scientist is, as if to suggest that there is no such thing, or that the numbers are padded, or that the work of atmospheric chemists, oceanographers, paleogeologists, terrestrial ecologists, glaciologists, aquatic and marine chemists, physicists and any number of other Earth scientists is not inherently interdisciplinary and broadly interconnected in myriad ways to aspects of climate science. And in response to your outdated Washington Times piece, which indeed caused a stir and shook lay peoples’ confidence, as you say, I’ve offered reports and authorities showing that no fewer than 6 separate investigations into “climategate” fully exonerated Phil Jones, CRU, Michael Mann and all involved, and left solidly intact the basic findings of climate science. Were you aware of those investigations or their outcomes? With the same rabid vigor that they sought to alarm people, did the Washington Times or Fox News or the Wall Street Journal Editorial Board endeavor in earnest to inform their readers and viewers that the story they all had pushed to scare you into questioning the validity of climate research turned out to be, to borrow Dave’s favorite scientific buzzword, bullshit? Do you, Dave, have evidence to support your theory that any single member of Britain’s House of Commons’ Science and Technology Committee, or the U.K.’s Royal Society, or Sir Muir Russell, or the Department of Commerce’s inspector general, or Senator Inhofe, were “bought?” Of course you don’t. That is precisely why it’s called a conspiracy theory, and it is of no moment.

You see, sadly, many of you like to believe there is some “green” “movement” “pushing” fake science toward some nefarious but undefined and undefinable end; and that those of us who recite facts and evidence somehow have been duped and misled in what we believe BECAUSE OF that evidence. Although by and large none of you possesses much background, if any at all, let alone actual demonstrable expertise, in the relevant scientific disciplines, you sit in judgment, smugly confident in what your partisan predispositions impel you to “believe” IN SPITE OF that evidence. The joke is that it is you who have been duped. If only it were the case that that joke is solely on you. It is not. It is on all of us. The “debate,” as it were, is not between one group of scientists with their data supporting the consensus view, and another group with its data contradicting it. It is between empiricists with a mountain of data collected and analyzed over about 70 years supporting the consensus view, and partisans with no data who want not to believe it. And the longer this fictitious “debate” between scientific empiricists and partisan and religious believers persists, the longer it will take to dedicate ourselves to a course of pragmatic, coordinated public policy and private sector actions to ensure we avert causing long-term harm to ourselves and the global ecosystem.

---Me---

On the water vapour question:


Water vapour is the most dominant greenhouse gas. The greenhouse effect or radiative flux for water is around 75 W/m^2 while carbon dioxide contributes 32 W/m^2 (Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget, Kiehl & Trenberth 1997). These proportions are confirmed by measurements of infrared radiation returning to the Earth's surface (Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate, Evans 2006, http://bit.ly/qlhIwO). Water vapour is also the dominant positive feedback in our climate system and a major reason why temperature is so sensitive to changes in CO2.
Unlike external forcings such as CO2 which can be added to the atmosphere, the level of water vapour in the atmosphere is a function of temperature. Water vapour is brought into the atmosphere via evaporation - the rate depends on the temperature of the ocean and air, being governed by the Clausius-Clapeyron relation (http://bit.ly/oWoWSM). If extra water is added to the atmosphere, it eventually condenses and falls as rain or snow. Similarly, if somehow moisture was sucked out of the atmosphere, evaporation would restore water vapour levels to 'normal’ in short time.
As water vapour is directly related to temperature, it's also a positive feedback - in fact, the largest positive feedback in the climate system (Soden 2005). As temperature rises, evaporation increases and more water vapour accumulates in the atmosphere. As a greenhouse gas, the water absorbs more heat, further warming the air and causing more evaporation. When CO2 is added to the atmosphere, as a greenhouse gas it has a warming effect. This causes more water to evaporate and warm the air to a higher, stabilized level. So the warming from CO2 has an amplified effect.
How much does water vapour amplify CO2 warming? Without any feedbacks, a doubling of CO2 would warm the globe around 1°C. Taken on its own, water vapour feedback roughly doubles the amount of CO2 warming. When other feedbacks are included (e.g., loss of albedo due to melting ice), the total warming from a doubling of CO2 is around 3°C (Water Vapor Feedback and Global Warming, Held 2000, http://bit.ly/qlnzrv).
The amplifying effect of water vapor has been observed in the global cooling after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Soden 2001, http://bit.ly/p4NBmN). The cooling led to atmospheric drying which amplified the temperature drop. A climate sensitivity of around 3°C is also confirmed by numerous empirical studies (http://bit.ly/r1Y5RF) examining how climate has responded to various forcings in the past (Knutti & Hegerl 2008, http://bit.ly/pZNPDL).
Satellites have observed an increase in atmospheric water vapour by about 0.41 kg/m^2 per decade since 1988. A detection and attribution study, otherwise known as "fingerprinting", was employed to identify the cause of the rising water vapour levels (Santer 2007, http://bit.ly/r5ZJgi). Fingerprinting involves rigorous statistical tests of the different possible explanations for a change in some property of the climate system. Results from 22 different climate models (virtually all of the world's major climate models) were pooled and found the recent increase in moisture content over the bulk of the world's oceans is NOT due to solar forcing or gradual recovery from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. The primary driver of 'atmospheric moistening' was found to be the increase in CO2 caused by the burning of fossil fuels.
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When skeptics cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, they are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

