I maintain my own IR-related blog on the side. Peter Howard has a blog on
US foreign policy. One of the members of Lawyers, Guns and Money blogs on IR. Other than that I would be interested to know--but there must be more out there...

"Nowhere is this more evident than the Bush administration's policy on global warming. "

The policy is its an unproven pile of crap used as a pathetically thin veil for anticapitalist and Anti-American policy and propaganda. Im not sure how to present that to the EuroBureaus in a polite way, and like my mom always said if you have nothing nice to say better to say nothing at all. Thats a pretty diplomatic solution when the other side basically has a religious belief you cant argue them out of. Playing into it certainly doesnt help them or us.

We should probably be clear that the hype about public diplomacy from this administration is just that. A new Under Secretary for Public Diplomacy was announced last March, and the campaign-oriented press in Washington got all stirred up because the nominee was the campaign heavyweight Karen Hughes -- close to Bush, close to Rice, and no more suited to reforming American public diplomacy than any seven of ten people picked at random from the Kansas City phone book.

Last I looked, Hughes' nomination still hasn't been submitted to the Senate; State Dept. spokesman Rick Boucher told the press last April that she might not actually be on the job until the end of summer. Granted that a tendency to leave important posts vacant for long periods of time is notable in this administration -- we don't have an ambassador in Baghdad either, for example. But being serious about something like public diplomacy in the sense of impressing the Washington-based American media and being serious in the sense of getting something accomplished are two different things.

Having noted that dismal story, we should also observe that effective public presentation of any policy will be less likely in an administration that has to devote much energy to agreeing on a policy in the first place. The Bush administration isn't the first to have this problem, but it does have it in a big way.

I don't think he is an IR scholar but Head Heeb has an excellent IR related blog.
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/

His 5 part backgrounder on Lebanese politics deserves a prize. Here is the last part with links at the end to the other four:
http://headheeb.blogmosis.com/archives/028022.html

By the way, does anyone have a first impression of the TPMCafe format? Mine is that it crams a lot of content in a very small space -- if you want to spend your limited blog-reading time in just one place, that's fine, and there may be some political liberals most comfortable doing exactly that there. For people used to scanning a bunch of blogs it may not be so great.

Slate's format might actually have been better for what TPMCafe is trying to do. But Slate is busy with so many more important things.

"The policy is its an unproven pile of crap used as a pathetically thin veil for anticapitalist and Anti-American policy and propaganda."
I don't want to get into a big global warming debate here but here is a brief article in Science magazine which shows that there is a scientific consensus about global warming.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

Don't forget Juan Cole.

Professor,

I just wanted to say how much I enjoy your blog. I appreciate your academic approach to blogging rather than presenting information strictly through the lens of ones political perspective (as most do). . When you do present a clear opinion, rarely do I agree, but it hardly matters- I am a student, and although I don't pay the hefty UofC tuition, I consider you my professor. I have learned quite a lot the past year.

It surely must be time-consuming to blog and blog with quality and substance. Not quite sure how you stay consistently on top of it, but I, as many others must feel, am happy you do.

I love economics and I love analysing IR with economic eye, but please don't consider using your economics background in the day-to-day management of your blog. Content should stay free!

Ciao

"http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686"

Science is not done by consensus. 100 years ago every scientist on earth but one would tell you space was flat. The one was right because he had a testable hypothesis that bore out and the scientists that disagreed eventually died off. As they say, scientific progress is a series of funerals. When one of these climate experts can create a model that makes some predictions that bear out instead of rigging models to match current data and desired results, that will be science.

In the annals of unnecessary, spiking Kyoto at the White House definitely makes the list.

Why not send it up to the Hill, where the Senate had already signalled its opposition 95-0? Congress kills it dead, Administration says The people's representatives have spoken, what're ya gonna do? (This of course assumes the apparently quaint proposition that this Administration believes Congress posesses some sort of legitimacy...)

