My recent post advocated getting over Al-Goraphobia and looking at the science, not merely a polarizing political personality. Now it is time to lay out some data. The headlines give a confusing array of information. Are we really cooling? Is ice melting or expanding? It snowed the day Al Gore testified to Congress, does that mean anything?
The effect, perhaps by design, is to leave the reader thinking that nobody really knows what they are talking about. Confident only in confusion, the average American quickly moves on to “real” problems. However, as the wise author Dallas Willard states, “Descending to particulars always helps to clear the mind.”
Why, as a rational Republican, do I believe fighting global warming should be a high priority for our nation?
First, there is no doubt that global temperatures are generally warming. Recent claims that temperatures declined after 1998 are technically true, but recent years are still historically very, very hot. The graph below shows temperatures up to 2005 as it differs from the average for the entire period. The dots are the annual temperature points and the blue line is the smoothed trend-line. Every year since 2005 has been among the top 10 warmest years in thermometer recorded history. Amazingly, the entire top ten falls in the years since 1997.
As you can see, the “decline” trumpeted by some (the slight dip after 1998) is about as convincing as the recent “rise” in the stock market since its November low. Financially, we are still in a big bear market even if on some days the Dow is up 3%, and climatically we are still in a warming trend even if each and every consecutive year is not hotter than before.
Second, with solid science dating back to 1827, there is no debating that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a greenhouse gas. And thank goodness it is. The greenhouse effect, fueled primarily by CO2 and water vapor, has produced a temperature range favorable for life.
But, the greenhouse effect can get out of control. The CO2 rich atmosphere of Venus blocks most solar radiation from making it to the surface, but that energy is then trapped by the greenhouse effect. The net impact is a temperature increase of 500 degrees C. Venus is nearly three times hotter than the thinly CO2 blanketed Mercury, even though Mercury is closer to the Sun.
There are a number of cycles that naturally affect the Earth’s temperature, related to the Earth’s axis wobbling, cycles within our orbit, sun spots, etc. Yet, through these cycles a clear correlation exists between CO2 and temperature. The interrelationship is complex and it is true that temperature can in certain situations “lead” and result in releases of CO2 from the carbon “sink” of the oceans. The full impact from a variety of positive and negative feedback loops is difficult to precisely estimate, but the basic theory that more CO2 helps trigger higher temperatures is quite sound.
Third, there is no doubt that CO2 levels have been rising since the industrial revolution. It is not hard to see why: tons and tons of carbon have been transferred by combustion from a solid (coal) or liquid (oil) or underground gas (natural gas) to atmospheric CO2.
The graph below captures the correlation between CO2 and temperature well. (Note: The pre-thermometer information is largely based on ice core analysis.) The graph also highlights the reason for concern. For hundreds of thousands of years, CO2 has ranged between about 180 and 300 parts per million (ppm). Currently we are at 385 ppm , and with each SUV trip to grocery store and new Chinese coal power plant we all contribute, in big and small ways, to a rapid rate of increase.
Frankly, no one knows what the future holds at 500 or 600 ppm, but we can surmise that it probably will not be good. Our societies have been built on a framework of climatic stability. Coastal cities expect the oceans to stay about where they are. African farmers expect the rains to come just as they did for their ancestors. South American kids expect that malarial mosquitoes will stay at lower elevations like they always have. But change is coming, and at a pace that is unprecedented in human history. Acting now can soften the blow.
In a nutshell, that is why I am concerned—for myself and all who will call Earth home in the future.
(Note: Some of the information in this post is taken from Global Warming: The Complete Briefing by Sir John Houghton, an atmospheric physicist who is also an evangelical Christian and former adviser to Margaret Thatcher.)
63 responses so far
1 rk // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:43 am
Well, how open in your mind? Could you regard these trends as responses from the LIA?
Have you seen data that shows the impact on temp by changes in landuse.
From a solutions approach, have worked out, how many state are going to have to be covered ovver by windmill or soalar farms?
Oh, and have you looked into the impact of the grid on variable enerjy sources.
Have you thought of nuclear. How about fusion. How about carbon capture. If we maintain our head, we can work these issues. At a slow pace that AlGore wants. But he’s just one guy.
2 nealjking // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:13 am
The issue of global warming has been studied scientifically for over 100 years, taking into account an ever-increasing set of factors, including orbital issues, land-use issues, air pollution, clouds, volcanoes, and so on. With all this study, the results are: Climate change is happening much faster than any of the natural causative factors could be acting: roughly 7 times faster than any previously calculated rate of change.
