As a long-time veteran of the evolution-creation "controversy," I completely fail to understand how beliefs are relevant to the issue. We should make political decisions based on the evidence. (In other words, Mother Nature does not obey public opinion polls.) The real problem lies in the interpretation of the evidence, which is where "beliefs" come into play.

The trick with anthropogenic global warming (AGW) is that we may not be able to afford to wait until enough evidence accumulates to make an ironclad case. Compounding the problem is a healthy dose of uncertainty about what the impact of AGW is likely to be.

I will not post any comments that are only about politics, and it goes without saying that I, like Brett, will also not post any comments that include name calling or hateful rhetoric.

I found this statement rather surprising and amusing, since every one of Brett's posts includes at least one comment that ends with "DON'T BUY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!" I look forward to a slightly more conscientious application of this policy. : )

I think this is a global warming debate so we should focus on science. However, it's impossible not to talk about politics; since the decisions our politicians make influence us in all ways.

People who think global warming is a fraud, state that anyone who wants the government to control CO2 emissions is a socialist, marxist, etc. Flat wrong... And the alarmists, AGW believers or whatever you want to call them, do exactly the same thing. A denier/skeptic becomes a conservative if he/she is not convinced with the AGW theory... WRONG!...

Whatever you think about GW does not illustrate your political beliefs. That's my case, for example. I'm an "AGW bliever", which would indicate I'm a liberal... but I'm not. If you ask me about other issues, I may sound a little bit like a conservative. The point is, no one here actually knows what each of the commenters here thinks. So accusing someone of being an "evil socialist" is an exaggeration.

And last, but not least, let's get over it with the Iraqi war/invasion! If you think the US "invaded" Iraq for oil, fine, that's what you think. If I don't think alike, you're not going to change my point of view, unless you give me certain facts... facts that we do not have and that we will never be aware of. So, people, let's get over the Iraq war!

I think we can talk about politics here, but as long as it is --somehow-- related to the GW discussion.

Emi

PS: I don't mean to say that the war in Iraq should not be discussed. What I mean is that if you want to talk about it, give me your e-mail and I'll be pleased to write to you with my opinion on it. It's just that this is not the blog to debate the war, since there are many here who are interested in science, not politics, so we should respect them.

Glad to have you here. I don't think you should have many problems.

Edwin

Ah, a voice of sanity in the wilderness. One thing I would like to add is the concern I have voiced before. On this continent, some of us think of the population as Canadians and 'South Americans' (before anyone complains, yes, I know about Alaska...), so it isn't all Democrats and Republicans - there are other parties in other countries and the climatic discussion is international in scope. If it does devolve into politics, then let's keep actual political parties and candidates' names out of it. Let's stick, as much as possible, to science and observations. Rant mode off.

Brett deserves some time off, especially after dealing with us, who sometimes resemble a pack of crabby babies.

The way to avoid politics (and religion) is to post data. For example, the February figures must be coming out, regarding the average world temperatures.

However it is impossible to completely avoid the politics, or at least the one-sidedness. (Some are deeply hoping February data vindicates Hansen, while others hope to see Hansen fall flat on his face.)

So powerful are these desires that it seems to influence how people interpret data. Psychologists likely would rant about wish-fufillment and projection. I simply stand amazed, watching the same bit of data be used to prove opposite views.

I agree that this is a huge problem with the debate. As a Republican and global warming skeptic, it is challenging to discuss this topic at all. I support improving the environment, recycling and anti-littering campaigns. But what is so difficult is the concept that this is the #1 priority in the world or for the government.

Based on the current reporting and available data, I find it frustrating that global warming supporters consider the theory a fact and also assume the worst case scenerio of destruction. As if in the movie the day after tomorrow, after a sudden shift a massive ice age will sweep across the world.

It could happen, but it would take 10,000 years, not 10 days.

Note to people who believe global warming is a major problem... cool the rhetoric and you may have a chance of convincing some skeptics.

BTW, all of us here regardless of politics wish Brett and his family the best, congratulations!

Paul, or Brett,

I have a two part question.

In the 70's, there was a big scare about the earth "cooling". Predictions of massive icecaps overtaking productive regions of both hemispheres. Water levels of the oceans dropping due to the accumulation of precipitation and ice at the poles.

All due to carbon emissions.

Did we fix that problem? How do proponents of global warming explain that.

