

Wikipedia’s climate doctor - KevinMS
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx

======
ZeroGravitas
Is there any anti-global warming material that doesn't sound like paranoid
ravings?

It's a genuine question as I'm finding it hard to separate the argument from
the people making it, which obviously isn't the best way to get the truth. (I
mean there's plenty of stuff written by people I fundamentally agree with on
subjects like Free Software that comes across as a bit woolly and
sensationalist.)

Is there some beginners guide for those that are interested and intelligent,
but not already invested in one "side", that just lays out the basic issues
and links to relevant sources?

~~~
mseebach
Well, the debate is very shrill, so it's probably hard to find someone who's
not invested in some sort in one side.

But "The Skeptics Handbook" is very sober and seems separated from the author:
<http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/>

~~~
ZeroGravitas
I don't know about sober (there's quite a lot of emphasis used, underlines and
italics that makes it seem a bit shouty), but it certainly lays out some kind
of coherent argument.

On first reading though I'm struck by an extreme level of nit-picking that
almost strikes me as anti-science, but accompanied by cheerful acceptance of
any scientific theory that supports her position.

For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to
someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a theory
produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when other
theories get demolished for using computers, creating models, assumptions and
other basic tools of science?

If you need that kind of certainty to believe anything then I'm guessing your
looking for _truthiness_ rather than the truth.

Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since 2001)
seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

~~~
mseebach
Well, sober or not, I felt it pretty thoroughly laid out the argument for the
sceptic position.

> For example the self-limiting effects of CO2. Seems plausible enough to
> someone reading about it for the first time, but I'm guessing this is a
> theory produced by climate researchers. Why does this get a free pass when
> other theories get demolished for using computers, creating models,
> assumptions and other basic tools of science?

I didn't understand that? I don't recall theories being demolished for doing
those thing?

> Also, out of the 4 basic points, point 3 (the earth hasn't warmed since
> 2001) seems incredibly weak even at first glance.

There is some satellite data going back around 30 years that doesn't register
any statistically significant warming. Obviously, there are some other that
does, and "Climategate" and "hide the decline" seems to be about this. I'm not
qualified to evaluate the arguments about which datasets can be processed how
or left out or given different weights, but there's a lot of language in those
e-mail that you wouldn't expect to hear from someone confident in the
completeness and soundness of their own argument.

Actually, I'm mostly interested in the politics, more than the science. IPCC
is a political body disguised as objective science, and quite frankly, that
should piss of all scientists, whether or not they agree with the conclusion.
The politics-disguised-as-science is then being used to push a very expensive
and very ineffective agenda, and that should piss off the rest of us.

------
d4nt
I see two possible interpretations of this article:

1\. It's 100% accurate, balanced and fair portrait of what happened. In which
case the scientists have pretty much failed. I mean, I knew about the medieval
warm period already and if you didn't, you do now.

2\. It's in some way exaggerated or alarmist and is an example of traditional
media running a "the dangers of Wikipedia's model" story that they seem to
enjoy doing whenever they can.

Either way, I'm not worried.

------
blueben
I still fail to see how any political victory for or against climate change
research is going to change actual reality. Should climate change naysayers
win their political fight even as the Earth continues to warm, the victory
seems hollow at best.

~~~
dantheman
I think your missing the big picture.

1\. No one denies that the climate changes.

2\. Most people don't deny that the earth seems to be warming.

The argument is over what should be done.

1\. Most people agree that if the earth is warming on it's own, not as a
result of human activity, then we should let it warm until we actually
understand what's going on. Geo-engineering should not be attempted.

2\. If the warming is due to man then should we embark on geo-engineering? Is
the warming so catastrophic that something will need to be done, before we
truly understand what is going on.

All of the current AGW proponents are arguing for taking extreme action now.
To convince people that this is necessary it appears that they are overstating
their case and actively trying to silence those who disagree.

The extreme actions that they want people to take will have significant
negative effects, as limited resources will be put to their actions instead of
other uses (for instance treating malaria, studying new diseases, etc). So the
political fight will result in lives saved/lost -- which means we need to be
able to make the correct choices.

~~~
pyre
What are these extreme actions though? Are you saying that it's a _bad_ idea
to do things like focus our attentions on more renewable forms of energy? Even
_if_ there is no Global Warming whatsoever the idea that 'Texas Tea' will gush
forth from the Earth until the Sun engulfs the Earth is a bit 'out there' to
say the least. I don't even care if you believe that 'peak oil' is still 200
years off. The idea that we should greedily waste as much oil as we can,
procrastinating on looking for alternative energy sources is juvenile at best.

~~~
KevinMS
If you think this debate is about oil you are very wrong.

Oil is a transportation fuel, we can find away around that, maybe expensive,
but its solvable.

This is about coal and natural gas. Much of the industrialized world runs on
those. Start to strangle those off and you raise the cost of absolutely
everything.

Raising the cost of everything == making everybody poorer. Millions of people
live on the edge now and would start to drop off.

~~~
pyre
> _Oil is a transportation fuel, we can find away around that, maybe
> expensive, but its solvable._

Wouldn't raising transportation costs "raise the cost of everything" too?