Have commented a few times here, and wanted to do some more -- because there are both a lot of interesting posts, and a generally high level of discourse in the comments -- before doing a BSP ... but ... since you DID explicitly invite mention of other IR-related blogs, you should check out the one I do with a few former students:

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/

[ As you can see, my HTML skills are still less than rudimentary, altho I am learning slowly :-) ]

It's certainly not academic -- even though I did do a recent post on Stanley Fish's strange relation to Levi-Strauss, manifested yet again in his "Devoid of Content" NYT Op-Ed piece

http://www.grokyourworld.com/louisxiv/2005/06/stanley_fish_co.html
--

chiefly because I am concerned with mobilizing intellectual resources to deal with real-world problems, whereas in my view -- something we could certainly discuss -- most "scholarly" work is much more concerned with defining and defending disciplinary boundaries.

But it is quite analytical and historical in its tretment of current events, and, is undergirded by a fully elaborated theoretical framework featuring Marx, EH Carr (Twenty Years' Crisis), Levi-Strauss, Weber (Objectivity in Social Science), Freud and Kenneth Burke (above all, Rhetoric of Motives).

Here's the link for that:

http://www.medianalysis.org/enc_theory.html

All this said, I'm finding your blog extremely interesting, and, despite certain differences in our normative orientation, we are interested in many of the same topics, and I hope we can develop a mutually beneficial blog cross-pollination.

Thanks for asking :-)

Dan uses the subsumption of NATO into the UN as the very model of a bad idea, and he's right, but there's an important point about NATO that he's ignoring and that lends support to what Anne-Marie Slaughter is saying.

Read the NATO treaty sometime. The opening articles go on and on specifying exactly how the NATO alliance fits into the UN treaty and UN framework, how it's consistent with UN obligations, etc etc etc - it's well along into the text of the treaty before anything is said about actual North Atlantic collective military security.

So the drafters of the NATO treaty thought it was very important to pay obeisance to the UN structure. NATO has survived over 50 years, so maybe there was something to Acheson's, Bevan's and their colleagues' idea of paying a little homage to the overarching internationally accepted diplomatic framework of the time. Dan, doesn't that suggest that Anne-Marie is onto something when she says it's important to schmooze other countries rather than go out of your way to be abrupt and annoying, as the Bush people sometimes seem to think the "national interest" requires? (Admittedly the U.S. and its allies very much ran the show at the UN in 1949 - but the NATO treaty text has remained the same all along, through all the changes at the UN.)

the problem with the "ad hoc" approach is that it is essentially acting "above the law." Under current international law, every nation has the right to "peaceful" development of nuclear energy --- and these kind of ad hoc arrangements say to the rest of the world that international law doesn't really matter. The eventual upshot is likely to be more of what we see happening in North Korea and Iran -- nations deciding that if the "big boys" aren't going to work within the framework of international law, why should they?

We've already seen how fragile a "coalition of the willing" was in Iraq; the likelihood of these ad hoc arrangements standing the test of time --- especially when there is money to be made --- is pretty questionable.

And the fact is that the primary reason that nothing was accomplished at the most recent NPT meeting was that the US wanted to change the agenda---ignoring the mandated review of compliance with previously made commitments to the NPT (which would show that the US had ignored virtually all the promises it had made five years ago) and focussing exclusively on its own agenda (Iran and North Korea). Since the rest of the world feels far less threatened by those two nation's efforts than by the vast nuclear arsenal under the control of the Bush regime, the NPT nations were having none of it.

I think its pretty inexcusable for you to have taken the "global animus" quote COMPLETELY OUT OF CONTEXT --- because the reason that the US is engendering "global animus" is as stated by Ivo, ie 'refusing to take the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review seriously'. The "global animus" toward the US generated by the NPT meeting had nothing to do with the US rejection of a five-year moratorium that was also rejected by numerous other nations --- it had to do with the US refusal to take ALL of the NPT review seriously, especially its own obligations under the NPT.

RR, that's actually an interesting historical point. Naturally Dean Acheson would have wanted NATO treaty language to "pay homage" to the diplomatic framework of the time -- to a large extent, it was his own framework. But the reasons for it had more to do with domestic American politics.

NATO was conceived as a defensive military alliance, obligating the United States to come to the aid of European signatories attacked by the Soviet Union. The NATO treaty had to be ratified by the Senate, in which traditional hostility to "entangling alliances" was still very strong. Hence the very considerable effort that went into pretending that NATO was not what it was -- that it was merely "an alliance for peace," as Sen. Connally called it, an organization aimed at helping member states to conform to their obligations to the UN, and so forth.