---Me---

On the issue of CO2 lagging temperature:


Earth’s climate has varied widely over its history, from ice ages characterized by large ice sheets covering many land areas, to warm periods with no ice at the poles. Several factors have affected past climate change, including solar variability, volcanic activity and changes in the composition of the atmosphere. Data from Antarctic ice cores reveals an interesting story for the past 400,000 years. During this period, CO2 and temperatures are closely correlated, which means they rise and fall together. However, changes in CO2 follow changes in temperatures by about 600 to 1000 years. This has led some to conclude that CO2 simply cannot be responsible for current global warming. This statement does not tell the whole story, however. The initial changes in temperature during this period are explained by changes in the Earth’s orbit around the sun, which affects the amount of seasonal sunlight reaching the Earth’s surface. In the case of warming, the lag between temperature and CO2 is explained as follows: as ocean temperatures rise, oceans release CO2 into the atmosphere. In turn, this release amplifies the warming trend, leading to yet more CO2 being released. In other words, increasing CO2 levels become both the cause and effect of further warming. This positive feedback is necessary to trigger the shifts between glacials and interglacials as the effect of orbital changes is too weak to cause such variation. Additional positive feedbacks which play an important role in this process include other greenhouse gases, and changes in ice sheet cover and vegetation patterns.

The only conclusion that can be reached from the observed lag between CO2 and temperatures in the past 400,000 years is that CO2 did not initiate the shifts towards interglacials. To understand current climate change, scientists have looked at many factors, such as volcanic activity and solar variability, and concluded that CO2 and other greenhouse gases are the most likely factor driving current climate change. This conclusion is not based on the analysis of past climate change, though this provides key insights into the way climate responds to different forcings and adds weight to the several lines of evidence that strongly support the role of greenhouse gases in recent warming.

---Erikka Youngstrom---

Eric- What I am trying to illustrate is that this is a debate because as Americans we each get one vote, and I think this matters to you or you wouldn't spend so much time on this. You are defending the work of a large group of people, I am saying that even if 3147 scientists believe in global warming, I will still question it. The matter is, when there are emails that elude to deceptive practices and manipulating data, trust is broken. No matter what a judge and jury days, I still get to form my own judgement and vote accordingly. You can clearly talk scientific circles around anyone in this conversation- that is still not the debate I am referring to. The debate is whether you and your 3146 friends are trustworthy or not and here is why I don't give you my blind faith... I can find scientists who will tell us that saccharine is safe, and so is aspartame. It really depends on who they are working for. . Hydrogenated oils are considered "safe" as well, and although they are banned in Europe, and are in the majority of our food. All of these toxic substances are allowed into our grocery stores because "science" has proven them "safe." And now obesity and cancer problems have skyrocketed in our country and no one knows why. I can tell you why (in my very humble and logic-based opinion)- modified food. Created by scientists. And please, don't start saying something like I don't believe science is a good thing... That would be ridiculous. I believe there are many incredibly noble scientists out there. One was at my house tonight. But, the reality is that we have moved past an age where we believe something just because an "expert" (or scientist or doctor) says so. We have been fooled too many times in the past. Remember, doctors endorsed smoking in the 20s...

---David Smith---

So in otherwords, our minimal release of CO2 is merely adding to the minimal effect C02 has on Solar Cycles driving our climate. Great. Excuse me if I don't vote to cripple our industry and the develooping world for that.
BTW the point of proving that the accurate historical record shows CO2 lagging climate shifts, is that the exact opposite is what the AGW nuts and Al Gore's movie claimed was happening. Anytime somebody keeps having to change their theories to fit the new evidence instead of coming up with new ones, the BS flag should go up.

