While I share in your ignorance of climatology it would seem that taking actions to combat any influence we might have towards climate change is the safe bet in Pascal's Wager here. Going to the extremes that some interest groups are promoting would be incredibly impractical, but it would be equally foolish to do nothing and hope it all works out. Particularly with the added benefit that decreasing pollution, well, decreases pollution. Going forward with 'all deliberate speed,' or something a touch faster, would seem the most sensible route. Hopefully that's the route that Congress, and the world at large, takes.

You might be interested in a book by William McDonough and Michael Braungart, Cradle to Cradle, which takes the tack of promoting a paradigm shift in product, industrial, architectural, &c. design. One which has proved to be very profitable for a whole host of companies while simultaneously improving the environment. Primarily at the micro-level, of course, but enough local ecologies being improved or regenerated does add up.

Any comments on the data presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle?

Well, no matter what anyone thinks about the film, I was extremely satisfied that I could sit at my computer and watch an entire documentary - for free - while I caught up on emails, etc. Google video and Youtube rock.

I completely agree with the policy of deferring the scientific community on such matters; moreover, the scientific consensus is pretty strong on human activity being a major component of global warming, too. What I think is a common mistake, however, is to overemphasize any putative consensus on exactly what to do about it, i.e., slash the hell out of fossil fuel consumption. Once the political powers-that-be finally acknowledge the consensus about the state of play, we might get some serious funding in action to find creative, low-impact-on-the-economy solutions to the problem.

I would also like to stress that although this claim is definitely true --
" For other subsets of the Left it even offers the added benefit of holding America (and the West) to blame, an all too popular de facto position"
-- please let's keep in mind that it's (i) a teensy-tinsy subset of the Left, which is moreover (ii) pretty much completely not represented in the Democratic party.

Josh,

You said you have neither the time nor intelligence to examine the science to your satisfaction. I know you're wrong on one of those accounts, so if you do find the time, I have found this report by the National Academy of Science, written for the general public, is very satisfactory. It is not an exhaustive review of the primary literature by any means, but it compresses a lot of evidence in a well-presented manner. I agree with your post in this: there is definitely a good reason to be skeptical of green ideologues who actually know little of the science themselves and who present the worse-case scenarios as fact. These people are leaping to reports that support their hatred of commerce, and are not part of the scientific community; indeed by politicizing the issue they are hurting science. The ideological right, of course, is as guilty as the left when it comes to selectively presenting the data in support of a preconceived hypothesis: that man is not causing global warming. Skepticism is the heart of science. However, the following facts are beyond dispute:

1. Global mean temperature has grown by 0.9 degrees Farenheit since 1978. This accounts for almost 2/3 of the increase in global temperatures over the last 150 years.

2. This increase in mean global temperatures cannot be explained by natural causes alone.

3. The increase in mean global temperature also cannot be explained by human activity alone.

4. Models that include manmade and natural causes best fit the data obserbed in the world.

5. A predominant driver of the warming feedback cycle is the effect of greenhouse gases such as CO2, CH4, N2O, and halocarbons.

6. About 60% of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by CO2.

7. Levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased over the last 40,000 years.

8. The rate at which CO2 levels are increasing has deviated far above the natural CO2 curve as people have burned fossil fuels since the industrial revolution.

9. The rate of global mean temperature increase as accelerated in proportion to the rate of manmade CO2 emission.

10. Global temperatures will continue to rise. By 2100, the average global surface temperature will rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees F above 1990 levels. (quite a range of possibility)

11. We aren't sure what impact this will have on humans, but it will probably create benefits as well as problems.

12. From a policy standpoint, no alternative energies currently exist which can match the energy output of burning fossil fuels.

http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf

Great post, Josh. Taranto's column is a must-read for the way he dismantles the execrable notion that people who are skeptical about anthropogenic climate change are comparable to Holocaust deniers. The use of the term "global warming denier" should be completely off-limits and should identify anyone using it as someone who has no interest in discussing the issue in good faith.

It is important, however, to distinguish between the scientists doing the hard work on climate change and (as Chuck mentions) the idealogues who provide so much of the public commentary on the issue. From what I've seen, the scientists are well aware of the limits of their research, and are not unduly hostile to disconfirming evidence.

First, I fully agree that comparing global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers is way over the top, and even possibly in violation of Godwin's Law.

As to the debate regarding the cause of global warming; man-made or natural. As Josh says, that appears to rage on in places like the WSJ op-ed page and Congress, but from what I can find, apparently not so much in the halls of science, where the consensus appears to be that the cause is not an "either or" matter, but that human activities have become a major source.

Am I missing something?

JohnS, first, yes, that is a clear violation of Godwin's law, and that sort of talk sickens me. It's just as counter-productive as the legalized abortion/Holocaust stuff.

