Global Warming: One of us is Crazy
By romney08 Comments (31) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Al Gore won an Oscar for his documentary about global warming, which I believe was titled ‘Chicken Little’. I remember talking to my friend Dumpster on Oscar night, remarking to him incredulously that, “the scary thing is, I think there may be some people who actually believe in man-made global warming”.
Then I thought about it, and realized that the entire scientific community, the media, almost all of academia, anyone I respect, and gosh, the majority of the world believe in man-made global warming.
I, on the other hand, am more concerned about computers in the Soviet Union locking up for Y3K and then launching nuclear missiles at the moon, causing it to explode and then effect ocean waves or something, than I am that the temperature of the globe might increase. It is not that the thought of a tidal wave crashing through Virginia on its way to Mile High Stadium in Denver doesn’t scare me; it is that I simply do not believe that the world is significantly warming, or more specifically, that humans can possibly have any effect on the climate.
The law of non-contradictions taught me that both perspectives can’t be right. This isn’t an issue where Al Gore and myself simply have a different perspective. It isn’t something that I cordially look at in a different light than Leonardo DiCaprio. Global Warming is not both a hilarious hobby for washed-up politicians coupled with self-righteous actors bored with protesting the war and the end of humanity at the same time.
Because of the gravity of this issue, one side is not just wrong, but actually crazy. That’s right. If carbon emissions and human industrial activity is causing the globe to ride off into the sunset of entropy then I am insane to disregard it and not support the immediate ratification of Kyoto. It the world merely goes through natural warming and cooling patterns and is not susceptible to human influence to change the climate, then the idea of massacring our economy in a pathetic attempt for applause and legitimization is absolutely mad.
So which is it? First, in order to understand the context of this debate and why so many conservatives are skeptical of the concept of man-made global warming, let’s look at the consequences of agreeing to the demands of environmentalists and “The Goracle”.
Assuming that the Kyoto treaty is the golden standard for how to save the planet from Grandpa Henry’s SUV and my use of Styrofoam cups, let’s look at what would happen if the U.S. were to ratify this treaty. Also keep in mind, the U.S Senate voted 95-0 against ratifying Kyoto back in 1998. Not one of our good friends amongst the world’s greatest deliberative body, including John Kerry, Father John Edwards, Teddy K., or Barbara Boxer thought that Kyoto was a good idea. Why could this be?
According to Professor Patrick Michaels of the University of Virginia (http://www.cato.org/pubs/p
as/pa-307.html) enforcing Kyoto would decrease the GDP of the United States by 2.3 percent a year for the next 50 years. Sounds insignificant? 2.3 percent of Dow would be a stock market drop of about 250 points. Not the end of the world, but 2.3 percent a year adds up over 50 years. That’s a lot of wealth, a lot of jobs, a lot of innovation, and a lot of occupations for the poor urchins that Father John Edwards cares for in his mansion.
A small price to save the world you say? Speaking of insignificance, the estimated temperature decrease over the 50 years would be .19 degrees Celsius. Break out the hats, gloves and sleds dear children. Let me convert that number from the communist system over to the American system: it’s not going to be 57 Fahrenheit degrees Fahrenheit on April 15th in 2057. If we simply devastate our economy, we can instead make it 57 degrees! (convenient rounding included) Brrrrrrrrr!
As Mark Steyn put it so eloquently, “You could take every dime spent by every government and NGO and eco-group to investigate "climate change" and spend it on Internet porn instead, and it wouldn't make the slightest difference to what the climate will be in 2050.”
Here are questions for Global Warming skeptics to ask “The Goracle” and his friends before you agree that “The Day After Tomorrow” is really today. Each question must be answered before the following one in order for their to be any semblance of credibility to the cries to ban trucks and gasoline.
1. Can you show me scientific evidence that the globe is significantly warming?
2. Can you show me scientific evidence that this warming is more detrimental than beneficial?
3. Can you show me scientific evidence that this detrimental warming will not reverse itself naturally over time?
4. Can you show me scientific evidence that this detrimental warming is being caused by human activity?
5. Can you show me scientific evidence that this detrimental warming that is being caused by human activity is even reversible?
6. Can you show me scientific evidence that reversing this human-caused detrimental warming is not more harmful and expensive than the effects of the warming itself?