Another attempt to educate a non-scientist climate science disbeliever

New NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism - Yahoo! News

A friend's friend posted the above article on facebook. His intent, I expect, was to use the article as evidence that climate change is not occurring as the mountainous body of climate scientists' research and analyses shows. The following is the discussion that ensued.

--- Me ---
That article is quite comical. Every reference to climate computer models is preceded by "alarmist." Then I scrolled to the end, recognized the author, and it made sense. James Taylor is a lawyer, not a scientist (http://bit.ly/oA2KW2). He's the editor of Environment & Climate News at the Heartland Institute, a libertarian organization well-known in climate science circles for pushing a denialist agenda using pseudo-science, no science whatsoever, or misinterpretations of actual data. They've got Taylor, who admits to having no scientific background or training, listed as an "expert." (http://bit.ly/nNSjbo). As a lawyer with multiple degrees in environmental science and whose practice used to focus exclusively on issues of medical causation and expert testimony in toxic tort cases, I found that rather amusing. Here's what Nature, among the most reputable journals of real peer-reviewed science, has to say about the Heartland Institute (http://bit.ly/qzyLWX). As for the article Taylor cites as "proof" that global warming isn't occurring as the multiple lines of peer-reviewed data "peddled" by thousands of "alarmist" scientists around the world show, his lack of scientific training and credentials damns him to read it incorrectly. Here's the article's conclusion:

"While the satellite-based metrics for the period 2000–2010 depart substantially in the direction of lower climate sensitivity from those similarly computed from coupled climate models, we find that, with traditional methods, it is not possible to accurately quantify this discrepancy in terms of the feedbacks which determine climate sensitivity. It is concluded that atmospheric feedback diagnosis of the climate system remains an unsolved problem, due primarily to the inability to distinguish between radiative forcing and radiative feedback in satellite radiative budget observations."

Beware learning science, or offering an article that purports to interpret science, from individuals not trained in science and organizations staffed by such individuals.

--- Response of Bill Talley, my friend's friend ---
"Other data that NASA has collected comes from the research being done on the sun and it's effect on our planet. The correlations do not conclude that our earth's temp is rising due to man's effect. Basically the sun is far more powerful a device than our carbon output. (see bullshit tax)

I can respect the credentials and run down on the article writer but it's still a topic that most climatologists and astronomers will continue to disagree on. The data being gathered from the sun has conflicting data when compared to climate models.

I'm all for clean fuels but IMHO, we are not warming because of us and we don't have enough data to conclude that we are. The new solar data trends trump our climate data. Period. "

--- My response to Mr. Talley ---
Respectfully, Bill, each of your points is refuted by the data.

1) A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures. (http://bit.ly/ffhAdL)

Look at the charts in the "Natural Cycle Departure" section here: http://bit.ly/jWonoK. "The natural cycle is range bound and well understood, largely constrained by the Milankovitch cycles. Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." Observed decadal increases in mean surface and ocean temperatures are the result of anthropogenic causes, not natural variability. Natural variability is understood, factored into climate analyses, and statistically controlled for.

2) Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. With now 28 years of reliable satellite observations there is confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance related to sunspots but no longer term trend in these data. Based on paleoclimatic (proxy) reconstructions of solar irradiance there is suggestion of a trend of about +0.12 W/m2 since 1750 which is about half of the estimate given in the last IPCC report in 2001. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and STILL THE CONTRIBUTION OF DIRECT SOLAR IRRADIANCE FORCING IS SMALL COMPARED TO THE GREENHOUSE GAS COMPONENT. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters. However, for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases. (http://1.usa.gov/lSSw3y)

With satellite measurements, scientists have been able to confirm that the total solar energy varies 0.1% over one 11-year sunspot cycle. This variation of 0.1% means a global tropospheric temperature difference of 0.5oC to 1.0oC. So there does seem to be a connection between the solar cycle and climate - the very small change in solar energy that changes over the solar cycle seems to have a very small impact on Earth's climate (see IPCC report). MODERN CLIMATE MODELS TAKE THESE RELATIONSHIPS INTO ACCOUNT. The changes in solar energy are not big enough, however, to cause the large global temperature changes we've seen in the last 100 years. Indeed, the only way that climate models can match the recent observed warming of the atmosphere is with the addition of greenhouse gases. (http://bit.ly/mt87VL)

I know skeptics and outright deniers want not to believe that climate change is occurring and that humans are causing it. But you know who wishes it weren't true even more than the skeptics and deniers? We in the community of climate and other scientists who understand the human health and ecological consequences of raising average global temperatures over such a short geologic time scale.