The historical irony is that attention to domestic politics influenced how the postwar alliance system was constructed, while preoccupation with domestic politics is at the root of the Bush administration's rocky relations with other governments. Foreign governments regularly get annoyed when the administration says and does things as if they weren't there, or at least as if they were not the administration's primary audience. They aren't.

Truman could conduct an effective foreign policy when he was personally much more unpopular domestically than Bush is now. That was a different time, and of course Truman was a different sort of man. Today, campaign politics are the dominant influence on policy at all times. Truman's administration could seek to incorporate consideration of domestic politics into its conduct of foreign policy; Bush's administration conducts its foreign policy to support its approach to domestic politics.

"Science is not done by consensus."
Actually it is. It's called peer-review. Of course the consensus may be challenged by another theory ,which if it proves superior, will become the new consensus. That hasn't happened with global warming. The current consensus hasn't been reached lightly but through many years of research and lots of evidence.

The existence of the global warming "consensus" is questionable.

From http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

The controversy follows the publication by Science in December of a paper which claimed to have demonstrated complete agreement among climate experts, not only that global warming is a genuine phenomenon, but also that mankind is to blame.

The author of the research, Dr Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, analysed almost 1,000 papers on the subject published since the early 1990s, and concluded that 75 per cent of them either explicitly or implicitly backed the consensus view, while none directly dissented from it.

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

"Actually it is. It's called peer-review."

Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method aside from catching errors on occassion. It also has some pretty serious drawbacks, as it tends to be a very politisized process in contraversial and disputed fields. If you end up with a referee that doesnt like you or your ideas it can be a real nightmare getting published in your journal of choice. Peer review isnt science, its deciding what ideas get published. The history of experiments and theories passing peer review and later failing to be reproduceable (which _is_ a critical part of the scientific method) is rife.

"The current consensus hasn't been reached lightly but through many years of research and lots of evidence."

Lots of politics and lots of money and reputation at stake. You have exactly two facts, that CO2 and hydrocarbons have increased in the atmosphere due to human activitiy, and that many (but not all) gauges of planetary temperature have shown a small recent increase which happens to be entirely within the realm of natural earth cycles. Everything else is interpretation and theory.

"They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly."

This is _exactly_ what I mean. Even in discussing the record of the studies subjective interpretation works its way in. Scientists are just as subject to groupthink as anyone. Sometimes moreso. Worse the scientific method is under assault. Instead of making predictions and testing them, those invested in global warming take whatever the current data of the day is and modify their theories to explain how that is all part of their scenarios. If it gets warmer its global warming, if it gets colder its global warming. If the icecaps melt its global warming, if they get thicker its global warming.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.

Peiser's study has some issues. (And various links within.)

Is there a link available to Dr Peiser's article?Has he managed get his findings published in any journal? Note that in addition to the abstracts the Science article lists a number of organizations which support the consensus on global warming including the The American Meteorological Society and the National Academy of Sciences.

Are there any scientific organizations of comparable repute which have endorsed the opposite view?

Perhaps the White House wants more nations to go nuclear so as to decrease demand for oil in terms of domestic household energy production.

The more nuclear nations become the less dependent they are on oil.

Second, has the world encountered a truly maniacal nuclear nation? It seems that with the acquiecense[sic] of nuclear energy a nation-state adjusts it policy perhaps to a level of more tempered actions as opposed to previous policies of desperation.

A couple of trends I'm following are the increasing push by environmentalists to support nuclear energy to make a stronger push to isolate fossil fuels. Nuclear energy could be the vehicle the emerging markets need to better compete in the world marketplace. Clearly, with proper security and disposal measures, nuclear energy is the best option for any nation in need of energy.

More nukes, less war? Not quite, yet. But since the development and proliferation of nuclear weapons the number of civilian and military casualties of war has declined.

"Peer review has nothing to do with the scientific method aside from catching errors on occassion."
Actually peer review is pretty much an essential part of science. How else do you ensure that published articles are up to the standard of the discipline in question?

"Peer review isnt science, its deciding what ideas get published."
I don't see the two as being contradictory. Reputed journals like Science and Nature are an important part of the process of creating new science.

As for climate models and their predictive successes here is a list with links:
http://www.brighton73.freeserve.co.uk/gw/future.htm#climatemodels

NASA weighs in:

"Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity."