And, no, it doesn’t make any sense to regard these trends as a recovery from the Little Ice Age: That’s like regarding obesity as a recovery from being underweight. Physical changes require physical causes: The Earth does not have a climate that it is “shooting for”.
With respect to solutions: All of these technologies are on the table, all have pluses and minuses. We need to promote the ones that don’t have fatal minuses.
3 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:00 am
p761craig: “You may be a Republican but you certainly aren’t a conservative wasting your time writing this dribble.” It’s supposed to be “drivel.” And what you’re writing doesn’t sound anything like our Enlightenment-era founding fathers, who believed that faith could seek understanding. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson were the farthest thing from the spirit of what you write. You don’t fly a kite in a lightening storm, or inoculate yourself to disease (something Franklin and Jefferson were some of the first people to do) if you don’t have some belief in predictable causes and effects.
4 Stewardship // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:33 am
As I commented earlier this week, Mr. Murdock’s viewpoint is the epitome of conservatism. If any reader of this blog self-identifies as a “conservative,” I highly recommend revisiting the writings of the three men who laid the foundation for modern conservatism: Edmund Burke, Russell Kirk, and Richard Weaver. I suspect many of you will be shocked that true conservatism is not at all like the brand espoused by talking heads on the radio and television.
Conservatism isn’t about how we maximize next quarter’s earnings, but is about how we insure future generations can enjoy a country and life equal to or better than our own time.
5 Oneon1isto // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:36 am
You know, what’s interesting to me about the whole climate change debate is how it has entirely supplanted any debate over other positive effects of becoming greener. Whenever I hear someone complain about the unholy, unscientific spectre of climate change being used to bludgeon us with new regulations , my first response is “so what?” The direct end result (whether you believe in climate change or not) is less pollution, better air quality, increased energy independence, no acid rain…and you’re complaining about higher fuel economy standards because of what? Some ill-defined allegiance to automobile industry? It’s always puzzled me that so many argue so vehemently over taking care of the only home we have. (Well, at least until we invent interstellar travel)
6 BD57 // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:18 am
Next questions …
Can this “fight” be won?
Meaning a) how much of the rise is attributable to man vs. other causes; b) how much of the portion caused by man can reasonably be eliminated; c) what will we gain by eliminating that portion?
If it can be won, at what cost?
Are there no viable adaptive strategies?
Command & control types (not accusing the author of being one, btw) love to turn “issues” into “emergencies” – shoot, look at how TARP got enacted (just to use an example from the non-left world) – and then bludgeon anyone who’s skeptical with the “emergency.”
Which is exactly how the typical warmer argues the point.
7 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:37 am
BD57: Read this story, especially the very end:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/books/review/leonhardt.t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print
If the problem exists then it exists. Reality needs to trump ideology: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio#t=53m13s
8 MarkG555 // Jan 30, 2009 at 9:57 am
Sincerely, I’m just puzzled by this. Murdock tells us that “claims that temperatures have declined in the past decade are technically true,” but then gives us a graph that, to my untrained eye, shows that temperatures have shot up dramatically in the last decade. I’m all for “descending to particulars,” but the “particulars” in this post leave me confused whether temperatures in the past 10 years have gone up or down, and by how much.
9 dragonlady // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:10 am
Oneon1isto, onerous enviornmental regulations drive the price of everything else up. The costs are passed off to the consumer; the affulent can afford them but not the working class. Look at CA–environmental regulations have caused housing prices to skyrocket. How many of the middle class have left because of the high tax burden, high cost of living, and b/c they can’t afford a home? I’m for clean air and everything but at some point, the law of diminishing returns applies.
10 John Murdock // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:56 am
To MarkG555,
The “technical” truth is that several years in the early 2000s were slightly cooler than 1998 (the second highest spike on the graph). This fact has been manipulated into claims of an overall cooling trend. As you noted, the real message of the graph is that things are generally getting hotter and staying hotter. Sorry I don’t have time to respond to other comments now, but hope to in the future.
11 gerrysh // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:39 am
Oh, sure, we’re going to believe data from the alarmists. Here’s the truth – NASA has been caught twice publishing phony numbers. Once, maybe it could be passed off as an honest mistake. Twice, nope.
Human beings live in sub-Saharan Africa and in Scandinavia. The idea that people can’t adapt to a change of a degree or two (in either direction) is too silly for an adult to hold.