The New Weather Extremes

The New Weather Extremes | Mother Jones

Enjoying the weather? Welcome to the new "normal." And btw, where are the scientifically illiterate carnival barkers who last winter declared climate change dead? I will make this prediction: the same breakdown of the Arctic Oscillation (http://bit.ly/n6FCq3; http://bit.ly/ov3Fmm) which occurred in 2009 and '10 likely will occur again in winter 2011, bringing episodic "extreme" cold to North America and Western Europe.

The “Social Cost of Carbon” and Climate Change Policy | World Resources Institute

The “Social Cost of Carbon” and Climate Change Policy | World Resources Institute

Good piece to help one understand the role and limitations of benefit-cost analysis as a tool for devising and analyzing carbon policy.

Letter to TRMS Producer Bill Wolff re James Webb Space Telescope

Bill:

I’m a nightly viewer of TRMS and a fellow Crimson (Sc.M. ‘97, HSPH). I bring the following to your attention because I think it is worthy of mention on TRMS, even if only in the “Moment of Geek” segment. It is a really big deal. Outside the arenas of astrophysics, astronomy and cosmology, it is likely unknown. It is threatened with termination by budget cuts. It needs to be brought to national attention so that people will urge Congress not to kill it. I’m talking about the James Webb Space Telescope (JWST). And I believe TRMS, as a friend of science and all things geek, can help.

On July 13, 2011, the House Commerce, Justice and Science Appropriations Subcommittee, with jurisdiction over NASA’s budget, voted to cancel funding for JWST, the successor of the iconic Hubble Space Telescope. The charge against JWST is that it is over-budget, behind schedule and beset by mismanagement. (See e.g., http://bbc.in/n8UOIn; http://bit.ly/qDKwHc; http://on.msnbc.com/psSNvs). Indeed, JWST is over-budget and behind schedule. However, twenty years ago the same was true of Hubble. Yet, we saw the Hubble project through. The return on that investment to the advancement of science and to our understanding of the origins and evolution of the universe has been incalculable.

To date, more than $3 billion have been invested in JWST, about half the amount projected to complete it. Its primary mirror, measuring 6.5 meters in diameter--a staggering seven times the area of Hubble’s mirror and representing a technological and engineering leap forward of similar magnitude (see http://1.usa.gov/aZNkao; http://bit.ly/qfMqZm)--is nearly complete. To kill JWST via short-sighted budget cuts would be to waste more than $3 billion; eliminate hundreds if not thousands of high-tech, high-paying jobs (http://aas.org/node/4483); jeopardize the United States’ position as global leader in space science in the wake of the end of the shuttle program; and stunt the advancement of science and human understanding of the universe for a generation or more. According to NASA chief Charlie Bolden, for about the same cost as Hubble in real-year dollars, JWST can be brought into operation. (http://on.msnbc.com/psSNvs).

Think of all the amazing images of space Hubble has given us; all that we have learned from the data it has collected. Now consider this: JWST is 100 times more powerful than even mighty Hubble! The scientific impact that would be achieved by JWST over existing space telescopes has been described as the difference between walking 4 mph and flying 400 mph for your ability to explore terrain on the Earth. (http://bit.ly/pjaZi3). Here are a couple other interesting and geeky tidbits. Whereas Hubble orbits the Earth 353 miles overhead, JWST will actually not orbit Earth at all. Instead, it will sit 930,000 miles from Earth (almost 700,000 miles beyond the moon) in a point in space that will allow it to orbit the Sun in synchronicity with Earth. JWST is an infrared telescope, meaning it needs to be cold. I mean really cold. JWST’s mirror will be shielded from the Sun’s heat and energy by a heat shield the size of a tennis court which will serve to keep the instrument at 33 Kelvin. That’s 33 degrees above absolute zero, or - 400 F; - 240 C. How’s that for geeky ... and cold?

Rachel asks in the MSNBC ad with the Hoover Dam in the background whether the United States is still a nation that can do big things. The James Webb Space Telescope is a really big thing in terms of engineering, technology and science. We could not have imagined the discoveries we would make when we launched Hubble 20 years ago: That the universe is 13.72 billion years years old; That the universe’s expansion is not slowing due to gravity, but rather is accelerating due to enigmatic “dark energy;” That we would see for the first time a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun. At 100 times more powerful than Hubble, Webb represents an exponential leap forward. We can barely begin to imagine the scientific discoveries it will enable us to make. But, based on our experience with Hubble, we can imagine the tens of millions of minds Webb will excite and the future generations of astronomers, cosmologists and physicists it will inspire. The United States must demonstrate that it is still a nation that can do big things. I am asking you to dedicate some air time to the story of the James Webb Space Telescope. Before the full House votes to defund JWST, help make the threat of JWST’s defunding a national issue so that people demand that Congress not kill it.

