Shafe said:

But I do take issue with the conclusion of your post, because you postulate a consensus on nuclear power being the solution to AGW as good-enough reason to end the debate on AGW. No such consensus exists in the broader public debate.

Granted, however when I wrote “we” I was referring to present company, not the public in general. The point here being that nuclear supporters should not fight one another on the subject of AGW because our preferred solution has it covered.

Again granted, but nor should we ignore AGW as a tool in the debate, True, we would be fools to put all our eggs in that basket, but at the same time we need to recognize that it helps rather than hinders our case.

At any rate sequestration, like wind and solar is an unworkable solution that like those others is more of a smoke-screen than a viable option and like them will never be made to work.

        DV82XL said:

I was not invoking Pascal’s Wager; that is a desperate misreading of what I wrote.

I’ve read enough of you to know that that’s not precisely what you meant, and obviously there is more empirical evidence of the existence of AGW than of God, but, on its own, your post does read like Pascal’s Wager. I don’t take serious issue with that, as equivalent and true statements can be made regarding the smoking-cancer link (as you pointed out) or the doughnut-diabetes link. But I do take issue with the conclusion of your post, because you postulate a consensus on nuclear power being the solution to AGW as good-enough reason to end the debate on AGW. No such consensus exists in the broader public debate.

A better-safe-than-sorry policy is fine if the price of warding off AGW is justifiable by the quality of the evidence. Since the price proposed by many AGW supporters is exceptionally high, the quality of the evidence and integrity of the field of study must bear up under exceptional scrutiny.

The subject may be made moot if a proposed solution is justifiable on other merits. Nuclear power is justifiable for multiple reasons beyond carbon neutrality, so promoting construction of new plants does not hinge on faith in climate science alone. But when solutions such as carbon sequestration are on the table, we had better have good faith in climate science, as we cannot justify sequestration except by appealing to that science.

While I hate the analogy because inevitably someone will try and push it too far, the relationship between cancer and tobacco use was well established empirically by the mid 1800s, far earlier than any scientific proof based on the underling mechanisms. The correct response to these early observations would be to not smoke, not contend that the phenomenon was possibly a statistical aberration.

In this case however the bottom line is by not addressing GHG as a possible cause of climate change one asserts that the atmosphere stands as an unlimited sink for these gases and that is simply an unsupportable hypothesis. Far more unsupportable than the worst of the AGW models being discussed.

        DV82XL said:

…can we take that chance; and if so what guarantee is there that this change be benign ?

The above question is rhetorical. The point being that the risk of rejecting AWG and being wrong, outweighs the converse by a considerable margin given that the adoption of nuclear energy (which we all apparently agree is a Good Thing) makes the question moot. In other words, if we are all of the same opinion about nuclear, why debate AGW at all.

And there’s Pascal’s Wager again. Just as a moral and ethical life is worth living in the absense of God, reducing our use of fossil fuels is worthwhile in the absense of AGW.

The question is not moot, because many blind followers of AGW do not agree that nuclear power is a Good Thing. The debate is worth having, because AGW is used to justify onerous and sometimes draconian proposals to reduce energy consumption in the name of reduced emissions and because many of the people being debated (perhaps the type willing to compare AGW doubters to Holocaust deniers) will entertain almost any solution rather than nuclear. If you argue that nuclear is better than coal because nuclear is nearly carbon neutral, then you allow proposals such as coal-plus-sequestering to be elevated to nuclear’s level.

The argument for nuclear energy can and should be made on its primary benefits, including energy stability/security, reduced pollution, and reduced mining footprint. The possible/probable relief from AGW should be seen as a secondary benefit along with possible improvements to geopolitical stability. If there is significant doubt as to the threat of AGW, then the fate of nuclear energy should not be pinned to it.

        Anon said:

Never mind that much of the data and methodology the FOIA requests were about was already public knowledge. Those requests look more like a harassment campaign than a real attempt at ensuring scientific progress.

