Thanks to everyone who has participated in our first Deeper Climate discussion! It’s not too late.. if you want to weigh in with your own views on the Five Claims or the Ship or Flotilla of Climate, please do so.
It turns out that many of us here at TSW agree that greenhouse gases have something to do with climate change. And as Jon said, maybe what we disagree about is “what should we do about it, and how quickly?”.
At the same time, some of us are skeptical of the various burs that have attached themselves to the climate change socks (I really need a better analogy, suggestions?), and of the certainty that some people claim with regards to climate model outputs. So would someone skeptical of any of these be considered a “climate skeptic”? Do we even have a mutually agreed upon definition?
Here’s one study that tries to address that question specifically, from Britain in 2014 by Capstick and Pidgeon. It’s open-source.
This lack of clarity about what climate change scepticism actually is has important implications. This is not least because the concept is often used synonymously (and pejoratively) with ideas such as contrarianism and denial, as where Nerlich (2010, p. 419) refers to climate scepticism “in the sense of climate denialism or contrarianism”. With particular reference to Anderegg et al.’s (2010) study of expert credibility in climate science in which these labels are also used interchangeably, O’Neill and Boykoff (2010, p. E151) caution against the imprecise use of such terminology, arguing that:
Blanket labeling of heterogeneous views under… these headings has been shown to do little to further considerations of climate science and policy… Continued indiscriminate use of the terms will further polarize views on climate change, reduce media coverage to tit-for-tat finger-pointing, and do little to advance the unsteady relationship among climate science, society, and policy.
.
That letter in PNAS O’Neill and Max Boykoff is also open source.
I agree that unclear language of a pejorative nature is probably not helpful to productive discourse. But I thought we already knew that? So if we follow that logic, people who use those terms might not really be interested in understanding others’ points of view, or maybe they don’t know about this not-helpfulness or have forgotten. We’ll have to ask next time we see this.
Anyway, Capstick and Pidgeon go on to say..
We contend that, to date, applications of the notion of scepticism have been inconsistent and have often mixed disparate types of perceptions – but that nevertheless their usage has corresponded thematically to two broad treatments. The first of these concerns perceptions about scientific and physical matters, such as regarding scientific consensus and an anthropogenic component to climate change. The second concerns perceptions about social and behavioural matters, including doubts about responding to climate change at the individual and collective scales, and concerning the communication and portrayal of climate change.
The authors suggest at the end in their “implications for public engagement with climate change” that:
To date, the majority of work focussing on communicating climate change has tended to be concerned with aspects of climate science. We suggest, however, that additional efforts are required to identify and engage with the doubts held by people concerning the relevance and effectiveness of measures taken to address climate change. Whilst a substantial literature has now developed around strategies for promoting behavioural responses to climate change (e.g. Swim et al., 2010, Whitmarsh et al., 2011) nevertheless this has tended not to directly address people’s fundamental misgivings about the value of such responses in themselves. To do so is complicated by the fact that a person cannot be said to be ‘wrong’ should they be sceptical in this way. Perhaps then, the most appropriate strategy may be to acknowledge the validity of such doubts, but in such a way that nevertheless permits the value of personal and societal action on climate change to be emphasised. This may be most likely to work where individual action is contextualised to common efforts (notwithstanding that this may be particularly challenging for those of an individualistic disposition). Connections made with the effectiveness of collective action (Koletsou and Mancy, 2012), including promotion of environmental citizenship (Wolf, 2011), participatory democracy (van den Hove, 2000) and decision-making at local scales (Rayner, 2010) may be some ways in which this could be achieved. Likewise, Van Zomeren et al. (2010) have shown that communicating strong group efficacy beliefs (conveying the message that people are able to collectively address climate change) can increase individuals’ pro-environmental behaviour intentions.
(my bold)
Who would have placed “wrong” and “skeptical” in the same group in the first place? As if one group has perfect knowledge. But science is messy, conditional and contested, let alone policy.
