# Climatologist Dr. Michael Mann completely vindicated...again. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 23, 2011, 12:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724 "2011-08-23T00:17:11Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/181 "2011-08-29T04:24:57Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > Nope, I did read it, it is just an opinion piece, useless. I see that by “useless” you mean “I couldn’t find any factual mistakes” > [@](#): > > Not as the scientists that did the experiment reported and other researchers mentioned. It’s nice too see that opinions that (supposedly) back your case are not useless. > [@](#): > > Yes I did notice that, I was going to say that showed that you are even more clueless than I assumed but I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. You apparently did read where they, prophetically, admit defeat. > [@](#): > > That is not what they said, Terry was referring to the whole of Svensmark’s work, it has been cut to pieces already and the experiment did not deal with the upper atmosphere clouds, as noticed before and after the experiment the effect at best is very small, hardly the forcing needed to turn off the one brought by CO2. It also didn’t mention how much mayo I should put in my hot dog. > [@](#): > > To begin with, any cite that does not report the reality of the levels the cosmic rays are affecting the current warming is lying by omission. "It was baseless to even say “significant” on the title. What’s the science for saying it’s “baseless”? > [@](#): > > Nope, you have demonstrated so far that you only guessed those cites were excellent when it was just a binge. 🙂 You are trying, unsuccessfully to make them sound helpful to your position after the fact. Yeah, nothing like one-website-for-everything. > [@](#): > > Nope, the main reason why a google vomit or a binge of citations is a dishonest debating tactic is that the one making it does not have to explain why the cites are relevant, you are making others do your homework, you needed to point at the quote that you think it makes it important and then one can make a proper rebuttal, as it is, the reason why I do think it is safe to ignore him is that the scientists are saying that it is not really an important factor and he is not a scientist. If I explained why they were relevant you’d say it was my opinion and therefore useless. > [@](#): > > The overwhelming evidence is that politicians of the right have done this, most of the cites you have here come from right wing publications. BBC? Libetarian who calls the parties Pepsi and Coke? Physicsworld? I see, “right wing” means “I don’t like it”, or is it a boogeyman? Ad hominem in the name of science. > [@](#): > > Read the BBC article again, the scientists do refer to the research that showed that, once again, depending on a \*\*binge \*\*is not a good idea. 🙂 [/QUOTE] One thing, I dind’t go around looking for cites willy-nilly, but even if I did it isn’t quite scientific to stay focused on such a minor point. The BBC article says "_If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal_"and since it’s an '08 article they cannot comment on the results of a papaer published in '11. * * * To sum up your answers to all questions: “useless”, “opinion”, “lies”, “right wing”, “found it on google”; rahter than, you know, factual answers. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/182 "2011-08-29T04:42:01Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > I can’t make this clearer: I’m _ **not** _ – that’s N-O-T – claiming that what’s happened since '98 is enough to serve as a falsification criterion for scientists. I’m asking what _ **would** _ be enough to serve as falsification criterion for scientists. And that’s, like, the exact _ **opposite** _ of what you’re making my position out to be; you read my posts as poorly as you read your linked cites. It’s a good question, but it’s also a very tough question to answer! [Here’s an interesting graph](http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/hansenlineartrend.jpg) showing the surface temperature records (GISS, HADCRUT and NOAA) from 1900 to 2008 compared with three predictions made by Hansen et a. in a 1988 published in Journal of Geophysical research, see: [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988\_Hansen\_etal.pdf](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf). The blue/magenta/cyan lines bundles together show the actual temperature records, while the red, orange and yellow lines are _predictions_ made by Hansen’s group in 1988. The red line was a prediction if we carried increasingly CO2 emissions regardless, the orange line a prediction if we froze CO2 emission rates at 1988 levels, and the yellow line a prediction of what would happen if we actually cut emissions. The straight black line is a linear fit from 1900 to 1988. More details on data and sources here: [Ordinary Eyeball: How did Hansen’s Predictions Do? | The Blackboard](http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/ordinary-eyeball-how-did-hansens-predictions-do/)) Now, it is perfectly clear that Hansen’s predictions were pessimistic and the actual temperature record is most in line with his prediction if we had cut emissions, which we certainly did not. So in that sense, there’s a set of falsified predictions right there, not that’s it’s put off Hansen from doing the same sort of thing today but with even more doomcrying. However, looking at the actual temperature record: 1. its perfectly clear that there is an overall upward trend 2. between the 20s and the 40s the upward trend was steep and people might well have extrapolated it to a +1.5 deg. anomaly by 2020 3. Between 1940 and 1980, the trendline went down-and-then-flat. That’s a FORTY YEAR period where alarmists would have seen no warming, and sceptics could have claimed warming had stopped. So on the basis of past temperature records I’d say that even forty years of flat surface temperatures _alone_ are not good enough to falsify! That’s why I don’t regard it as a useful question. Very small shifts in the partitioning of energy between the atmosphere and ocean can affect surface temperatures. There are ocean energy oscillations around forty years in extent, [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic\_multidecadal\_oscillation](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation). Measurements of ocean heat content are a slightly different matter, if we look at the Levitus OHC plot: [Does ocean cooling prove global warming has ended?](http://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?a=67) we can see that OHC shows a fairly steady rise since 1970 with the only big dips being due to volcano eruptions. The rather hefty and unprecedented “jump” at around 2003 occurs at the same time as the switch from XBT data to the far more extensively distributed ARGO buoys, and personally I’m suspicious that it’s an artefact and in reality OHC has been flat since around 1998-2000. But assuming I’m wrong there, how many years before a flat OHC without any volcanic sulphate begins to look anomalous? Ten years would raise an eyebrow for me (of course, I already think it’s _been_ ten years) and twenty would really begin to ring alarm bells, but you must supply your own answer. IPCC5 is due out 2013-2014, and maybe there’ll be some kind of statement on the subject. Interesting times if ARGO is still showing flat OHC even then. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/183 "2011-08-29T04:57:14Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > You apparently did read where they, prophetically, admit defeat. Nope, read it again, what the experiment showed was one item from the contrarian theory. It still does not explain why the increase or decrease of cosmic ray activity did not become apparent on the actual clouds. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It also didn’t mention how much mayo I should put in my hot dog. Still on a binge I see 🙂 > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > What’s the science for saying it’s “baseless”? Not doing your homework. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Yeah, nothing like one-website-for-everything. Once again you are telling all that you are proud of making a Gish gallop of an argument and thinking that it worked. Not gonna work. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > If I explained why they were relevant you’d say it was my opinion and therefore useless. No, you did not explained, I had to report on what a real scientist had to say about one of the items and I checked the others quickly to see if they were fair and looked at the big picture, only 2 of them were, suffice to say, I trust the scientists more than the spin of the ones that are not experts on the matter. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > BBC? Libetarian who calls the parties Pepsi and Coke? Physicsworld? > I see, “right wing” means “I don’t like it”, or is it a boogeyman? Ad hominem in the name of science. As I mentioned already that one of the good cites is the BBC one, your point here is dumb. I already mentioned who are the ones that fail. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > One thing, I dind’t go around looking for cites willy-nilly, but even if I did it isn’t quite scientific to stay focused on such a minor point. So you say, but the evidence so far just shows reasoning after the fact, there is a reason why quotes from the cites are very important, it demonstrates before hand that you did pay attention or know how to differentiate the good from the bad cites. So far it is clear that you can not yet. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > The BBC article says "_If he is right, then we are going down the wrong path of taking all these expensive measures to cut carbon emissions; if he is right, we could carry on with carbon emissions as normal_"and since it’s an '08 article they cannot comment on the results of a papaer published in '11. And I already quoted the part were the same researcher explains how minimal at best the effect would be on real clouds, saying that for most of the intents and purposes that he was not right. The reason why it is a good cite is because it shows the big picture and the background. I would not be surprised that a denier site quotes the article and put the spin that you are still insisting is valid. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > To sum up your answers to all questions: “useless”, “opinion”, “lies”, “right wing”, “found it on google”; rahter than, you know, factual answers. The factual reply was already made in the RealClimate cite made earlier, Gavin Smith and others also made good replies in the comments. What you say here is a baseless accusation. A factual answer was already given, but thank you for letting us know what kind of debater you are. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/184 "2011-08-29T05:15:47Z")
And as the article from Skeptical Science, with links to reasons why the CERN experiment is interesting but not much useful to climate deniers shows, I was on the right track: > **[ConCERN Trolling on Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate Change](https://skepticalscience.com/ConCERN-Trolling-on-Cosmic-Rays-Clouds-and-Climate-Change.html)** > > Guest repost from The Way Things Break. > [@](#): > > While a plausible mechanism exists, real world verifications are necessarily difficult to undertake. The CLOUD project at CERN is seeking to do exactly that. The “skeptic” and right wing blogospheres are abuzz because Jasper Kirkby, et al. have just published the first results in Nature (Kirkby 2011). > > RealClimate has a good rundown of what Kirkby et al.’s results do and do not mean. The short version is that Kirkby et al. do find increased aerosol nucleation under increased ionization (i.e. “more cosmic rays”), particularly in the mid-troposphere, but the effect is smaller at warmer, lower levels where the cosmic ray-climate myth proponents claim it has its greatest climatic effect. Lead author Jasper Kirkby has tried to set the record straight, stating (all following emphases mine): > > > [@](#): > > > > [The paper] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it’s a very important first step. > > While their results provide some confirmation of the potential mechanism by which GCRs might induce cloud nucleation, **they in no way demonstrate that GCRs do significantly promote cloud formation in the real world, let alone support the myth that GCRs drive significant climatic change.** How Do We Know That Cosmic Rays Aren’t Driving Significant Climatic Change? > [@](#): > > In reference to the present anthropogenic climatic changes that we’re driving through alteration of the planetary energy balance notably through greenhouse gas emissions, we can theorize what certain “fingerprints” of enhanced greenhouse warming should look like, and examine observational data to see whether those fingerprints show up. And they do. > > Moreover, we can examine the claims made by Svensmark, Shaviv, and others who proclaim GCRs drive climate and see whether or not they hold up. They don’t: > > We can look at the paleoclimatic record during periods of significant changes in GCR activity, and there is no corresponding change in climate, e.g. the Laschamp excursion ~40kya (Muscheler 2005). > > We can examine the change in GCRs in response to solar variability over recent decades or the course of a solar cycle, and find there is no or little corresponding change in climate (Lockwood 2007, Lockwood 2008, Kulmala 2010). > > We can look at alleged correlations between GCRs and climate in the geologic past due to our sun passing through galactic spiral arms, and find that these “correlations” were based on an unrealistic, overly-simplified model of spiral structure and are not valid (Overholt 2009). Standard climatic processes (like CO2) more parsimoniously explained the climatic changes even before taking the flawed spiral model into account (Rahmstorf 2004). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 5:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/185 "2011-08-29T05:59:00Z")
