It's amazing that Ezra et al must continually prop up 'Global Warming' on all fronts. This need demonstrates that it's not as much of a "done deal" as the complicit press would have you believe it is.

It's still controversial. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be discussing it in this fashion .....in this venue.

It's still controversial. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be discussing it in this fashion .....in this venue.

It's still controversial ... among wingnut ignoramuses such as yourself. Not among you know actual scientists. We are discussing it "in this fashion" and "in this venue" because media outlets hire idiots like Erika Lovely who get taken in by ... ignoramuses such as yourself who happen to work for wingnut senators.

Her piece on the Gore Effect was supposed to be funny. She wasn't serious. Granted, she wasn't particularly funny either, but nonetheless you and Mr. Roberts really need to learn to lighten up.

I've got no excuses for her other article.

The Gore effect? Pretty dumb. There are only two possibilities, its colder when Gore gives speeches or its warmer (it being exactly the mean temperature is a set of measure zero). Wow, how impressive the conservative punditry!

There was once a theory in physics known as the "Pauli Effect." This is not to be confused with the Pauli Exclusion Principle. The Pauli Effect held that if Wolfgang Pauli visited your lab, the most expensive piece of equipment would catastrophically fail and destroy your data. The theory was obviously tongue-in-cheek. But a lot of scientists believed it because Pauli really was unusually unlucky in the lab. For a time, the Pauli Effect was more widely accepted than the Pauli Exclusion Principle. But in the end, science won out over superstition. It always does, at least among scientists.

It's still controversial. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be discussing it in this fashion

Much like evolution and the age of the universe. Also big controversies that get discussed a lot. Mostly because stupid people can't stop talking about them as "controversies" because it upsets their worldview. And in your case, it upsets the grudge you hold against Al Gore.

I have a dream...

Someday, the people who take global warming seriously will reach into the minds of those who refuse to get it.

If the planet absorbs more energy than it radiates away into space, then you have global warming and this does NOT mean that the reading on your thermometer on any given Wednesday has ANY bearing on this fact.

xoxo,

mongo

Mongo, I'm a bit skeptical.

Are you making the controversial claim that the temperature on the Earth's surface at any given moment is not necessarily equal to the Earth's mean temperature?

It’s like she came to the conclusion before doing the research. I’m sure she set out to write about how there are growing number of global warming doubters, and evidence to support them, but couldn’t find a shred of evidence to support her assumption. At that point a rational person would conclude that their hypothesis is incorrect- or at least not worth supporting. Instead, the article is laden with painful weasel phrases like “growing accumulation of global cooling science” and “small, growing number of scientists.” A veritable "snapshot of proof" of what journalism has become.

The sad fact is, political reporters are immune to embarrassment. Their expertise is limited to campaign operations (some can't even decipher polling adequately), and they are completely out of their depth when confronted with an issue of any complexity. They cover for their ignorance by assuring us that "no one cares" about substance.

Rag on them mercilessly, Ezra, and don't let up.

Well, my days of assuming that reporters would rather eat scorpions than learn about policy have definitely reached a middle.

The science and mathematical models for climate change are extraordinarily complex. Why is it important to say that the issue has been solved? It has not, been "solved" in any meaningful way, and there are reputable scientists who are skeptics of the "man-made" effect. To deny this only makes the skeptics seems more reasonable by comparison.

Both politically and scientifically the right way to handle this debate is to acknowledge that there are a small number of reputable scientists who are skeptics of human effects on global warming, but the preponderance of data supports it. Don't call the skeptics "deniers", because this hurts, rather than helps, politically.

Then emphasize how important it is to err on the side of caution, since the potential for phase transitions in the dynamical system that is our weather, could have disastrous long tern consequences (Venus anyone?).

This is still a scientific debate, whether you want it to be our not. Conduct it reasonably, and their is a better chance that the truth will emerge.

Greg raises the point I as a layman struggle with: Is there still a scientific debate, or are we at the same place we were WRT the health effects of cigarettes 30 years ago - an essentially settled issue with a cadre of bought and paid for shills simulating a scientific debate in order to keep the gravy train rolling a few more years?

Since everyone who appears to be knowledgeable also appears to have chosen sides, it's hard to know where to turn to figure out the actual state of play.