As for me, I would want to go deeper into what responses people are skeptical about and why. Let’s take an example. We had “bike to work” day at the Forest Service which was supposed to be good for climate (of course it was a bit of a show, and at our RO not particularly safe, involving inhaling car and truck fumes, bouncing over badly maintained roads, and insensitive drivers). It seemed performative rather than helpful. I suggested instead we start a calculus tutoring program for some of the poorer schools in our area to encourage more students to go into engineering- which will probably be the actual solution to decarbonization, in my view. So we have different views of the best way forward (and at the mega scale, nuclear, carbon capture, geothermal and so on). Who determines what gains the “climate skeptic” label from all these choices? Or are they doubts around responding at all- that nothing will work? If I think something will work and they don’t – do they not know about all the technologies? Do they have a negative view of human nature or politics?
It seems like we all may simply disagree about the best paths forward, as with any other policy question. And that’s OK because if believe in diversity, then the best ideas will come forward through discussion and challenge. Not fuzz and name-calling. But how relevant is the “best path forward” question to the “is this specific wildfire/wildfires in Canada/wildfires around the world made worse by climate change?”.
Roger Pielke Jr.’s substack has a post that helps shed light on the fundamental disagreements without the rancor and name-calling that so often accompanies such debates.
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/climate-science-in-the-house-of-lords?publication_id=119454&post_id=136689751&isFreemail=true
Thanks! I was impressed by the patience of the back and forth, and the mutual respect.
I’ll tell ya where my distrust comes from, those “hawking” extremes like a rooster in the midnight sun, and they themselves have zero credibility to begin with! Back in early 2000’s, I was in a mind-numbing forest service silviculture meeting where attention was turned to climate change. One poor individual was charged with displaying a series of graphs detailing impending doom due to carbon dioxide increases. I believe it was from some presentation taken from Al Gore, still butt-hurt over losing the 2000 Presidential election. Anyway, there was a “real” climate scientist in attendance, and he proceeded to dismantle the presentation and the presenter. I was sort of leaning toward the climate crisis prior to that meeting, but haven’t been a big believer since.
Now, we have John Kerry, of the “I don’t own a jet” baggage, trying to pour the gloom and doom upon us. The climate criers always head straight to the very possible worst outcomes; about as relevant, and truthful as the evening news readers.
Should we have a reasonable, trustworthy group (not necessarily scientists) of respectable individuals, who actually debate the merits, I would tend to listen! I’m not advertising, but there is a professional group of weather forecasters called “Weathertrends360’” who do long range forecasting and relative findings of how the weather is/has been behaving for the past 38 years. Very interesting and completely counter to what the newsreaders are telling us. I saw Weathertrends 360 forecast last Aprils cold snap – nine months in advance! They have already hit the forecast of diminished hurricanes (due to the El Niño effect on mid-level shear), and made that call in early Spring. They didn’t say there would be no hurricane, just fewer because….
That’s where I’m at ; sure, quit polluting, quit filling wetlands, increase fuel standards, use EV’s where applicable, develop alternative energy, the list goes on and on. Common sense !
Why I am “slightly” skeptical about man-caused climate change.
Like most foresters my first introduction to climate change was looking at increment cores. Even in summer camp at UC Berkeley, I remember a professor saying that a increment core was a view into not only the past, but also what that tree experienced over the years.
In 1973, I was responsible for a timber growth analysis for a medium sized industrial forestry property in the Sierra Nevada. I really enjoyed coring and the trees and looking at the tree rings for the past several centuries. Not sure why, but all foresters become focused on the tightly packed tree rings and the droughts that they recorded.
As I was closing out the analysis with my boss, I pointed out to him that the answer would be different IF we had picked a “different” ten year period to project growth instead of the last 10 years. He just smiled, and said we are not getting paid to do research science. But I have always wondered, what the impact would have been if we also would have displayed the best ten years, and the worst ten years.
I originally, started as a astronomy major before I switched over to forestry. Yes, there is evidence of climate change throughout the solar system!!! Here is a posting just a couple of weeks ago on climate on Neptune: https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/solar-cycle-may-trigger-clouds-on-neptune/
There are lots of connections between the solar-cycle and climate on earth in the science literature.