Your obsessed about a non-existent problem. Get over it.
12 gerrysh // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:42 am
The alarmists regularly manipulate graphs to make the case for more government control. As stated before, the “hockey stick” is a fraud, and has proven to be such. This won’t matter with those who have a religious devotion to the man-made global warming / climate change / whatever myth.
13 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:48 am
The Paranoid Style of American Politics:
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspiracy_theory/the_paranoid_mentality/the_paranoid_style.html
Irving Kristol: “[The] New Class is not easily defined, but may be vaguely described. It consists of a goodly proportion of those college educated people whose skills and vocations proliferate in a ‘post-industrial society’… We are talking about scientists, teachers and educational administrators, journalists and others in the communication industries, psychologists, social workers, those lawyers and doctors who make their career in the expanding public sector, city planners and the staffs of the larger foundations and upper levels of the government bureaucracy, and so on… … they are acting upon a hidden agenda: to propel the nation from that modified version of capitalism we call ‘the welfare state’ toward an economic system so stringently regulated in detail as to fulfil many of the traditional anti-capitalist aspirations of the Left.”
14 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 11:51 am
Sam Tanenhaus:The issues that have provided conservatives with victories in the past particularly welfare and crime have been rendered irrelevant by success, Michael Gerson, the Bush speechwriter turned columnist, wrote last week. The issues of the moment income stagnation, climate disruption, massive demographic shifts and health care access seem strange, unexplored land for many in the movement.
In fact these issues of the moment have been with us for years now, decades in some instances, but until recently they were either ignored by conservatives or dismissed as the hobby-horses of alarmist liberals or entrenched special interests.
The key word in Mr. Gersons analysis is movement, a term more applicable to moral or spiritual crusades than to the practical matters of governance, particularly governance in a two-party system, where success almost invariably requires compromise, consensus and a mind open to all manner of workable solutions.
These have not been, historically, the strength of movement conservatives, who prefer arguments built on first principles often expressed in supercharged rhetoric.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06repubs.html?hp
15 gospelance // Jan 30, 2009 at 12:25 pm
during the Y2K scare, I thought maybe it was a legitimate threat–since the US Senate had a committee and document on it. I even procured a copy of it. We all know what happened then. I’m all for cleaning air, reducing consumption, etc. However, rather than scare tactics and un-realistic or state-mandated measures, I would rather see common sense recommendations and let people decide for themselves how many changes they’d like to make. Conservationism comes natural to me–I’ve been using canvas bags at the store since 1995–when I moved to Seattle. I noticed that most liberal Seattlites didn’t begin using these until it recently became a “new” fad. In fact, soon after I got mine, they disappeared from the stores. I also notice that the Prius drivers don’t use them now. I’ve hated gas-hogging tanks ever since the first Ford Explorer became the fad. However, if the local rancher or construction worker wants to drive a tank, well that’s his choice–and should remain his choice. Please, no more scare tactics to enforce Climate agendas thru the Nanny State. Unless the Democrat Regime plans on buying all the poor a “green” car, then let people make their own choices.
I don’t care if it’s Al Gore or Leo DiCaprio!
16 KayJay // Jan 30, 2009 at 1:17 pm
Well! The religious right of the Republican Party are going to drum you out of their ranks!!———You do realize that the neocons like Sarah Palin and her ilk believe that the End Times are imminent, don’t you? And that any climate changes, regard for endangered species, protection of the environment, empathy for those “not like us” who live their traditional ways despite the encroachment and disastrous interference of “civilized folk” — all of that is immaterial and unimportant because they believe Jesus Christ will descend back to Earth in their lifetime…..in other words, SOON.——–They believe that profitably raping the environment such as scattering oil wells throughout the Alaska tundra and offshore Alaska should be done now and soon, so End Timers can have a comfortable life while they’re waiting.——-And they don’t much care for cautious, conciliatory international diplomacy, because if they take a rude, warlike, divisive stance, the End Times will come about that much sooner.———Just do a little reading on that topic, Google “End Times”. It’s quite eye-opening.
17 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:00 pm
Some of the same solutions to global warming would also accomplish other good things: Less burning of fossil fuels would reduce the smog in major cities, and improve public health there. Fewer asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses, thus lowering health care costs. Less dependence on oil would reduce our dependence on unstable or hostile foreign governments. Finally, an extremely important (but seldom discussed in the political sphere) use of oil is for petrochemicals, on which our modern civilization depends. As conservatives, let’s be conservationists, saving that oil for petrochemicals instead of just burning it all away.