Sincerely and respectfully,

Eric B. Schupper, ScM, JD
Austin, Texas
Twitter handle @ericschupper

House Sucommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies - Members' Twitter handles

The subcommittee's homepage: http://1.usa.gov/n6E9e5.

The members and their twitter handles are:

Frank Wolf: @RepWOLFPress
John Culberson: @CongCulberson
Robert Aderholt: @Robert_Aderholt
Jo Bonner: @RepJoBonner
Steve Austria: @SteveAustria
Tom Graves: @RepTomGraves
Kevin Yoder: @RepKevinYoder
Chaka Fattah: @chakafattah
Adam Schiff: @RepAdamSchiff
Jose Serrano: @RepJoseSerrano

Informing the Financing of Universal Energy Access: As Assessment of Current Flows

2011623105614NDL2011-050.pdf (application/pdf Object)

Testimony in Opposition to Legislation that Would Allow Guns on Texas Campuses

March 16, 2011

Texas Legislature
Texas Capitol Building
Austin, Texas

Re: Proposed Legislation to Permit Weapons to Be Carried on Texas College and University Campuses (HB 750, HB 86, HB 1167. HB 1356)

Dear Committee Members:

My name is Eric B. Schupper. I am an attorney practicing law in Austin, Texas with the law firm Kasling, Hemphill, Dolezal & Atwell, LLP. I earned my law degree from the Duke University School of Law in 2000. In 1997 I earned a Master of Science degree from the Harvard School of Public Health, where I studied public health and environmental risk assessment and risk management and was a graduate research assistant to the Director of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. I am a veteran of the U.S. Army 82nd Airborne Division, with which I served from 1988 to 1991 and participated in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. I offer this testimony in my personal capacity as a resident of Travis County, Texas concerned about the public safety threat posed by the proposed legislation (HB 86, HB 750, HB 1167 and HB 1356) that would force Texas colleges and universities to permit students, faculty and staff to carry firearms on campus, including in places with high concentrations of people such as classrooms, dorms, laboratories, hospitals, workspaces, libraries and athletic events.

College campuses are complicated by high academic and social stress, the presence of alcohol and drugs, and young students who are away from home for the first time. From a risk-management standpoint, it is not only illogical to suggest that enacting legislation that allows students, faculty and staff to carry firearms on university campuses would serve in any way to deter people from carrying firearms on campus, but the premise that permitting firearms to be carried on campus would reduce the risk of intentional or accidental death or injury from firearms is fundamentally flawed and is not supported by evidence. Permitting firearms to be carried on campus increases the likelihood that people will in fact carry firearms on campus. Increasing the number of individuals, particularly young students, carrying firearms on campuses throughout Texas increases the likelihood that some hormonal, stressed-out or pissed-off 20-yr-old will decide to use it against his or her cheating girlfriend or boyfriend, a roommate who snores too loudly, or a faculty member who gave him or her a bad grade that may affect the student’s chance of getting accepted to graduate school. Moreover, it would increase the risk that in a scenario in which someone pulls a gun in class or at a sporting event, people who lack training with firearms and who, unless they served in the military, have no idea what it is to train one's sights on another human or how to remain composed when looking at the wrong end of another’s gun, resort to vigilantism and end up killing or wounding not the perpetrator, but innocent bystanders. Furthermore, if an incident occurs on campus and people are carrying firearms, it increases the chances that someone other than the perpetrator may be shot by campus police. Such were the opinions of Virginia Tech campus police interviewed by the Virginia Tech Review Panel in the wake of the shootings there a couple years ago. Quoting from page 75 of the Report of the Virginia Tech Review Panel (hereinafter, the “Virginia Tech Report”): "[I]f numerous people had been rushing around with handguns outside Norris Hall on the morning of April 16, the possibility of accidental or mistaken shooting would have increased significantly. The campus police said that the probability would have been high that anyone emerging from a classroom at Norris Hall holding a gun would have been shot." See, Virginia Tech Report, p. 75, attached.

In my view, legislation that would allow firearms to be carried on campus is misguided and reflects a failure to analyze and appreciate the potential risks to public safety, the sanctity of the college learning environment, and to understand human psychology.

When I was in the military, even trained soldiers did not carry weapons on base unless they were going to the firing range. Even then, ammunition was dispensed at the range under controlled conditions. Untrained civilian students, faculty and staff should not be carrying firearms, concealed or openly, on Texas university campuses. It will increase the risk of death and injury from firearms, and will almost certainly increase the incidence of such deaths and injuries. Campus police chiefs in Virginia interviewed by the Virginia Tech Review Panel concluded essentially the same thing: “Having more guns on campus poses a risk of leading to a greater number of accidental and intentional shootings than it does in averting some of the relatively rare homicides.” See Virginia Tech Report, p. 75.