EVERY forester should read this book on climate change in the west over the past 10,000 years:
https://www.ucpress.edu/book/9780520286009/the-west-without-water
The author, by the way, does believe in man-caused climate change. Reading about the variability in natural climate change in the western US, makes me wonder how man-caused climate change could be worse. It is that dramatic.
I did try for several years to read the original literature on climate change, but for years it was hard to find the original documents even though the funding came from the US government. I do, however, remember all those environmentalists that told the Forest Service that my ForPlan runs were not to be trusted, but now accept the modeling of world climate as a truth!!!
Reading articles written by journalists that have NEVER took ONE SCIENCE class quoting those climate experts Al Gore and Ted Danson didn’t seem like a productive way to spend my time.
I finally came to the conclusion that the way to determine the truth about climate change, might just be to listen to our political leaders. They have the best scientific advice. A climate crises that threatens life on earth would have even the most timid political leaders to implement immediately measures to limit the further increase in CO2 emissions.
I don’t mean building Industrial Wind and Solar areas. I mean doing something NOW!!!
Ten percent reduction in CO2 by driving 55 MPH overnight. No discussion. The Governors of most states can do that by THEMSELVES. Including Gavin Newsome and Jay Inslee. Silence, not even a raising of the need.
Stopping the burning of our forests. California missed its CO2 targets simply by letting their forests burn. No talk of a “new” 10:00 am policy. In fact, the environmental community is saying that burning our forests is a GOOD thing.
No talk of banning commercial jet flights of less than 500 miles or the banning of private jets.
No talk of banning concrete as a construction material and replacing it with wood for buildings less than six stories tall. The environmental community does not want to replace concrete a non-renewable resource and CO2 intensive construction material with a renewable construction material, WOOD.
When we implement 55 mph, and those other regulations that can be done almost overnight, then I might believe in man-caused climate change being a VERY IMPORTANT issue.
Right now, climate change policies are focused on transferring taxpayer dollars to corporations.
Vladimir
“The environmental community does not want to replace concrete a non-renewable resource and CO2 intensive construction material with a renewable construction material, WOOD.”
This is what I have bene hung up on all along. Gravel pits do not regrow (on a human timeline). Forests do. There are smarter and better ways to do logging than the past, but otherwise, timber to 2×4’s is sustainable.
The only other way to build things is via aggregate (concrete), and you will never hear anyone from a certain advocacy side admitting the CO2 and non-sustainable aspect of mining gravel and other materials is bad, or at least far worse than forestry.
I think your answer is to a completely different question. Whether it is a VERY IMPORTANT issue may have little to do with whether it is true. It may have more to do with Capstick and Pidgeon’s concession “notwithstanding that this may be particularly challenging for those of an individualistic disposition.” Maybe there’s just too much “I want mine” in the human species.
My biggest concern about making sacrifices to improve emissions as an individual relates to individual effectiveness. I live near the southern rail route across Montana. I live in a popular tourist city. Our Montana utility owns a portion of a coal-fired electrical generation plant. No matter how much I personally sacrifice my modest lifestyle by turning off lights or driving less, I still see jets taking off and landing, bringing tourists who overwhelm local resources. I read about our utility being publically shamed because managers find a prudent economic advantage by increasing ownership in a coal-fired power plant, yet I see that perhaps a much larger impact may be the frequent mile-long coal trains passing within a few blocks from our home. Literally shipping mountains of coal to China! So I truly wonder if, as an individual, what impact I could make that may help turn the warming tide. That doesn’t make me a skeptic, or a denier. But really, my contribution or lack of contribution, cannot be measured. Anything I do, when compared with the large carbon contributors, is less than insignificant. I think effort is best spent by looking hard at the largest global contributors, rather that shaming each citizen into action.