18 sinz54 // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:06 pm
What’s odd about the modern conservative movement, is that its intellectuals keep talking about increasing production in the private sector through supply-side policies; but it wins elections by waving the banner of conspicuous consumption and swagger. Big SUVs, 5,000 square foot houses (climate-controlled throughout, of course), are viewed as “the American way of life,” on which there can be no compromise, ask Cheney once put it. What is “conservative” about conspicuous consumption and using up the earth’s natural resources as quickly as possible, no one has ever explained. I have always believed that to be a true conservative, you also have to LIVE conservatively. You should live within your means, just as you want the government to do.
19 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Well, sinz54, arguing from the other side, I can see how someone might connect what kind of truck or house they buy with property rights. What we need is cap and trade and similar incentives at the source of the manufacturing process. As Steven Chu put it, you make it so the manufacturers have to assign the job to the engineers, instead of to the lobbyists. http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/tny/2008/12/note-to-detroit-consider-the-r.html
20 Oneon1isto // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Dragonlady: You’re telling me that environmental regulations are the reason home prices in California are high? I’m sorry, that just sounds incredibly unlikely given the amount of factors that go into a region’s market. Florida’s prices went bust after going sky-high, and they’re hardly an environmental bastion. I’d really challenge you to find an instance where environmental regulation has created a burden for you in any real way. I’d actually be willing to put money on environmental regulation helping you in ways you probably have no idea about. Like keeping the reservoirs where you get your water free from too many pollutants, or maintaining standards for lead based products, or keeping the amount of smog in the air lower than say Shanghai. These are all supposedly “economically painful” regulations that are constantly railed against, when in reality they provide carrots and sticks to make people’s lives safer, cleaner, and more enjoyable. I’d also just like to add that company profits are not for the “communal good” and are not communal property, but the environment is. If someone down the street is pouring dangerous chemicals into your water table, you are definitely being affected.
21 petty boozshwa // Jan 30, 2009 at 2:58 pm
The best evidence that climate change is a pretext rather than a genuine concern for the left is that they are not willing to compromise on anything that would effect their priorities. I’ve always been most impressed when someone changes his mind and accepts an opponent’s position on an issue: when Bill Buckley came out against the War on Drugs, for example, or Bill Bradley supported the Contras. The two best tests for those that support the global warming argument will be nuclear energy and immigration. I’ve heard of a few cracks in the anti-nuke coalition, but no one has taken on the illegal alien lobby. The current “stimulus” bill, for example, has a hidden provision eviscerating E-Verify in order to keep ‘em coming. Even if we eat tofu, drive roller skate cars and live in rabbit hutches, we won’t have much impact if we keep doubling our population every 30 years.
22 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:19 pm
This guy’s a high school science teacher. I think that makes him one of Irving Kristol’s New Class: http://www.break.com/index/global-warming-guy-is-back.html
23 B.A.Borton // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:33 pm
The premise of this article by John Murdock is completely erroneous.
In the earth’s atmosphere, CO2 is not a significant greenhouse gas. 95% the of greenhouse warming on Earth comes from water vapor. CO2 is only 0.035% of the Earth’s atmosphere and anthropologically created CO2 is a very small fraction of that. Using Venus as an example is absolutely ludicrous! CO2 makes up 95% of Venus’ atmosphere. Lets not compare apples to oranges when trying to make a point there John.
If you wish to read a good article on the work by atmospheric physicists regarding atomic absorption physics go here:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
Simply put, the biggest driving force behind the world heating up or cooling down is the sun. Not humans!
24 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 3:38 pm
“95% the of greenhouse warming on Earth comes from water vapor.” This isn’t true. “H2O in the troposphere is a feedback effect, it is not a forcing agent. Simply put, any artificial perturbation in water vapor concentrations is too short lived to change the climate.”
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/222357/40
25 B.A.Borton // Jan 30, 2009 at 4:01 pm
JJWFromME:
Read your article, did you happen to read the one I posted?
