This is just a quick post to point out an article on Newsbusters. I am keeping this post short in hopes that my regular man-made global warming readers will go check this article out. NASA and a team of university scientist have just completed a study on the Arctic climate. However, the results may not be what you would expect. As reported from Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard:
"A team of NASA and university scientists has detected an ongoing reversal in Arctic Ocean circulation triggered by atmospheric circulation changes that vary on decade-long time scales. The results suggest not all the large changes seen in Arctic climate in recent years are a result of long-term trends associated with global warming."
The article goes on to say that many of the changes in the Arctic climate that have been attributed to man-made global warming may in fact be natural cycles. It would appear that the Arctic climate has around a 10 year natural cycle that causes it to undergo its own fluctuations regardless of how much CO2 we are putting in the atmosphere.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
53 comments:
Umm, you might actually want to *read* the thing from NASA.
"Morison [the study's lead researcher] cautioned that while the recent decadal-scale changes in the circulation of the Arctic Ocean may not appear to be directly tied to global warming, most climate models predict the Arctic Oscillation will become even more strongly counterclockwise in the future. "The events of the 1990s may well be a preview of how the Arctic will respond over longer periods of time in a warming world," he said."
The reasoning of the Newsbusters piece is absurd: because a) one natural phenomenon *may not* be tied to global warming therefore b) global warming is a scam!
Say someone is dying of cancer and they have a lot of nasty symptoms from it. Just because a) one of their symptoms (say athlete's foot) *may not* be caused by the cancer does not mean that therefore b) they don't have cancer!
Andy, where's your sense of intellectual dignity? Are you starting to see why the only scientists on your side are a few schmucks lapping up the fossil fuel dollars, having betrayed their own field of study? They are the tobacco scientists of the 21st century. And you're playing for their team, dude.
But didn't I read somewhere that all the people who got grants to study climate change had to be believers in global warming? If you take this study seriously, first thing you know people will be suggesting that if scientists like this insist global warming is occurring in addition to these cycles, they should be taken seriously, since they follow wherever the facts lead them.
David Weisman
I just can't help wanting to go HAH! at this.
Andy, while you're dithering around about this, even Fox News is reporting that we face a real emergency right now.
You know, reality has a way of asserting itself against people who deny it. Here's my guess: you will go from a person who says climate change is no big deal to a person who says that it's such a big deal there's nothing we can do about it.
In either case, like a spoiled 12-year-old, you avoid taking any kind of responsibility. Am I wrong?
Fox news doesn't believe that - they are just reporting what the panel said - they will give equal prominence to others less qualified who say the opposite, and whasisname, the guy who supposedly writes about junk science but rarely does.
Let's leave the twelve year olds out of this. People actually paid by the industry don't discuss in a comment section on an equal basis with those who disagree - on some level they know the facts don't support them. An open discussion lends support to the truth. I believe Andy is doing harm to the people calling themselves 'global warming skeptics', who are skeptical only of arguments that don't suit their purposes, by hosting this discussion. Ironic, huh?
David Weisman
At least he has the courage to put his name to his words rather than hiding behind an "anonymous" tag repeatedly.
You mention the tobacco scientists. I like that since I don't believe smoking causes cancer.
The funny thing is you make the same logical assumption a lot of people do. Obviously big oil companies are funding studies to discredit man-made global warming.
Some research into the spending of listed oil companies (which are public record) will show the massive amount they've spent on "alternative energy" research, including scientific studies into proving man-made Global Warming. Oops.
Why do they do this? Simple. Oil makes them money but alternative energy sources will actually make them even more. The cost of oil from oil producers is actually eating into the profits of big oil companies because thay have to buy the oil before refining it to sell.
Alternative energy sources will yield a much higher profit margin, especially with a consumer base which is so frightened of Global Warming that they'll happily pay over the odds for alternative fuels. You're right that they're preying on people's stupidity, but wrong as to who this is.
They're preying on the stupidity of those gullible enough to buy into man-made Global Warming as a proven theory. This is why nobody is doing a cost-benefit analysis to support their theory because it'd fail.
Let’s not forget that in the 1970’s and 1980’s all of the news sources now warning us of global warming were warning us of a coming ice age. In another 20 years, no one will care about global warming and will be back to being worried about global cooling.
Anon, in case you haven’t read my previous posts on my position on global warming, I will sum it up for you here:
1) I don’t believe there is a “serious” component to the current climate change due to man. The Earth goes through natural cycles, and I believe what we are seeing now is more of the same. Man, like any creature, affects his environment. However, I don’t believe the impact we are having now is catastrophic in nature. As of now, I simply haven’t seen anything conclusive.