Strange to read this on Ezra Kleins page after the many embarassments we've witnessed here. But I guess I agree.

It's not easy to find objective, detailed information about the science. I've gone to some of the primary literature, which I'm marginally capable of understanding. My impression is that it's pretty well established that more CO2 translates to warmer temperatures, but the models do very poorly at predicting how much CO2 translates to how much warming, particularly at high latitudes. The problem is that if you start a model run in the 19th century and run it forward to today, it substantially misses the mark. The best they can do is run a baseline case, then dramatically increase CO2 input and run it again, and hope that the differential is right, even though the raw numbers are nearly meaningless.

I'd really like to see an objective expert evaluation, though.

It has not, been "solved" in any meaningful way, and there are reputable scientists who are skeptics of the "man-made" effect.

Exactly!

No one disputes themometer readings. What is in dispute is how much of this is man made and will the earth continue to warm.

The earth has, indeed, been much warmer and there have been much higher levels of carbon in the past long before the industrial revolution. So, how did that happen without cars, coal, etc.??

Questions are still out there that liberals don't want to address. I think they see a political advantage in every "crisis" so they are willing to close the door on discussion, partly because it's to their advantage.

Here are some of the "wingnuts" the blabber-headed liberals think are off their rocker.

http://tinyurl.com/6e639d

The usual wingnut talking points. Yeah, it was a lot higher in the early Paleozoic before there were land plants. So what? So, is there any environmental issue that you think is (a) real and, (b) requires action?

Why "wingnut"? This isn't a creationists type situation where the "debate" over evolution is perpetuated by people for whom the overwhelming scientific consensus can never be accepted, due to religious beliefs, and the "debate" becomes the silliness of saying things like "Darwinian evolution is a only a theory". No biologist would get tenure in a reputable department if they denied evolution. None.

This is not the case in climate science, and it would do our side well to acknowledge this, while continuing to insist that the preponderance of data supports it, and that movement to significantly decrease greenhouse gases is the only rational, cautious approach to the problem.

Would any climatologist get tenure these days if s/he thought that anthropogenic climate change was not happening?

'Wingnut' is often apt, because that's the group that most often focuses exclusively on the cause (man-made vs. natural) without recognizing the effect. The latter, sadly, is all that matters.

I don't particularly care *why* it's happening -- we humans have a real and measurable effect on the climate and it's worth the effort to control that going forward.

That's the real question: How do we deal with it going forward? Save the pissy recriminations for the bailout and other phenomena that aren't caused by "supervolcanoes" and such. :-)

xoxo,

mongo

It is curious that the political left became so enamored of anthropogenic global warming long before the science was as persuasive as it is now. I could speculate that it might have to do with some of the possible mitigating policies being things the left wanted to do anyway. If it makes Big Oil and SUV's the villains, it must be good science. For the right, it's just the reverse. But that's just speculation.

It's very difficult to find a substantive discussion of the issues from somebody who hasn't already chosen sides, though.

It is curious that the political left became so enamored of anthropogenic global warming long before the science was as persuasive as it is now.

Ah, evidence-free aspersions. Gotta love 'em.

It's very difficult to find a substantive discussion of the issues from somebody who hasn't already chosen sides, though.

Right, because anyone who actually has the training to evaluate the data has concluded that anthropogenic global warming is a reality. Why you would want to hear a "discussion" from someone who looks at all the data and is incapable of reacing a conclusion is curious. But why you would claim that only such a discussion is trustworthy is painfully obvious.

Sorry, third para should have been italicized.

...anyone who actually has the training to evaluate the data has concluded that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15938.html

Right, because anyone who actually has the training to evaluate the data has concluded that anthropogenic global warming is a reality.

Oh, OK, that clears that up. Always glad to hear the expert opinion of somebody who understands the science better than I do.

"It's amazing that Ezra et al must continually prop up 'Global Warming' on all fronts."

What's really amazing is that a shit-for-brains like yourself, who claims to be a studmuffin engine of wealth creation and insight, manages to be the first commenter on practically every one of Ezra's posts, yet still never manages to offer anything other than the tritest, tiredest, right-wing talking points.

It must be awfully disconcerting to have real scientists with real credentials not fall in line with the politically correct lessons you learned from ALGORE.

Personally, I welcome differing views, especially when they come from those trained in this field.