From:
http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html
the laws of physics don’t seem to allow CO2 it’s currently assumed place as a significant “greenhouse gas” based on present concentrations. The other “greenhouse gases” such as methane, nitrous oxide, tetrafluoromethane, hexafluoroethane, sulfur hexafluoride, trifluoromethane, 1,1,1,2-tetrafluoroethane, and 1,1-difluoroethane exist only in extraordinarily smaller amounts and aren’t even up for serious discussion by any segment of the scientific community. And, since the other components of the atmosphere (oxygen, nitrogen, and water vapor) aren’t materially affected by human activity, the “greenhouse effect” is essentially a totally natural phenomenon, unaffected by human activity.
26 dragonlady // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:16 pm
Oneon1isto, you’re setting up strawmen. No one is against environmental regulations, per se. I’ve travelled overseas quite a bit, and have seen what other countries look like that don’t have an EPA type of agency. But to believe any and all environmental regulations are good for everyone with little impact to our economy means you have to completely ignore fundamental economics. Comparing FL to CA is like comparing apples and oranges; the states’ economies are run very differently. Here’s a link on a study that shows how much global warming legislation/regulations can cost the US economy:
http://www.heritage.org/research/energyandenvironment/bg2213.cfm
27 dragonlady // Jan 30, 2009 at 6:28 pm
sin54: “What is “conservative” about conspicuous consumption and using up the earth’s natural resources as quickly as possible, no one has ever explained. I have always believed that to be a true conservative, you also have to LIVE conservatively. You should live within your means, just as you want the government to do.” I don’t agree with you often, but you’ve got a compelling argument. Conservatives should engage green living more and tout the benefits of it rather than telling everyone just to keep shopping. I find the global warming debate mind-numbing but perhaps we can find a common ground in that we should try to invest in cleaner forms of energy than fossil fuels. Plus, it would help wean us from the spigot of the middle eastern despots.
28 gospelance // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:00 pm
rather than debating with liberals, I must ask the question: As Conservatives/Republicans–do we want to be Democrat Light–or are we going to separate ourselves and quit trying to compromise with the left? You saw what happened with Prop 8; and those folks voted for the President. If we push our positions a lot, like they do, then we can wake up the center-right in many of us. We must separate ourselves—not dress ourselves up with left nonsense.
29 gospelance // Jan 30, 2009 at 7:04 pm
are we here to debate with liberals in their deeply entrenched positions, thereby wasting valuable time? Or are we here to develop a strategy? I don’t think all this back and forth is productive. Don’t be distracted by these insurgent nuts.
30 dragonlady // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Gospelance, the problem with the GW debate is both sides tend to throw rocks at each other. I think we should emphasize clean, renewable energy more. GW ranked dead last among voter concerns in the last Pew poll. But people see the immediate costs of energy in their wallet. I’m tired of conservatives getting attacked as “anti-science” when the other side uses McCarthy-like tactics to smear anyone who does not toe their line. We need to educate voters on the economic costs of global warming legislation and welcome a robust debate on the science itself. Then it makes the other side look wacko when they try to stifle all dissenting viewpoints.
31 JoetheVeep // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:24 pm
Why should that graph be alarming? Looks like we had a cooling period early in the century, followed by a plateau, and now a warming period that’s leveled off, and started back down. How is this distinguishable from a natural cycle? Because we’re in the hot portion of it?
32 JJWFromME // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:30 pm
“As Conservatives/Republicans–do we want to be Democrat Light–or are we going to separate ourselves and quit trying to compromise with the left?” I hear that liberals are for not driving off cliffs. Let’s not compromise:
http://images.villagevoice.com/issues/0548/tmw-big.jpg
33 Stewardship // Jan 30, 2009 at 8:38 pm
We have to look at the costs of not taking action, too. I met with the mayor of a coastal Alaska village last year. The federal government is paying $40 million to relocate about 30 houses inland 3 miles. The melting permafrost is literally sinking the village into the sea. There are dozens of other Alaskan villages facing the same peril and relocation costs. Imagine Miami or Manhattan and the costs associated with “mitigating” the impact of climate change. A true conservative would look ahead and work on trying to avoid those costs….which will certainly be greater than any cost today in transitioning to clean and renewable energy resources.
Don’t forget that one of the major “bonuses” of switching from carbon based fuels to clean energy is national security. America owns 3% of the world’s proven oil reserves; we use about 26% of the world’s production. We can’t drill our way out of that ratio. As soon as we stop sending billions of dollars every year to unfriendly countries that happen to sit on greater oil reserves, the safer our country will be.
Fighting climate change is win-win-win situation. Cleaner air, cleaner water (less mercury from coal burning plants). New jobs, innovative industries. And, hopefully, avoidance of astronomical mitigation costs for future generations to deal with.