2) I don’t believe man has the ability to change the environment on the magnitude the global warming alarmist believe we can.
3) I don’t believe man has the ability to move the climate into a negative temperature change. Even Kyoto won’t reverse the climate change. I believe most legislation purposed (including Kyoto) are more about controlling people’s lives and very little about protecting the environment.
4) If we grant that the current change is man made, who is to say that a one degree or two degree change is terrible? The climate has been at different temperatures in the past.
5) Finally, I do believe that conservation is important. If you believe global warming is a threat and want to change your lifestyle, more power to you. However, when people want to legislate this lifestyle based on a science that is still a “theory”, that is where I have a problem with global warming alarmist. If global warming was more than a theory, we wouldn’t have to hear about the “consensus” behind it, it would simply be fact.
Andy, you're a fraud. You've put a headline on your website that declares--not the myth of racial superiority, not Nazi or Soviet propaganda, not the lawfulness of intercontinenal slave trade, not the myth of male superiority, not the earth as the undisputable physical center of the universe--but *global warming* as "the greatest scam in history."
And yet you show next to no real curiousity about why the scientists of the world are issuing strong warnings to the all of us. Your lackadaisical "theories" about global warming (ripped off from radio blowhards) couldn't even earn a "C" at community college science class. (Once again, I dare you to run them by *any* local climate scientist.)
People like you--and I think you partly know this--will be rightly labeled sociopaths in the coming decades. The evidence is clear. Hundreds of thousands of people are dying now every year because of climate change. And the numbers will keep going up dramatically unless we fire the anti-scientific crazies who are running the free world. It would help if you would quit carrying water for them. They think you're stupid enough just to keep parroting them--no matter what the scientists say. Are they right?
I argue that man-made global warming is a theory because people use the word "consensus" every time they discuss it. Your response is to fire everyone who disagrees with you. I think my point is proven.
I think so too Andy. We've seen this before, a refusal to accept the possibility of doubt. Heaven forbid science ever be wrong.
Didn't they once believe the atom was the smallest building block? Then managed to split it. That's not the only time either.
Science is constantly evolving with new technology and changing its mind, sometimes quite radically. I wonder what those championing man-made global warming will do if in the future we conclusively disprove man-made global warming? Deny it?
My biggest argument against the man-made theory is this. Pretty much every species that has become extinct in the history of this planet has done so as a result of a change in climate. I didn't see the Dinosaurs (not even on the Flintstones) driving any SUVs.
So if there's any doubt that you might get cancer, you should never try to prevent it? If there's doubt that you'll get in a car wreck, you should disable the air bags, unbuckle the seat belts, and throw down a few stiff drinks?
You at least owe it to yourself to read this short piece that came out today. And then to ask yourself again whose side you want to be on. Your kids are going to ask you. What will you say? "I thought I was smarter than the world's scientists?"
The world's scientists aren't in consensus over the issue. That's the point that's being made.
See this is where your argument fails, neither Andy nor I have said not to take reasonable steps to lessen any impact we have on our environment, quite the opposite.
Where we take issue is with statements that man-made Global Warming is a fact. It is not. We are being lied to, not for our own sakes, but to sell us things like hybrids.
The IPCC is a political propoganda machine, its findings are about as reliable as stuff on Wikipedia. As in, not one tiny bit.
The clue is in their name. If Climate Change wasn't on the political agenda, they wouldn't exist, so it's in their interests to argue the theory as if it were fact.
You say my kids will ask me what side I was on. Well, you see, if I'm wrong, I'll be able to say I was on the side that said that it was an unproven theory but still did what I could to lessen my impact, just in case.
If you're wrong you'll just be able to say you were gullible and went to unnecessary lengths to prevent something you had no control over, potentially creating more problems such as an economic depression worse than 1929.
Looking at it that way I chose the right side.
I might add that if the IPCC is unreliable then a New York Times story which sensationalises it is bound to be even more so.
In the digital era where so much information is public record and easily found here on the internet in most cases trusting the media is not only naive it is inexcusable.
Funnily enough I couldn't find a full version of the Synthesis Report. The reports from the three working groups are there but they've been there for a while and I've read them (have you Anon?).
We've got a "summary" but I don't trust those. I'd much prefer to see the raw data and read the actual report. Maybe they don't trust us with that because they'd rather we hear the sensationalised version?
You're right, Mr. President. The world's scientists have gotten together and made up global warming so that Toyota can sell us hybrid cars.
