Science held hostage in climate debate

Australian Financial Review ^ | June 22, 2012 | Garth Paltridge

[Twotone]

The broad theory of man-made global warming is acceptable in the purely qualitative sense. If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise. The argument about the science is, and always has been, whether the increase would be big enough to be noticed among all the other natural variations of climate. The economic and social argument is whether the increase, even if it were noticeable, would change the overall welfare of mankind for the worse.

[Twotone]

"But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day."

A very good overview of the problems with climate science...

[HiTech RedNeck]

That’s it in a nutshell. The quantitative arguments are forever being conflated with qualitative ones. If you believe in the abstract principle of warmism you have to also agree with the quantitative calculations of its effect on global temperature or of said temperature upon the well being of humans, which are far from foregone conclusions. Earth has its own ways of mitigating the effect of “excessive” carbon dioxide.

[ETL]

The Left has so damaged the creditability of science that many folks don’t trust anything coming out of the scientific community. They (the agenda-driven Left) should be ashamed!

[Baynative]

Very well put. But of course, there is no shame among liberals concerning their behavior.

[bossmechanic]

Ultimately, the great thing about science is that facts win out in the end. Plus, science is really just common sense with a few more details.
Unfortunately, our poorly educated populous is susceptible to often ignorant media bites that do not address scientific issues in a rational manner. People are led to believe that science can advance by edict - hence celluloid based fuel requirements and wholly delusional MPG demands.

[Olog-hai]

If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide …

Ohh brother. Have all plants on the planet held their breath? CO₂ atmospheric concentrations are still in the paltry 0.039 percent range (that's a mere 390 parts per million). The atmosphere cannot be “filled” with this gas any time soon, even if all the world’s volcanoes put out double the amount they normally do all of a sudden.

[Baynative]

**Suffice it to say that climate science is an example of what Canadian educator Sue McGregor calls “post-normal science”, in which “the facts are uncertain, values are in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent”.**

[E. Pluribus Unum]

If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.

A science-less statement.

The earth has had much higher levels of CO₂ in geological time, and the temperature has not been appreciably higher.

[aruanan]

If humans continue to fill the atmosphere with carbon dioxide, there can be little doubt that the average temperature of the world will increase above what it would have been otherwise.

The CO2 effect with temperature is logarithmic; that is, you need increasingly larger amounts of it to make increasingly smaller upward effects on temperature. Its greatest effect per ppm is in the 0 to 100 ppm range. So if you had X effect at 100 ppm, tripling it will not have 3X effect. The earth isn't going to become a scorched wasteland from increased levels of CO2. The earth now, in terms of geological history, is at an extremely low level of atmospheric CO2. It has been decreasing for a long, LONG time, so long, in fact, that the entire range of human history is barely visible on that scale. The recent supposed increase since the late 19th century is the tiniest blip, especially considering that the 280 ppm figure often cited as the 19th century concentration was arrived at by extreme cherry picking of the data from the 19th century. The actual average for that century was somewhere above 300 ppm.

[TauntedTiger]

Inconvenient truth ~ Sacramento is expected to be twenty to thirty degrees below normal today.

Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is feverishly driving business out of California to cool the planet.

[epithermal]

“New research finds that between about 15 million and 20 million years ago, plant life thrived on the coasts of the southernmost continent. Ancient pollen samples suggest that the landscape was a bit like today’s Chilean Andes: grassy tundra dotted with small trees.

This vegetated period peaked during the middle Miocene, when atmospheric carbon dioxide levels were around 400 to 600 parts per million. (Today, driven by fossil fuel use, atmospheric carbon dioxide has climbed to 393 parts per million.) “

http://www.livescience.com/21011-antarctica-plant-life-warm.html

It appears we have a long way to go to get to the optimum climate of the Miocene.

[hinckley buzzard]

The very existence of grreenhousez with CO2 enriched air supply should be a wake up call to anyone who thinks the current CO2 level is optimal.

It has been noted that our current array of flora evolved in an environment with much higher levels than we have today. So it figures that enriching the atmosphere with more CO2 can only be good for plant life.

[hinckley buzzard]

The CO2 effect with temperature is logarithmic; that is, you need increasingly larger amounts of it to make increasingly smaller upward effects on temperature.

Correct. Some researchers have shown that the large majority of the "greenhouse effect" from CO2 has already occurred; that a hypothetical doubling of CO2 would lead to only miniscule changes in teperature, if at all. The whole hullabaloo is at best, scrambling to lock the door after the horses escaped.

[calex59]

Inconvenient truth ~ Sacramento is expected to be twenty to thirty degrees below normal today.

Meanwhile, the California Air Resources Board is feverishly driving business out of California to cool the planet.

Yep, it was that way yesterday, will be that cool today, tomorrow and monday. Even though the temps will go up again on tuesday they will not hit the normal range of high temps for this time of year. -

[spawn44]

The article appears to be trying to smooth over the FRAUD that was committed by the CLIMATE SCAMMERS. The main problem for these LEFTIST IDEALOGS is they are trying to FIX A PROBLEM THAT DOES NOT EXIST, and sending the bill to the SOCIALIST DEMOCRAT DUCKS infiltrated into our government who are more than happy to pay it for the cause.

[larryjohnson]

Data point: My 1959 General Meteorology text has CO2 at 330 ppm.

[Steve Van Doorn]

"that's a mere 390 parts per million"

exactly that is only 100 ppm more then what plants need to stay alive while the average CO2 levels of the earth have been nearly 10 times what they are today

[Steve Van Doorn]

"But the real worry with climate research is that it is on the very edge of what is called postmodern science. This is a counterpart of the relativist world of postmodern art and design. It is a much more dangerous beast, whose results are valid only in the context of society’s beliefs and where the very existence of scientific truth can be denied. Postmodern science envisages a sort of political nirvana in which scientific theory and results can be consciously and legitimately manipulated to suit either the dictates of political correctness or the policies of the government of the day."

It was better when it was blasphemy for going against the church. At least if you could prove your point it was accepted if you couldn't then keep your mouth shut. Today if you have proof it is denied.

[aruanan]

There were some readings in the 1800s in the 400 ppm range. Most were above or significantly above the 280 ppm the guy, whose name I don’t recall, cherry-picked to be the baseline of doom.