I can list several cities and a host of private corporations that have adopted, unilaterally, environmental standards above and beyond standard practices or legal requirements. They’ve all realized tremendous savings in energy conservation and resource utilization. Sure, there is usually an initial investment; but the payback, or ROI, has exceeded expectations. That’s called being conservative with taxpayers and/or shareholders’ dollars.
Of course climate change dropped in the polls. There isn’t a soul in America who doesn’t have their job and the economy at the top of the list today. Polls that show the connection between investment in renewable and clean energy technologies and new jobs tell a different story.
Stop by Benton County, IN…the soybean capital of the world…where farmers are reaping healthy rent payments from more than 200 windmills now. The folks in Benton County see a huge benefit in increased income, hundreds of new jobs, and local governments flush with new tax revenue.
Anyway you slice and dice the climate change argument, working to solve it seems to me a conservative value.
34 bigdaddy // Jan 30, 2009 at 10:01 pm
If you are really worried, you shouldn’t be. Your second graph, showing the relationship of atmospheric C02 to temperature is misleading. Historically , increases in C02 levels have lagged temperature increases by 800 years or so, not the other way around.
35 JJWFromME // Jan 31, 2009 at 6:19 am
bigdaddy:”Historically , increases in C02 levels have lagged temperature increases by 800 years or so, not the other way around.” This article addresses that particular piece of misleading information: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/12/22/231145/76
36 gospelance // Jan 31, 2009 at 7:43 am
We can’t stop the natural cycles of the planet. The dissenting scientists say that our emissions only contribute to warming by a very small amount. Take Mount Redoubt, for example. Are we going to stop the eruption? Of course not. And the subsequent cloud that comes with the eruption will affect the atmosphere, etc. Get the Climate Change propaganda out of your mind. Just let it go.
37 JJWFromME // Jan 31, 2009 at 8:26 am
“Get the Climate Change propaganda out of your mind.” That’s going to be easier to do, now that the sources of funding are drying up: http://thinkprogress.org/2006/09/20/exxon-cei/
38 excitinginfo // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:15 pm
Looks like the folks on planet Venus did not heed the global warming crisis warnings and chose not to deal with it to their peril. Let’s hope that we here on planet Earth do not repeat their mistake.
39 Oneon1isto // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:23 pm
Here’s a question for conservatives who are skeptics of the GW debate: why do you use your disbelief in GW as a pretext for ignoring or lambasting most, if not all environmental legislation and regulation? To draw this topic into the mission of the site, why not frame the debate as “GW prevents sound environmental policy by focusing the debate on burdensome regulations to take on a problem that is unlikely created or affected by man.. We would prefer to spend efforts on conservation of the environment, reducing reliance on fossil fuels and reducing traditional effects of pollution in our drinking water, oceans, forests and air.” What I’m sick of hearing is the GW debate supplanting all sane discussion of environmental policy. This would put the GOP firmly in a progressive stance, while avoiding many of the anti-business policies favored by cap n traders and other GW drum beaters.
40 gerrysh // Jan 31, 2009 at 12:54 pm
great piece on a “denier” here:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDE2MzNlNDJmYjlkMzY3NzkzM2NjZGNhOWNlNzU5Y2Y=
41 JJWFromME // Jan 31, 2009 at 1:52 pm
Wow. In that Corner post, “Al Gore” appears in 5 of 25 sentences. It’s like you have Tourette’s syndrome or something. Can you even discuss climate change science without saying “Al Gore”? “Al Gore” appears nowhere on this page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
42 Oneon1isto // Jan 31, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Was about to say the same thing. The page references 90 links, scientific journals and opinions. Wikipedia’s only as good as its references…
43 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 3:59 pm
On the other hand,
Over 650 scientists have put their names to a US Senate Minority report back in December that challenges the contention of the UNs International Panel on Climate Change that there is a scientific consensus on the causes of global warming. That’s over twelve times more than those that put their names to the IPCC report.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/over-650-scientists-challenge-global-warming-consensus.html
A sample of quotes to follow
44 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly.As a scientist I remain skeptical. – Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a PhD in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years.
45 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:02 pm
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic campClimate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. – Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch UN IPCC committee.
46 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. . Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, NZ.
