If You Doubted Global Warming Was Politics, Not Science

They did say "among," meaning those are just a few things out of MANY in the uncertainties list.

But if they negotiate a consensus with issue advocacy groups, it's science! How could we ever doubt?

They're doing the usual conservative dance: deny, deny, deny, concede in a footnote, and finally deny they ever denied. I figure they're on their third "deny" which puts them about a year away from a small-bore-yet-huffy concession.

Pointing out uncertainties and political agendas doesn't mean that the underlying mechanism isn't valid...that doesn't mean we don't have a pretty good idea of what's going on.

No, the lack of sound science means that we don't really have a pretty good idea of what's going on, and that vague agenda-driven suppositions may be (and likely are) substantively wrong. See previous, follow links. But we're supposed to throw billions or trillions in the pot anyway. Do not pass Go. Do not perform cost/benefit or any serious probability analysis. We must panic. We must do it NOW, Or The Sky Will Fall And Armageddon Commence.

If you're not up to speed on the actual science and modeling involved, Tom, you probably don't want to step in this one. I'd direct you to the commentary supplied to the IPCC4 panel by the broader scientific community as part of the pre-publication review process, except that despite the promises of the IPCC that commentary has yet to be made available to the public. Those of us who went through the IPCC credentialing process to obtain our peer-review and commentary draft copies of the report over a year and a half ago would like to know why that is--though we think we already know the answer with a good deal more certainty than that displayed in the IPCC summaries. They simply do not want to air the informed criticism of a very flawed meta-report.

You don't negotiate science. It's demonstrable, or it isn't. When people claim demonstrable proofs out of extremely flawed models that fail to correlate with the real world when tested, you're leaving the realm of science and approaching that of religion. If you're interested in more detail on how that works, here's a sample. And you can wade through our backpostings on this issue here.

Tom, I'm on the fence. I just want to hear a serious and credible answer to my question.

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

My dance is hardly conservative and quite a few here do not deny that humans have more than likely added to the slight rise in global temperature. Decades ago, everyone was worried about a new Ice Age. My point above and elsewhere is that humans are changing the world in many ways and this is mostly related to the obvious increase in population growth everyone predicted in the seventies. Why not limit reproduction with as equal fervor as bashing clean coal plants? Why not demand saving the rain forests with equal vigor as decrying the plight of polar bears?

China is soon to be the number one user of energy as well as the leading polluter. Why not sanction China? We are facing environmental degradation at many levels from soil erosion to depletion of fisheries. Who is in denial? Doctors can more easily agree a patient is sick and treat a symptom, but locating the real cause and treating all the serious systemic illnesses is meaningful treatment. Today farmers protest ethanol policy. Many experts point to the declining capacity of the environment to absorb CO2 because of human-induced stress.

I have never refrained from making the case that as we multiply, the earth is reacting. Anthropogenic stress would be a good term. That GW is a serious concern we could address now with common sense action does not threaten me. Giving 700 billion to our adversaries for the oil we burn is a questionable national security policy and politicians should tackle this problem expeditiously. Clinton proposes clean coal technology and is ridiculed by the Left, attacking her more than those suggesting building hundreds of new nuclear plants. We could produce terrorist-resistant and meltdown proof reactors that serve as their own encapsulation for burial should we focus our effort. A nuke farm in a remote area consisting of twenty of these reactors could supply a huge crop of energy. As we build the next generation of power plants, we can string up new power lines that will eventually replace a grid that leaks valuable energy. Some are even working to burn seawater. I have always proposed a Manhattan Project for energy and more grants to people like the scientist working on solar cell paint.

I do question making CO2 the greatest danger to humanity and that how we mitigate it, - which is worthy of a global conversation, isn't the rsole esponsibility of an elite group who detest conflicting evidence. There are many possible ways to mitigate problems, each with their own costs. We could enable the earth to absorb more CO2. We could use the melting freshwater ice to alleviate some water shortage. We should move to alternative energy, though I do not think last year?s designed nuclear plants on a massive scale or ethanol are realistic. We need to build green and question the need for so many unessential consumer goods that require energy to make. I do not favor free trade that over-looks pollution and exploitation. Who is denying that these things aren't wise? Of course, we need global regulation to save fisheries and limit toxins. Right now the world can?t even stop a monster from building a nuclear bomb.

People here seem to be questioning the focus on C02 and how we mitigate the present picture without making mistakes. It does seem GW has become the supreme environmental mantra bashing capitalism when population size is the culprit for anthropogenic degradation and many nations share the blame. Again, the panic over CO2 exceeds concerns among many for terrorism, nuclear proliferation and other dangerous environmental trends. GW ought not to be a blindfold and it is ironic that those pointing this out (not the extreme denialists) are accused of being blind. The present trend in science is moving towards energy solutions. As the fixes become worked out, we will end this stupid transfer of money to adversarial oil producers and begin to reverse the damage from human induced temperature increases. Let?s hope that cleaning up the atmosphere won?t increase the temperature. We may have to seed the skies with reflective additives we add to airline fuel. Somehow, I think generation Z will find that a true irony.

Pointing out uncertainties and political agendas doesn't mean that the underlying mechanism isn't valid.

Doesn't mean that it is, either, Tom- and in fact it's an age old method of deflecting attention away from evidence that doesn't hold up to scrutiny, so I think there's cause to be skeptical.

And this conservative doesn't oppose sensible environmental regulation. Conservatism isn't at all in conflict with conservation, quite the contrary. My concern, as expressed by others below, is that if we wrongly put our eggs in the CO2 basket then we'll have really screwed up any chance to find the better solutions that might exist (or to learn to do damage control if there really is no way to ward off an inevitable natural warming cycle that'll drastically alter geography and habitability.)

Of course different groups with their own agenda are going to think that different facts should be included etc., but that doesn't necessarily make the final product any less valid.

Yes, it does. From a scientific POV it makes it utterly invalid. Science is not arrived at by political consensus negotiation with issue advocacy groups. Period. And the summary reports used as the basis for those negotiations are themselves the product not of the scientific process, but of the political process, filtered upwards through at least two layers of interest-conflicted bureaucrat/scientists. Many of the "facts" in those summaries aren't facts at all. And do note that only one side of the issue advocates are at the table with the politicos. I don't see how that can possibly produce a meaningfully accurate document--especially when they're starting with something that's an inaccurate politicized presentation in the first place.

It's not like there is some group of scientists who possess the ultimate truth on climate change

DUH. But that is exactly what they are trying to lead people to believe--that they have all the answers with utter certainty, when in truth they do not. Not even remotely.

It's not like there is some group of scientists who possess the ultimate truth on climate change, and they are being hampered by people with their own agendas etc.

You're aware that this is precisely - you know, all but word-for-word - the position of climate change skeptics?

"When someone says their heart needs lifting, don't ask how come, ask how high."

for instance, if someone said that Jews get other people to fight their battles for them, would this be an opinion or fact? As an opinion, it is one among thousands, but as a fact is is false. If one blamed Jews for anti-Semitism (something Hitler did and Ahmadinejad does), is this even a logical construct, i.e. that Jewish behavior is the valid reason for hating Jews because they are Jewish? If scientists expressed such flawed reasoning and perversion of scientific method, would you object?

That H and O when combined produce water is a fact, not an opinion. We may not be able to get to 100% certainity before the time to act on environmental issues has passed, but many argue we have not gotten nearly as far yet to understand the science of GW nor the solutions regarding trillions in mitigation as other pressing environmental problems unfold.