Another conservative scientist joins the "consensus" about AGW and is fed up with the GOP's war on science and scientists. I say "another" because THE STORY mentions several others.

Included in the story, apropos of nothing in particular, is this, which I found interesting because it's concise:

"Conservatives tend to gravitate to skepticism because conservatives are inherently suspicious of an expanding government taking more and more of their money and liberty," wrote James M. Taylor, senior fellow in environment policy at the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank in Chicago.

"On the other hand, liberals tend to gravitate to alarmism because they have little fear of an expansive government and tend to welcome government replacing private individuals or corporations as key drivers of the global economy," he said.

I agree with the first part but only half agree with the second (but would replace "skepticism" and "alarmism" with "tendency to deny/embrace"). If liberals are attracted to the idea of AGW other than on the merits, I suspect the reasons are a bit more complex. Here are some possibles: 1) There's a big 1st world vs 3rd world dynamic that presses liberal guilt buttons. 2) Of all the possible villains in this story, energy companies hold the #1 position, and liberals have always had problems with energy companies; coal miners exploited labor, oil drillers are ultra-conservative Texans. 3) Liberals are nurturers, and what greater opportunity is there to nurture something than an entire planet being subtly ruined?

FYI: the only firm belief I hold regarding AGW is that if anthropomorphic carbon emissions are as bad as they say, we're probably screwed; there's no way humankind can (or perhaps I should say will) at this point significantly reduce gross global burning of carbon fuels.

[We needed a global warming thread - here it is - go ape.]

Thats the important quotation in the story X.
I think this is the key:

"I've always rebelled against the thinking that ideology can trump fact," said Emanuel, 55.

Like always on this board "consevatives" have attempted to produce a political spin (that would be you in this case X) on something that is a scientific matter. And thats what global warming is X. A scientific matter. Imagine if there was a "political" view that colored the way scientists were supposed to view how a certain virus spread?

If you examine the tobacco industries push back against science from the 1950's (when the majority of medical doctors already connected smoking with health problems) its almost identical to the push back as the science of global warming became accepted. (The Heartland Institute is a replication of the same organ created by Tobacco companies) Eventually the attempt to obfuscate, mislead and delay will give way to mounting evidence, just as it did with tobacco.. Indeed the current deniers push back is limited to challenging the mountain of evidence by picking at loose details here and there, usually from a decade ago, whilst ignoring new information and data that continues to evolve the understanding of the rate and effect of warming...
Politics does not change the reality of the physical properties of elements and compounds and how the react to solar energy... Its like suggesting that Gravity is a liberal invention...
Here's the thing, denying the reality of the information isn't going to make it go away. All its going to do is make the choices more difficult later.
If you want to concern yourself with the liberal/conservative view point wonder why it is that only 5% of scientists (from your story) are self identiifed republicans? Could it be that there is something inconsolable about the knowledge and use of the scientific method and the use of "gut feel" belief in evaluating and dealing with evidence? That "emotional" belief system that allows so many conservatives to retain a "belief" in creationism with nothing more to go on than their scriptures?
There is something about this emotional belief that allows conservatives to ignore evidence when it contradicts their core beliefs. Even today conservatives are rebelling against regulation on the financial industry despite a general consensus that failure to regulate and enforce the few regulations in palce all were central to the latest economic colapse. Its the same with Global Warming X.
Click your heels three times and you'll end up back in Kansas. If you believe hard enough.
Thats pretty much the opposite of what science is....

I suspect the reason so few scientists identify as Republicans these days is because the party has been gradually taken over by a religious lobby that's openly hostile to science (or at least to certain aspects of science anyway, but things like evolutionary biology are pretty fundamental), leaving scientists feeling they have no home in the Republican party. Also, kids who grow up in increasingly anti-science Republican households are probably less likely to want to take up science as a career, so it becomes self-fulfilling.

Finally, in order to qualify as a scientist you most likely have to spend a long time in university studying for your PhD, and universities are not exactly hotbeds of conservatism....

Sassenach wrote:I suspect the reason so few scientists identify as Republicans these days is because the party has been gradually taken over by a religious lobby that's openly hostile to science (or at least to certain aspects of science anyway, but things like evolutionary biology are pretty fundamental), leaving scientists feeling they have no home in the Republican party. Also, kids who grow up in increasingly anti-science Republican households are probably less likely to want to take up science as a career, so it becomes self-fulfilling.