Feel free to add your own questions. Can anyone tell me the average temperature of the earth in 1750? How about 1500? Perhaps 2000 BC? Is the globe truly warming?
At the risk of sounding like a naive conservative imbecile who thinks science is just something silly that the “Librullllzz” believe in, until someone can answer all those questions, I stand by my assumption that ratifying the Kyoto treaty, electing Al Gore as president, and changing our way of life because of a politically based "science" would be unwise.
>>>>very few people on either side of the argument now believe that, "the Kyoto treaty is the golden standard for how to save the planet".
True, if you define the vast majority of European countries as very few. China and India like Kyoto as well.
Perhaps I missed your point here. You could be admitting that Kyoto was an economic rather than an environmental treaty. It was, in essence, a form of alliance against the US economy. Perhaps The Continental System, with an eye-catching coat of Greenwash.
>>>>>clearly there is scientific evidence enough to convince what you yourself have described as "the entire scientific community".
Having the Governors of Delaware and Oregon fire their state climatologists for not buying into the Global Warming fad does not constitute overwhelming scientific evidence. Once Gallileo got the gag stuffed in his mouth, the entire scientific community agreed with The Pope as well.
Kyoto Now! (Because only pollution from the US hurts the planet)
>clearly there is scientific evidence enough to convince what >you yourself have described as "the entire scientific community"
It is logically fallacious to say that something is true just because a lot of people believe it.
It is also fallacious to say something is true because authority X says it's true if that person is biased. In this case we know that there is political pressure to not contradict the PC line on global warming, we know that colleges and most professors are liberals who tend to want to believe in global warming, and scientists who go against the conventional wisdom know they may face ridicule and scorn from their colleagues. So the appeal to authority 'most scientists believe it' is not a good argument. And actual evidence is always better than an appeal to authority anyway.
If the evidence happens to be too complicated for a layman, then I suppose you may be forced to give more weight to scientific consensus, but it should still be taken with a grain of salt. However, in the case of global warming I see no reason to believe the evidence is too complicated for most people to understand.
to be making fun of myself. I understand, and am glad there is not a consensus. Look also at the K. Sloan professor at MIT, he's a pretty vocal skeptic on this issue.
I've often wondered if I wanted to create a panic on "global warming" out of whole cloth, as in were I to make it up, fiction as reality, for whatever reason or no reason at all, would I go about it any differently that it's been done by AlGore and Co?
And the answer I almost always come up with is, no.
I mean, you have government-funded scientists, many of whom share the ideological predisposition of the proponents of AGW producing computer simultaions that cannot be validated or verified modeling phenomena of which we seem to possess only a most elementary understanding feeding policy-makers predictions of doom-and-gloom that could more easily be explained by uncontrollable events (a slight wobble in our axial rotation or orbit, modest change in the sun's output, cyclic temperature fluctuations, etc.) - with the usual prescriptions that what we need are more taxes (carbon taxes) and more socialism (rationing, carbon credits, etc.). All the while critics are routinely dismissed as in the pockets of BigOil™ or heretics who just "don't get it" and any data arguing against said gloom-and-doom is either dismissed or simply ignored.
Were I to make it up, why would I think to do it any differently?
-------------
So libs, how's that Congressional Resolution to end The War™ coming along?
far less productive and important to our society than cosmetologists), can tell me with 80 accuracy that it will rain 3 days from now, they get to become scientists rather than sideshow fortune tellers.
Global warming is either caused by natural changes in the universe or by grants. Take your pick.
Envisioning when all that is Left is the Right.
the answers to all your questions are being readdressed by the IPCC this year, I'd suggest reading the reports as they come out.
Changing your opinion about Kyoto or Al Gore is irrelevant, looking to the future, people's lives will change whether or not something is done. The IPCC report will show that doing nothing will cause more change than doing something.
Political reports written by politicians in the pay of other politicians that are members of an international body that is only consistent in its failure to accomplish anything but complain about how powerful and rich America is.
We should definitely listen to the IPCC.
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
Let's just say that the IPCC reports are really written by politicians - the 2000+ author scientists would be surprised to hear that one - are you suggesting that they change the science from what is reported in the scientific literature? Please show me an example where that is the case. It's easy to throw random accusations around - how about some proof.