"The atmosphere is extremely complex in its behavior. Because of this, finding the correct explanation for the behavior we observe is complex as well. Virtually all scientists will agree that a doubling of the amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere should have some effect on the temperature of the Earth. But it is much less certain how or if we will recognize the effects of this increase."

http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm

I would hardly call that the kind of scientific unanimity that is being claimed.

Just caught that article i linked to was from 97, i'll look to see if they have updated their findings.

NASA is clearly a part of the consensus about global warming:
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7665636/

"Using ocean data collected by diving floats, U.S. climate scientists released a study Thursday that they said provides the "smoking gun" that ties manmade greenhouse gas emissions to global warming.

The researchers, some of them working for NASA and the Energy Department, went a step further, implicitly criticizing President Bush for not taking stronger action to curb emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases.

They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

If you do a search on NASA and global warming you will find plenty of other stuff.

"They said the findings confirm that computer models of climate change are on target and that global temperatures will rise 1 degree Fahrenheit this century, even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow."

I'll find you a computer model that says temps will rise 1 degree F this century if you sucked out all the CO2 man every put in the atmosphere. The Earth is _always_ either warming or cooling.

This study is a joke. How can you take a measurement you've taken once and make claims about what it means over time? This is classic. Scientists know they dont understand the atmosphere, know they dont understand global cycles, but they take one measurement, do a little math and the conclusion tells them there is global warming! Oh, and then of course call a press conference somehow claiming you have 'proved' human linkage, which is absurd. There is only a subset of data indicating more energy is being absorbed than reflected that may or may not be offset by other factors not mentioned in the story, how do you draw a pointing finger from that?
Is it possible there are other factors less understood and not being considered? Of course there are, there are many, but they are intentionally ignored because they cant be modelled. This is exactly like taking the daily temperature from February through May and extrapolating the the Earths temp with be 275 degrees by Christmas. Is 1 degree in a century meaningful? Is it extraordinary? You wont see those questions addressed cuz its not part of the story they believe is happening and want to tell. I have deep skepticism for scientists who announce their results wrapped up with a political message. Agenda.

They're not using the hockey stick model as a basis, I hope. It hasn't been "peer reviewed" because that would be giving in to those who questioned the model and found flaws.

As to GW - they're not using that term anymore, it's now global change. This way, the US must do something.

Kyoto Protocol--Propaganda or Censorship?
by Garth Pritchard, Canadafreepress.com
Saturday, May 7, 2005

...But here were tens of thousands, from around the world, all agreeing on one issue: that there is no scientific evidence of man-made global warming.
The numbers of scientists staggered me--17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two thirds with advanced degrees, are against the Kyoto Agreement. The Heidelberg Appeal--which states that there is no scientific evidence for man-made global warming, has been signed by over 4,000 scientists from around the world since the petition’’s inception. I strongly questioned these high numbers, since I’’ve had benefit of the Canadian government’’s public relations machine on this issue. Dr. Leahey has since sent documentation to back his figures up.

All those scientists were in total agreement: the Kyoto Protocol was complete fiction.

The scientists are so committed to fighting the Kyoto Accord and its misrepresentation of the truth, that they produced a 27-minute documentary and paid for its production with their own money.....

So much for "consensus."

"This study is a joke."
No the joke is to take one sentence from a media story and use it as a basis to dismiss a piece of scientific reasearch by NASA and the US energy department.

Anyway this dicussion is pretty pointless since all you keep doing is to assert that any evidence contrary to your position is absurd or biased. There are clearly multiple strands of evidence for global warming produced by different organizations. Virtually every major scientific organization that has looked at the issue has concluded that man-made global warming is taking place. To my knowledge no major organization has taken the opposite position. I think that speaks for itself.

As for the Heidelberg Appeal, if this link is accurate, it was released in 1992 it doesn't even mention global warming.

http://www.sepp.org/heidelberg_appeal.html

The 'hockey stick' is just part of a broad array of evidence. It has been peer-reviewed and reproduced. The hockey stick 'debunkers' have generally proven themselves incompetent.

As for "17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two thirds with advanced degrees, are against the Kyoto Agreement.", well, just look at "two thirds with advanced degrees". And, note that it doesn't mention how many of them did climate science. I bet I could find 17,000 engineers "two thirds with advanced degrees" who don't believe in evolution.