Finally, in order to qualify as a scientist you most likely have to spend a long time in university studying for your PhD, and universities are not exactly hotbeds of conservatism....

That's the problem right there. It shouldn't be an issue what political ideology or affiliation a scientist holds. Scientists try to find out how stuff works, or what the underlying cause for a problem is and then they can offer options to solve the problem. We are pretty good at this too
A politicans job is to evaluate the options and then make a decision. I think scientists for the most part stick to their job, while polticans (and to some degree corporations) have begun no to talk about the options, but to go after the science, because really they don't like any of the options that are presented to them. Not able to challenge them on the field of factual data, they start to wage PR wars, insinuate some world wide conspiracy of "leftist" scientists, or put down the idea of science in general.
Take global warming. If you bow to the conclusions of the vast majority of the scientific community, then you are left with some pretty crappy choices from a politicans point of view. Basically it would cost a bunch of money to rectify the situation which no voter likes and with some measures that especially Republicans would definitly see as big goverment regulation.
Easier to attack science than to explain to the voter why some steps are necessary. The left is good at it too, for example when someone takes the time to do the math on social security.
In general the trend is to kill the messanger instead of focusing on the message.

and what of those scientists who have switched from believer to skeptic?

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm? ... cb00b51a12

and more recently, Dr. Lucka Kajfež Bogataj

We have gone over this, the "Scientific Method" has been abandoned when it comes to global warming, nothing but guesswork that is not able to be predicted, reproduced or proven in any way, yet those who earn a living on the subject claim it exists without anything but anecdotal "evidence". There is certainly enough to be concerned and continue to investigate but to call the science "settled" is far from factual.

Minister X wrote:I agree with the first part but only half agree with the second (but would replace "skepticism" and "alarmism" with "tendency to deny/embrace"). If liberals are attracted to the idea of AGW other than on the merits, I suspect the reasons are a bit more complex. Here are some possibles: 1) There's a big 1st world vs 3rd world dynamic that presses liberal guilt buttons. 2) Of all the possible villains in this story, energy companies hold the #1 position, and liberals have always had problems with energy companies; coal miners exploited labor, oil drillers are ultra-conservative Texans. 3) Liberals are nurturers, and what greater opportunity is there to nurture something than an entire planet being subtly ruined?

On 1, it's not just 1st world v 3rd world for me (although not being a LIberal, rather a Socialist, I would say this). People in the first world would get screwed, too, and if the third world does suffer, where do you think desperate people will migrate to?

Oil drillers are conservative Texans? BP, Royal Dutch Shell, Total/Elf/Fina etc...
Blimey. I never realised that. There are problems with the oil companies that go beyond just that though - profit seeking leading to safety issues (Deepwater Horizon), accidents can cause massive pollution (DH, Exxon Valdez), collusion with oppressive regimes (Nigeria, Burma, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, etc etc etc). They could be ultra-liberal Californians and those objections would still stand.

Still, as a sceptical and left-wing youngster, I was actually dubious about global warming at first. It was looking more at the science that led me to accept that there's likely to be an issue.

FYI: the only firm belief I hold regarding AGW is that if anthropomorphic carbon emissions are as bad as they say, we're probably screwed; there's no way humankind can (or perhaps I should say will) at this point significantly reduce gross global burning of carbon fuels.

Well, as we run out of easily available fuel sources and the price rises, we will end up looking for alternatives. The question is really whether that will happen before or after any climatic changes become too far gone to deal with or not. 'Peak Oil' would be an incredibly strong economic driver, wouldn't it?

Tom, had you heard of this Slovenian professor before she 'jumped ship'? Her observations seem to be that in post-glacial warming CO2 levels increases after temperatures start to. This is not news. There are two things here -

1) other things can cause warming (orbital variation, solar effects, vulcanism etc, and warming will mean that CO2 is released into the atmosphere;
2) this doesn't mean that CO2 release at those times didn't cause a feedback effect to continue the warming effect

Anyway, II imagine you've heard of Bjorn Lomberg, who also appears to have moved from scepticism towards calling for action. Actually, he never said that warming wasn't happening, he just took an approach based on economics that said it would be cheaper to prepare for it and deal with other issues (poverty in the 3rd world being a major one).