Furthermore, as a lawyer, I have studied constitutional law, including Second Amendment jurisprudence. The 2nd Amendment reads, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." More than 200 years of United States Supreme Court jurisprudence interpreting the Constitution have made it clear that neither the rights conferred by the 2nd Amendment, nor the rights guaranteed by other Amendments, including the 1st Amendment rights of freedom of speech and assembly, are limitless and unfettered. Nearly all rights are limited by one bound or another, including sometimes by other constitutionally guaranteed rights. One may not run into a crowded movie theater and yell "Fire!" when there is no fire, for example. The interest in protecting public safety in that instance outweighs the individual's right to yell "Fire!". Similarly, in my view it is not an unconstitutional abridgment of anyone's 2nd Amendment right to keep and bare arms to prohibit firearms from being carried, openly or concealed, on college campuses if it is determined that allowing firearms to be carried on college campuses poses too high a risk to public safety. I believe that permitting firearms to be carried on college and university campuses in Texas creates an unnecessary and unwarranted increase in risk to public safety.

One of the recommendations of the Virginia Tech Report was that “guns be banned on campus grounds and in buildings.” See Virginia Tech Report, p. 76. I respectfully request that members of the Texas legislature vote “NO” on any legislation that would force Texas colleges and universities to allow firearms to be carried on campus by anyone other than trained law enforcement and campus security personnel. Keep firearms banned from Texas college campuses.

Respectfully submitted,



Eric B. Schupper, Sc.M., J.D.

What we have and haven’t learned from ‘Climategate’ | Grist

What we have and haven’t learned from ‘Climategate’ | Grist

Another reply to climate science skepticism

Ok, shall we exchange assignments then, Mark? Here, below are your Deniers. What's your point? For each one of these, there are literally hundreds who concur in the view accepted by 97% of climate scientists worldwide, and the National Academy of Sciences or equivalent body of at least 19 countries, that anthropogenic causes are affecting climate. (http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures? "97.5% of [3,146] climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.") And don't get hung up on the jargon--warming, change, perturbation, whatever. That some use different terminology is not some concerted ruse intended to obfuscate and confuse. Quite the contrary. Rather, "warming" became "change" because as the understanding of the processes advanced, so did the understanding that the consequences likely would result in climate "weirding," evidenced by increased frequency of anomalies and extreme weather events during both winter and summer seasons in both the northern and southern hemispheres. Change was a more accurate term, even under conditions of rising annual global mean temperature. The real disingenuousness with respect to the terms has been from the right, e.g., the Einsteins on Fox who use the fact that it was cold and snowy in winter in America this year and last as "proof" that "warming" can't be occurring and Al Gore must be a lying dolt. The likely explanation for that is here: http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/020211.html and here: http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf. Christ, Bill O'Reilly doesn't understand enough science to know that the moon's gravitational forces cause the tides, or why the Sun, Earth and moon even exist. The man's a buffoon and a moron, and he's supposedly the smart guy over there. If you take your science lessons from Fox ...

Deniers/Skeptics:

Dr. Edward Wegman--Who purportedly "demolished" the hockey stick graph. Except he didn't. He truncated the timeframe and focused on only a segment of it.

Dr. David Bromwich--"it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now." First, you've got to be kidding. In the past 10 years Antarctica has calved icebergs the size of Luxembourg. http://www.livescience.com/10641-huge-iceberg-breaks-antarctica.html. I don't know what kind of spectacles Bromwich wears that he can't see signals from mainland Antarctica. Second, what about the global warming signal from the other pole? The signal is very apparent there--see the graph depicting temperature anomalies, and focus in particular on the red areas in the Arctic, here: http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2011/20110112_globalstats.html. These data are consistent with model predictions.

Prof. Paul Reiter--"no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases. Even if true, does this disprove anthropogenic climate change? No. What if we focus not on mosquitoes but on North American pine beetles? http://www.hcn.org/issues/278/14853
Are warming conditions pushing them further south? Seems so. Evidence for global warming? Likely. Evidence for human-caused global warming? Not necessarily; that comes from the physical sciences.

Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--"there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts. That's just flat wrong. Sorry, professor. Climate models are based on known physical processes taking into account physics, solar irradiance, thermodynamics, ocean surface and land surface reflectivity a/k/a albido, ocean gyres and other currents, land use patterns and rates of deforestation, and dozens of other processes and variables. The models are run through a Monte Carlo simulation factoring in the uncertainty ascribed to the variables to produce a range of outcomes with associated likelihoods. Of course, the models are only as good as the data inputs and the algorithms, both of which have improved since GCMs (global circulation models) began 20 years ago and continue to improve.

Dr. Christopher Landsea--"there are no known scientific studies that show a conclusive physical link between global warming and observed hurricane frequency and intensity." That's stating what every climatologist says: That no one weather event proves or disproves global warming. However, is the frequency of extreme weather events increasing consistent with predictions going back at least 25 years? Yes. Are extreme weather events, such as the recent cold in north America and cyclone Yasi that hit Australia, "some" evidence that global warming is occurring? Yes. (In law, "some" evidence is suggestive, not dispositive.) Have the warmest years on record occurred in the past decade? Yes.

Dr. Antonino Zichichi--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid." I call Dr. Zichichi's terms hyperbolic and wrong. Are the models perfect? No. Are uncertainties factored in? Yes, see above.

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false." The assumptions are neither arbitrary nor have they been proven false. See above; See also the 2007 IPCC report, which was the product of contributions from 2,500 scientists. Jaworoski sees something that everyone else missed, apparently.

Prof. Tom V. Segalstad--"most leading geologists" know the U.N.'s views "of Earth processes are implausible." Who are they and what are the implausible processes? Another singularly gifted individual who apparently possesses unique vision that only he can see what the majority of others fail to.

Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu--says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change." What constitutes much? 5%? 70%? "Most" other scientists hold a contrary view that Arctic warming is indeed not natural.

Dr. Richard Lindzen--says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right." Dick Lindzen was a member of the Bush administration and a favorite of Cheney's. His positions have been roundly countered, most notably by Dr. James Hansen.

Dr. Habibullo Abdussamatov--says "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from a misinterpretation of cause and effect relations." Again, wrong. Sorry. The causal connections, based on the laws of physics, flow logically from cause to effect, to wit: increasing concentration of atmospheric GHGs as caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation (280ppm pre-Industrial Revolution to 390 ppm today, a 39% increase) --> increased capacity of the atmosphere to trap long-wave (heat) radiation --> increased energy in the system (entropy) --> increase in mean global temperature --> increased frequency of extreme weather events and long term climate patterns.

Dr. Sami Solanki--"The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures." May? Or is? What is the level of scientific certainty with that "may"? I recall reading data that solar irradiance has been essentially stable within 0.02% and 0.03% for the past 2,000 years. Solanki may be a doubter, but it doesn't seem he's an outright denier of man-made climate change. He seems less than certain that his own hypothesis is correct.

Now, my assignment for you. If you really want to persist in litigating this issue with me, please Read the AR4 Synthesis Report, http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/main.html. Read Jim Hansen's paper (see link above). Watch Naomi Areskes' lecture if you haven't already. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=autofb. Spend some time on the Goddard Institute of Space Studies website--
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/
and NOAA's website:
http://www.climate.gov/#understandingClimate
Here's another link with good information on climate science:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

And Dennis Miller is a douche, but thanks for the compliment. ;-) I'd prefer a comparison to Lewis Black, although his erudition isn't quite up to Miller's.

YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming

YouTube - The American Denial of Global Warming

(I want to preserve this here on my blog. It is my response to the comment on facebook of a very good friend who is a climate change skeptic).

