Does the current climate change issue follow the pattern of past environmental...

[OttawaMike]

...predictions? I just read an older yet (in my opinion) still current essay on the robustness of past environmental predictions. Actually, it's public testimony before the US House Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources in 2004. The arguments in this testimony appear to be fairly convincing.

Here are two interesting passages:

"What are the lessons to be learned from this record of badly exaggerated predictions of environmental disaster? First, scientists, even well meaning ones, don't know as much as they think they do. They generally go wrong because they ignore or misunderstand how human beings interact with the natural world and with other people, that is, they are largely ignorant of economics. "

"Science can tell us what may be problems, but it can't tell us what to do about them. Solutions depend on a deep understanding of human values, politics, and economics. Scientists are no more qualified to pronounce on those topics than their non-scientific confreres and fellow citizens."

Could this apply to climate scientists of today? Do you think in 10 or 20 years, the current climate crisis will be regarded in this same manner?

http://reason.com/archives/2004/02/04/science-and-public-policy

(Note: And for those of you who are unfamiliar with the author and will no doubt be looking to declare him a kook, I'll save you the time and point you to Exxon Secrets: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=11

So now that you know he is with the CATO institute, perhaps you could spend more time focusing on what he is saying rather than who he is. Thanks.)
David b, I certainly agree about your comments on the media. The translation done from science to Joe Public terms can certainly be fumbled by the messenger (ie. the media). And the more complex the science, the greater the potential for fumbling. Joe Public who takes the MSM at face value must feel like a rag doll in a tornado.

[EarthRebirth]

www.earthrebirthnow.com

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Earth-Rebirth/170829036281062?v=info

[DavidB]

""First, scientists, even well meaning ones, don't know as much as they think they do.""

Even well meaning ones!? When did the old cliche of the evil capitalist twisting his mustache get replaced with the evil scientist manipulating data to get his/her way?

This mentality towards science is irritating to say the least.

Never the less I do agree with the second quote in saying that interpretation of scientific findings into political and policy decisions should be in the hands of the governing body and the public (however unfortunate that may be at times). Have scientists over/under estimated responses? Of course they have, the planet and all systems confined within it are dynamic, large and often very difficult to study. Scientific knowledge progresses and builds upon itself and tends towards self correction.

My opinion of the matter is that the media and other outlets relaying scientific information to the public is a very poor intermediary. Few reporting scientific findings fully grasp the magnitude of findings and commonly accept what is meant to be conjecture as absolute fact. And sometimes scientists get excited by someone paying attention to their research and say things that aren't necessarily supported.

But the other option would be for scientists to not attempt to understand natural systems or attempt to forecast how they'll react in the future to hypothetical or measured changes.

I'd rather have them studying it and making bad predictions as opposed to just going into the future with a blind-fold on, wouldn't you?

[PeterJ]

To get attention for predictions, people tend to exaggerate their predictions.

Most predictions come up wrong. It's not really that big of a surprise.

What surprises me is that these predictions have been so exaggerated and so wrong for so long, and the predictors still expect us to take them seriously.

[AModestProposal]

>>>How big of a lie would you tell for $990 trillion dollars???

I'm not sure if mine could compare to yours. I would find it difficult to be three whole orders of magnitude off.

$69 billion a year is also less than half of a percent of the US's GDP of 14.6 trillion dollars per year.

That's a rather ironic math quiz.


Edit:

Interesting testimony. What context was it given in, too? As in, what specific issue was being discussed so that Bailey was requested to testify?

Regarding the emulation of climatic predictions to past predictions regarding specie extinction and population growth, so on, no. The predictions that the IPCC has given have been in conjunction with current observations. If anything, their predictions have at times been too conservative.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

I also do not fully agree with the extrapolation of Bailey's claims about scientists not knowing how to solve problems to climate science. Has there been any drastic call for population control? No. Has there been any call for a massive overhaul of the fossil fuel industry? No. Many of the suggestions, posited by climate scientists and economics alike, don't follow any sort of Malthusian logic, except from the viewpoint of those who are gun-ho against any action whatsoever. Even the more radical ideas, like geoengineering to block out sunlight, are cautioned against by scientists because the side effects could be devastating, or the main effect too dramatic, or they would not address other problems like oceanic acidification.

However, that does not mean that I would prefer climate scientists over economists on economic solutions. I agree that we should let the experts deal with their fields, and have stronger communication between the fields, not to mention the public.

However however, and this may be because I'm of the persuasion that AGW is true, I least of all agree with those who suggest we do nothing at all, especially if these people have no experience in even the science, for example the Republicans in Congress who, for example, recently eliminated a climate change committee in the House:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101202/pl_afp/uspoliticsenergyclimate_20101202001556

[Peter]

The predictions were created to back a false premis

Global Warming was invented to reduce pollution, a worthy goal, and more importantly, to make money for those who invented it. In 1968 a noted economist said, and I'm paraphrasing here. "True change will only come about as a result of a threat, whether real or perceived. The more dire the threat, the greater the change.

So you pick a subject that very few people understand fully, with science so complicated that you can't really explain it to someone with an 8th grade reading ability. And you tell them the world is going to end, polar icecaps will melt, oceans will rise, thousands will drown, millions will starve and the end is near. Doomsday, the end of the world as we know it. Religions have the end times too and God is their answer.

The inventors of Global Warming have given us their answer too, expensive renewable energy, solar power, wind and greenhouse credits. If you got into these industries at the start and convinced everyone that the threat is real... How much money could you make? Really, think about it for a moment here, how much money could you make?

One thing is for sure, Average Joe is at the bottom of this food chain, and the manipulators of science are at the top. In short, my fellow citizens, FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!


A quick math quiz for those of you still unconvinced of my prior statement.

A carbon credit is equal to 1 ton of Co2, you can buy a carbon credit for about $30. In 1999 the US created an estimated 2,245 million metric tons of Co2 just making electricity. We'll round up for simplicities sake. 2.3 billion tons times $30 a ton equals $69 billion dollars a year just for electric carbon credits.

The current Co2 estimate per person, per year is 5 tons per person, times 6 billion (the world's population) times $30 a ton equals $990,333,626,250.

How big of a lie would you tell for $990 trillion dollars???

I hate to be cynical here, but it's not about the environment or the trees or the polar bears. It's not about any of those things that pull at your heart strings. It is far more base than that, it's about money... and power... and manipulation.

[Crash]

you mean like this prediction by Hubert Lamb. made when he was director of the climate research unit at East anglia university?
http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=336&dat=19720908&id=AiwcAAAAIBAJ&sj id=0VsEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5244,2536610

the alarmist rhetoric seems to have made a complete U turn since then without missing a beat & with absolutely no sign of embarrassment.
in fact their shrill warnings about alarming,unprecedented climate changes seem to have escalated at about the same rate as the price of an Earl Scheib paint job.