This One’s For Bradley
Bradley over at Southwest Left Coast and I have gone around and around a few times on the issue of global warming. I don't think we're going to resolve our differences anytime soon, but it's always interesting. I've pointed out that total emissions from all sources have declined by about 1/3 overall since 1970. Now the Opinion Journal weighs in with some pretty heavy duty numbers.
Since 1970, carbon monoxide emissions in the U.S. are down 55%, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. Particulate emissions are down nearly 80%, and sulfur dioxide emissions have been reduced by half. Lead emissions have declined more than 98%. All of this has been accomplished despite a doubling of the number of cars on the road and a near-tripling of the number of miles driven, according to Steven Hayward of the Pacific Research Institute.
….
There's no doubt the greens have succeeded in promoting higher environmental standards, which in turn have contributed to cleaner air, water and land almost everywhere you look. Today, game fish have returned to countless American streams and lakes, the Northeast has more forestland that at any time since the 19th century and smog is down dramatically in places like Los Angeles. But environmental activists don't want to believe their own success, much less advertise it. They need another looming catastrophe to stay relevant, not to mention to keep raising money.
Thus the cause of global warming has come at a fortuitous moment for clean-air warriors looking for alarms to ring. It is global in scope, will take decades to come to fruition–or to be revealed as another false alarm–and provides endless opportunities for government intrusion into the economy. It is, if you'll pardon the deliberate reference to a faith-based phenomenon, the green equivalent of manna from heaven. Or would be, if the greens hadn't spent so much time over the last three decades talking up scares that never came to pass.
This credibility deficit, combined with the slow-motion nature of the putative warming, has led to some desperate tactics by the global-warming true believers. To cite just one example, careful expounders of the idea of human-caused global warming used to take pains to distinguish between "climate" and "weather." Thus, snow storms in April or cold snaps in September were merely "weather" and told us nothing about long-term trends.
What do you think, Bradley?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Saturday, 22 April , 2006 @ 2:32 pm
Hi Gaius,
I’ll take a look at it more closely later today. My brain’s a little fried after writing about Rutten/Hiltzik/Patterico/Hewitt. You can see it on my home page.
From a quick glance, I was glad that the editorial at least gave greens credit for working to lower pollution. And you can read in my blog about my views on Richard Lindzen’s dishonest piece. You’ll have to scroll down a bit past my caffeine-fueled piece at the top.
Also, I will want to see about getting comments going this weekend, or perhaps later. Seems you were hit with a lot of spam.
Thanks,
Bradley
By Gauis Arbo, Saturday, 22 April , 2006 @ 2:49 pm
Just make sure you moderate. Otherwise these things will overrun you.
By Mike's America, Saturday, 22 April , 2006 @ 10:04 pm
When I was at EPA we were just starting to use cost benefit analysis for regulation of pollutants.
We spent hundreds of billions through mandated environmental regulations for this result.
At the same time, tens of thousands of men, women and children died of cancer.
But speaking directly to the point about manmade global warming: THERE IS NONE!
Sorry Bradley, but the whole thing is just one monstrous lie, the purpose of which is to foster a neo-socialist agenda.
The Sun is heating up Bradley. There is global warming on Mars. And as we curtail CO2 emissions, the earth (you’ve heard of the earth right?) simply releases more from the soil to maintain the balance.
I am NOT in favor of pollution. BUT, environmental regulation should be based on science, not left wing scaremongering.
Here’s an interesting chart that Skye of Midnight Blue Rants found:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
By Gauis Arbo, Saturday, 22 April , 2006 @ 10:08 pm
I keep arguing with Bradley. Maybe he’ll start questioning the “consensus”.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 9:11 am
Mike’s America.
“Neo-socialist agenda”? That’s moonbattery, no insult intended. I’ve looked at this issue as a science writer for years, and the theory of global warming is based on sound science. One can argue about to what extent warming is man-caused, but it’s not just the product of some conspiracy theory.
What is most revealing to me is how skeptics of global warming have consistently misrepresented the arguments of those who say it is indeed an issue. I hope you will agree that in any dispute, it is important to tackle the strongest arguments of the opposition, and not to ignore them. Anyone who evades those arguments loses credibility.
I am directly referring to Richard Lindzen’s evasive and dishonest piece recently in the WSJ. Lindzen is a scientific expert in the field, so lack of knowledge is no excuse.
( discuss it on my home page, and Chris Mooney does the same on his.
Here is Mooney on the subject.