To say that I am skeptical of climate skeptics would be an understatement! I do not intend this as a jab at you personally, but rather as a larger indictment of those who choose to believe climate science is false or a hoax, and that human activities are not in fact causing a real, measurable change in the energy dynamics of the atmosphere and oceans which are in all probability forcing long-term and potentially dramatic changes in climate. You refer me to a book called “Deniers” (the full title of which is so long it reads like the GOP's "Repeal the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act"!). I'm familiar with it, though I haven't read it. I recall it getting panned because Solomon's deniers don't actually deny climate change. They quibble about details, while allowing that observed warming is real and particularly strong in the last 20 years. Nonetheless, I'll check it out. You should watch Prof. Oreskes' The American Denial of Global Warming I posted. It is an excellent primer on the history of climate-related research and the real conspiratorial efforts of some to create confusion and politicize the science. I assume you’ve read Deniers. You’ve probably also read similar denialist pieces in the op-ed pages of popular publications (as distinguished from peer-reviewed scientific literature). Aside from such denialist or skeptical pieces, however, how much time have climate science skeptics in general spent studying the bases for the position accepted by 99% of scientists around the world who actively study and publish peer-reviewed research in the multitude of disciplines that touch on climate? That’s a vastly more daunting, demanding enterprise that I suspect the overwhelming majority of non-believers among the lay public (and politicians) have not undertaken. If one believes the thousands of scientists around the world whose research touches on climate are conspiring to purposefully manufacture data in order to perpetrate on the rest of mankind a self-serving scientific deception that humans are causing climate change, then it’s easier and less time-consuming, I suppose, to limit oneself to focusing on the less-prolific, narrower, denialist “literature” which fits his or her skepticism and world-view. (And the University of East Anglia/Phil Jones emails/Michael Mann "hockey stick" controversy has been reviewed by no less than 4 separate bodies, including British Parliament, which all exonerated Jones and dismissed allegations of data manipulation). I use the term literature loosely because scant little of it is peer-reviewed and less still is accepted, let alone widely. One of the things that has long aggravated me about climate change denialists is that they tend not to be scientists (not including the scientists profiled in Deniers, obviously), have not studied a relevant environmental science, and have read only the skeptical articles in popular publications that point out one data flaw or another which, even if true, does not by itself undermine the whole rest of the body of scientific evidence for human-caused climate change. It is worth noting, the peer-review process is inherently skeptical and science is inherently self-correcting, starting as it does from a falsifiable, testable hypothesis. An accepted scientific position gains its accepted status because it has been tested and repeated, confirmed by observation, and found to be factually superior to alternative hypotheses. If the question is whether human activities are causing climate change, there is overwhelming agreement. The body of evidence on that matter is large and even many skeptics, including apparently some of Solomon’s Deniers, agree that human activities are affecting climate. If the question is about the predictions of those effects, however, then, granted, there is not agreement, although we are seeing an increase in extreme weather events that are consistent with predictions. Have you thought about how many disciplines come into play in climate science? Physics (thermodynamics, entropy [from top of atmosphere to bottom of ocean, Earth is like a fixed system], albido), atmospheric chemistry, oceanography and marine chemistry, terrestrial ecology (nitrogen cycle, carbon cycle), agriculture and land use, geology and paleoclimatology (analyzing sediment cores and chemical isotopes in Earth strata to determine climate patterns during past epochs of geologic time), glaciology, evolutionary biology, astronomy, even botany (measuring effects of historic climate conditions on forests and plant growth by analyzing ancient tree ring data). If, after studying this spectrum of environmental sciences and attaining an understanding of the multitude of processes involved in climate, one finds more convincing the skeptics’ position that human activities are not affecting the Earth’s energy dynamics, and that those changes in Earth’s energy dynamics are not in all likelihood causing long-term changes to Earth’s climate, then so be it. If that’s the case, then tell me that by the same rationale on which climate change is rejected despite the abundance of evidence – too much money involved, perpetuation of a self-serving hoax to ensure continued funding and self-sustainability, politicization of the so-called hoax in order to exert control on the world, etc. – so, too, has monotheistic religion and the categorically unsubstantiated myth of a personal god been rejected. For organized religion is surely the far greater hoax. And as for the existence of some supernatural entity or divinity commonly known as god, there is not a scintilla, not an atom, not a quark or gluon, of evidence. I would welcome with open arms such rejectors to the atheist community. One of the climate skeptics' views is that there is a conspiracy across a world-wide community of thousands of scientists? I reject that. Conspiracy implies agreement and concert of action. It takes 3 or 4 days for a small group of my closest friends and I – 4 fellow lawyers and a lobbyist – to reach agreement on a date and time to meet for our quarterly gathering for steak dinner at III Forks! The notion of a global-scale conspiracy among scientists is itself little more than conspiracy theory lacking plausibility, let alone credible evidence. Moreover, have you seen how scientists dress? You'd think with all the intellectual horsepower at the disposal of the world's climate scientists, they'd conspire to perpetrate a more lucrative hoax which enables them to buy nicer clothes!

As for acid rain: It was proved. So, too, was the link between CFCs and stratospheric ozone depletion; likewise the link between environmental tobacco smoke exposure and lung cancer. The handful of scientists who argued against and sought to politicize those issues at the direction of the interests who paid them all lost. But they succeeded in delaying action, not by offering credible research of their own or honest education of the public on the science, but by creating confusion and doubt about the more broadly accepted, peer-reviewed science. The same is going on with climate change denial.

On Responding to Imprecise Climate Risks - NYTimes.com

On Responding to Imprecise Climate Risks - NYTimes.com

Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times

Evolution and Religion - Darwin’s God - Robin Marantz Henig - New York Times