\*\*Matt \*\*is ok, but somehow many posts go like [Bread, Eggs, Milk, Squick](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BreadEggsMilkSquick) 🙂 In this case I think this is not a very good example to use, or should I say, lets not exaggerate: > [@matt](#): > > Now, it is perfectly clear that Hansen’s predictions were pessimistic and the actual temperature record is most in line with his prediction if we had cut emissions, which we certainly did not. So in that sense, there’s a set of falsified predictions right there, not that’s it’s put off Hansen from doing the same sort of thing today but with even more doomcrying. > **[RealClimate: Hansen’s 1988 projections](https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/)** > > RealClimate: At Jim Hansen's now famous congressional testimony given in the hot summer of 1988, he showed GISS model projections of continued global warming assuming further increases in human produced greenhouse gases. This was one of the earliest... > [@](#): > > Regardless of which variation one chooses, the scenario closest to the observations is clearly Scenario B. The difference in scenario B compared to any of the variations is around 0.1 W/m2 – around a 10% overestimate (compared to \> 50% overestimate for scenario A, and a \> 25% underestimate for scenario C). The overestimate in B compared to the best estimate of the total forcings is more like 5%. Given the uncertainties in the observed forcings, this is about as good as can be reasonably expected. As an aside, the match without including the efficacy factors is even better. > [@](#): > > Hansen stated that this comparison was not sufficient for a ‘precise assessment’ of the model simulations and he is of course correct. However, that does not imply that no assessment can be made, or that stated errors in the projections (themselves erroneous) of 100 to 400% can’t be challenged. My assessment is that the model results were as consistent with the real world over this period as could possibly be expected and are therefore a useful demonstration of the model’s consistency with the real world. Thus when asked whether any climate model forecasts ahead of time have proven accurate, this comes as close as you get. Of course also the “same sort of thing” is not only coming from him nowadays. And since he was very close to the target using the tools of those days, I see that he is still respected and many continue to work with him. > **[NASA GISS: Hansen et al. 2006: Global temperature change](https://www.giss.nasa.gov/pubs/abs/ha07110b.html)** ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/186 "2011-08-29T07:58:49Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > So was the Edsel, and no, people are not buying it. It’s a financial failure and it’s a Co2 failure because nobody is buying it. This is not an accurate interpretation of the facts. Initial production target for 2011 for the Volt was only 10,000 units, and a third of those have been sold in the US in spite the car getting a technology refresh midway through it and being available only in limited introductory markets. The cites already provided give some some more complex arguments than your blanket dismissal. New technologies tend to creep in heralded by the naysayers, and gradually drop in price. They do not appear fully formed like some industrial version of Athena. It is very naive to look at the Volt as a carbon success or failure. The Volt is introductory technology, it is not intended to change the status quo but to test the market and pave the way for the future. Toyota and Honda, with a 15 year head start on GM and much wider distribution even in the US, are obviously faring much better. The purpose of the Volt was never to dominate but to allow GM to enter and learn about the hybrid market while establishing a foothold and industry credentials. Think of the Volt as an Apple computer - originally a piece of technology that was popular only with a small market segment, but then evolved into a market leader thanks to the various lessons learned along the wayy. If instead of putting products out Apple had waited 15-20 years to introduce the generation of Mac computers that had a chance to capture significant market share, well that wouldn’t have been much of a business plan. > [@](#): > > You really don’t get it. You keep demanding that something be done and ignore that it’s already being done and that we’re on track technologically to make large scale changes. My argument has always been one of logistics and fiscal responsibility. It makes more sense to spend money researching a technology than to front it’s use when it’s not financially viable. We should spend the money on solar cell development and not on the solar cells themselves. You presented a statement supposedly based on common sense which was shown to be quite outside the realm of common sense. You denied there was an emergency, and were shown to be wrong. Your insistence on something being financially viable before being introduced to market runs counter to our experience and history with many technologies, such as your own example of computing power (which dropped in price and increased in power only because of **early adopters** and the **private concerns** serving them). I don’t know enough of your individual recommendations for specific technologies, I was simply addressing fallacious arguments with which you tried to paint the position of other posters as lacking in common sense. > [@](#): > > We will get the batteries needed for cars like the Volt not because of a need by those cars but because there is a universal push for cheaper, faster, smaller, lighter batteries. There are too many products on the market now that would benefit from such batteries. The tax money spent on the Volt would be better invested in battery research and not wasted on product design by a private concern. Actually what needs to happen is both of those things. It’s already been mentioned earlier in the thread that the development of the Volt (which you clearly disapprove of) led to breakthroughs in battery technology. A “universal push for cheaper, smaller, lighter batteries” is a misleading concept because when you take a closer granular look “universal” actually means various private and public concerns working as individual entities. Like GM, or Nissan, or other car companies that are competing to develop their own green technologies (and secure intellectual property). Profit is the greatest motivator for private entities and it has to be bumped along sometimes (for example the various cash prizes being dangled in front of several private companies competing to produce viable space flight vehicles). The emergency exists. The technology to mitigate this emergency exists. The will, however is still lacking, thanks in part to the kind of equivocal confusionary nonsense spread by people who refuse to acknowledge the seriousness of the situation (denial, again - a lot of it present in this thread). Yes, you are correct in saying that specific examples of technology like specific solar power technologies may see important developments in the near future, but I am talking in terms of general approach and you seem to be more focused on specific examples that favour the “do little now and wait for technology” solution. We’ve had years of obtuse delays, and without more aggressive targets and even more aggressive investment those delays will continue. You cannot overcome inertia as massive as that of the carbon liberating industries overnight just because a new gizmo appears on the market - it takes time, which is a critical item in the climate change emergency. So it makes sense to start addressing the problem early and begin to educate the market, even if better tech is on the way. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 8:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/187 "2011-08-29T08:22:00Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And since he was very close to the target using the tools of those days, I see that he is still respected and many continue to work with him. > > [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07110b.html](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha07110b.html) I disagree. Realclimate state that scenario A represents exponential increases in forcing and scenario B represents linear increases in forcing, which glosses over what Hansen said about those scenarios. Hansen’s 1988 paper is here, section 4 is the relevant part: [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988\_Hansen\_etal.pdf](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) Scenario A is increasing emissions over time, _which is what has actually happened since 1988_, while scenario’s B and C are various levels of decreasing emissions over time (giving a linear increase in forcing and a reduction in forcing respectively). Hansen’s temperature prediction due to scenario B may fit reality well, but scenario B is not what has actually happened with emissions. We have experienced the temperature increase that Hansen expected IF we reduced emissions a bit, but we’ve experienced them _while increasing emissions!_ Hansen was a good way off the mark. Did you see **Abe** s link in post 162 where Hansen claims based on paleo data that climate sensitivity is more than twice that of IPCC models? Mann is the pioneer in paleo work and yet Mann’s own results shows a fair bit of variation in temperature reconstruction, depending on which proxies you select. How Hansen can possibly claim ever greater climate sensitivity on paleo data (where he is not an expert IIRC) after his last effort is difficult for me to understand. ---
**Author:** ![Abe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/f1d935/32.png) [@Abe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Abe)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 8:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/188 "2011-08-29T08:34:05Z")
> [@matt](#): > > Did you see **Abe** s link in post 162 The link actually came from Gigobuster, I only reposted it for emphasis! Not sure if I read/follow correctly here, but are you indicting a researcher based on predictions in a paper from the dawn of climate change science? Is there nothing more current that could prove useful? ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 9:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/189 "2011-08-29T09:00:23Z")
> [@matt](#): > > I disagree. Realclimate state that scenario A represents exponential increases in forcing and scenario B represents linear increases in forcing, which glosses over what Hansen said about those scenarios. Hansen’s 1988 paper is here, section 4 is the relevant part: [http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988\_Hansen\_etal.pdf](http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1988/1988_Hansen_etal.pdf) Scenario A is increasing emissions over time, _which is what has actually happened since 1988_, while scenario’s B and C are various levels of decreasing emissions over time (giving a linear increase in forcing and a reduction in forcing respectively). Hansen’s temperature prediction due to scenario B may fit reality well, but scenario B is not what has actually happened with emissions. We have experienced the temperature increase that Hansen expected IF we reduced emissions a bit, but we’ve experienced them _while increasing emissions!_ Hansen was a good way off the mark. > > Did you see **Abe** s link in post 162 where Hansen claims based on paleo data that climate sensitivity is more than twice that of IPCC models? Mann is the pioneer in paleo work and yet Mann’s own results shows a fair bit of variation in temperature reconstruction, depending on which proxies you select. How Hansen can possibly claim ever greater climate sensitivity on paleo data (where he is not an expert IIRC) after his last effort is difficult for me to understand. I see it mostly as science progressing, and once again, Hansen is still respected. Even he had to realize he was wrong on the sensibility applied to the early model, but, as \*\*Abe \*\*notices, science marches on, the model still managed to get close to the overall trend, and that has to be commended not condemned, there is a reason why the American Meteorological Society and others recognize him. [http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/hansen\_ams.html](http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2009/hansen_ams.html) > **[What do we learn from James Hansen's 1988 prediction?](https://skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm)** > > \Subsequent comparison of observations with predictions find that Hansen's Scenario B (which most closely matched the level of CO2 emissions) shows close correlation with observed temperatures.\ > [@](#): > > Although Hansen’s projected global temperature increase has been higher than the actual global warming, this is because his climate model used a high climate sensitivity parameter. Had he used the currently accepted value of approximately 3°C warming for a doubling of atmospheric CO2, Hansen would have correctly projected the ensuing global warming. > [@](#): > > In other words, the reason Hansen’s global temperature projections were too high was primarily because his climate model had a climate sensitivity that was too high. Had the sensitivity been 3.4°C for a 2xCO2, and had Hansen decreased the radiative forcing in Scenario B slightly, he would have correctly projected the ensuing global surface air temperature increase. > [@](#): > > The argument “Hansen’s projections were too high” is thus not an argument against anthropogenic global warming or the accuracy of climate models, but rather an argument against climate sensitivity being as high as 4.2°C for 2xCO2, but it’s also an argument for climate sensitivity being around 3.4°C for 2xCO2. This is within the range of climate sensitivity values in the IPCC report, and is even a bit above the widely accepted value of 3°C for 2xCO2. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/190 "2011-08-29T11:47:50Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > The link actually came from Gigobuster, I only reposted it for emphasis! Not sure if I read/follow correctly here, but are you indicting a researcher based on predictions in a paper from the dawn of climate change science? Is there nothing more current that could prove useful? Ah, I missed that. I’m not indicting anyone - as you point out, 1988 is a fair way back in climate science. I was responding to **Waldo Pepper’s** repeated requests for a “falsifiable” prediction of climate science by pointing out that the surface temperature record has an upward trend that contains a downward-to-flat period of around 40 years. So we’d probably need a longer flat period in the temperature record than that before we could consider anything “falsified” by the temperature records alone. The fact that Hansen’s 1988 predictions overestimated warming according to some analyses was an interesting aside. I’m very unimpressed about Hansen’s paleo claims of high sensitivity though. To estimate sensitivity you have to have good paleo data on the temperature and the forcings. My comments and links on the hockey stick in this thread show that paleo temperature reconstructions aren’t that good (Mann’s own results change considerably depending what proxies are included). As for paleo data on the _forcings_, we don’t even have good data on the _current_ sulphate aerosol forcing, let alone its value far in the past! The models use different estimates, see: [http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-ExecSummary.pdf](http://downloads.climatescience.gov/sap/sap2-3/sap2-3-final-report-ExecSummary.pdf) From page 4 section ES 3.1 “Despite a wide range of climate sensitivity (i.e. the amount of surface temperature increase due to a change in radiative forcing, such as an increase of CO2) exhibited by the models, they all yield a global average temperature change very similar to that observed over the past century. This agreement across models appears to be a consequence of the use of very different aerosol forcing values, which compensates for the range of climate sensitivity.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 12:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/191 "2011-08-29T12:57:08Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > That is my line, do not play like if you do not get it. Using “we call it climate change now” is boilerplate from denialists, the fact that you \*\*did \*\*use it betrayed where you are coming from. First off, this is absurd; both sides call it climate change. Second, shouldn’t folks who make predictions offer falsification criteria (a) without being asked, or failing that, (b) regardless of what they think – perhaps mistakenly – about someone who requests one? > [@](#): > > It has satisfied virtually all scientists and experts, you do not like that tough. I’m not asking whether it’s passed falsification tests so far. I’m asking whether it can still be falsified going forward. That I’m asking about the second question implies no disregard about the first. That you’re ducking the second question implies you don’t like it; tough. > [@](#): > > It can not be much clearer, your point is really silly and incapable of changing minds. Your point, by contrast, is nonexistent. You refuse to spell out falsification criteria for current predictions, which means they’re no predictions at all. > [@](#): > > **You need to take the big picture into account** , otherwise you are indeed just playing, and uselessly too. You need to spell out, specifically, what “take the big picture into account” means, otherwise you’re not even playing. > [@](#): > > You still insist, with no support from any organization like CRU and NASA that it is cooling, your point fails from there. Pardon? Again, my support was the UN’s report by the World Meteorological Organization: global average temperature indicates cooling after '98 followed by precisely no statistically significant warming past that '98 mark during all the fluctuations that followed – all of which is irrelevant, since I only keep mentioning it while asking for a replacement falsification criterion. > [@](#): > > Now the reality is that \*\*this \*\*is plain evidence that you are the one giving skeptics a bad name, the reason why Pat Michaels was mentioned is to make the point that the very few experts that are involved with the pertinent research and still remain skeptics of AGW (or being just lukewarm to it) have dropped this “it hasn’t wormed up since 1998” or other recent dates canard and moved on to better points based on real data. I’m asking you for the “points based on real data” that could falsify it. You’re clamming up, sticking to the since-'98-ain’t-good-enough talking point without specifying what _ **would** _ be good enough. > [@](#): > > You already tripped mentioning denialists points several times already and with no thought on why you got them or why you thought it was ok to use it on your first post. But more importantly: you continue to ignore what the few skeptical scientists that the Heartland Institute or serious conservative think thanks do say: “Drop this point, you will kill us if you use it”. I keep telling you I’ll drop it when you supply a replacement, and you keep saying, no, just drop it. Pathetic. > [@](#): > > I told you before that you are headed into nowhere-land territory is that continues to be your position, it is a very peculiar and useless one to have. So you keep alleging – and keep refusing to replace it with a less peculiar and more useful one. Possibly you don’t have one? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/192 "2011-08-29T13:08:15Z")
> [@matt](#): > > It’s a good question, but it’s also a very tough question to answer! > [@](#): > > So on the basis of past temperature records I’d say that even forty years of flat surface temperatures _alone_ are not good enough to falsify! That’s why I don’t regard it as a useful question. > [@](#): > > personally I’m suspicious that it’s an artefact and in reality OHC has been flat since around 1998-2000. But assuming I’m wrong there, how many years before a flat OHC without any volcanic sulphate begins to look anomalous? Ten years would raise an eyebrow for me (of course, I already think it’s _been_ ten years) and twenty would really begin to ring alarm bells, but you must supply your own answer. > [@](#): > > IPCC5 is due out 2013-2014, and maybe there’ll be some kind of statement on the subject. Interesting times if ARGO is still showing flat OHC even then. Well, that’s certainly missing it closer than GIGO’s posts, but it still looks uncomfortably vague. It’s a tough question, you say. Forty years of flat surface temperatures wouldn’t be enough, you say. Ten years would raise an eyebrow for you, you say (and add that you of course think it’s already been ten years). Interesting times if ARGO is still showing it in 2013-2014, you say. Twenty would ring alarm bells, you say, with some promise – but I must supply my own answer, you add. The first four are just detailed notes about what’s not good enough to falsify it. The fifth approaches it, and I appreciate that – but it still backs off right when specificity would be key. (And I’m certainly not out to supply my own answer; I could just declare victory and go home, which would be silly and pointless.) > [@](#): > > I was responding to Waldo Pepper’s repeated requests for a “falsifiable” prediction of climate science by pointing out that the surface temperature record has an upward trend that contains a downward-to-flat period of around 40 years. So w **e’d probably need a longer flat period in the temperature record than that before we could consider anything “falsified” by the temperature records alone.** The fact that Hansen’s 1988 predictions overestimated warming according to some analyses was an interesting aside. Bolding mine. How much longer? ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [August 29, 2011, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/193 "2011-08-29T13:58:32Z")
