Is Global Warming Dead?

I read his column all the time and a lot of them I circulate to my co-workers, and I think he's great. Nobel laureate or not, his current point and yours and JimG's is wrong.( Do I have to put IMHO, of course it's only my opinion.)

Trying to get the masses to do something with an argument that is manipulated but may have other advantageous benefits is called propaganda. Distortion even if it is " a means to an end" is always wrong.

People want to know that what they are doing has a high possibility of being for the true reasons. The recent outings of the stupid e-mails by the climate scientists have debunked the argument re global warming for many who were on the fence.

The argument for changing power sources because of Independence and oil depletion will have much more credence than doing it for global warming because it's common sense and true and doesn't need manipulation to make it believable.

Trying to get the masses to do something with an argument that is manipulated but may have other advantageous benefits is called propaganda.  Distortion even if it is " a means to an end" is always wrong.

You lost me, Chris. Can you explain how the Thomas Friedman column contains distortion, manipulation and/or propaganda?

As I see it, he is building an argument based on simple risk management. If the consequences of something are very bad, then the risk had better be very small to justify taking no action to avoid the risk. (By the way, this is the same argument that Martin Volken made in his 2008 presentation at the Northwest Snow and Avalanche Summit.)

Do you think the chance of very bad consequences from human caused global warming is less than one percent? If this is what you believe, then I guess I understand where your concern about distortion is coming from.

I think the chance is significantly higher than one percent. The 2007 IPCC report concluded: "Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic (human) greenhouse gas concentrations." In IPCC statements "very likely" means at least a 90% likelihood.

But let's assume, like Friedman does in his column, that the chance is only one percent. He's saying that the consequences are bad enough that action is justified. And, despite what the oil industry wants us to believe, there is little downside in the U.S. taking action. You said yourself, and I agree, that working to overhaul our energy system would be a good thing from a long-term standpoint. That's what Friedman asserts in his second-to-last paragraph. So where is the distortion and propaganda? I'm not seeing it.

So rarely do so many compelling reasons line up so well to advocate one course of action.  If, in addition to the extremely serious global warming issue, there are other really good reasons to make a change, that's not obfuscation, that's reinforcement.

All of the reasons (global warming, ocean acidification, health effects of pollution generally, national security, energy independence, ...) add up to one core problem: an economy based on burning stuff.

Naturally occurring hydrocarbons are a miraculous, astonishing, rich resource from which you can make a million amazing things (many of which have improved and saved lives in so many ways).  And, so it stands to reason that the best thing we can think of to do with the vast majority of this resource is  - - - - - burn it?

Our descendants will need clean air, still-abundant hydrocarbons (not to burn, to make stuff) and a stable climate.  If you have children, this is the real reason to care about something that ultimately will manifest mostly after we are gone, or on the edge of being too old to say "I told you so."  My daughter is 6 and she deserves a decent planet for as long as she lives, and that could be all the way to 2100 or so.  Add in her potential children and grandchildren, and the 2100s sure matter to me.

Well you're right Lowell I'm not explaining myself very well which is why I'll never be a columnist but here's another try.
Firstly ,I believe climate change is happening, probably accelerated by humans but on that point I'm an agnostic.
Secondly, I believe from my personal observations and interactions that the issue has lost credence with a lot of the independents( the swing voters, those that firmly believe and those that firmly disbelieve will always remain polarized in their respective camps) and that the message  has been severely discredited by the revelation of the e-mails.

The message I was getting that " even if climate change proves to be a hoax we will have gained valuable side benefits from changing our power sources to clean fuel"( paraphrased) so ,so what if the data has been manipulated, the end result will be still be good.

That seems to me to be acting as an apologist for the scientists who have basically admitted cooking the data they thought didn't support their hypothesis and agreeing that a manipulated message is OK as long as the end result is good. Sounds like the Cheney/Bush doctrine regarding WMD's and the justification for invading Iraq.

We EXPECT the data spewed by the Oil companies to be propaganda. We EXPECT the data to come from scientists to be objective and free of spin. The last expectation has been compromised in the view of a lot of people and set the argument back drastically.

Therefore a more credible argument needs to be made to convert to alternate sources, namely Independence and resource depletion. One I think, more Americans can agree upon and see the  benefits of.

The current arguments being made for alternate energy sources based upon a fear of global warming is never going to change the mind of the guy at the gas station who has for the whole of this week said to me during this cold period" Global warming eh, its frigging freezing hahha."
Americans don't like being lectured to and reminded of their failings ;remember the flagellation Carter ( a great man though) inflicted and the self loathing Americans rejected for the man with a more uplifting message... Reagan.

Travertine is firmly  and devoutly in his camp and needs no persuasion . Unfortunately many are not and I think pushing this compromised message  is now actually detrimental to alternate energy policy.

Very well stated Scotsman!! You should be a columnist .

That seems to me to be acting as an apologist for the scientists who have basically admitted cooking the data they thought didn't support their hypothesis and agreeing that a manipulated message is OK as long as the end result is good. Sounds like the Cheney/Bush doctrine regarding WMD's and the justification for invading Iraq.

Thanks for the clarification. So, essentially you're saying that the East Anglia emails have discredited climate science for you, so you consider arguments that refer to climate science to be propaganda.

My reading of the East Anglia controversy is that it's been blown out of proportion. But I'm just a layman. There was a story in yesterday's Seattle Times that touched on this:

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...401_battisti08m.html

Initially a skeptic

Few would accuse Battisti of being part of what some climate skeptics call Al Gore's zombie army. Battisti originally was skeptical himself that global warming would be a serious problem, and his research helped undermine two of the most calamitous global-warming scenarios: that disruption of the Gulf Stream "conveyor belt" might plunge Europe into a deep freeze, and that climate might flip abruptly.

He wasn't among the climate scientists whose hacked e-mails have led to accusations of data manipulation and fraud. But in typical fashion, Battisti deconstructed the most damning messages for students in his introductory course to global warming. His conclusion: The arrogance revealed in some messages is troubling, but there's no indication of scientific fraud and nothing that negates the evidence for global warming.