"Newsweek" cover story exposes well-funded global-warming denial machine

Great Debates
101

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Fair enough. Although scientifically, it would seem more exact to simply state that we are 90% confident of this prediction rather than use a word like “proven,” wouldn’t you say?

There’s a reason I insist on the distinction.

One of my jobs is to make bid/no bid decisions on certain contracting opportunities. We may face an opportunity in which we believe we have, say, a 30% chance of winning, and if we win, we would get revenue of $50 million and a profit of $4 million.

How much B&P (bid & proposal) money should I allocate to that effort?

Greatly oversimplifying, certainly no more than $1.2 million, right? I have a 30% chance of getting $4 million; I shouldn’t pay more than $1.2 million for that chance. (In practice then answer is far less for many reasons irrelevant to this discussion).

The same approach, though, must go here.

No, not “whatever we can”. There are some measures that are too expensive to undertake.

If the potential loss is, say, 10$ billion, and there is a 90% likelihood of it happening, then we should not spend more than $9 billion fixing it.
[/QUOTE]

This is a bit (no, very) simplistic - in ways that both support your side and oppose it.

First of all, you are neglecting the discount rate. Money spent today to combat global warming will pay off 10 - 50 years from now. Now, you can compute this simply, but behavioral economics research shows that the discount rate used by people (and thus politicians) in making decisions is far from the current prime rate, and actually varies significantly with both time and the amount at risk. So, you’d actually have to spend a lot less than $9 billion to fix it to make it a sound proposition.

On the other hand, and I see this all the time in work I do, you are treating the benefit of no global warming as a fixed number. The cost of doing something about it is fairly well understood, but depending on your assumptions, the cost of not doing something ranges from trivial (for those people who think Jesus will take them home before anything happens) to civilization ending. This is a mistake I see all the time from those making economic justifications of engineering decisions. So your cost/benefit calculation really doesn’t mean anything - the real issue is the range of benefits, and how much risk we are willing to absorb.

This explains your car example. People overestimate the risk from rare events, and underestimate risk from common events, such as car crashes. Given that, it is hard to get people to pay for safety features which might be justified, which is my the gummint had to force car makers to add seat belts and air bags.

Behavioral economics has shown time and time again that people make stupid economic decisions based on some wiring we seem to all have.

So the real question is, how much risk are you willing to accept in order to save money on mitigation today? How much for your kids?

102

[QUOTE=gladiadelmarre]
Has anyone ever actually tested the global warming theory with a big tank, a heat lamp, a thermometer, and some CO2?
[/QUOTE]

Anyone who has a greenhouse has. :slight_smile:

103

[QUOTE=Voyager]
This explains your car example. People overestimate the risk from rare events, and underestimate risk from common events, such as car crashes. Given that, it is hard to get people to pay for safety features which might be justified, which is my the gummint had to force car makers to add seat belts and air bags.
[/QUOTE]

And if people aren’t willing to pay to reduce their own risk, or the risk for their own child, how much less will they consider the risk for people outside the US who aren’t even being given the choice as to whether they want to be in the car?

104

[QUOTE=Raygun99]
It’s grown since then. If you actually read the article, it attributes that temporary shrinking to temperature flucuations.
[/QUOTE]

But what’s the second derivative? The source I quoted seems to say that the growth has slowed, and is expected to reverse itself.

105

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I’m willing to accept that it’s 90% proven… and then ACT like it’s 90% proven. You’re asking me to do … what? Accept that it’s 90% proven and then act like it’s 100% proven?
[/QUOTE]

I’d guess the use of the word proven - depending on who uses it, is purely a rhetorical device, aimed at those who would say - “90% chance? We don’t have to do anything.” Think those who say evolution is only a theory.

Scientists get beat up either way. If they say something the right way, then they are wishy washy and too hard to understand. If they say something is “proven” then someone says they are inaccurate.

As far as I can tell, there is more enough evidence to convict us of contributing to GW beyond a reasonable doubt. Hope that helps.

106

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
And if people aren’t willing to pay to reduce their own risk, or the risk for their own child, how much less will they consider the risk for people outside the US who aren’t even being given the choice as to whether they want to be in the car?
[/QUOTE]

That’s why government regulation makes sense. Even though individuals wouldn’t pay for it, society as a whole has benefited greatly from the relatively small cost of seatbelts and airbags.