As a semi-regular participant on this blog who has come out strongly against the ability of climate change models to predict the future — conclusions I reached more than 30 years ago in a paper I did on the topic for an international meeting of climate scientists at Oregon State University — I feel a moral obligation to answer the “5 Questions”:
1. The climate is changing. (1)Strongly Agree. It’s been doing just that for millions of years — why stop now?
2. Humans have never influenced the climate and aren’t influencing it now. Disagree. I think that widespread land clearing 7-10,000 years ago for livestock likely had an effect on the climate. Possibly the same with forest fires, growing crops, and urbanization today — although I think increased human-related CO2 production likely has more positive effects than negative. Food production being one example.
3. Humans have influenced the climate in the past and are doing it today in many ways including greenhouse gases, land use, irrigation, wildfire suppression or not, smoke of various kinds. Neutral. I wouldn’t include this entire list, although I do think land use and smoke might be having a measurable effect, to some degree.
4. Humans are influencing the climate and we need to focus on reducing greenhouse gases, notably carbon and methane. Strongly Disagree. I don’t think we “need” to do any of this, and particularly if we are expecting such actions to directly affect the climate in a positive way (how ever that might be interpreted). I put this in the “rain dance” category of human arrogance. Also, politics.
5. Humans are influencing the climate and if we don’t stop fossil fuels apocalyptic things will happen. Strongly disagree and seriously irritated. I think this idea is the same as medieval priests promising you will burn in Hell for all eternity if you don’t give them some of your money (10% is a good starting number).
So my conclusions are that the climate is changing (of course), but maybe in a largely beneficial way; that people who are claiming that changes will be apocalyptic unless you do as they say are mostly charlatans; and that computer models are powerful tools in the right hands, but not so powerful as to be able to predict future climate patterns — or even the weather more than a few days in advance.
A journey of a 1000 miles might begin with a single step, but it should be in the right direction to be most efficient. I think EVs, light bulbs, and expensive computers are a misdirection, and that poor people and poor nations are mostly footing the bill. There are real problems that should be getting our attention in regards to poverty, war, and ignorance, and focusing on the claims of the Gores, Kerrys, and Gretas of the world is an expensive and depressing misdirection. In my opinion.
Could not agree more.
As a person who’s been freaking out about climate change since the 90s, I’ve become increasingly grateful that we still have people who can put things in perspective. Thanks, Bob. I wish takes like yours were more tolerated in the mainstream dialogue. I wish there was a mainstream dialogue (I personally don’t count outright deniers to be serious participants in the conversation) instead of this curated consensus we have.
Add nuclear power to that list. Nuclear is the best means of generating clean carbon free energy in existence. I’ll believe climate change is a serious threat when Democrat politicians start tripping over themselves to repeal regulations preventing the construction of new nuclear plants and abolishing national monuments, wilderness designations, and other land use regulations that keep us from mining most of our uranium reserves. Until then, they clearly don’t take the issue seriously so why should I?
Good points, a recent example being the Biden administration’s decision—undoubtedly justified by assertions that the decision’s backers would like to apply to every square foot of the United States: sacred land, fragile, pristine, unique—to ban uranium mining in a new national monument. We can depend more on Russian and Kazakh uranium imports thanks to this move. Or have less nuclear power. I imagine people who have the administration’s ear would welcome that, since fallen humankind, condemned by original sin, deserves less energy and other discomforts as punishment for its undesirable presence on Earth.
Driving 65 or 55, the gas mileage in my last two cars has been almost identical, maybe even completely so.
If by “ten percent reduction in CO2” you mean a hypothetical reduction caused by the difference between getting, say, 36 mpg and 32 mpg, that’s inconsequential in terms of global warming.
I do wish that on my local streets people wouldn’t drive 55 mph when the speed limit is 30. There’s almost no law enforcement of traffic rules these days. Speeds of 90 mph on my local freeways are not uncommon. The speed limit is 65, but it is nothing more than a polite suggestion.
The national 55-mph speed limit was detested when it existed, and if any lawmakers in most jurisdictions tried to restore it, they’d quickly find themselves voted out of office. Fifty-five miles per hour makes sense on winding rural roads in Vermont, but on almost no highways west of Pennsylvania and West Virginia.