> [@matt](#): > > “Despite a wide range of climate sensitivity (i.e. the amount of surface temperature increase due to a change in radiative forcing, such as an increase of CO2) exhibited by the models, they all yield a global average temperature change very similar to that observed over the past century. This agreement across models appears to be a consequence of the use of very different aerosol forcing values, which compensates for the range of climate sensitivity.” It’s things like this that bug me. If you have different forcings, then you must have different temperature increases. Why would aerosol forcing values need to change if we assume different forcings? ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 12:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/194 "2011-08-30T00:58:45Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Well, that’s certainly missing it closer than GIGO’s posts, but it still looks uncomfortably vague. It’s a tough question, you say. Forty years of flat surface temperatures wouldn’t be enough, you say. Ten years would raise an eyebrow for you, you say (and add that you of course think it’s already been ten years). Interesting times if ARGO is still showing it in 2013-2014, you say. Twenty would ring alarm bells, you say, with some promise – but I must supply my own answer, you add. > > The first four are just detailed notes about what’s not good enough to falsify it. The fifth approaches it, and I appreciate that – but it still backs off right when specificity would be key. (And I’m certainly not out to supply my own answer; I could just declare victory and go home, which would be silly and pointless.) > > Bolding mine. How much longer? It _is_ uncomfortably vague! I’m not trying to persuade you of anything - just inform you where the science is at and why your question can’t be answered well. Climate science has some really big, glaring gaps in it which are not well publicised or acknowledged and are only just beginning to be filled in. ARGO is giving good OHC data, which we didn’t have before, and the GLORY satellite was supposed to sort out the sulphate aerosol uncertainty but it crashed and burned. God knows how a 400 billion dollar satellite mission will be replaced in the current economic climate, and without tightening up our understanding of sulphate levels, the estimates of climate sensitivity are wide open. I think you’ve missed my point a little, which is that surface temperature measurements ON THEIR OWN can’t tell us all that much either way. Forty years of flat surface temperatures indeed wouldn’t be enough, _because we’ve seen it before in the middle of a general rising trend_. Surface temperatures are cluttered by weather noise (which can easily be averaged out over a few years of data) but also by various ocean energy oscillations (EL Nino/La Nina being the most famous) some of which last over forty years. If we could quantify those oscillations and take their effects away from the temperature record, then such an “adjusted” temperature record would tell us if the underlying trend had truly changed direction, ten years probably being good enough. The thing is, we _don’t_ have a good understanding of those oscillations so the temperature record is currently obscured by them, and we’d need a century of good data to average out a 40 year oscillation! The surface record isn’t that useful overall and that cuts both ways. We saw a big temperature rise 1970-2000 but thanks to the ocean oscillations I believe nature IS capable of producing that sort of temperature rise all by itself, temporarily. We have to look elsewhere to determine how much of it (if any) was nature and how much (if any) was us. ARGO is whole different kettle of fish. ARGO isn’t measuring surface temperatures, it’s measuring ocean heat content (OHC) which is a much more useful metric as it’s where practically all the excess warming energy (if there is any) goes. Ocean energy oscillations only affect the surface temperature, whereas OHC is mostly distributed in the top 750m and so is largely unaffected by them. The thing is, ARGO has only been online properly since 2003-2004 and a few wrinkles had to be sorted out in the early data. It’s a relatively new data source and the OHC data prior to that is far less reliable. From Levitus’ OHC plot, I think a ten year OHC flat spot without a volcano to explain it would be unprecedented. That’s MY eyeball assessment and I hoped you’d check out the plot and agree or disagree. There is no “declaring victory” here, at least not with me, because I don’t have a “side”. I just want to know exactly how much we know and why we think we know it, as opposed to all the partisan crap! I’ve found you really have to dig and read and research in this area and supply your own answers much of the time. Just the way it is. So: personally I think we’ve already seen ten years of flat OHC in reality, but ten years of flat actual ARGO data (up to 2013-2014) will make climate science at large begin to accept that something unexpected is going on. The paper I linked to earlier attempts to explain it in terms of increases in Chinese coal-burning, which indicates to me that _some_ climate scientists are beginning to worry about it. My personal answer to your “How much longer?” if I’m forced to give one is three years for ARGO, eighty years for surface temperature records. ---
**Author:** ![matt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/a6a055/32.png) [@matt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/195 "2011-08-30T01:06:37Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > It’s things like this that bug me. If you have different forcings, then you must have different temperature increases. No you don’t, because the models also have different _climate sensitivities_, which compensate for the different aerosol histories so they all give the same answer! If that sounds like a great big kludge to you, you’re not alone. > [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Why would aerosol forcing values need to change if we assume different forcings? The models are “trained” using the “known” forcing history and tweaked until they match the past temperature record. Then they are run into the future. The thing is, there are big uncertainties in the forcing history so the various groups make assumptions, so you end up with a bunch of different forcing histories used by different groups. The amount, geographic extent and the effect of sulphate aerosols in the air and on clouds are all poorly quantified at the moment. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/196 "2011-08-30T01:09:42Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > First off, this is absurd; both sides call it climate change. Among skeptics that do look at the science, not so by a good chunk of the most irrational denialist sites. If you had not been influenced by them, then you would had said “We \*\*also \*\*call it climate change”, you said “we call it climate change **now** ” the sorry now common point from deniers is: “Why do they call it “climate change” now instead of “global warming”? Is it because “global warming” is a tough sell in a cooling world?" making that meme to be a very closely related one to the “it has not cooled since 1998” denialist misleading meme. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > You need to spell out, specifically, what “take the big picture into account” means, otherwise you’re not even playing. I already linked and quoted even a conservative scientist (Brickmore) on why this cooling meme is silly, everyone can see that besides you not liking the answers, you also deny that even a reference to that big picture was ignored by you. > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > Pardon? Again, my support was the UN’s report by the World Meteorological Organization: global average temperature indicates cooling after '98 followed by precisely no statistically significant warming past that '98 mark during all the fluctuations that followed – all of which is irrelevant, since I only keep mentioning it while asking for a replacement falsification criterion. And we come to yet another denialist shibboleth, a search of the keywords regarding the UN report (and everyone should notice how after complaining a lot about citations, you do not have one here) shows a member of the UN team being quoted on the apparent cooling. This cite was typical: > **[Alex Jones' Endgame](http://www.endgamethemovie.com/)** > [@](#): > > global warming advocates still cling to the notion that the world is cooling because of global warming! > > > [@](#): > > > > ``` > > "Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said," reports the BBC. > > > > "The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer." > > > > "This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory." > > > > ``` Well, besides not citing the report directly (itself a red flag there and here in the thread) alert readers can notice that the secretary general nor the article claims that “the world is cooling because of global warming!” there is no hint that what the secretary said here was in the report and on top of that, the UN climate secretary is in reality only rhetorically saying that this has prompted some to question climate change theory. He is just describing the few contrarians that are still beating on this sorry point. And one does not have to go far to get evidence of what Mr. Jarraud actual position is. > **[AM with Sabra Lane - ABC listen](https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/am)** > > AM is Australia's most informative morning current affairs program. > [@](#): > > MICHEL JARRAUD: We can indeed report that 2010 is now going to rank as the warmest year on record, at the same level as 2005 and 1998. > > MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Michel Jarraud is the secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization. > > It says those three years recorded the highest temperatures since 1850, about half a degree warmer than average. > > MICHEL JARRAUD: **The latest decade is the warmest on record. So year after year this trend is confirmed, actually it’s being strengthened year after year.** > > MEREDITH GRIFFITHS: Last year also saw Arctic Sea ice recede to its lowest level. > > **Mr Jarraud says these new statistics should silence those who don’t believe that greenhouse gases are changing the world’s climate.** So, yeah, I have to say that is good evidence that you are at least aware on why you did not posted a link to your sources, you are aware that those cites would not fly. The evidence shows what is the position of the secretary after the report was made, and what the release actually did say, I do think that the source where you got that UN 1998 point should be known, the UN report does not say what the denial spin says it did, so you indeed do not have any good support from the UN nor the other climate research centers that track the temperature. About the only good thing you can do now is to point at the source you did use **The Other Waldo Pepper** , because, really, the ones that deserve condemnation are the ones that start and broadcast that false information. > **[Getting Cooler? What the World Meteorological Organization Actually Said](https://www.desmog.com/2008/04/11/getting-cooler-what-the-world-meteorological-organization-actually-said/)** > > For the past week, the breathless buzz on the global warming denier blogs and radio programs has been about a certain BBC News article regarding the temporary cooling effect of El Niña this year. Serial denier Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters described... ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/197 "2011-08-30T01:45:05Z")
> [@Abe](#): > > It is very naive to look at the Volt as a carbon success or failure. It’s a flaming waste of money that could have been invested in something that accomplished it’s intended purpose. > [@Abe](#): > > You presented a statement supposedly based on common sense which was shown to be quite outside the realm of common sense. You denied there was an emergency, and were shown to be wrong. Your insistence on something being financially viable before being introduced to market runs counter to our experience and history with many technologies, such as your own example of computing power (which dropped in price and increased in power only because of **early adopters** and the **private concerns** serving them). I don’t know enough of your individual recommendations for specific technologies, I was simply addressing fallacious arguments with which you tried to paint the position of other posters as lacking in common sense. That’s it in a nutshell. There is no emergency. New York is not going underwater anytime soon. Al Gore is a complete buffoon who makes millions running his mouth. He gets paid to scare people. We have much larger fish to fry right now. If the world economy isn’t put back on track there will be ZERO money to front future needs including global warming/climate change dejure. If we don’t have the money maintain the natural technology progression then we’re screwed because there is nothing that the United States can do if the rest of the world is still living under a bush. Our industries could shit pure oxygen and rainbows and it wouldn’t matter if India, China and all the 3rd world countries are still cranking out co2. We are on track for major breakthroughs whether you care to admit it or not. If they go down in flames because the economy tanks then THAT will be the real problem. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 1:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/198 "2011-08-30T01:57:20Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > That’s it in a nutshell. There is no emergency. New York is not going underwater anytime soon. Al Gore is a complete buffoon who makes millions running his mouth. He gets paid to scare people. The issue does not depend on Al Gore at all. [http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/08/climate-science-1956-blast-from-the-past/](http://climatecrocks.com/2010/11/08/climate-science-1956-blast-from-the-past/) > [@Magiver](#): > > We have much larger fish to fry right now. If the world economy isn’t put back on track there will be ZERO money to front future needs including global warming/climate change dejure. If we don’t have the money maintain the natural technology progression then we’re screwed because there is nothing that the United States can do if the rest of the world is still living under a bush. Our industries could shit pure oxygen and rainbows and it wouldn’t matter if India, China and all the 3rd world countries are still cranking out co2. > **[Meaningful climate action needs global cooperation](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-will-make-little-difference.htm)** > > \While it's true that any single country's CO2 emissions reductions will make little difference, only if every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions can we achieve significant cuts on a global scale.\ > [@](#): > > What the science says… > > While it’s true that any single country’s CO2 emissions reductions will make little difference, only if every nation agrees to limit CO2 emissions can we achieve significant cuts on a global scale. > > Some skeptics have claimed that anything more than a modest greenhouse gas emissions reduction would shut a nation’s economy down. However, as we previously explored, this claim is not even remotely true. In fact, we showed that the benefits of carbon pricing would outweigh the costs several times over, even in the legislation proposed in the USA which would have cut the country’s emissions 80% by 2050. > [@Magiver](#): > > We are on track for major breakthroughs whether you care to admit it or not. If they go down in flames because the economy tanks then THAT will be the real problem. > **[The economic impacts of carbon pricing](https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm)** > > \Economic assessments of proposed policy to put a price on carbon emissions are in widespread agreement that the net economic impact will be minor. The costs over the next several decades center around $100 per average family, or about 75 cents per... > [@](#): > > Putting a price on carbon emissions is often discussed as one of the main solutions to anthropogenic global warming. Carbon dioxide is a pollutant and in economic theory, pollution is considered a negative externality – a negative effect on a party not directly involved in a transaction, which results in a market failure. The Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change concluded that climate change represents “the greatest example of market failure we have ever seen.” > > Despite the economic benefits of addressing this market failure, many skeptics argue that putting a price on carbon emissions will cripple the economy. Such arguments generally focus solely on the costs associated with pricing carbon while wholly ignoring the benefits. For example, a Heritage Foundation analysis of the Waxman-Markey climate bill proposed in the US House of Representatives in 2009 concluded that the legislation would cost the average American family $1500 per year – a figure 10 times higher than any non-partisan economic analysis (see below). > > The reason the Heritage estimate was so high is that it evaluated the costs of a carbon cap, and then ignored the distribution of those funds. When a price is put on carbon emissions, it creates a revenue stream. The funds which are generated from the carbon price can be distributed in any number of ways – usually through reductions in other taxes, investment in research and development of ‘green’ technologies, funding of energy efficiency programs, etc. ---
**Author:** ![Magiver](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/4491bb/32.png) [@Magiver](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Magiver)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/199 "2011-08-30T02:14:31Z")
If you raise the cost of energy you will kill business in this country and it will move to places like India where they will burn anything not tied down to produce energy. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 30, 2011, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724/200 "2011-08-30T02:46:05Z")
> [@Magiver](#): > > If you raise the cost of energy you will kill business in this country and it will move to places like India where they will burn anything not tied down to produce energy. Funny thing is that even in India they are more active than the US on recognizing and doing something about the issue, it does not seem that they see regulations, or cap and trade as economic killers. > **[Greening It Alone](https://foreignpolicy.com/2011/08/01/greening-it-alone/)** > > The world is building a low-carbon global economy -- with or without the United States. > [@](#): > > Going forward, Wheeler reports that India is planning to generate 15 percent of its energy from renewable sources by 2020, up from less than 2 percent today. Ten thousand megawatts of that – a little under 10 percent – would come from new solar energy installations (to put that in perspective, that’s more than total global solar photovoltaic capacity in 2007). At the U.N. global warming conference in Cancún, Mexico, last year, developing countries pledged to restrict their carbon emissions considerably more than did rich country delegations. In particular, China’s promised reductions from what would happen under “business as usual” were a lot larger than promises made by the United States. Indeed, in the U.S. case, some calculations suggest the pledge may amount to the commitment to do nothing, which sounds all too plausible. > > You wouldn’t have guessed developing countries were taking the lead on counteracting climate change given the caterwauling about harm to U.S. competitiveness that accompanies discussion of greenhouse gas regulation in Washington, but it is true. They’re motivated by a mix of wanting to stave off climate change and wanting to develop renewable industries, and they benefit from energy and industrial sectors with less installed capacity as a proportion of future demand – which means less entrenched opposition to higher standards. And that’s good news, because while the United States accounts for three times China’s carbon dioxide contribution to the atmosphere to date, today China is the largest carbon emitter in the world. India and the rest of the developing world are fast climbing the ranks, as well. Without developing country leadership, we’d all be sunk The impression I get is that even more would be done if the USA would lead on the efforts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climatologist-dr-michael-mann-completely-vindicated-again/593724.md?page=11)