There's still lots and lots of coal in the ground. China has been importing coal from Montana (among other places) and they're talking about building a port on the lower Columbia devoted to that trade, which would get into the millions of tons.

Put it this way: if peak oil is proven, announced and publicized tomorrow - we've got half as much time left as the most pessimistic previous estimates - and you could invest your money in either coal mine stock certificates or those for a wind farm and solar panel manufacturer, I'd advise you to go with the coal (subject of course to your own ethical restrictions). Huh? Don't trust my financial wizardry? I don't blame you. How about this: Warren Buffett is Betting Big on Coal. LINK

really Tom? This stuff was originally packaged and sold around the Internet 3 years ago. Some of it is just cherry picking quotations and some of it are hugely debunked...For Instance:

From Wikipedia

In 2010, more than 500 French researchers asked Science Minister Valérie Pécresse to dismiss Allègre’s book L’imposture climatique, claiming the book is "full of factual mistakes, distortions of data, and plain lies". One researcher, Hakan Grudd, called the changes that Allegre made in hand-redrawing a graph of his misleading and unethical. Allegre described the petition as "useless and stupid".[5] A long article describing the factual errors in this book appeared on the Real Climate web site in April 2010.[6]

In 1996, Allègre opposed the removal of carcinogenic asbestos from the Jussieu university campus in Paris, describing it as harmless and dismissing concerns about it as a form of "psychosis created by leftists".[7] The campus' asbestos is deemed to have killed 22 people and caused serious health problems in 130 others.[8]

In 1999, the Canard enchaîné, and subsequently several other media, published Allègre's claim, initially stated during a radio interview, that, if one drops a pétanque ball and a tennis ball at the same time from a tower, they will reach the ground at the same time. Allègre claimed that there was a popular misconception to the contrary, and that schoolchildren should be made to understand that two objects always fall at the same speed. The Canard responded that this was true only in a vacuum, and not in all cases as Allègre had said. The latter responded in turn, maintaining his initial statement. Georges Charpak, Nobel prize for Physics, intervened to explain that Allègre was wrong; the latter maintained his statement yet again.

Wiskel is a biologist, (not a climatologist) and thinks Global Warming is occurring, but wasn't convinced that it was primarily man made. He hasn't, however, actively defended his position in 4 years....

The others....?

Bryson got got all badly wrong in the 70's, and was responsible for a false scare, when the media ran with a headline that was unsupportable once Brysons work was scrutinized. More importantly even in the quote produced he demonstrates ignorance that should disqualify him. He refers to aerosols and says "to my knowledge this data was never used." There are all kinds of studies on aerosol concentrations, that lead to regulation of aerosols. remember CFCs? And aerosols are a parameter taken into account in all modelling.

And this is what Dr. Bogataj said

:“A detailed comparison of temperatur­e data and the quantity of carbon dioxide captured in the ice shows, that sometimes it warmed up first and then the concentrat­ion of carbon dioxide increased, and sometimes vice versa, but on average the temperatur­e changed first and some 700 years later a change in aerial content of carbon dioxide followed.”

Guess what. That's what most climate scientists say is unique about this climate change. That increased CO2 isn't a following effect after a forcing effect ; but this time is a forcing effect. She's repeating what's said in the IPCC report. Maybe because she was one of the contributing authors.. And she's not pooh poohing climate change, dsspite the headline of the article. The fact that your Internet authors are repacking this quote like its evidence against manmade GW is either due to their own ignorance OR they hope their audience is ignorant.

And oh, by the way, the deal about CO2 being largely a following effect in past warming periods I've noted in past postings on our ongoing climate change discussions... Its not like its a revelation to scientists if I know, now is it?

Minister X wrote:There's still lots and lots of coal in the ground. China has been importing coal from Montana (among other places) and they're talking about building a port on the lower Columbia devoted to that trade, which would get into the millions of tons.

Sure. But the coal that's cheapest to get at and of the best quality isn't necessarily abundant. The costs will increase.