And, why are so many experts about weather at disagreement? Some say there is nowhere near enough history to make such predictions, while others are convinced. Isn't trending up and down a natural part of eco-system on this planet?

Reply: Jack, I believe that Brett recently reported on the global warming scare of the 70s. I believe that it was about a study of reports from that time, and the number of people warning of global cooling was relatively small. There were some scientists then who were predicting warming as well. Paul

Paul, you posted a blog about global warming and politics.
Then go on to say you won't post any comments that are only about politics.

Go have another cup of coffee! LOL

I can't separate the two any more. As it has evolved, it seems only about politics now.

Reply: I posted about the groups of people who enter the debate about global warming, and their political beliefs--as we've all seen--is part of that discussion; however, it was a post about the debaters, not about politics. As I said in my post, discussion about politics as it relates to global warming is acceptable. Dicussion about politics for other reasons is not.

The politics of global warming is based almost entirely on a small handful of climate models. There is plenty of data available to evaluate the accuracy of these models.

Compare NOAA CPC model predictions for the past winter vs. the results. (Dec-Jan-Feb 2007)
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/archives/long_lead/gifs/2007/200707temp.gif
http://hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/Last3mTDeptUS.png

CPC predicted two hot spots - one over Arizona and the other over Minnesota. The model predictions were nearly inverted from reality. If they don't work four months out, then they certainly won't work 100 years out.

The UK Met models predicted a hot summer last year in the UK, and they failed to have a single hot day. Similarly their models predicted a cooler winter this year, and it turned out to be exceptionally mild. Of course the Met claimed success, despite being incorrect both times.

It is unconscionable that politics is driven by an immature science which is being pushed far beyond it's current capabilities. In industry people have to be correct. In politics and government, all they have to do is attract attention.

I agree we need to have reasoned debate. There are a few things that bother me about both sides.

A. Almost all agree we need to protect our environment. Let's celebrate and discuss the improvements we are and HAVE made.

1. We need a reasoned plan to move away from coal. Coal produces about 51% of our power and is available over 90% of the time at max capacity.

2. Nuclear approaches over 95 % available.

3. Instead of the Sierra Club opposing every new coal plant why don't they argue to shutdown old plants while supporting new very clean coal plants. Shutting down these old plants and replacing them with new plants probably would save 30 - 40 % on emissions. This would allow a nice transition while we develop alternative energy.

4. Wind power is what 25 - 35 % available. Some places have much lower load factors than that. Point is you need coal and nuclear to make up the gap.

5. I find the arguments of some of the environmentalists disingenuous. On one hand they will support natural gas combined cycle facilities and then the same folks go to Florida and stop off shore drilling for gas. Where's the gas coming from?

6. I also feel sorry for the poor folks. Can anyone here imagine what electric prices will be in a few years? What about the folks on fixed incomes? What about electric outages like happened in Florida a few weeks ago? You can expect more to come because like refineries the EAST Coast is short on generating resources. What will happen in the next decade as widespread blackouts and brownouts occur? A congressional investigation? Blame the terrible power companies? We have a real disconnect in what it takes to supply electric for our use. What are we going to do - go back to candles?

7. Why can't we have something that we can ALL get behind without the politics. Everyone is sick of high gas prices. Let's have a new national project like the Manhattan Project. What about we say we'll have every passenger vehicle in the US on hydrogen in 10 years? Wouldn't everyone support that? It takes a huge step to solve the CO2 problem and breaks the back of oil imports while making us energy independent. Let's take control and DO something together and quit accusing each other.

Anyway, that's my post. I really feel I support the environment. Most folks on both sides have good intentions and believe passionately their view. That's why you need solutions like number 7 above. We need to take the politics out of the debate and get a strategy we can all get behind.

Jack

Paul Yeager:
Now you will enjoy what a difficult job Brett has. He should have a rest from this blog,anyway.
Politics and Global Warming are birds of a feather. Why? because they involve people and we are not only interested in Global warming, but what to do about it.I.E. Politics. It provides solutions that are radical, and costly. And I don't even think that the science is settled here. Working with different business groups I find that they won't even talk about it, and knowing liberals that's all they want to talk about. They are doing things in Europe and Canada
to stop CO2 emissions, because they feel a threat. None of these countries, are a real Democracy,and tend to lean Socialist. I think that a main solution will come when business interests see that they can make a buck on this,new business. If things visibly start to happen, then we will act. Unfortunately not until then.
Good Luck, Kipp

Reply--Kipp, I do, indeed, already have an appreciation of how the challenge of moderating comments. Even in response to saying that pure political posts will not be allowed, I received rants about Bolshevism, the evils of the Republican party, and the the evils of the Democratic party.