In sum, any implementation of a national 55-mph speed limit would have virtually no effect on climate change, would have political consequences, would be widely ignored, and would be seldom if ever enforced.
It is all about the laws of physics. Wind resistance. Nobody is driving even 65 today as you mention.
55 mph works. Actually, it is 55 mph on rural roads, 45 mph on urban roads and 25 in cities. The Europeans are attempting to do that now. The political resistance is fierce as you mention. Even in Europe the politicians are afraid to tackle the issue.
But my point is that IF the world is coming to an end with climate change.
Don’t you think the politicians would finally pass 55/45/25 to save it??
The fact we are not even discussing it indicates to me that it is not a “climate emergency”.
I am still aware of how much energy I’m burning even if I believe that changes needed are at a much larger level even than country by country. China, India, and E Asia combined have most of the people on earth, and they are all rapidly getting air conditioning and cars.
I know warming is happening, all I need to do is look out the window at the size of the glaciers and snow fields. Things have shrunk. I also know we will only suffer minor inconveniences. I now have AC in my cars and house, we have and use central heat. Everything is controlled by a thermostat. I have to look carefully to tell what season it is. Much of the world is lucky to have a fan, some countries might begin to experience heat extremes, our food will cost marginally more.
The kids are left to deal with it, I’ll be checking out before too long.
Thanks everyone! it sounds like many of us are skeptical about the Climate Christmas Tree or socks with burs or what we might call “climate orthodoxy” as a whole because (1) the apocalyptic words don’t necessarily match the actions of those who believe them. As Patrick says “Until then, they clearly don’t take the issue seriously so why should I?”.. or I think it was Emerson who said “your actions speak so loudly I can’t hear what you’re saying”.
And there are so many levers that we have to influence CO2, some with adaptation trade-offs (like denser building , personal vehicles and wildfire, e.g. Marshall Fire) not to speak of biodiversity and carbon trade-offs. Then there’s what we can do vs. the rest of the world (e.g. producing more nat gas and having other countries get off coal) and security issues (who are we buying stuff from if we don’t produce it)? It’s super-complicated.. and yet (some) folks are trying to shoehorn us into a thought-ditch when the possibilities are a braided stream. How were the decisions made of which things to pick, and which to ignore? It’s a bit of a black hole, which doesn’t increase trust.
Perhaps area of skepticism 2 is about climate model outputs and the certainty that some people put in them.
Vladimir says “I do, however, remember all those environmentalists that told the Forest Service that my ForPlan runs were not to be trusted, but now accept the modeling of world climate as a truth!!!” Many of us also remember “ecosystems are so complex we cannot understand them” but now we can model them for 100 years in the future. Or the precautionary principle was really important.. unless we talk about whales and offshore wind. Lots of apparent contradictions.
I guess area 3 is about the apocalyptic framing, which is even beyond what the IPCC says currently. So what’s that really about? There are many papers written as to how getting people riled up and scared is good because they become active (demonstrations, pressuring politicians). But maybe acting in a trustworthy manner would lead to more people agreeing and more progress being made.
Certainly it makes sense not to trust people whose actions don’t match their words. Is lack of trust the same as skepticism?
The Europeans are way ahead of us on climate change. Bless their hearts, they actually believe in climate change. Here are some links from Europe.
On 55/45/25 mph…..from Holland: https://www.greengeeks.com/blog/netherlands-reduce-highway-speed-limits-to-fight-climate-change/
Here in Washington state we have a new carbon fee. It raised gas prices by 50 cents a gallon, with the goal of having gas at $9.00/ gallon in four years. That will reduce CO2 emissions by almost the exact amount as driving 55/45/25.
Cement Production: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02612-5
Wood takes much, much less energy to produce a building material than cement. Cement accounts for 8% of world-side CO2 emissions.
Airline travel: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/5/24/france-bans-short-haul-flights-in-effort-to-fight-climate-change
I would make it longer than 250 miles, more like 750 miles in the US. But at least the Europeans are headed in the right direction.