That's a very reasonable and well-balanced conclusion. I trust your judgement. I hereby concede defeat: the scientists of the world have defrauded us all in order to sell cars for Toyota! It's "the greatest scam in history"!
Now all we have to do is to get the scientists to cool the planet back down, bring the glaciers back, stop the hurricanes, lower the sea levels, stop melting the polar ice-caps, and make it rain where they've started all these droughts. Those jerks. Anybody who would knowingly do those things to the planet should be locked up for the rest of their life. Don't you agree?
Anonymous, you continue to miss both mine and Mr. President's point: not all of the worlds scientist agree with the man made global warming theory. There are many policy makers out there who simply want to use the topic to pass laws that they want. Those individuals don't care about the environment.
Not all scientists agree that the world is less than 10,000 years. Does that mean we just can't know for sure? Does that mean we're only talking about "consensus" and therefore that the science isn't settled? Does that mean that one theory carries the same weight as the other?
This is the proof that shows you are a fraud: you can't name one specific experiment or event that would convince you that human caused climate change is real. You don't have a *high* standard of proof; you have an *impossible* one. Just like the people who can't be convinced *by any evidence* that the earth is older than 10,000 years.
You assume too much. The world's scientists all agreeing before we label something "fact" or say there's "consensus" would definitely convince me. That's the only standard of proof I require. A fair one I think.
All I say is don't claim consensus if there isn't one. Don't claim something is fact is if it is still a theory. You yourself labelled it a theory.
Yet again you've missed the point we've both made. Neither Andy nor I have claimed our theory is more valid, or even equally valid.
All we have persisted in is insisting that both sides are still theories. You yourself cannot deny that, can you? If we have two theories, neither proved or disproved, then to say "the debate is over" is infantile.
I put it to you that if the world's scientists themselves, professionals in this field, cannot all be convinced by the evidence who are we to question their wisdom?
You're so quick to go on about how much smarter these guys are than us, how we shouldn't question the scientists. Why is it, then, that you question the scientists who disagree with you?
Mr. President wrote: "The world's scientists all agreeing... would definitely convince me."
Does that mean that if one Ph.D. (from any scientific field?) disagrees with every major scientific association in the world then you're still not convinced? State clearly what would convince you. Or admit that you won't be convinced by anything.
I'd challenge you to take a more in-depth look at the deniers' claims, because they're all over the map (e.g. the earth is cooling, the earth is warming too much so there's nothing we can do, it's the sun, it's a natural cycle, warming is good, carbon is good, etc.): the only thing they have in common is an avoidance of responsibility, something that fossil fuel companies and Republicans seem to like these days.
But I do want to say that if you are indeed seriously working to reduce your CO2 footprint, as you claim above, "just to be safe," then, while I'd still question your scientific judgement, I'd applaud your ethical wisdom and sense of responsibility, and suggest that we really don't have much of a quarrel here. We're both working to keep the world "safe"--I'm working with the world's scientific community and you're not, even as you take their cautions seriously. That's ok with me.
For those of you worrying, like Mr. President, that fighting global warming will create "more problems such as an economic depression worse than 1929," these major corporations want you to stop worrying and start passing regulations against CO2 emissions. Because, just like in health care: preventing cancer, or catching it early, is a lot cheaper than getting full-blown malignant cancer all through your body. Smart business leaders know that it's time to prevent the worst problems. Waiting for worse problems will only cost more money and make life worse for all of us.
There's an element of that but it's not the whole story, to think it is would be naive. At least part of the thinking is that even if man-made Global Warming is not proven, most of their customers believe it to be.
If they're at least SEEN (and I do emphasise seen...I wonder how many of those same companies will lobby for/try to find loopholes) to be addressing the problem those customers will continue to buy their products.
Back to your question and yes, if even one PhD disagrees (and we both know there are more than one) then you cannot state that "all the world's scientists agree". You still miss the point we've been making.
Even if Andy and I actually both agreed with you that global warming was entirely man-made, it wouldn't change a thing. Our issue is not with whether global warming is man-made, but rather with those claiming a consensus that does not exist.
They say the case is proven, that the evidence only points one way, when that is simply not true. There is equal evidence pointing towards other theories. Nor should it matter that not all "deniers" as you label them agree. In fact it's a good thing.
What we've both been trying to say is that the man-made theory is one amongst many. The fact that there are many theories suggesting Global Warming is not man-made actually strengthens the case that it's not.
You list 6 potential "denier" theories. The man-made theory makes a total of 7. What are the odds that all 6 of those are wrong, versus the odds that your one is?