Finally, as I recall, the recent satellite measurements are in line with current models -- I think there were some problems with the earlier measurements, but I can't find the reference right now.

--The 'hockey stick' is just part of a broad array of evidence. It has been peer-reviewed and reproduced. --

How can it be reproduced if he won't show his method?

So he changed his mind in the past couple of months?

Or did the WSJ do shoddy work?

Here are 15,000 scientists who say global warming is bunk. They have charts to prove it.

The latest thoughts are that it is due to higher solar output.

The cause is Bush's incompetent diplomacy with the people who control the suns output. You know. The guys wearing the tinfoil hats.

The #1 current use of climate models is to collect money. This they do very well.

However they cannot even predict the past. What good are they at predicting the future?

Sandy P, Mann et al have shown their method. See here. And their results have been independantly reproduced. See here. And yes, the WSJ did shoddy work.

Simon, what is bunk is the Oregon petition and your claims about solar warming. See here.

Here are 15,000 scientists who say global warming is bunk. They have charts to prove it.

Again, I bet I can find 15000 'scientists' who say evolution is bunk.

The latest thoughts are that it is due to higher solar output.

Dude, you're years out of date. You need to update your talking points. Try climateaudit or some place like that.

The #1 current use of climate models is to collect money. This they do very well.

Ah yes. That's why people go into science. For the money. That's why I did it, certainly.

There is evidence that global warming may be preventing an ice age.

So not only is it not happening but we need more of it.

Or it is happening and we need less of it.

Or there is too much solar output and it's Bush's fault.

This is obviously a job for governent.

Climate science is not a settled discipline.

Besides I blame it all on China. They plan to ignore the treaty.

Global warming on Mars?

Well yes.

If Bush had only signed Kyoto Mars would not be warming.

I blame Bush for wrecking the solar system. The man is a meglomaniac who knows no limits to his power.

Aaron,

You haven't explained why climate models can't predict the past.

Surely this is something science could easily accomplish.

Solar output is accounted for in climate models.

Check out here for a discussion on such claims.

Strategist.

That 1 deg F that you say we will get finally marks the end of The Little Ice Age.

Great news!!!

Aaron,

The question of the earth heating still has conflicting evidence to my mind.

However let us say the evidence is unequivocal for global warming.

The question is: is it man made?

Some work I have seen recently shows solar forcing accounts for 75% to 90% of the effect.

And then there is the cloud question.

And SO2 aerosols.

If the SO2 aerosols are a greater effect than CO2 then cutting coal plant emissions will lead to global warming. Way cool? No?

=============

So with all this grand science why can't the climate models predict the past?

Virtually every major scientific organization that has looked at the issue has concluded that man-made global warming is taking place.

Even primitive aboriginals make that conclusion. And they've held that conclusion before any smokestacks were constructed.

Few challenge the position that man is playing a role in climate change. The question, which remains unanswered or clouded in various theories, is to what extent man plays in relation to climate change.

The Kyoto Protocol is a wealth redistribution model. Nothing more, nothing less. The lords are the industrialized nations. The have nots are the emerging nations. Kyoto is Robin Hood dressed as a diplomat.

M. Simon: I have you covered. Super smart climate change scholar Joel Cohen of Rockefeller University tells us, "the future is unlike the past because it hasn't happenned yet." Somehow I think JD Rockefeller is in his grave saying, "I pay for this sh*t?".

consensus does not mean what global warming pimps think it means. it means complete agreement amongst all people involved. what we have is large groups of people agreeing about opposing views. one side claims that they represent "consensus". BULL S--T!

now as to whats actually happening, what the cause is, and what would be a useful policy to affect any changes? no one knows, and almost everyone admiuts that kyoto won't do a gosh darn thing about any problems that may or may not exist.

The question of the earth heating still has conflicting evidence to my mind.

Even most of the purported 'debunkers' now admit that the earth is warming.

However let us say the evidence is unequivocal for global warming.

The question is: is it man made?

You think this is somehow an original thought? It's called anthropogenic forcing. And the answer is yes.

These things you bring up are news to precisely no one.

So with all this grand science why can't the climate models predict the past?

They can.

------

consensus does not mean what global warming pimps think it means. it means complete agreement amongst all people involved. what we have is large groups of people agreeing about opposing views. one side claims that they represent "consensus".