Wood construction in buildings: https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/430649-wood-forms-central-plank-in-nearly-zero-energy-buildings
quote from Finland: ……………………… In fact, “using a wood building frame instead of concrete can reduce emissions by 75%, as well as reduce the whole life carbon of the building by 10–20%,” said Lauri Linkosalmi, director of product sustainability at Finnish wood and paper production group Stora Enso at a recent ECOS webinar.
So there is just a fraction of what we could be doing to fight climate change in this country. Are we doing any of it?? NO.
President Biden doesn’t think we have a climate emergency. What me worry?? If Joe isn’t worried why should I be worried??
but the EU also has disagreements.. https://www.euronews.com/green/2023/03/13/europe-is-divided-on-nuclear-power-which-countries-are-for-and-against-it
Skepticism includes recognition that what you are skeptical of might in fact be true. Deniers (and zealots) display certainty that only they can be right. If it has become hard to distinguish skepticism and denial it is because of deniers claiming to be skeptics.
Good point, nicely boiled down to the essence of the difference.
John: To continue repeating myself — calling someone a denier is name-calling. You’re assigning a personal value to someone else’s claims, and you are doing it with a derogatory word. Now you are saying that it is “hard to distinguish” people who are truly skeptics from those you are calling names, because some of those people are claiming not to be what you are calling them? And maybe they are even correcting your assessment? And now you are confused?!? Join the club. Also, you are beginning to sound a lot like a zealot in your consistent name-calling and dismissive assertions.
So, as a skeptic, you are conceding that carbon from fossil fuels could be a significant contributor to global warming?
For my part, I am a zealot about the idea that global warming is risky, and that adding fewer fossil hydrocarbons to the atmosphere will reduce global warming. I am a skeptic about humankind’s ability to deal with this.
Thanks John: Once again we are mostly in agreement! Except I am skeptical about “conceding” anything without some reasonable proof. I’ve never seen anything but passionate assertions and computer print-outs regarding any relationship between fossil fuels and a dangerously warming planet. Or even a mildly warming planet, although it does seem as if we are in a warming phase. I’d be more inclined to think it has something to do with the sun, the seasons, and the tilt of the planet. Probably the oceans are involved, too, but the idea the CO2 from human energy production is a functional thermostat to the earth’s temperature continues to seem far-fetched and political to me.
Thanks for (re)opening the climate dialogue. I promise to be polite and respectful, but I don’t easily put up with insults. Here’s some of the statements made to this point (Wednesday evening Sept. 6), with my thoughts:
• Right now, climate change policies are focused on transferring taxpayer dollars to corporations.
This gets to a major point that is often ignored. We are in the midst of a centuries and millennia long struggle for equity. The inequity of wealth and consequent political power to make resource allocation and consumption decisions is a fundamental problem.
• quit polluting, quit filling wetlands, increase fuel standards, use EV’s where applicable, develop alternative energy, the list goes on and on. Common sense !
Of course it is (common sense), but IMO it’s an aside from consideration of the bigger threat of overshoot (consuming more renewable resources than the Earth can produce, and not facing the limitations of non-renewable resources). This issue has been studied, and argued over, for a long time, but the fact of limits to growth is hard to deny. Albert Bartlett anyone?
• I finally came to the conclusion that the way to determine the truth about climate change, might just be to listen to our political leaders. They have the best scientific advice. A climate crises that threatens life on earth would have even the most timid political leaders to implement immediately measures to limit the further increase in CO2 emissions.
I disagree: politicians are on average (there are exceptions!) not interested in the best available science or the common welfare. I believe this is because our political economy incentivizes personal wealth and power amassing activities. Leftists are correct to critique the commoditization of everything (and every non-material thing) possible. Read Piketty.
• Also, politics.
Exactly.
• I’ve never seen anything but passionate assertions and computer print-outs regarding any relationship between fossil fuels and a dangerously warming planet.
I think this is willful ignorance. (And I’m sorry if you think this is impolite; would you rather I said “this is a statement only a denier would make”?)