...that doing nothing will cause less change than the previous IPCC report said it would. I like the trend.
referring to myth number #1 at IPCCfacts.org? If so, Congratulations! You are the first (but I'm almost certain not the last) winner of the skeptic who doesn't actually read IPCC reports award! You might check out the other two myths while you are there, lest ye be tempted to use them.
Under water yet ? It was supposed to be 7 years ago.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
...Herr Doktor Rahmstorf's prediction five years from now. You're right, pjshifty, I'm just a science-skimming skeptic, but I wager that Rahmstorf will be trimming his sails, if not changing tack, on that 55" higher sea level(by 2100) he predicts.
You warmists needn't get so defensive when the IPCC adjusts predictions downwards. That may actually enhance the credibility of the IPCC and blow away the whiff of lockstep inflexibility tha emanates from any UN project. However, I have heard that the actual IPCC report(s) are going to be adjusted to fit the summary. Is that as bad as it sounds, or is that a myth too?
IPCCFacts.org's rebuttal to the "Problem with Peer Review" *myth* reads like something out of Pravda, or at least how I imagine it, since I never have read Pravda either.
Remember, Komrades:
"Climatologists who disagree with consensus views have little to fear from the peer-review process as long as that research conforms to scientific standards."
we'll see who is quoting Rahmstorf and who is not - maybe not the IPCC.
But let's get back to the IPCC. In the last IPCC TAR, for the B2 emissions scenario the predicted range SSL rise by 2100 was 0.08-0.6m. In the current report they are 0.2-0.43 m. The midpoints of those ranges remains relatively unchanged, but the uncertainty in the estimate is less.
How about looking at the minimum value - that increased over 100%! - does that mean that the IPCC made a major upward adjustment? Read the reports - it's all there.
The peer review argument is a red herring. The potential for abuse is there, but there are checks and balances. Besides if someone had a better theory AND the data to back it up they would be elevated to hero status by now considering the field has been around for 30 years. Scientists crave proving each other wrong. As more data has been gathered, it has only strengthened the original theory.
No one is really concerned about exact temperatures only the differences. The assumption is that any error in measuring the current temperature will be present in the measurements for a previous temperature and will cancel out. (A claim I find rather suspicious).
there's no doubt. The single most convincing evidence that suggests this to me is borehole data because it's not a proxy rather its a direct measurement of long term temperature trends. Here's a link that may help you...
http://www.geo.lsa.umich.edu/climate/core.html
Also known as Ice core data happens to also show that the world has warmed and cooled several times throughout history.
Other drilling data also tells us that the megnetic poles of the Earth have swithced in times past and suggest that they may be switching again. Coincidence, maybe?
There are those who look on Dresden and Tokyo and Hiroshima as some of the greatest evils ever perpetrated by man. I look on them and thank the perpetrators for saving millions.
Borehole measurements are direct temperature measurements in holes that have only been made in the last 100 years. Whereas ice core measurements usually infer the temp (because ice is always 0 deg. C) from oxygen isotope concentrations and can therefore can be used to create a record much further back, albeit less accurately.
Yes, temps have changed in the past caused by natural events - which of those natural events is responsible for current warming? How does magnetic pole switching cause warming?
Except the current temperature of ground at depth.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Once fixed for the local geothermal gradient (which presumably hasn't changed over the Holocene) the shape of the near surface (length scale depends on the time scale of average temp) thermal profile is directly controlled by the long term trend of the upper boundary condition. You can test this by modeling the profile using Fourier's Law (with a thermal conductivity of 1.7 mm^2/sec) and then change the upper boundary condition (typical geotherm gradients are ~.025 degree C/m. This is only robust, however, for areas with permafrost or arid regions, where ignoring heat transfer from groundwater advection is validated.
If conditions at the site have been stable for over 10000 years. That the condition of the surface transferring heat to the ground have been consistent, you can measure the ground temp maybe with questionable results.
Of course we are talking about air temperature in the current debate so its not the same thing.
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=10.1175%2F1087-3562(2003)007%3C0001%3AICCFUT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
______________________________
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Contrary to what the media and and the Goregonites tell you, the consensus about global warming exists in the political arena only.... not the scientific one. Saying repeatedly that there is no longer any argument about the issue doesn't make it so.
Many climatologists still argue that the Earth is not really even warming, much less that man is causing it. A full third of the measuring stations went off line about 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. Guess what. They were the ones that contributed the "cold" temperatures to the Earth's averages. Isn't it interesting that the Southern hemisphere didn't warm appreciably during the "Hottest decade on record" nineties? It all took place in the Northern hemisphere.