The fact is, there is ample evidence that people don’t make economic decisions in their best interests, not because they’re stupid but because we’re wired that way. That’s why I’m not a libertarian or conservative.

107

[QUOTE=kifler]
Oh, then Channel 4 Meterologist chimes in: http://www.todaystmj4.com/bloggers/briangotter/8872172.html

May I remind you, your job is to tell us the weather, not diagnose engineering flaws. That being said, kindly stop perpatuating this stupid notion that Global Warming will cause us all to die because the Earth will simply cave in upon itself.
[/QUOTE]

That quote did not mention global warming at all. Nor did it say we will all die nor that the earth will cave in on itself. Dishonesty doesn’t bolster your cause. And by the way, most of us don’t live in Milwaukee so referring to the “channel 4 meteorologist” without any further information does us little good.

This summer has been warmer than usual with temps often in the 90’s. It was in the 90’s on the day the bridge collapsed. The variance from summer to winter here causes great stress on roadways. Roads do buckle in the summer and potholes are very common. Temps in summer can reach 105 and in winter can be -35, though the last ten winters in the Twin Cities have been so warm I would not have thought it possible had I not seen it. Not saying any of this caused the collapse, but you asked.

108

[QUOTE=Voyager]
That’s why government regulation makes sense.
[/QUOTE]

Sure, but lots of the people in the government seem to be way behind the curve when it comes to accepting that there might be a problem. So then what?

When the regulation is completely bound up in politics, for reasons that continue to escape me, what’s next?

109

[QUOTE=Cervaise]
I work in technology, and Y2K was a very real problem that absolutely demanded the level of attention that it got. The fact that ignorant people flipped out about it on the basis of unreasonable fear-mongering (“airplanes are gonna fall out of the sky!!1!”) doesn’t mean the issue wasn’t entirely legitimate.
[/QUOTE]

Amusingly, there appears to be a Y2K problem with some of the NASA global warming data.
(Accuracy unknown)
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm

110

On the heels of the Newsweek article, the is this. A scientific paper has been published suggesting that the extinction of a species of snail may have been caused by global warming.

And no, it’s not 100% proven that warming killed off the snail nor is it 100% proven that the snail is even extinct. Nor will it ever be.

And in the end, the great co2 experiment will continue.

111

[QUOTE=Voyager]
Anyone who has a greenhouse has. :slight_smile:
[/QUOTE]

Not really, because you would need to seal the greenhouse so that you can alter the CO2 levels and measure the effect, if any, on temperature. Also, it would be important to use artificial light in the experiment because of variability in sunshine.

I would imagine that few, if any, greenhouses as currently set up would be suitable for testing AGW.

112

[QUOTE=E-Sabbath]
Amusingly, there appears to be a Y2K problem with some of the NASA global warming data.
(Accuracy unknown)
http://www.dailytech.com/Blogger+finds+Y2K+bug+in+NASA+Climate+Data/article8383.htm
[/QUOTE]

Unknown indeed. That cite is a blog which uses a cite to back its assertion that is a dead link. In googling the issue I only found right-wing sites pimping it. NASA doesn’t have it on its site either. It does have this.

113

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
Sure, but lots of the people in the government seem to be way behind the curve when it comes to accepting that there might be a problem. So then what?

When the regulation is completely bound up in politics, for reasons that continue to escape me, what’s next?
[/QUOTE]

I think its bound up in money. Say you’re a big exec, deciding whether to add a safety feature. If you do, your customers won’t die quite as often, but since the feature isn’t there now, no one will sue you if you don’t put it in. If you do put it in, your price goes up and your sales or profit might go down. This will impact the value of your options and your bonus. It’s a no brainer. The politics come in from you convincing yourself that the safety feature isn’t really needed, so you don’t feel like such an immoral schmuck, or if you think regulations requiring the safety features will cut sales, also cutting your bonus. You give money to those who agree with you. Some people ideologically can’t get a handle on that some things that make sense for you individually don’t work for society. They think their business liberty trumps some one else’s mangled body.

114

A Nice primer on the subject from NOOA.
This is a very telling paragraph.

I figured an intro from a US Government agency might hold some weight with other posters.