Secondly, you are also correct. Within the Scientific community, the debate is no longer focused on whether or not humanity causes global warming. In major journals, within the last 10-15 years, there has not been a single paper published that puts forth a case arguing that anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions are not the single largest cause of the 20th century warming trend. And that's not for lack of research or black-balling people or whatever you want to call it...there is plenty of funding available for research that would question the IPCC consensus position, and none of the work by reputible folks who actually publish on the issue has come out arguing against the consensus.

The debate in the scientific community has moved on. We understand at a cursory level how the system works, so we have moved on to looking at more detailed parts. What sort of changes has the earth seen with previous climate changes and how do those compare to what we're doing. What will be the impact of this climate shift on ecosystems. Why are the Glaciers falling apart so much faster than what we would have predicted. And so on.

The IPCC report, which is being released this year, is a summary report from over 2500 actual climate scientists. That is an extraordinary number to my eyes, 2500. On the other side, in the WSJ pages, you find a few people, most of whom don't publish that much if at all, who make a living going around giving lectures, writing op-eds, and testifying to Congress. There is genuine debate over the magnitude of the warming we're creating, whether it'll be 1 degree or 7 or whatever, but whether it's happening? The science has long since moved past that.

The science of climate change isn't inaccessible to the layperson. I'm unconvinced that obviously intelligent persons such as Joshua cannot themselves gain an authoritative grasp of the subject, from which they can with confidence articulate their own position.

As I see it, the climate change debate roughly follows:

1. An issue of empirical validity. What is the trend for planetary temperatures?

Empirical observation is not science, it's just observation. Here one merely takes a stand about observation which breaks down for me as:

a. I do not accept the premise that we are observing generally rising temperatures.
-or-
b. I do accept the premise that we are observing generally rising temperatures, however I do not believe those observations are accurate reflections of reality because ...
-or-
c. I accept the premises and the observations and I believe that, based on those observations, planetary temperatures are rising.

2. Now we get to the science of it. I accept (c) above, now I postulate that:

a. This temperature rise is an just anomaly and within the expected hystereisis of the natural world. There is no abnormal trend indicated.
-or-
b. I postulate that there is a trend and that our empirical observations of the past are likely to continue into the future and that warming will increase. I theorize that this warming is due to (insert non-anthropogenic theory of global warming)
-or-
c. I postulate that there is a trend and that our empirical observations of the past are likely to continue into the future and that warming will increase. This warming is due to (insert anthropogenic theory of global warming)
d. It's too early to tell one way or another.

3. Now we get to the moral part of it (responsibility).
a. The earth is not warming. See 2(a) and 1(a) or 1(b) above. Since nothing is happening, there is no need to ascribe responsibility.
-or-
b. The earth is warming but not due to human activity. We didn't start the fire, God did and is the responsible party here.
-or-
c. The earth is warming and it is doing so because of things that humans are doing. Humans are the responsible party here.
d. It's too early to ascribe responsbility.

4. And finally, the political and engineering part of it.
a. Nothing happening, so nothing to do.
b. Something happening, not our fault, but we should address it anyways because even though God did this to us, we will not like the consequences.
c. Something happening, not our fault, nothing we can do about it anyways, even if the result is dire. Might as well have religious fun before the party's over and we go to Heaven.
d. Something happening, our fault. We should address it because not addressing it is the more costly option.
e. Something happening, our fault. Nothing we can do about it anyways, we're screwed but might as well have secular fun before the party's over and we die.
f. It's too early to do anything.

"About 60% of the warming from greenhouse gases is caused by CO2."

The documentary presents a data chart that suggest that warming precedes CO2 increases. It also shows a powerful correlation between cosmic radiation levels and historic warming/cooling trends.

So, Alan, can we conclude that you are in the:

c. I accept the premises and the observations and I believe that, based on those observations, planetary temperatures are rising.
-but-
a. This temperature rise is an just anomaly and within the expected hystereisis of the natural world. There is no abnormal trend indicated.

Crowd?

If we're actually going to talk about that silly piece of propaganda, here would be a good place to start:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/03/swindled/

Did anyone else see the article about Al Gore's energy bill? He uses way more energy per month than the average American household. Type it into google, you can find the article.

Yes, it was covered here at ITA.

Realclimate has some ramblings on cosmic radiation, but doesn't address the historic correlation between CR levels and global temperature.

The Telegraph has an article about a abook that hawks the cosmic radiation hypothesis.

As for the other issue, Realclimate links to another Realclimate article (emphasis added):

"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000 years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

In other words, they don't know what caused the other 4200 years of warming (or the historic fluctuations in CO2, for that matter), but the CO2 hypothesis is the only explanation worth looking into.

"In other words, they don't know what caused the other 4200 years of warming." That is, simply, a lie, as is obvious if one quotes further into the article:

"From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this. Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800 years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a loudspeaker." (emphasis added)

If you can't even begin to argue honestly, Alan, please don't waste our time with your lies.