47 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsenseThe present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control, a pretext for major businesses and political battle. It became an ideology, which is concerning. – Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
48 JJWFromME // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Barton–We already dealt with Hajo Smit and company in the other thread. The water vapor matter was answered below. As for the 650 “climate scientists”: http://thinkprogress.org/2008/12/23/inhofe-650/
Prison Planet? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Jones_(radio)
49 B.A.Borton // Jan 31, 2009 at 4:54 pm
JJWFromME, Thanks, I’ll have to crank up the short wave. Point is, scientist are told to shut up and toe the line or NO FUNDING FOR YOU! Now how is that conducive to conducting science? Fact is climate change happens, anthropogenic factors are insignificant. Carbon capping will generate wealth only for those trading in them, and do little if anything to alter the earth’s climate. It will effectively raise prices on all good and services. BTW your gristmill.grist.org post Who the heck is this Coby Beck anyway? I mean what are his credentials? Is he a atmospheric physicist like those from my earlier post. http://www.middlebury.net/op-ed/global-warming-01.html Did you read it?
btw – Its Borton not Barton – thank you.
50 JJWFromME // Jan 31, 2009 at 5:31 pm
No one tells scientists to shut up. However, if they want to publish and prove they do quality work, they have to meet the standards of the publication they’re publishing at. If someone’s work doesn’t hold up, for whatever reason, they’re told what the problem is, and what would need to be fixed. There’s a huge incentive to publish against the grain in science, because if you do, your career is made. But the reason why this doesn’t happen is because anthropogenic factors *aren’t* insignificant, in fact, quite the opposite: http://tinyurl.com/aqog75 Here’s who Coby Beck is: http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/about.php and here’s an endorsement of his work by some prominent climate scientists: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/03/good-climate-debate-faq/
Sorry to get your name wrong…
51 bigdaddy // Jan 31, 2009 at 9:41 pm
JJWFromME: So, when I point out that the graph in the article that implies that rises in C02 caused rises in temperature is misleading (read the words in the article that imply just that), you respond by saying that I am being misleading. You then site some url that uses words like “clearly allows for” to prove your point. They don’t seem too sure about what they are saying.
Let me get this straight, the earth’s temperature goes up, then 800 years later, C02 levels go up, then later, temperatures go down and then C02 levels go down 800 years later, and you are telling me that the C02 levels are the culprit in this saga. Why would temperatures fall with high C02 levels? Maybe, just maybe, there are other factors at work here. Maybe solar activity has more to do with earth temperatures than C02 levels. The earth has been much warmer (medieval warming period, holocene optimum, etc) long before man started producing CO2 emisions. It’s also been much cooler that it is in present times. What makes the climate we are enjoying now the “perfect climate”?
I know I can’t convince you to think outside the “we’re all gonna die, unless big government saves us” box, so this will be my last post. My mama told me never to argue about religion and that is what global warming alarmism has become.
52 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:16 am
What the article I linked to says is that in the historical record (which is just one piece of evidence for climate change, among a number of them) CO2 can be both a cause and an effect of climate change. If the temperature goes up, more CO2 is released. And if CO2 is released (sometimes called a feedback effect), the temperature goes up further. And of course, CO2 is not the only cause of temperature fluctuations. So don’t mistake a description of something that’s somewhat complex as being “not too sure of what they’re saying.” Lastly, if small government can solve this problem, more power to it. The point is to be sane about the future, recognize a problem, and do something about it.
53 B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:35 am
A correction to my previous post, ‘anthropogenic factors are insignificant’ – That statement should be interpreted as to my understanding how CO2 production by humans effect climate change. I do not want it to be interpreted as an endorsement of a lasafair (sp?) approach regarding detrimental environmental activities. I do agree however with Roger A. Pielke, Sr. (http://climatesci.org/) when he states:
‘The neglect of including the diversity of human climate forcings indicates that the real objective of those promoting the radiative effect of the addition of atmospheric CO2 as the dominate human climate forcing is to promote energy and lifestyle changes. Their actual goal is not to develop effective climate policies.’
54 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:14 am
Well, as Obama said during his inaugural address, “we’re not going to apologize for our way of life.” But he also appointed physics Noble laureate Steven Chu as Secretary of Energy, who talked about manufacturers… assigning the job [of addressing problems] to the engineers, instead of to the lobbyists. (See my link below.) And as for people talking about other causes of warming other than greenhouse gases. You have to come up with actual persuasive evidence. As Naomi Oreskes put it: “As American geologist Harry Hess said in the 1960s about plate tectonics, one can quibble about the details, but the overall picture is clear.