Jim

115

[QUOTE=jsgoddess]
I quoted every time. Have you mentioned ethics in any of our exchanges? Feel free to point to instances and I will apologize for missing them.

[/quote]

No, you didn’t quote me. You paraphrased me.

Consider your post #82 as an example:

Nowhere in the quote from me do we find valuations of African life at a penny. Nowhere do I define what business interests are, what considerations may go in to forming them, or anything of the sort. But in your summation of the quote, I have evaluated human lives in Africa as worth one hundred to the dollar, and indicated that business interests cannot possibly include life and humanity.

I’m not going to continue to play that game with you. If you wish to debate my points, then identify the points by quoting what I have said and address your comments to the quoted material. I’m not interests in your mental projections of what you imagined I said.

Yup, I do. If that’s your version of “hold responsible,” welcome to it, and good luck with that. I don’t remotely care, and I imagine neither does anyone being “held responsible” by you.

116

[QUOTE=Voyager]
This is a bit (no, very) simplistic - in ways that both support your side and oppose it.

[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I probably should have said somewhere in my post that I was grossly oversimplifying, huh?

117

[QUOTE=Voyager]
I’d guess the use of the word proven - depending on who uses it, is purely a rhetorical device, aimed at those who would say - “90% chance? We don’t have to do anything.” Think those who say evolution is only a theory.

[/quote]

Well, fair enough, I suppose. I don’t see any serious policymakers on either side arguing we should do nothing, however.

118

[QUOTE=Bricker]
I don’t remotely care, and I imagine neither does anyone being “held responsible” by you.
[/QUOTE]

It lost the Republicans congress in 2006. I bet some people cared about that.

But keep whistling past the graveyard if it makes you feel better.

119

[QUOTE=Captain Lance Murdoch]
Unknown indeed. That cite is a blog which uses a cite to back its assertion that is a dead link. In googling the issue I only found right-wing sites pimping it. NASA doesn’t have it on its site either. It does have this.
[/QUOTE]

Please. The error is known, NASA has admitted it. It is actually quite a large error, and one that was discovered by Steven McIntyre, the man the warmers love to hate because he demolished the Hockeystick. There’s more about it here.

Returning to the OP, yes, the warming debate is “well-funded”, as Newsweek says. Here’s just a few figures:

Mobil contribution to skeptics: $19 million

Richard Branson’s contribution to warmers $3,000 million

Mobil takes a raft of sh*t for funding one side, Branson give two hundred times as much to the other side … who’s well funded here? And why is supporting one side seen as a crime, but not funding the other side?

Some other numbers of interest:

John Kerry’s wife’s foundation grant to James Hansen: a cool quarter million. (Hansen subsequently endorsed Kerry’s presidential bid, but that’s probably a coincidence).

Value of 75 hours of free airtime given to Al Gore by NBC: unknown, but definitely more than $19 million.

Yes, the debate is well-funded … but the warmers are getting the bulk of the money.

And in any case, it’s a non-issue. The question is not who’s funding who. The question is, how much influence are humans having on the climate, and how are we influencing it?

NASA says land use changes may have more effect than CO2. A recent study says the recent Arctic warming is caused mostly by soot falling on snow and warming it. Another study says animal derived methane produces as much warming as the transportation industry. Another study says that the warming in Asia is from the “brown haze” driven by domestic use of wood and coal. Which one(s) are right? And if all of these are causing warming … how much is left to be even possibly caused by CO2?

Before we rush to action, we should first determine what the problem is. Warmers keep yelling “FIRE! FIRE!”, and saying we should immediately break out the hoses and spend trillions on CO2 prevention, when the problem may be “LAND USE! LAND USE!” or “COWS! COW!” or “SOOT! SOOT!” or “HAZE! HAZE!”.

w.

120

[QUOTE=Bricker]
Nowhere in the quote from me do we find valuations of African life at a penny.
[/QUOTE]

Nowhere in the quote from me do we find that I said you said that. Read it again. Note the “if.” Note the “for example.”

“You’re sitting there saying that if we stick a one cent value on every African life, for example, then a $1000 business hit doesn’t make sense.”

I find it completely unbelievable that you don’t understand this sentence as written. You are not a stupid person.