Also you mention one "theory" that has actually BEEN proven. Global Warming IS a natural cycle. Even the scientists proposing the man-made theory have to concede this, because it's actually 100% conclusively proven.
We have proof it has happened before, more than once. Climate change is not a uniquely man-made problem. At worst we are simply contributing to it (and both Andy and I have said we agree that we probably are) at best it's entirely a natural cycle.
By contrast there is 0% chance of it being 100% man-made. So either you're wrong or you have to concede that at least part of the man-made global warming theory has holes.
The truth of the matter is that the Earth moves through natural cooling and warming cycles. It is also true that since the late 1800's, the news media has moved through alternating cycles of predicting a rapid cooling of the Earth to a rapid warming. In my short lifetime, I have seen major news companies report on both Global Warming and the coming Ice Age. I rank the "consensus" of Global Warming in the same category as the "Consensus" behind eugenics.
I believe we have a responsibility to protect the environment. However, I don't believe in handing the environmental and energy policies of the United States over to the United Nations. I also don't believe in population control the way many of the global warming advocates do. I also don't believe anyone can reverse the current warming trend even if we wanted to.
So, by Mr. President's logic, because these 188 colleges have faculty that teach Biblical Creation Science, we simply can't prove that the earth is more than 10,000 years old. It's all just theory on every side.
Second, part of being a respectable dialog partner is being able to understand your opponents' argument. Mr. President and Andy keep *arguing* that global warming is a natural cycle, as if that is disputed or proves that it is not now mostly anthropogenic. There is *not one* respectable climate scientist who would dispute that global warming (and cooling) is a pre-human phenomenon. So please, out of intellectual self-respect, stop using it as an argument against current anthropogenic warming. Just because oil is a naturally occurring liquid doesn't mean that we wonder if the Exxon Valdez was a "natural" or "anthropogenic" disaster.
And Andy might do himself a favor and look into why both cooling and warming projections have been tossed around over the last 100 years. Hint: one has to do with particulate matter pollution, the other has to do with CO2 pollution.
And here's the thing Andy said that I hope people will be ashamed to say someday: "I also don't believe anyone can reverse the current warming trend even if we wanted to." Andy doesn't even know what's causing it, but he's sure we can't fix it. Thanks, Andy, for giving up before you can even understand the problem.
You keep twisting what I'm saying. How does that fit in with being a "respectable dialog partner"? Spin is often used by beaten men.
What my logic would mean in the context of Creation Science is that the presence of any academic research into Biblical Creationism means there is no consensus.
It's hardly a groundbreaking revelation, simply a common sense statement of fact.
Where, I suspect, your confusion is coming from is that you're muddling up two distinct statements I've made. First, that there is no consensus. This is a fact. Second that there's equal evidence weighing in on both sides.
To extend that logic to Biblical Creationism, the evidence on both sides of that debate is by no means equal. Evolution has far more evidence supporting it than anthropogenic warming does. Therein lies the key.
You rightly state that being a respectable dialog partner requires understanding the opposing arguments. I respectfully suggest you're still not understanding ours.
Neither of us said that it being a natural cycle precludes a man-made element. We made two separate but equally important points.
First that there is no consensus amongst scientists and we're both sick of being told that there is. This can't be argued with.
Second that the cycle is natural and the exact amount we as humans are contributing is still open to debate. You state that no respectable climate scientist claims that global warming is a pre-human condition. This is true.
I've equally yet to see one respectable climate scientist produce solid figures that places our contribution as conclusively being higher than 5 to 10%. That's not "mostly anthropogenic".
OK, let's all see if we understand Mr. President:
I think he's arguing: because there is ongoing scientific research into the theories of Biblical Creation, therefore there is no scientific consensus about how the world was created.
OK kids, do you think your college science prof will agree that--because of these guys
--there's no scientific consensus on how the Grand Canyon was formed? (Some "creation scientists" argue that it was Noah's flood waters carving the place out just a few thousand years ago.)
If what Mr. President and Andy are waiting for is for the last "creation scientist" or Exxon-funded climate denier to die off in order, finally, to reach scientific consensus, then they will be waiting a long time for a meaningless outcome.
Second, Mr. President appears to say that the scientific evidence for and against anthropogenic climate change is "equal" on either side. That's just nonsense. By any scientific measure at all (journal articles, field evidence, direct measurements of CO2, scientific reports, etc. etc.) the evidence for anthropogenic warming is overwhelming. Even most deniers have to admit this now.