• Nuclear is the best means of generating clean carbon free energy in existence.
I don’t believe there is such a thing as “carbon free energy” on Earth. Not nuclear, not hydro; all forms of energy production *and use* beyond firewood require considerable expenditures of non-renewable resources and emissions of carbon. Some less than others, but none? I doubt it. (OK, a smidgeon from geothermal can be done pretty low tech.) And the supply of fossil fuel (and uranium) is limited (they are both NON-renewable resources). What then? Fusion? Good luck with that.
• when Democrat politicians start tripping over themselves
Pretty insulting, and not only because you use the noun-for-an-adjective form common among right wing extremists.
• all I need to do is look out the window at the size of the glaciers and snow fields. Things have shrunk.
The shrinking of Earth’s cryosphere is obvious. The question is whether it’s caused by GHGs.
• The kids are left to deal with it, I’ll be checking out before too long.
At age 73, I’m with you.
I suggest that the argument over how large the anthropogenic portion of climate change is avoids a larger question that I alluded to above: What is the carrying capacity of the earth? The fact of limits is often lost from the conversation. Clearly the amount of consumption per capita is at least as important as the capita, but both count.
Also largely missing from most of these debates are the significant equity issues involved: If we bring everyone on Earth up to Western levels of resource consumption, the rate of GHG emissions will increase a lot. And the intergenerational equity issues are huge.
Other comments alluded to the problem of too much speed. I agree: We (us, our things, our thoughts) are moving too fast and too much.
A few sources:
– Howard T. Odum for a basic grounding on the relationship between economics and ecology (or Georgescu-Roegen, who IMO is harder to read). Charles A.S. Hall (student of Odum) has published quite a bit on the topic, including a good textbook (“Energy and the Wealth of Nations”, in 2nd edition, Springer).
– There is a good series of essays on the overshoot question in “Is the Planet Full?” ed. by Ian Goldin (Oxford 2014). One piece by Yadvinder Malhi (“The Metabolism of a Human-Dominated Planet”) is an excellent introduction to the energy consumption of different economic systems. (I just checked; the Malhi piece is still available free on-line.)
Hi Toby: I’m responding to you because you quoted me directly and then reacted with some negative assertions followed by an “impolite” apology of dubious sincerity:
Me: I’ve never seen anything but passionate assertions and computer print-outs regarding any relationship between fossil fuels and a dangerously warming planet.
You: I think this is willful ignorance. (And I’m sorry if you think this is impolite; would you rather I said “this is a statement only a denier would make”?)
Me, again (in response): Yes, the word “denier” is just stupid (“impolite”) name-calling, and I’d advise refraining from that strategy. To term my statement “willful ignorance” is almost as bad, as well as being inaccurate.
I have been dealing with computer modeling and catastrophic warnings of Global Warming for the past 35 years. My statement is one of fact, rather than ignorance, as you seem to want to believe. Other than computerized modeling and subsequent passionate assertions, I’ve not seen any actual scientific evidence of a relationship between “fossil fuels and a dangerously warming planet.” Fact. Maybe you’re aware of something that I’ve been too “ignorant” to locate? I’ve posted this here before, but I believe that my conclusions regarding climate modeling presented before an international group of climate scientists in 1991 remain largely valid to this time: http://nwmapsco.com/ZybachB/Reports/1993_EPA_Global_Warming/
Also, maybe you’re 73 as you claim, but I’m older than you, so not good to rush to judgment. You should have learned that by now.
Use of the word “denier” is not stupid when it is accurate. When people deny the obvious and clearly appear to honestly believe it for whatever reason, I call that behavior willful ignorance of reality. It is not possible to separate dialogues about forestry, climate change, natural resource allocations, etc. from patterns of politics, economics, sociology, history. I will always challenge people when they appear to be claiming much of broadly accepted science of our global ecology to be not true.
You said you’ve ‘never … seen any competent evidence’ of anthropogenic contributions to global warming. How could you not?