Really, you emotions will become your undoing. [/Spock]

I threw out questions about two specific bits of data from the documentary: the graph that shows warming preceding CO2 increases, and the "correlation between cosmic radiation levels and historic warming/cooling trends." Those are the parts of the documentary that sway audiences the most, and one should be able to ask the other side for its story without expecting the Spanish Inquisition.

We touched on only the first. All I said was this: "In other words, they don't know what caused the other 4200 years of warming (or the historic fluctuations in CO2, for that matter), but the CO2 hypothesis is the only explanation worth looking into." What about that statement is incorrect? Offering non-CO2 theories for global climate cycles does tend to attract arrogant hostility from Realclimate's fellow travelers, and I'm not aware that all factors behind climate cycles have been unearthed.

You stated that some currently unknown process started the first 800 years of warming, and you attribute the rise in CO2 to its release from melting ice. The documentary theorizes that the CO2 increase comes from an increasing population of Earth's life forms; as the planet warms, they flourish more. If we know how much CO2 was in Earth's atmmosphere at the beginning and end of the warming cycle, and how much was released from melted glacial ice, we know how much has to come from some other source, such as volcanoes or the biosphere.

So far the only theory behind the initial cause of the warming cycle is sunspot activity. Charts such as this show a strong correlation between solar irradiance and global temperature. Direct observations of sunspots go back only a few centuries, but we know that cosmic radiation levels correlate strongly with solar irradiance (chart is from this article), thus cosmic radiation data, which can be gathered by studying ice cores, serves as a proxy for solar cycle data. Per this other chart from the article, the sunspot cycle from 1860 to present correlates strongly with the global temperature anomaly, but CO2 doesn't. This gives the impression that the primary cause of global and cooling cycles is independent of CO2, and thus independent of humanity.

That doesn't mean that CO2 isn't a secondary factor. It *is* a greenhouse gas, and everyone knows that. X amount of additional CO2 will cause Y amount of warming. The points of dispute are a) the ballpark estimate of the value of Y, b) the degree to which humanity contributes to X, and c) the degree to which non-CO2 factors contribute to climate change.

I have presented data I know about, and to the best of my ability have reached its logical conclusions. If you disagree with any of it, unless you can conduct Vulcan mind melds over the Internet don't invent motives on my part that I haven't expressed here. People disagree over data and the study thereof all the time without being dishonest about it.

I wasn't being emotional; I was, however, properly exercising my moral judgment.

You patently misrepresented the post in question as saying that the scientists didn't know, but were only willing to consider the CO2 hypothesis. Again, this is just plain false, and is certainly not a legitimate interpretation of the full text of the realclimate post you cited. Moreover, other theories -- like the it's-all-cosmic-rays theory -- _have_ been considered, and they have over time proved far and away weaker explanations than ones that attribute a very large effect to human-caused increase in CO2. Your attempt to make it out that this is some sort of empirically unjustified dogma is just plain silly (as Balta's comment above makes clear).

If you actually _read_ the realclimate post (and others there), instead of surfing it looking for bits to pull out of context, you might learn something. One thing you might learn, e.g., is that the Tim Patterson talk you linked to has been responded to in several places.

"I have presented data I know about, and to the best of my ability have reached its logical conclusions." But you clearly don't know the scientific literature hardly at all, beyond a few bits and pieces you've googled up (which are also, I should add, several years out of date). And you lack the training & background to evaluate the data for yourself. As such, really the only rational thing for you to do is to defer to the scientific consensus, for the points that you list as "in dispute" are simply not as in dispute as you say. And, at a minimum, you should stop dishonestly quoting actual scientists out of context.

Okay, my bad. The article (and its comments) didn't specifically address the claim that there is a cosmic ray-temperature correlation, but it did address the solar cycle-temperature correlation. Specific references to cosmic radiation were in context with the theorized relationship between CR and cloud cover.

There is some disagreement over the sunspot data, as discussed in a report (PDF file) linked by the Realclimate article, as well as some linked columns at Crooked Timber. The chief dispute seems to concern two points on the graph that plots recent solar activity. The adjusted graph suggests that the sunspot cycle cannot explain global warming between 1980 and 1990. Unfortunately, neither this chart nor Tim Patterson's chart in TCS go past 1990.

The latter shows a big chunk of the 20th century when CO2 didn't correlate with the temperature anomaly; many see this and question why CO2 should be regarded as a predictor of climate change now if it wasn't a predictor then. That doesn't mean that the other side of the debate doesn't have an explanation, but considering that the audience for geeky scientific details presented by either side of the debate is pretty small, I'm quite sure that few have heard it. I know I haven't.

Where has Patterson been fisked, BTW?