Mr. President: I've equally yet to see one respectable climate scientist produce solid figures that places our contribution as conclusively being higher than 5 to 10%. That's not "mostly anthropogenic" FACT CHECK: Pre-industrial CO2 levels were between 260-290 ppm. We are now around 381 ppm. That's a 31% - 47 % increase, with something close to 100% of that increase being attributed to human activity--it's not that hard to measure: the carbon used to be underground and in our forests. Now we've burned it and put it in the air, where (surprise!) scientists can measure it.
Unfortunately, I have little hope that obvious evidence will get Andy, Mr. President, or, say, Larry Craig past their denial. Even when the evidence just keeps piling on.
Mr. President and I don’t form our opinions based on who is or isn’t alive. You ask what we are waiting on to say we accept global warming as fact? It is simple, we are waiting on the scientific process to work itself out.
A good example might be on creationism vs. evolution. Both have very strong supporters. I would hazard a guess that many scientists believe evolution is correct. However, it is still the theory of evolution. There isn’t enough evidence yet for it to be labeled as fact. And I am sorry that I have to burst your bubble, but journal articles don’t count as evidence. Evolution is still a theory because scientists admit they don’t know the entire picture. Some new evidence could arrive on the scene to change that theory.
I would like for you to explain how someone can look at the news reporting of the Earth’s climate over the last 100 plus years and not admit that man might not be as smart as you seem to think he is. And why is it that the 1930’s rival any recent years for the hottest years on record? Surely we weren’t producing the same amount of pollutants during the 1920’s and 1930’s as we are now. And if the overall global climate cooled and warmed back up, what magic thing did we do in the 1940’s do change the climate?
Andy, ask your question again while looking at this.
Dear oh dear Anon. You keep running around in circles. Your little "fact check" actually does not prove a thing. I asked for conclusive (key word) evidence of our contribution.
What's your response? To show that C02 levels have gone up since pre-industrial levels. Does this conclusively prove that the rise is mostly man-made? Nope, just that there's been a rise in C02 levels caused by something.
Nobody is denying that. It would pretty stupid to do so. No, it's not a surprise that scientists can measure C02 levels. What they cannot be sure of is what's causing it.
Where we have an issue is the giant leap you make. "If the C02 levels have gone up clearly it's because we've been burning carbon fuels."
Yet the evidence is entirely inconclusive as to the cause of this rise. One of the few things we are certain of is a link between population and climate. Humans breathe out C02.
Since the industrial revolution took place the world's population has gone up from under 2 billion to over 6. Could this be a cause?
Of course it could. No, I'm not saying it is THE cause, I am saying it could be. The arrogance of those who refuse to accept the cause may not be fossil fuels reminds me of those who claimed the Earth was definitely flat.
That's just one of many scientific theories later debunked. The idea the atom was the smallest particle, for example, or that light only travelled as a wave. Science evolves.
At least good science does. This new breed of climate science is the arrogant new kid on the block that thinks it has all the answers.
Socrates once remarked "I am the wisest man alive, for I know one thing, and that is that I know nothing." Shakespeare commented "The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool."
Consider those words as you cling to your man-made science that's incapable of flaws.
Prez. If fossil fuel combustion releases X amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and then atmospheric levels go up by X amount, where's the mystery in all this?
If I put 15 gallons of gas in my empty gas tank and watch the indicator move to 15 gallons, I am not being Socratic if I think my gas tank is now maybe, mysteriously, full of chocolate milk. Or if I think that the gas didn't come from the pump but from the Santa.
Where do you think the CO2 is going when we burn it? Why do you think the atmospheric levels go up at the same levels at which we burn the stuff? Why were CO2 levels relatively stable over the past 600,000 years until the Industrial Revolution?
If you think CO2 levels could be fueled by more humans breathing, I invite you to do the math: see how much CO2 levels have increased and see if your and my hot air could make that happen. Or run it by any science prof, statistician, junior high science teacher. How do I know that you won't do this?
Socrates was skeptical, but he also could spot an argument from ignorance a mile away. Look that up. That's what you're using.
If you are going to say that a change in atmospheric levels of CO2 from 290 to 380 ppm is catastrophic, then you can't stay that our Earth's atmosphere has been relatively stable over the last 600,000 years. I believe I have seen studies associating higher levels of CO2 than at present with that time period. Let's also not forget what ppm stands for...parts per million.
Anon that's just it. We see C02 levels rise by X amount but fossil fuel combustion burns Y. Yet you insist it's fossil fuel causing the rise by X, even though X is far greater than Y.