No, we don't. We have pretty much every climate scientist not named Lindzen agreeing that there is global warming with anthropogenic forcing. And when the National Academy of Science looked at the evidence, they agreed.

What we have against global warming are a few physicists who don't know what they're talking about, a couple guys who don't understand statistics with a monomaniacal obsession with Mann, various industry shills and some guy named Lindzen.

So, either there's this vast conspiracy of atmospheric scientists to all fudge their data, their models and pretty much everything else to represent some bizarre luddite obsession -- scientists, of course, being very much against technology and raving liberals the whole lot -- or, well, there isn't. It's just scientists working.

Given the choice between believing the scientists or their detractors, I know where I stand.

So, either there's this vast conspiracy of atmospheric scientists to all fudge their data, their models and pretty much everything else to represent some bizarre luddite obsession...

...or possibly to justify research grants?

---

The models these predictions are derived from do not predict historical conditions when historical data up to a given point are entered.

When you come up with a model that will predict something approximating 1600 when data up to 1500 is entered, and likewise for 1700, 1800, 1900, and 2000 (when data up to a century prior is input), I will take their predictions of the conditions in 2100 seriously.

No model has met this standard. None of them.

Is this demonstration of accuracy too much to ask before committing billions, if not trillions, of dollars globally to deal with the implications of the predictions these models make? If it is too much to ask, why?

And why hasn't anyone explained the warming of Mars, which is clearly not being caused by human actvity, and may be affecting the Earth, as well? Is this not relevant to the discussion?

The essence of science is not "consensus", it is testable hypothesis and reproducable results. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.

...or possibly to justify research grants?

There's much, much more money in coming up with evidence agaist global warming if you're interested in fudging your data.

No model has met this standard. None of them.

It is, generally, very difficult to model climate when you don't have the data for the forcings. Nonetheless, when it can be done, that's how the models get tested. You can read about ithere.

And why hasn't anyone explained the warming of Mars, which is clearly not being caused by human actvity, and may be affecting the Earth, as well? Is this not relevant to the discussion?

Humans are not the sole forcing in global warming. They do the models with various amounts of CO_2 added into the atmosphere and see what temperatures come out. Now, you could model Mars's atmosphere, work out all the forcings there and see what you get, but I doubt no one has done it because modelling Mars's climate just doesn't seem that important.

The essence of science is not "consensus", it is testable hypothesis and reproducable results. Consensus is a political concept, not a scientific one.

First of all, is cosmology a science? It does not have reproducible results. Secondly, sure consensus is a political concept; it's a concept that you use, when you have not spent your life studying a particular subject, to figure out the best course of action. When the people who are experts in that field pretty much *all* agree that something is true, that's pretty much the way to bet.

Or, put another way, do you believe quarks exist? Now, maybe you're a physicist, but if you're not, can you tell me why you think quarks exist, if you do? Perhaps more apposite, but also more obscure, we believe that the galaxies in the universe formed because of the existence of cold dark matter. There were a lot of other things that could have caused structure, however, like cosmic strings, hotter dark matter or something else. So, why do we believe in cold dark matter and not the others? We modelled the entire universe and saw what sort of structure was produced. We then compared with our one observation, the night sky, and saw that the cold dark matter models work best. [1]

So, is that science? Does it convinceyou , at least, that CDM is a pretty good hypothesis?

[1] We also have other evidence for the existence of dark matter, but that doesn't mean it has to be the sole reason for large scale structure. In particular, hot dark matter appears to destroy large scale structure. As I remember, cosmic strings which also could have existed (and may still do so in small numbers) in addition to the CDM give the wrong type of structure. This is all done in massive (but much smaller, I'd think that the climate stuff) models. Interestingly, these models seem to get some stuff not quite right now. No one's quite sure whether this means that the models or wrong or that we need some more stuff going around in our dark matter. This has led to proposals with such titles as 'warm dark matter', 'fuzzy dark matter', 'repulsive dark matter' and others.

Chaos theory suggests, as I understand it, that climate models can never yield accurate projections. BTW, didn't a lot of scientists agree about nuclear winter, the population explosion, etc?

Global warming is the catastrophe theory du joir.

Chaos theory suggests, as I understand it, that climate models can never yield accurate projections. BTW, didn't a lot of scientists agree about nuclear winter, the population explosion, etc?