That’s not what a recently issued report by the Royal Society Science Policy Centre concluded. See page 38 of the PDF (emphasis mine):

The potential loss of trust in the scientific enterprise through failure to recognise the legitimate public interest in scientific information was painfully exemplified in the furore surrounding the improper release of emails from the University of East Anglia. These emails suggested systematic attempts to prevent access to data about one of the great global issues of the day – climate change. The researchers had failed to respond to repeated requests for sight of the data underpinning their publications, so that those seeking data had no recourse other than to use the Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) to request that the data be released.

The need to invoke FoIA reflects a failure to observe what this report regards as should be a crucial tenet for science, that of openness in providing data on which published claims are based. …

Preventing access to data and failing to respond to repeated requests are not what I usually associate with scientific progress.

        Matthew said:

I can’t help noticing that you haven’t dealt with the substance of his complaint; that published scientists fought tooth and nail prevent anyone else from seeing their data and methodology, which undermines the whole idea of replicability as the foundation of scientific progress.

Never mind that much of the data and methodology the FOIA requests were about was already public knowledge.

Those requests look more like a harassment campaign than a real attempt at ensuring scientific progress.

        Bob Wilson said:

I do think that there may be some common ground between “deniers” like me and some of the believers. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. That is the reason I became interested in this site. Unfortunately most AGW believers are anti-nuclear power luddites.

I would ask all of those that identify themselves legitimate (that is no hidden agenda) AGW critics to consider the following:

Even if we grant that the evidence for AWG fails to prove this phenomenon is real to the extent that some would wish, it is also true that any honest evaluation of the same does not support rejecting the possibility out of hand.

Furthermore the suggested mechanisms by which GHG could influence climate, given the current state of knowledge of climatology and atmospheric physics, if not proven are at the very least highly plausible.

Given the above – can it be asserted with any degree of confidence that humans can continue to inject GHG into the atmosphere at an increasing rate indefinitely before some manifestation of anthropogenic climate forcing occurs; can we take that chance; and if so what guarantee is there that this change be benign ?

The above question is rhetorical. The point being that the risk of rejecting AWG and being wrong, outweighs the converse by a considerable margin given that the adoption of nuclear energy (which we all apparently agree is a Good Thing) makes the question moot. In other words, if we are all of the same opinion about nuclear, why debate AGW at all.

And do I deny that an increase in atmospheric CO2 in absence of other effects increases the temperature? Of course not. That is elementary physics. But the rub is that the earth’s atmosphere is an incredibly complex chaotic system with multiple feedback effects. I remember seeing a time lapse video of the earth as seen from a satellite. You could see gigantic thunderstorms well up in the tropics region then blossom into huge systems that then drifted off towards the temperate regions. This brings to mind a lecture by Richard Feynman reflecting on the chaotic processes in a glass of wine and stating that if we could understand those we could understand the universe.

Now multiply that to a system the size of the earth’s atmosphere and anyone who is not skeptical that we can predict its behavior over a time scale of centuries has a lot of chutzpah and/or a political agenda. And if you doubt a political agenda, just look up the multiple times that leading “climate scientist” James Hansen of NASA Goddard has had himself arrested in political demonstrations. Or read in the climategate emails the machinations of the cabal of “climate scientists” trying to keep opposing views out of the journals they control.

I do think that there may be some common ground between “deniers” like me and some of the believers. I am a strong supporter of nuclear power. That is the reason I became interested in this site. Unfortunately most AGW believers are anti-nuclear power luddites.

        Anon said:

If the climate change deniers have a problem with being compared with holocaust deniers then I personally don’t care (it is only what they are denying which is different).

I can’t help noticing that you haven’t dealt with the substance of his complaint; that published scientists fought tooth and nail prevent anyone else from seeing their data and methodology, which undermines the whole idea of replicability as the foundation of scientific progress.