Atmospheric levels have NOT gone up by the same levels that we've been burning them. IF they had the argument would be over and I'd agree with you.
C02 levels were not stable prior to the Industrial Revolution at all. I challenge you to show me one report that can CONCLUSIVELY show figures of what the C02 levels were from the the time the planet was formed to the Industrial Revolution.
You can't. All we have is figures "since records were kept". Here's a thought for you, the year we first kept records every single one of them was a record level. That's why they were called records.
I don't need to run the theory that C02 levels could be fuelled by more humans breathing by anyone. No, not because I'm arrogant, but because I have ALREADY read an academic journal which states that it could.
Oh wait, any scientific journal article that states global warming could be caused by anything but fossil fuels is clearly wrong, right? How dare scientists use things like figures and statistics that we know (like population, and how much C02 the average human breathes etc) to produce a theory!
One thing you're right about is Socrates could spot an argument from ignorance. Where you're wrong is which one of us is making it.
Where you insist that only one scientific theory can be correct, despite the history of science constantly re-thinking old theories I have simply said there are other possibilities that cannot be disproved at present.
The day I see evidence that disproves all alternative theories is the day I'll agree that fossil fuels are the real problem. Until then I'll look at the fact (yes, it's a fact) that the world is overpopulated. This is a real proven danger facing our planet.
Andy, I submitted a comment that showed that both you and the prez were wrong in your factual claims. What happened?
I rejected it because you called us both liars. I specifically said in my response that I thought I had seen an article stating that levels had been higher. If you want to resubmit it without the name calling, I will post it.
Nope. Didn't call you a liar. I used the same phrasing you did: "I believe..."
And I wrote that the prez was either lying or just plain wrong about that supposed "scientific journal article."
Both of those statements are factual claims. One speaks to my belief about your assertion (which I backed up with a scientific link). The other speaks to a challenge I issued to the prez in which he had a chance to prove me wrong.
You're both welcome to show that I'm wrong (on the 600,000 year question, and the "scientific journal" that the prez read). Why not publish my post and let your readers decide? I welcome the challenge.
In any case, questions of truth-telling are front-and-center in the climate crisis, and I don't think we should shrink from the question of whether or not someone is telling the truth.
Mr Prez, on your site, writes: "I have long said what Dr Gray is saying about the lies we're told by the scientific community, and the motivations behind them."
Though I disagree with his conclusions, I'm glad Mr. Prez was able to make that claim on your site. It's interesting that you decided to censor my remarks, which were more nuanced than those of Mr. Prez. The difference seems to be that I'm on the side of those scientific "liars." It must be ok to call scientists liars... just don't suggest that it's a possibility for right-wing bloggers.
I censored your post because you point blank said I was lying, and accused Mr. President of lying. This is simply not in line with my policies on this site. I have been very upfront all along. If you insult people posting on this site, I will not post the comment. In the example you site, Mr. President is calling someone who is not likely to read this blog a liar. If you wish to call Rush, or President Bush, or anyone else that doesn't read this blog a liar as a way to prove your point, I won't censor that. However, if you insult me or my readers, or if someone was to insult you, I would censor it and not allow it.
My entire point for this blog is to get people who might be intimidated by other political sites to talk on this one. Many other political forums reduce themselves to petty name calling and I won't allow this one to do that.
Andy, I appreciate your desire to keep things civil and to welcome voices that might be intimidated or turned off elsewhere.
I hope that desire not to offend won't keep people from being honest or accountable to reality.
In the spirit of honesty:
I'd love to see you cite the scientific study you mentioned about CO2 levels being higher than current levels within the past 600,000 years. If you can't locate such a study, it'd be nice to read an apology.
I'd love to see Mr. President cite the "academic journal article" he mentioned that said that human breath could be responsible for the current rise in CO2. If he can't locate such a study, it'd be nice to read an apology.
A partial list of prominent man made global warming supporters who now doubt man made global warming:
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government,
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada,
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife,
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z.,
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences,
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw,
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa,
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa
Anonymous you have stated article after article of the "truth." Andy and others have stated article after article with different "truths." We seem to be going around and around and around.
I ask both of you, what is the solution to the problem that both of you, to varying degrees, agree that we have?
Pack, thanks for the prod to talk solutions. I'm all for it. Though I also am going to keep looking for the "scientific journal articles" (higher CO2 levels in the past 600,000 years--from Andy; and human breath as possible cause of current CO2 rise--from the prez). I can't believe they'd just make that up, can you? I'm sure they'll show the citation...