So I would ask after you’ve had a chance to read this, why would Lindzen write such a misleading piece, if the facts on global warming are on his side?
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 9:56 am
Gaius,
I also noticed that the piece, while dissing global warming theory, had no scientific references beyond Lindzen’s recent attempt at misdirection. I am totally unimpressed.
BTW, here is my science article in the North County Times on the Lindzen deception.
And here’s the url, if my shaky HTML is wrong . . .
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2006/04/23/science/fikes/20_15_374_21_06.txt
(BTW, I think I may have mischaracterized extratropical storms. However, that doesn’t affect my argument, which is that tropical cyclones are what global warming “alarmists” are worried about. Lindzen’s brief discussion of extratropical cyclones appears to be nothing more than rhetorical sleight of hand.”
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 10:56 am
Bradley,
The extent to which man is involved is very much in question. That there is warming - well, a very little bit, but no way to seperate out what is actually causing it at all. Certainly no evidence that this is the catastrophe that a lot of strident voices keep screetching. The earth has been much warmer and much cooler in the past.
And you and I have gone over why some of the steps the activists are demanding actually cause MORE damage than they remediate. (Trees and methane, etc.)
That’s what I keep saying. All this man causing global warmine talk is conjecture (at best) based on correlation. Correlation proves nothing at all.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 11:28 am
Hi Gaius,
Sorry, but your entire answer is non-responsive to what I wrote. I am saying that global warming skeptics have made false statements about the evidence, and ignored what they can’t deride. I have given specific citations for why I think that is so.
Would you please look over what I said about Lindzen, read his original piece, and reply?
Also, you might enjoy reading a short piece I just put up regarding false statements in a letter by global warming skeptics sent to the Prime Minister of Canada.
I’ll close by asking, if the evidence for global warming is so weak, why do skeptics such as Lindzen mislead people as to the nature of the evidence?
Perhaps I am wrong — but you should at least point out specifically what I have written that is factually inaccurate.
Bradley
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 12:30 pm
I read your article. I’ve also skimmed some of the material Emanuel put up.
Let me point out one thing. Emanuel is very careful to NOT state the causes of global warming is anthropogenic. He says some people believe that. He’s also one of the few people I’ve seen who flat out admits we do not have decent records going back far enough.
Lindzen does not mention Emanuel (I think, anyway. It’s been a while since I read the op-ed). So in a way you’re debunking something he did not say - kind of apples and oranges. Emanuel is NOT arguing strongly that there is a definite anthropogenic link in the MIT info, however.
I also think you have it wrong on the extratropical storm thing. Lindzen is quite right about that - lower diferential would lead to less powerful storms because the extratropical storms rely on that differential.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 12:45 pm
Gaius,
Regarding extratropical storms, the diversion is that global warming theory predicts more powerful tropical storms, which cause the most damage. Extratropical storms are not the focus of attention here by global warming “alarmists.”
Regarding tropical storms, I said that Lindzen ignored the strongest evidence that warmer seas will increase their intensity, and reduced it to one man’s “casual claim.”
Emanuel, Lindzen’s own colleague, published a paper in Nature showing a strong correlation between increasing surface sea temperatures and tropical storm intensity. He said that correlation was found everywhere they looked. This is a strong reason to expect that future warming will cause more intense tropical storms in the long run (more than 50 years out). Emanuel is properly cautious about how to interpret this evidence, but it’s plainly not just some concoction of “alarmists.”
Lindzen could hardly have been unaware of that evidence. He chose to ignore it. By not dealing with it or other peer-reviewed evidence, and mischaracterizing the argument as founded on a “casual claim,” Lindzen misled his readers.
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 1:48 pm
Bradley,
Let me ask you a question here. Have you looked at how much the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has changed? I did. It’s not much, one place I looked at put it at less than 200 ppm (Sorry couldn’t find it again when i just looked.)
So, we have a lot of people spending a lot of money doing research. Has anyone tried taking two identical greenhouses, putting regular air in one and a slightly elevated CO2 content into another? Then measure the difference in heat gain?
I’ve not read of any like that.
By Bradley J. Fikes, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 3:06 pm
Gaius,
I will examine your point a little later. I’ve got to stop my compulsive blogging for a while and doing some household chores that need to get done this weekend.
One reason for blogging is I thought it would be a hobby that would be fun, but not as demanding as having a pet. Boy was I wrong . . .
By Gauis Arbo, Sunday, 23 April , 2006 @ 3:14 pm
You will be assimilated….
It’s a lot more demanding than a lot of people realize, isn’t it?