A Depression era trial for a Depression era: the US Chamber of Commerce puts global warming in its cross-hairs ... by gimleteye

The US Chamber of Commerce inexplicably wants to re-open the debate on global warming, asking the EPA to sponsor a "Scopes Monkey trial" debate. How has this pro-business group turned into fringe actors? In Florida, the Chamber represents a status quo--mainly land speculators, bankers, developers and realtors-- that plunged the state into the worst economic crisis since the Depression. "It would be evolution versus creationism," said William Kovacs, the chamber's senior vice president for environment, technology and regulatory affairs. "It would be the science of climate change on trial."

Are you friggin kidding? What it would be: a predictor of another Great Depression. The Scopes Monkey Trial took place in 1925. I think what the public should put on trial is the Chamber of Commerce values that turned Florida into a dragon eating its own tail: consuming the state in order to foster so much unsustainable growth that the state is being emptied in droves. So far as the global warming doubters are concerned, click 'read more' for an email dialogue on a NOAA listserve; first, from retired USGS scientist Gene Shinn. Shinn is a longtime skeptic of global warming. The response to Shinn by associate professor John Bruno is well worth reading, including a link to a website I hadn't seen before: skepticalscience.com If you're a global warming skeptic, the website will save you a lot of time. If you are a member of the Chamber of Commerce, you might consider shredding your membership card and mailing it back to Mr. Kovacs.

From: coral-list-bounces@coral.aoml.noaa.gov
[mailto:coral-list-bounces@coral.aoml.noaa.gov] On Behalf Of John Bruno
Sent: Friday, August 28, 2009 5:48 PM
To: coral-list@coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Cc: Jim Hendee
Subject: [Coral-List] Copenhagen flop: skeptic arguments 101

Climate change skeptics have a basket of well-worn arguments for why
humans are not in fact changing the earth's climate. Gene deploys
many in his wonderfully cranky and cynical post (below). I have found
it entertaining and even useful (when arguing with skeptics) to become
familiar with the most common skeptic arguments. Most skeptics use
the same pool of 3-5, although the most popular change over time.
The fantastic web site SketicalScience tracks, ranks, outlines and
debunks the most popular: http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Also see: http://www.grist.org/article/series/skeptics/

Currently, the most popular argument is the well-debunked "it's the
sun stupid" argument, which Gene includes in his post. Read up on
this argument at these links:

http://www.grist.org/article/its-the-sun-stupid/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/07/the-lure-of-solar-forc
ing/

The second most popular skeptic argument is that "climate changed
before". I am pretty sure you don't have to have a PhD in geology to
be aware of the fact that the earth's climate fluctuates. My kids
learned about ice ages and geological eras in kindergarten. And the
reality of past natural climatic fluctuation in no way refutes
evidence that current trends are strongly influenced by human
activities. In fact quite the opposite; the relative speed of the
current changes compared to the many past cycles suggest something is
different about this cycle. Also see:
http://www.grist.org/article/climate-is-always-changing/

Gene alludes to the third most popular, "there is no consensus"
argument:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

And also the very popular (currently at position #4) "the earth is
actually cooling!" argument. This is of course nonsense that is is
based on cherry-picking small periods in the longer-term climate
record. The most popular this year is choosing 1998 (by chance? - I
doubt it) as the beginning and examining how global temperature has
change since then. Indeed, by some (but not all) measures there is a
slight cooling since 1998. But such cherry-picking is (to anyone
trained in science) a silly and disingenuous way to test for trends in
the longer term climate record. We have blogged about and made fun of
this skeptic argument this pretty extensively at ClimateShifts:

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=937

http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=1000

Also see:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes.php#trends

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm


Gene also works in the "models are unreliable" argument (the 5th most
popular)

http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

http://www.grist.org/article/climate-models-are-unproven/

and the "global warming stopped in 1998" argument (currently ranked in
8th place), which is related to the "the earth is actually cooling!"
argument

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

and very frequently tied in with the "it's freaking cold!" (15th
place) argument

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-cold-weather.htm

AKA "it's cold today in Wagga Wagga":
http://www.grist.org/article/its-cold-today-in-wagga-wagga/

where Gene, like so many skeptics, confuses local and short term
weather for climate.

Additionally, as the National Climatic Data Center recently reported,
ocean temperature this July has been the hottest in the last 130 years
of record keeping: http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=2654

And as I recently blogged about, a new paper published in Geophysical
Research Letters (Easterling and Wehner 2009) demonstrates that short
term periods of no-trend or even cooling (nested within longer term
warming) are in fact predicted by Global Climate Models;
http://www.climateshifts.org/?p=2029

Finally, Gene takes a slightly new angle on the well-worn "climate
changed before" argument. Most skeptics are not geologists; most
skeptics (including about half of all adult Americans) are not
scientists of any type. Moreover, most geologists are not skeptics as
is evidenced by the various briefing articles and position pieces
published by the American Geophysical Union, e.g.,
http://www.agu.org/outreach/science_policy/positions/climate_change2008.shtml

titled "Human Impacts on Climate" which begins "The Earth's climate is
now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the
climate system-including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and
ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the
distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons-are now
changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best
explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases
and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."


Cheers from Chapel Hill, where it is freaking hot!

JB

John F. Bruno, Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of Marine Science
The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Chapel Hill, NC 27599-330
jbruno@unc.edu
www.brunolab.net
www.climateshifts.org



Message: 3
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:03:47 -0400
From: Eugene Shinn
Subject: [Coral-List] Copenhagen flop
To: coral-list@coral.aoml.noaa.gov
Message-ID:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"

I read all the responses about the Copenhagen flop on the list
with great interest and feel they skirt the underlying issue. I serve
on a large global climate change committee and am exposed to the
research and opinions from both sides of the issue several times each
day. Most of the skeptics are geologists that look to the geologic
record for guidance. The warmers look to mathematical models that
project far into the future. Those on the pro warming side of the
issue often work for companies, government agencies, or Universities
involved (think paychecks) in CO2 sequestration projects or involved
in the cap and trade business. The other side, mainly geologists, are
well aware of former climate changes before humans arrived on the
scene. The public does not know who to believe.
I suspect the real reason attendance will remain low in
Copenhagen (unless the climate starts warming again) Is they are
skeptical, or unsure, of what the climate will do in the future.
Temperature has been dropping (abundant low temperature records were
set in July) and many researchers have shown temperature has overall
been flat since 2000. At the same time temperatures have been
dropping (over the past two years) CO2 has continued to rise! It is
hard not to notice that temperatures have fallen. Just read the news
papers. I suspect this observation has not gone unnoticed by a
growing body of scientists, politicians, and investors. Investors
are no dummies. Clearly climate change is a huge growth industry.
Does anyone not believe that many of the attendees will be there
looking for a way to make money? I doubt they will be there because
they fear the earth will burn up! Have coral-listers really looked
into the money already being made on cap and trade and the sale of
pollution credits? The next few years will be the proof of the
pudding and Sunspot cycle 24 is still overdue. Gene PS: There is a
Foundation cranking up for the "preservation of CO2." It's all about
increasing agriculture production. They will be looking for your tax
exempt contributions. Ain't this a great country or what!
--


No Rocks, No Water, No Ecosystem (EAS)
------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
E. A. Shinn, Courtesy Professor
University of South Florida
Marine Science Center (room 204)
140 Seventh Avenue South
St. Petersburg, FL 33701