But back to Pack04's question:
This is the problem: we are evaporating millions of years of fossilized carbon into the air.
This is the solution: we need to stop taking carbon out of the earth and putting it into the air. And we need to accelerate the process of getting carbon back in the earth.
This is how we do it: there is no single strategy to solve this big problem, but one important part is to eliminate the employment tax and instead tax carbon before it taxes all of us. And trees eat carbon and put it back in the earth. So preserve parks, forests, and wildlands for their beauty, enjoyment, wildlife, and because they save the atmosphere. Here are a lot more solutions. We need some serious and bold solutions and actions, but every bit helps.
As an example, though it has been repeated many times, a huge part of the solution sounds like a joke: how many of us does it take to change our light bulbs? Incandescent bulbs use 90% of their energy to produce heat. Following the lead of Australia, Ireland, and a Canadian province or two, we could all simply ban the incandescent light bulb and replace them with CFLs and LEDs. We could immediately close hundreds--yes, hundreds--of coal fired power plants. That's one huge step from changing a light bulb. I did this to all of the bulbs in my house and my electric bill went down by 30%. After we change our lightbulbs, think about what we could all do with a little effort.
Again Anon, you believe I just make stuff up. Read what I said: I believe I have seen studies associating higher levels of CO2 than at present with that time period. I was very careful to preface that statement with the “I believe” qualifier. I was going off of memory.
As it turns out, the article I was thinking of was discussing time periods that pre-date man. One such article is from the Houston Chronicle. When discussing CO2 levels millions of years ago (during previous ice ages) a team of scientist and researchers calculated the CO2 levels. They believed the levels swung back and forth between 250 ppm and 2,000 ppm. Of course, this was before the invention of the SUV, so I am going to guess it isn’t relevant to our discussion.
I found another article that I thought you might be interested in. In this one, Dr. Timothy Patterson of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University says:
Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3 C warmer than now. Then thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long “Younger Dryas” cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 C in a decade – 100 times faster than the past century’s 0.6 C warming that has so upset environmentalist.
Now I am confused. If CO2 is the driving force behind higher global temperatures, and both Anonymous and I agree that it appears there have been no higher CO2 concentrations in our atmosphere in the last 600,000 years, then how was it 3 degrees hotter a mere 6,000 years ago? And how did the climate increase its warming as much as 6 C in a decade??
Saint,
Nice article. Sorry Anonymous wouldn’t respond to it.
Pack,
I agree that there is global warming occurring, I simply don’t agree that it is being driven by man. If man isn’t driving climate change, what can man do to change it? And should man change it? What if the Earth is getting warmer because it is trying to reach a more optimal temperature?
On a more general note, I do believe we should be good stewards of the planet. I believe there should be laws in place to protect the environment. I believe the U.S. has the vast majority of laws it needs already in place. If individuals such as Anonymous want to swap out the light bulbs in their house, I say great. I only get upset when those same individuals want to force me to do it.
I just want everyone to keep something in mind when we close hundreds of coal power plants at once: that's thousands of families that just lost a pay check.
Andy, I'm happy to discuss anything about climate change you'd like me to address but let's not start a new topic before finishing the previous one.
Disputing my claim that CO2 levels are far higher now than at any time in the past 600,000 years, Andy wrote: ...last 600,000 years. I believe I have seen studies associating higher levels of CO2 than at present with that time period.
I challenged him to cite that study or apologize.
He has done neither. There's no sense in discussing things if one party refuses to learn or admit they were wrong.
Good point Saint: I'm still really mad that my ancestors lost their jobs as pony express riders and telegraph operators!
Seriously, ever talk to a coal miner? If you could give them a good-paying job building windmills, bicycles, or solar panels, what do you think they'd choose?
Anonymous, did you not read my last post? I told you I believed I had seen something. I went back and looked at the article I was thinking of, and the time period was off. So I was wrong when I thought I had seen something that had CO2 levels that were different.
When you use that as an excuse to not debate an issue, your not really being honest with the issue at hand.
Andy: Thanks for simply writing that you were wrong.
So now we can be clear about the scientific record: CO2 levels have not been nearly as high as they are now during any time in the past 600,000 years. That's more than three times as long as humans have been around.
The next piece is this: as soon as humans started taking carbon out of the ground and releasing it into the air in large quantities, the atmospheric CO2 levels went up accordingly. The prez has promised us a scientific journal article that suggests human breath rather than fossil fuels are to blame. We're still waiting for that. But is there anyone else who thinks that this spike in CO2 levels--unprecedented through 600,000 years--is due to anything other than humans taking millions of years worth of stored carbon and putting it in the atmosphere? If so, please show your work.