Yet some climate-change deniers insist that the observed changes might be natural, perhaps caused by variations in solar irradiance or other forces we dont yet understand. Perhaps there are other explanations for the receding glaciers. But perhaps is not evidence.
The greatest scientist of all time, Isaac Newton, warned against this tendency more than three centuries ago. Writing in Principia Mathematica in 1687, he noted that once scientists had successfully drawn conclusions by general induction from phenomena, then those conclusions had to be held as accurately or very nearly true notwithstanding any contrary hypothesis that may be imagined.
Climate-change deniers can imagine all the hypotheses they like, but it will not change the facts nor the general induction from the phenomena.”
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jul/24/opinion/oe-oreskes24
55 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:31 am
And remember, it’s not *me* you have to persuade, it’s the actual scientists working in the field. Any discussion we have here is not relevant to that. This is where you get into the legacy, I think, of conservatives like Irving Kristol (who I mentioned below). It’s a permanent suspicion of the “New Class.” How the heck do you get things done in a complicated world when you have a set of people (some of them in the media) who have permanent resentments and suspicions against whole classes of professions?
56 gerrysh // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:43 pm
… and the hits just keep on coming …
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-%20says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
57 sinz54 // Feb 1, 2009 at 6:47 pm
JJWFromME: It’s true, ordinary Americans always harbored deep suspicions of the Establishment, the banks, the “robber barons,” etc. But ordinary Americans used to take considerable pride in the achievements of their scientists and inventors. Americans were proud that Einstein made his home here; that our scientists developed the A-bomb first; that American astronauts walked on the moon first. What changed? Some of the advances of modern science have threatened not just our way of life but our entire civilization–nuclear destruction, chemical pollution, etc. And that’s triggered a backlash by folks who wonder if science isn’t digging into areas best left alone. Also, scientists started getting involved in political lobbying and political activism themselves, incurring the suspicions that Americans have traditionally had of being sold a political bill of goods. Groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists are just using their scientific knowledge to rationalize a doctrinaire left-wing agenda. Finally, the resurgence of Christian fundamentalism, which for centuries saw the scientific worldview as a philosophical threat to revelatory truth, has been counterattacking against Darwin’s theory of evolution and against advances in the social sciences.
58 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Biologists, scientists, teachers, all permanently suspect, thanks to the stoked resentments from people who want to disguise a political debate as a scientific one: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/opinion/05krugman.html
59 B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 7:40 pm
Lets see, an Op-Ed piece from the Los Angles Times written in July of 06 and now an Op-Ed posting from New York Times written in August of 05. Truly fonts of unbiased, even handed reporting if ever there was any.
By disguising a political debate as a scientific one, you mean the IPCC?
60 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Well, the Paul Krugman column is a clearly partisan article and it may not belong in this discussion. But the rest of the material is not. If you see it all as such, to me you are clearly seeing your own ideological biases in a funhouse mirror. It must be difficult living in a world with liberal enemies lurking around every corner like that. (Which again, brings to mind the Hofstadter essay that I linked to below.)
61 B.A.Borton // Feb 1, 2009 at 9:23 pm
So out comes the misdirections and personal attacks. Please don’t presume to know how or what I feel. I take the people I meet one at a time and treat no one as my enemy unless they give me just cause. You did called me out on prisonplanet (honestly I should have found a different source for the same article, I was too hasty, so thank you). All I was doing was just pointing out that the LA Times and the New York Times are probable about as unbiased as say using Fox News or the NY Post editorials for sources. This started out as a discussion about climate change and anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If you have to lower the level of discussion to that of the last post, I feel that we may have strayed a tad bit off point, no?
62 JJWFromME // Feb 1, 2009 at 10:01 pm
No personal attack. It’s just what I think. Anyone who sees every organization mentioned on this page as “biased” is seeing their *own* biases through a funhouse mirror:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change I quote the other sources to make certain points, convey insights. And it doesn’t amount to a hill of beans whether Professor Naomi Oreskes is publishing a piece in the NY Times, the LA Times or the Washington Times. It has nothing to do with anything we’re discussing. (And also it seems to me we’re taking up too much of this site’s bandwidth with this silliness, so this will be my last comment in this post.)
63 B.A.Borton // Feb 2, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Sorry, I cant leave this thread without a shout-out to gerrysh! – http://wattsupwiththat.com – What a great site! Everybody should peruse. Thanks for the post!
You must log in to post a comment.