Whether or not global warming is occurring is clearly a scientific debate (all this talk about whether or not someone "believes" in global warming is nonsense). However, what to *do* about global warming is clearly a political debate.

Also, I have noticed that several posters (particular the person who always signs off "DON'T BUY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!")don't appear interested in discussing global warming at all, but rather seem primairly interested in ad hominem partisan attacks and political mud-slinging. So yeah, I agree with Rob that a better enforcement of the existing policy is in order.

Hi Rob,

We should make political decisions based on the evidence.

I agree completely. Let's start basing decisions on valid evidence rather than the discredited, manipulated, cherry picked, nonsense coming out of Hansen's lab.

I would say that it is imposible to get politics out of the descusion of global warming. With political people being at the sharp end of the scientific question and leading the charge for government intervention. It is no longer a scientific question but a political one and scientific evadence has rearly ended in sound political decisions. Anything that the government gets its hands on is automaticaly political.

I also have difficulty separating the politics from the science because:
The science is still being worked out. (manipulated and censored in many cases)
The politics have taken over the debate and are now more important than the science.
AGW supporters often demand that we point to exactly which scientific statement from the IPCC that we say is wrong. When no specific item is presented, they invariably claim we have no legitimate argument.
However the problems are not with the specific statements or formulae but rather what the beginning assumptions were and what the exit conclusions are. Both seem to be politically driven and that is where the issue is. All the Stuff in the middle is just a bunch of isolated facts about details of processes. Viewed in isolation, they all have validity.
Since AGW has become a movement, the politics are intrinsic. Most people know nothing about the science of subject but they sure Believe!!! with a political intensity.
In researching the origins of the current hysteria, it became clear to me that politics were the real underlying cause of GW. As the saying goes, Gore didn�t invent the internet, but he surely invented Global warming.
We have all seen the many quotes posted here from the early instigators of the movement indicating that AGW was the perfect tool for Social change and they fully intended to exploit it to the max. I won�t repost them again, we have all seen them.
So it seems to me that politics got the movement going, politics funded it, politics keeps it healthy, and politics will be the big winner from all the hype. Hang on to your wallets.
Finally, I must wonder how anyone can ignore the politics of the issue when we see Hansen�s manipulations, Mann�s deliberate distortions, Ban Ki Moons Moronic statements of Devastation and the obvious attempts at wealth confiscation from the Kyoto protocol.
It just seems obvious to me that politics are the most significant driver of REPORTED climate change. Removing it from the discussion renders the discussion pretty dry and irrelevant.

It strikes me that under the heading of global warming there is a mix of two categories of questions; the scientific and the political.

The scientific questions in broad terms are:
� Is the average temperature of the earth being accurately measured?
� Using an accurate measurement is that average currently increasing, if so at what rate and how far will it increase?
� What would be the negative and positive consequences of various levels of increase in the temperature?
� To what extent is any increase anthropogenic and to what extent is it a natural phenomenon?
� What is the strength and direction of the various feedback mechanisms in the system?
� How reliable are the various models of future climate?
� Assuming there is anthropogenic global warming do we know how how to slow it and do we have the capacity to slow it?
� What is the current state of climate science, is this "settled" science or are we in the early stages of trying to understand an extremely complex system where we don't even know all of the variables much less how to accurately measure them or how they interact?

I'm a lay person and in no position to asses the specifics of the various assertions put forward on this site and others, but it seems clear, even to me, that the answer to the last question is that the science is in a very early stage and not at all settled, which would also imply that the reliability of any models of future climate would be highly unreliable.

It would also seem that if it were not for the impinging of the political questions it would be possible to have a reasoned dispassionate discussion of these questions.

The problem is that for many of us our assessment of the science is sometimes guided by our political world view. For instance it seems there is an over representation of those of a more conservative/right leaning orientation on the skeptical side of the argument, whereas those on the liberal/left leaning side tend to see it as a settle fact that the world is on a disastrous path of global warming for which we are primarily responsible. I'm not saying that is the case for everyone or anyone all of the time. I know there are many left leaning commentators who are extremely skeptical of global warming and there's even a large group of fundamentalist Christians who believe strongly in AGW (who knows there may even be some libertarians in that camp), but it is a tendency I have seen in the comments on this blog.