But if man's CO2 usage is driving the climate, how do you explain the higher temperatures within that 600,000 years that don't correlate to higher CO2 levels?
Andy would apparently be puzzled by this deep paradox:
"If beans give us gas, how can we flatulate when we have not eaten any beans?"
I.e. "If CO2 causes temperatures to rise, how could temperatures rise without CO2?"
That question relies on the logical fallacy called "composition": a given thing (e.g. flatulence, or temperature rise) must be caused by one identified cause (e.g. beans, or CO2). This of course fallaciously excludes other causes.
Many different factors cause earth's temperature to rise or fall (albido, orbit, particulate matter, CO2, methane, water vapor, etc).
We can expect that the deniers will now say, "Aha! So how can you say that climate change is caused by CO2?" Of course, that's why scientists are sounding the alarm: because CO2 levels are astronomically high, still rising, and are the only variable in the equation that are pegged to the current rise in temperature.
And please: if somebody is now going to blame the current temperature rise on something other than CO2, please cite your scientific sources.
BTW: still waiting for Mr. President's "scientific journal article" on human breath being the possible cause of current CO2 rise. He's been silent since I asked to see the citation.
I don't doubt coal miners would take other jobs. If you figure 100 plants closed, and assume 100 employees, that's 10,000 new entrants into the unemployment market. That's 10,000 new jobs that need to be created just to keep the economy where it is now. That's a lot of bicycles and windmills. And this is just to tackle the negative environmental impact from light bulbs.
For those who say the financial impact of various international treaties can be overcome, how do you overcome what I outlined above?
Saint: the economics of getting out of the coal business are smart all-around.
First, coal-fired climate change will break the bank.
Second, coal emissions kill people and cost health care dollars.
Third, wind and solar create more and better jobs.
Finally, my ancestors burned stinky, dusty, and unhealthy coal to heat their drafty houses. They didn't like it. Even if, somehow, it would have saved some jobs, should we really have stuck with that system?
BTW: still waiting to see Mr. President's citation of his "scientific journal" that says that human breath could be causing the current rise in CO2.
But your argument isn't exactly as you lay it out. CO2 is not the only variable that has changed over the last 100 years. And if it is, your argument is even more suspect because our temperature hasn't increased at the same rate as CO 2, or even continually increased over the last 100 years.
One thing you and I both appear to agree on: there are many variables that contribute to how our climate and our temperature change. My argument is that man hasn't figured out how to account for them, and that the global warming alarmists haven't proven to within a reasonable doubt that the current temperature increase is solely due to man.
Andy, you are using the same fallacious reasoning as before:
You're arguing that b/c temperature has varied without being in lockstep with CO2, therefore we can't know that CO2 is causing the warming.
That's ridiculous.
The same reasoning would say that because your automobile mpg varies based on a number of factors, therefore you can't determine if driving up and down mountains is more or less effecient than driving on smooth, level ground.
Your reasoning here is simply a variation on the "composition" fallacy I pointed out above.
And, again, if you want to claim that something other than CO2 is causing the uncontesable warming going on now, please cite your scientific sources.
Still waiting for the citiation from Mr. Prez...
Anon - the problem with your example is that you acknowledge multiple variables, but then only change one in your examples.
For example: I'm know the gas mileage in my car. Now, I change sparkplugs, put in cheaper gas, bigger tires, and drive it up the mountain in 2nd gear. What caused my mileage to go down?
To me, the answer is all of the above, but to what extent for each factor? I don't know that anyone has said CO2 doesn't effect the climate, just how much? Can you really rule out all variables other than man?
Saint, I don't want to sound insulting about this. But you must not have been following the scientists for, say, the last twenty years. What they've been doing is isolating the variables--seeing what the current temperature increases correlate to. And it's CO2 and other GHG emissions. So to your question: yes, for the current warming, scientists have ruled out non-anthropogenic causes.
And in one sense, it's very much like your example. No matter what other variables are involved, if you drive your car with no air in the tires (on hilly or flat terrain or through water or whatever in whatever gear) you'll get bad gas mileage.
The same is true with CO2: no matter what happens with the other variables, more CO2 traps more heat. And, as we already agreed above, there is more CO2 in the atmosphere now than at any time in human history and for at least 400,000 years before that. And the rate of increase is itself increasing every year.
Still waiting for Mr. Prez to show us the "scientific journal article" about how human breath could be driving the current warming... but I'm not, ahem, holding my breath while I wait.
Post a Comment