Global warming is the catastrophe theory of our era.

"[Make] all nuclear fuel generating facilities part of multinational consortia, so they are not controlled by a single state?"

Is she serious? Not only does this perfectly line up with conventional leftist anti-capitalism wisdom, but who does she suppose will execute control and oversight? The UN, those who gave us OFF?

p.lukasiak: "the problem with the 'ad hoc' approach is that it is essentially acting 'above the law.' ... the likelihood of these ad hoc arrangements standing the test of time ... is pretty questionable."

The first argument is based in the (unproven) assumption that we need "internationl law" on this topic at all. There are those who sometimes seem to embrace legalism as a panacea for all social ills. A problem with guns in schools? Make more laws. A problem with nuclear proliferation? Make more international laws. In the vast majority of cases the greater problem lies not with a clear understanding of morality, propriety or legality but rather with the ability and will to enforce the well understood and recognized standards.

In regard to the second, ad hoc organizations are perfect for dealing with specific problems, because, unlike permanent organizations, when the issue is resolved they go away. The problem with proliferation of nuclear technology is not a technology issue at all, but rather a human one. If Spain or Canada announced tomorrow they were starting a nuclear weapons development program I wouldn't loose a wink of sleep. This has nothing to do with the technology, but rather the governments and citizens of those countries. Perhaps it is the almost Luddite-like gun control mentality approach to nuclear nonproliferation that causes the US to, in your words, not take the NPT seriously. To my knowledge, the NPT has never stopped any determined nation from pursuing its nuclear weapons goals, and I highly doubt if additional laws would change this.

In the face of the failure of the NPT model, perhaps a better solution would be to concentrate efforts against specific nations that seek these weapons to either subjugate or intimidate or may unscrupulously provide them to third parties while simultaneously working to change those governments into ones that do not require such close monitoring. This not only may be more effective and more economical, but has the side benefit of solving the root problem rather than simply delaying the inevitable.

There is hardly agreement on global warming, I linked to and posted some comments on a couple of conflicting artcicles I recently came across that not only contradict each other, but also what the modern green movement is saying today. One of them even blames global warming on our effectiveness at *reducing* pollution. You can click on my name to read the full post.

Not for nothing, but this entire tail-chasing session about global warming misses Dan's point completely. He cited the manner in which the Bush administration rejected Kyoto while offering nothing in its place as an example of the administration's ineptitude at a common diplomatic tactic.

Dan could have cited another example, and gotten an entirely different irrelevant discussion started. Or he could have used allusion and euphemism, in somewhat the same way that I avoid using the word "walk" in conversation around my Labrador retriever, and been understood by the two or three readers who actually care about whether the Bush administration is competent in the field of diplomacy.

Chaos theory suggests, as I understand it, that climate models can never yield accurate projections.

It really doesn't.

For Paul, the "17000" scientists thing is a joke -- see the stuff Tim Lambert posted.

The idea with 'global dimming' is that it might have masked the global warming signal. See here.

You also make the mistake of listening to the environmentalists. Listen to the scientists, not the 'greens'.

Mark Buehner,

I would be grateful if you could answer three questions from your knowledge of the data and causes of global warming.

1. Is it true that the Arctic ice cap has lost forty percent of its mass in the last thirty years?

2. If true, would the natural cycles to which you refer normally cause a fluctuation of this speed and magnitude, or (if this is a natural change) would it be more suggestive of a larger climate shift?

3. Are there any changes that you would regard as clear signals of human activity as the principal cause of a global warming trend?

"1. Is it true that the Arctic ice cap has lost forty percent of its mass in the last thirty years? "

No. Essentially this has been yet another case of scientists not understanding the dynamics of weather and temperature patterns, making bad assumptions, and getting bitten by it.

"For instance, it is firmly established that Arctic temperatures in the late 1930s and early ‘40s were higher than in the ‘90s and that Greenland’s temperatures in recent decades have undergone a cooling trend. It is also well known that sea ice mass can vary by as much as 16 percent in a single year."
...
"Interestingly, the IPCC Third Assessment Report references peer-reviewed studies that contradict the Arctic Council’s assessments. The IPCC, an organization convinced of the validity of the global warming consensus, noted that, “Glaciers and ice caps in the Arctic also have shown retreat in low-lying areas since about 1920,” but also stated, “However, no increasing melting trend has been observed during the past 40 years.”