Put it this way: if peak oil is proven, announced and publicized tomorrow - we've got half as much time left as the most pessimistic previous estimates - and you could invest your money in either coal mine stock certificates or those for a wind farm and solar panel manufacturer, I'd advise you to go with the coal (subject of course to your own ethical restrictions). Huh? Don't trust my financial wizardry? I don't blame you. How about this: Warren Buffett is Betting Big on Coal. LINK

I expect Buffett is betting big on a lot of things. I don't see from that article that he isn't investing in wind or solar. Anyway, now that it's known what he's doing, it's probably too late to get in at a decent price. I'm also unsure as to whether he's seeing as he did Beer. That was a 3-year investment which was highly profitable. As a measure of his ability to pick winners in the short term that's good. As an indicator of whether they are good long term bets over decades, not so good...

Just Cherry Picking?
...exactly! Just as this example of another jumping ship to your side. My question was why this person was so important while you ignore others. They jump from side to side all the time now don't they? Thanks for playing along

regarding my comment about aerosols:
Decoding the Temperature Record
Climate scientists agree that rising levels of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases trap incoming heat near the surface of the Earth and are the key factors causing the rise in temperatures since 1880, but these gases are not the only factors that can impact global temperatures.
Three others key factors — including changes in the Sun's irradiance, oscillations of sea surface temperature in the tropics, and changes in aerosol levels — can also cause slight increases or decreases in the planet's temperature. Overall, the evidence suggests that these effects are not enough to account for the global warming observed since 1880.
source:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

GENEVA — A report by the U.N. weather agency has found that greenhouse gas levels in the atmosphere reached record levels in 2009.
The World Meteorological Organization says efforts to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide haven't diminished the atmospheric concentration of these gases widely blamed for stoking global warming.
The Geneva-based agency says concentrations of carbon dioxide rose in 2009 by 1.6 parts per million, to 386.8 parts per million.
The preindustrial carbon dioxide average was about 280 parts per million. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases, the more heat is trapped in the atmosphere.
WMO said Wednesday that the recent economic slowdown hadn't significantly affected emissions of greenhouse gases.
source:
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/arep/gaw/ ... letin.html

And what of the Scientific Method?
Posted earlier that the warmists and "consensus scientists" have bought into this alarmism without any sort of normal scientific methodology. Talk all you wish about this being scientific, but if you buy into this being factual and "settled" then you ignore the most basic of scientific study.

and if we had "record levels" of CO2 wouldn't it follow that we would have record warmth? But some reports say we are warming, some show cooling, some go this way, some go that way so it became easier to drop "Global warming" and embrace "Climate Change". We can't even get real good data that does not need to be recalculated and massaged, yet you continue to drink the Kool Aid

Tom the point is that the basic properties are known. You can always find a crank somewhere who's going to take an oppossing view. The point is, what evidence do they have for the oppossing view? ....
Some of the scientists you uncritically linked like Allegre are wiling to dispute fundamental principles (see the story about the two balls falling from the tower...) Thats a problem of cognitive dissonnance. Or maybe mental illness.
Some are being quoted from years ago, or quoted entirely out of context. The funniest being the link to the Slovenian Bogataj.
Thats essentially what the sceptics are left with, since no new data is being produced that supports competing theories, they have to resurrect old debunked cranks or distort what some have said. Thats not a debate...
The only theory that is supported by the data, and continues to be reinforced with new data is man made global warming. As a hypothesis it remains the only possibility of the competing theories. (If it were due to an orbital shift or solar radiation changes those haven't been found to be ocurring...)
What is unresolved is how fast and how much warming will occur. And predictions like that are always difficult. The direction we know. The speed and final ascent we still don't know.
What we do about it is a political matter becasue it affects the here and now. Lomberg makes a lot of sense in how he approaches what we do .... But it doesn't help the discussion if a rump of die hards continue to confuse and obfuscate. Consider if the tobacco lobby had not conducted itself as a "confuser" and instead accepted that they were selling a addicitve cancer causing product in the 50's when science had already begun reaching that conclusion.
Since the height of smoking participation rates have dropped from about 60% to 20% in Canada (Its similar in the US I think) . But that left peole smoking in the 60's, 70's and 80's who might not have if public policy had adopted earlier the changes that have generated the lower levels of smoking since then. How many of those people got cancer or heart disease as a result of the Tobacco lobbyists efforts?
You keep reposting links from people like the Heartland Institute, paid to generate the same kind of noise that slowed the reaction to smoking....(And they keep editing and reposting the same tired stories).... Basically they are the Tobacco industry in todays scenario.