To avoid engaging directly on the insult—calling people deniers—I asked specific questions and made some easy to access references. Have you looked at any of them? You respond that you “have been dealing with computer modeling and catastrophic warnings of Global Warming for the past 35 years.” Great! make an answer and argument with references.
My age was noted in the context of intergenerational relations, not sagacity. I know I can be judgy, but I don’t suffer too much from it.
Hi Toby: First, thanks to Norm Benson for pinch-hitting on a couple of these. Better answers than I would have given, and shorter!
So I guess it is up to you to decide “when people deny the obvious” it is time to call someone a “denier.” That’s a lot of power you’ve assigned yourself! And then you brag about actually “calling those people willfully ignorant deniers.” wow. A proud name-caller and not afraid to admit it.
No, I didn’t follow your links because they appeared to be a waste of time. Did you follow mine? I bet not. It was written by me and was a direct response to your assertions. And it is loaded with the “references” you lecture me about. Then you misquote me to help make a point with a supposedly rhetorical question. That’s when you give yourself a pass on calling people names after all. Because you decided that they deserve it, based on your own beliefs.
Not very compelling or convincing. Good luck!
I don’t view calling people how they present to the world as “calling names.” You want to continue the fight over the reality of anthropogenic global warming. I engaged in those battles on various web pages/blogs for many years in the 90s and 2000s. I thought we were done with such nonsense, especially on sites that purport to be about natural resource management based on ‘best available science.’ Apparently not.
I checked out your references as well as other links turned up by searching your name. When engaging directly with folks I always look at what they cite as their sources and also with what they have published and with whom they engage on a regular basis.
“They [my references] appeared to be a waste of time” confirms my opinion of your willful ignorance. I do agree with you that further engagement is a “waste of time.”
Yup.
Jesus, you two and Gordon Fulks “PhD” need to all get a room. This is about forest management, not “Your feelings”.
Well, that made me laugh! You should get a name, though. Nothing like being insulted in public by someone afraid to show their face, even if it is funny. Also, you misspelled my name.
I did not misspell your name Bob. I was referring to the fact that you and Fulks walk the same line, and same the same thing. Same as Toby. It’s exhausting non-productive. Guess you missed the “you two” part of the comment.
You can cry over someone protecting their career all you want, in the end, it just looks tacky.
This is why I write off anyone who feels a need to say they have a “PhD”. It’s kinda like you citing your *one* dissertation from eons ago, and then linking all the time to your own biased “papers” that are glorified rants really (you don’t even make your own graphics, but at least you five credit to those who do). You’re no better than Toby or Deanne. Just someone with an agenda and a feeling of superiority about “science” and “facts”.
By the way, the “climate is always changing” thing is such a loser argument. Yeah, it has, naturally, on its own. Then humans came along. Were there millions and millions of internal combustion engines 10,000 years ago? 100k years ago? Gosh, the arrogance is alarming.
To avoid anonymous sniping in public you could try changing careers.
Everyone has an agenda. I’m honest about mine: I want people to think critically and deal with reality as best it is understood. I’m not sure what your agenda is except to be personally unpleasant without any substance.
Golly, another point where I have to give more respect to Zybach—he is honest (or at least transparent) about his agenda.
BTW, you seem to acknowledge that unlike Zybach and friends I actually do cite the peer-reviewed literature. Yet you still snipe at my “feeling of superiority about “science” and “facts”.” Happy to engage any time if you want to criticize my arguments with some specificity.
Jeez, Toby: We are in full agreement! Nothing like an anonymous coward calling people names and ridiculing their work. And then posting. Also, he missed my joke in his haste to put people down he can locate through Google. I’m wondering if he even has a job? Maybe it’s a puberty issue.[However, both Fulks and I do cite hundreds of peer reviewed references. Some are more credible than others.]
Can we call time on this?
Yup.
For once (rare indeed) I agree with Zybach. Insults can have salutary effects on a conversation, but anonymous insults hardly ever. If you don’t have something worth adding that can stand on its own (i.e., without your name and all that goes with it), why bother? Are your own “feelings” that desperate for attention?