I do however think the political is an important part of the discussion. Global warming or not, peak oil or not, I believe both sides of the argument could agree that a reduction of our dependency on oil from the middle east is important, but this still leaves many political question:

� Assuming AGW is a possibility, is it better to try to reduce our production of industrial CO2 or to try to ameliorate the effects of global warming as it occurs?
� Should the government direct the movement toward alternative sources of energy by legislation direction or should we allow the market to determine the best alternative? Ethanol cast a very strong light on this question.
� Should we speed the process along by imposing a tax on oil or let the market forces do their job over time.
� Are carbon credits an effective way to encourage a switch to alternative energy or a government/corporate boondoggle to increase tax revenues and the profits of carbon traders and other corporations?
� To what degree are we willing to sacrifice our personal and national independence and economic well being to avert a possible warming of the planet?

Looking at my own list I realize it really is impossible to separate the political questions from the scientific. One's conclusions about AGW would affect almost every question in the above list.

My bottom line is that I think the political questions are a significant part of the global warming debate and shouldn't be excluded. I'm not even sure I would want to see the ad hominem arguments entirely edited out. Sometimes it's interesting to see who is funding whom as long as there is an opportunity for the data being presented to be questioned and put into perspective.

PS I wanted to thank JP for his comprehensive response to the BBC points on the global warming argument.

Hi Paul,

Censorship is what makes realclimate and a few other sites a waste of time, and why no one with a dissenting opinion bothers to go over there. They have no interest in debate and will not allow it. Brett has done a very good job of protecting free speech, which is why this blog has become so popular.

Politics is at the crux of the debate. When people start discussing binding international agreements that restrict our personal freedoms, we should all be diligent enough to pay attention.

And AGW terrorists at Heathrow trying to forcibly stop construction of the desperately needed Terminal 4, are just the tip of the iceberg. We are teaching a whole generation of children that our society is evil and headed for destruction. Not difficult to see where that is headed.

Reply: At the risk of repeating myself, I am not removing politics from the discussion; however, any discussion of politics needs to be related to the global warming topics at hand. It has nothing to do with censorship or freedom of speech; it has to do with the fact that this is a global warming blog, not a political blog. Paul

I would dearly love to see the debate on climate change to be driven by science rather than politics.

However there is a big problem: whilst no one in their right mind would argue with modern physics in postulating the "greenhouse effect" or the notion of CO2 being a greenhouse gas the inconvenient truth is that this is just one of many phenomena involved in driving climate change.

Understanding climate change involves a plethora of scientific disciplines and the joker in the pack is the human race.

The premise of AGW is that human emissions of CO2 are the prime driver, and this is the crux of the politicisation of the debate: we have a poor understandng of our own activities.

The social sciences; political science, economics, sociology etc, have provided little comfort in ameliorating the human condition thus far and I see no reason for optimism in this debate.

Where is the intellectual rigour that can transcend the soundbites of career policians, "green" corporations and single issue groups?

We know there is an energy crunch, we know there is a credit crunch, but is it to be an intellectual crunch that proves to be our downfall?

That is why this blog is important whatever your politics.

Kipp,

I want to keep politics as far as possible from the discussion, but to quote you, "They are doing things in Europe and Canada to stop CO2 emissions, because they feel a threat. None of these countries, are a real Democracy, and tend to lean Socialist." As a Canadian, I can seriously object to the characterization of my country as not being a "real Democracy"! Likewise, the European countries for the most part are legitimate democracies. Yes, the politics tend to be further to the left than in the U.S.A., but the fact that our elections take three weeks - not two years - doesn't make us socialist. Our current national government is a Conservative minority and most of the provinces largely average out as centrist - and the Conservatives were roundly criticized in the Bali nonsense for not acceding to Kyoto. British Columbia is a weird one in that it has a fiscally conservative 'liberal' government that is imposing a carbon tax in response to leftist pressure; in my opinion, that is the dumbest move made by a reasonably smart government. At least I got 'carbon tax' into a political comment...

(Sorry if this comes through twice - it hung up on the first try)

Patrick Henry,

I've heard you mention how cool it was in the UK this summer.