Sonar data on sea ice collected in the 1990s also tell a different story. As the BBC wrote in 2001: “The latest and most comprehensive analysis yet of the sonar data collected in the 1990s shows little if any thinning — at least towards the end of that decade. Indeed, at the North Pole, there are indications in the data that the ice even got a little thicker.”
...
"So what causes these variations in sea ice mass? In 2002, Dr. Greg Holloway, of the Institute for Ocean Sciences in Sidney, Canada, and his colleague Dr. Tessa Sou, showed that decadal wind pattern changes caused a shifting of Artic sea ice, creating thinner ice in some regions and thicker ice in others. As Dr. Holloway explained, “It's a circumstance where the ice tends to leave the central Arctic and then mostly pile up against the Canadian side, before moving back into the central Arctic again.” Based on this research, Dr. Holloway believes that “we have been a little bit overly stampeded into the idea that there is a terribly alarming melting taking place.”

http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?id=236897&party=rep

"2. If true"

Not true, question is moot.

"3. Are there any changes that you would regard as clear signals of human activity as the principal cause of a global warming trend"

Yes. When enough research has been done to conclude that things are happening that are unprecidented (instead of natural cycles), or when something bad for humanity actually starts happening (instead of simply being predicted) commiserate with the massive resources a Kyoto like agreement would waste.

This scientist (who believes in man made global warming) has the right attitude imo:

"After researching the log-books of Arctic explorers spanning the past 300 years, scientists believe that the outer edge of sea ice may expand and contract over regular periods of 60 to 80 years. This change corresponds roughly with known cyclical changes in atmospheric temperature.

The finding opens the possibility that the recent worrying changes in Arctic sea ice are simply the result of standard cyclical movements, and not a harbinger of major climate change.

The amount of sea ice is currently near its lowest point in the cycle and should begin to increase within about five years.

As a result, Dr Chad Dick, a Scottish scientist working at the Norwegian Polar Institute in Tromso, believes the next five to ten years will be a critical period in our understanding of sea ice and the impact, if any, of long-term global warming.

Concern has been expressed recently that animals such as polar bears could become extinct because sea ice is disappearing. The new research by Dr Dick and a colleague, Dr Dimitry Divine, gives rise to hopes the melting will stop soon.

However, Dr Dick warned that if the ice carried on melting, it would mean that man-made global warming had disrupted the natural process - with potentially disastrous results.

He said: "Cycles of 60 to 80 years have been identified before in atmospheric temperature records in the Arctic. The old records that we recovered from ships’ logs and other sources may show that similar cycles are present in sea ice.

"I’ve this gut feeling that within ten years from now we’ll know for certain whether we’re losing sea ice long term or whether it’s coming back."
http://news.scotsman.com/scitech.cfm?id=258012005

Mark,

Many thanks for the above information and for providing a benchmark to assess change. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next ten years.

"Many thanks for the above information and for providing a benchmark to assess change. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next ten years."

Im fascinated as well. The upshot of all this is that a lot of resources are being devoted to investigating these issues which obviously are not well understood yet. Its also sort of an object lesson in the danger of our arrogance with new technologies and discovery, everything we find we think is some startling discover we are responsible for. Perhaps, but more likely its a good reminder that their are forces at work in our world so much more powerful and so much more ancient than human beings we should marvel at them and show great humility in claims of how much we understand..
How many of us believe that what scientists are telling us in a given week about how many carbs we need or if sunshine is good for you or not is the final word? These are the same folks telling us about global warming. Not propagandists, not liars, just human beings subject to fads, politics, and hubris just like the rest of us. Of course it may be true, but 5-10 years more research isnt going to make or break us one way or another, notwithstanding what the alarmists would tell us.

Not for nothing, but this entire tail-chasing session about global warming misses Dan's point completely. He cited the manner in which the Bush administration rejected Kyoto while offering nothing in its place as an example of the administration's ineptitude at a common diplomatic tactic.

Why does there need to be some kind of international agreement regulating industrial activity in order to prevent something that may not be happening, or could be part of a natural cycle, rather than caused by human action?

Yeah, it'd give the bureaucrats something to do, but they'll find something else to occupy their time. They always do.