And you don't hear about the glaciers that are growing, or that the ice mass in Antartica is increasing, and caused more trouble for ice breakers last year than any time in recent history. And while the NY Times printed a front page story about the "lake" of melting water at the North Pole last year, their "retraction" (that it turns out to have been a long-established and well known phenomenon that occurs every few years and has for centuries) was a mere pagagraph in the'living' section (section 'f' or something) a few weeks later.
In 2005, the radical hurricane season was blamed on global warming, and the 2006 season was predicted to be the worst we have ever seen. Remember? Not a single hurricane made US landfall in '06. Where is the questioning of that little factoid?
Every argument Gore makes in AIT can be refuted, and many already have by the same folks who made them in the first place, but Gore just ignores those counter-arguments and goes on saying what furthers his agenda.
The biggest "Inconvenient truth" for Gore is that average temperatures actually have shown the start of a cooling trend since 1998. If we just hang on for a bit without doing anything TOO radical, we'll probably have the Greens reversing their positions again in short order, as they did when temperatures began a slight climbing in 1975, and the imminent and catastrophic "Ice Age" that was just around the corner in 1975 will be back on for the 21st Century.
The Earth has a well-known and long-established history of heating and cooling in various cycles, and a well-known and long established fluctuation in Green House Gasses. Unfortunately for the Greens, the Earth's average temperature has fluctuated more readily in direct accord with solar activity than with GHGs.
There are plenty of books out there on the subject. An easily understood one is "The Politically Incorrect Guide To Global Warming", in which the actual scientists (not media people and politicians) who dispute anthropogenic climate change are listed, along with their research and the debunking of pretty-much everything Gore claims.
The dispute is NOT over.
Many climatologists still argue that the Earth is not really even warming, much less that man is causing it.
Really, who?
A full third of the measuring stations went off line about 1990 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Yes and thankfully we now use satellites to measure temperature at even more locations around the world.
And you don't hear about the glaciers that are growing
Really, how many? And how many out of the total number are shrinking?
the 2006 season was predicted to be the worst we have ever seen
Right and what happened in the Pacific in 2006 (hint: they're called typhoons over there)
The Earth has a well-known and long-established history of heating and cooling in various cycles, and a well-known and long established fluctuation in Green House Gasses.
Correct - now, what natural phenomena is responsible for the current warming. Has the sun's output increased in the last 30 years? The temperature sure has.
actual scientists (not media people and politicians) who dispute anthropogenic climate change are listed
Wow, amazing...could you be more specific, I don't believe in hearsay.
I like the way you think.
I'm willing to admit that its probable that industrial activity has caused some portion of the warming (probable means I could be wrong).
But that says nothing about what the public policy should be.
The question is what is the best policy going forward.
Cost-benefit analysis is necessary for any intelligent decisions. Right now Kyoto-like policies offer tremendous costs with small, and uncertain, benefits.
It's wiser to get as rich as possible so that we can afford to deal with any negative effects of global warming, if they happen.
The global warming advocates are very serious dangers to the health and welfare of Americans, and really the whole world. The best anti-poverty and anti-disease solution is economic growth.
A global recession (or worse) caused by the US and Europe hamstringing themselves economically will cause untold suffering.
Committing economic suicide to relieve feelings of enviro-guilt is not just unwise ... it's profoundly immoral.
It's wiser to get as rich as possible so that we can afford to deal with any negative effects of global warming, if they happen.
This of course assumes that costs of solving the problem doesn't increase faster than you can make money. The longer the wait, the greater the expense. Think of it as a similar analogy to retirement savings - do a little each year and it won't kill you, but will have a big payoff in the future.
a) very few people on either side of the argument now believe that, "the Kyoto treaty is the golden standard for how to save the planet".
and b), clearly there is scientific evidence enough to convince what you yourself have described as "the entire scientific community". The demand by non-scientists that we all be able to instantly comprehend some of the most complex science ever conducted by humanity seems to me slightly ridiculous. That is why it is important for respected and knowledgeable people to condense and abridge that scientific information for the general public - whether Gore and AIT have done that is obviously a matter of opinion, but whatever side of the argument you wish to take, I would be worried if the scientific arguments were within the comprehension of a lay person such as myself.