Of the festivals of nonsense that periodically overtake American politics, surely the silliest is the argument that because Washington is having a particularly snowy winter it proves that climate change is a hoax and, therefore, we need not bother with all this girly-man stuff like renewable energy, solar panels and carbon taxes. Just drill, baby, drill.
When you see lawmakers like Senator Jim DeMint of South Carolina tweeting that “it is going to keep snowing until Al Gore cries ”˜uncle,’ ” or news that the grandchildren of Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma are building an igloo next to the Capitol with a big sign that says “Al Gore’s New Home,” you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.
The climate-science community is not blameless. It knew it was up against formidable forces ”” from the oil and coal companies that finance the studies skeptical of climate change to conservatives who hate anything that will lead to more government regulations to the Chamber of Commerce that will resist any energy taxes. Therefore, climate experts can’t leave themselves vulnerable by citing non-peer-reviewed research or failing to respond to legitimate questions, some of which happened with both the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The problem is very simple. The climate-change/AGM (Anthropogenic Global Warming) advocacy community became entirely politicized, which resulted in millions of corrupting dollars/pounds/euros flowing into their programs and ultimately their pockets. As a result, they began to fudge, lie, and commit fraud (and other crimes, like refusing to comply with public information laws) in furtherance of their political and financial objectives. In the process they began to conduct themselves as if they were the modern heirs of the Inquisition with the absolute right and duty to suppress any dissent from their pre-determined ‘orthodoxy’.
How about falsifying data and skewing the studies to come out with their predetermined outcomes? Or basing temperature data on stations that are in urban heat areas or have been moved during the recording periods? It seems to me that the ‘proponents’ have done the work of the ‘skeptics’ for them — proven that there is no hard scientific fact behind their theory. Even the head writer of the IPCC report is now backing down from the findings in that report.
The really unfortunate thing is that 90% of what we should be doing to be energy independent, a noble cause, is exactly what we should be doing to reduce “global warming”, real or imagined. The approach of driving folks into it by fear instead of leading them to it with hope and aspirations is ultimately going to derail what might have been a very positive step toward a better future.
[blockquote]China, of course, understands that, which is why it is investing heavily in clean-tech, efficiency and high-speed rail. It sees the future trends and is betting on them. Indeed, I suspect China is quietly laughing at us right now.[/blockquote]
I remember folks in the 1950s who were convinced that the Soviet Union would dominate the U.S. because they put up Sputnik. It was a great motivator for us. Hopefully we will stop fighting amongst ourselves and find new goals to pull us into the future and marshal our human resources. Democracy is sloppy but it does work.
“Just drill, baby, drill.” that is such a misrepresentation of conservatives’ approach that Friedman is either woefully uninformed or a liar or some combo of the two.
Again I must ask Kendall why he feels Friedman’s poppycock columns deserve space on this site….
Actually the biggest problem for the anthropogenic climate change crowd is stuff like this – that presents no actual evidence, blames “Big Oil” propaganda (yeah, like that’s the reason people are questioning this stuff), and tosses about unserious technical panaceas like solar and wind. Do these people have any idea of the size footprint a 1000 megawatt solar plant would have and therefore how much wildlife habitat has to be destroyed for all that “green” power? Or how destabilizing wind power is for the grid? Granted, power companies are not building these things purely for propaganda purposes, but they’re no solution. If this article was in the least serious, it would at a minimum, and however grudgingly, acknowledge the necessity of building nuclear plants.
I have to admit that I like his idea of actually providing some scientific evidence to the public (the page he links to looks like pure propaganda, not serious science – but I didn’t spend a lot of time there) – it would need to be clear, not just that the climate is changing (it kind of does that), but that human activity is a significant contributor. It would be nice to actually see some evidence and not just be told as in this article – damningly to these eyes – that it’s better to do something about it just in case. Given that the “something” generally involves consigning the world’s poor to extended misery, it would be nice to know that this was for a good cause and not just because certain types of liberals are insufferable killjoys wedded to a form of secularized puritanism that has to punish the rest of us for supposedly insulting the earth goddess.
The last line of the article really says it all “Maureen Dowd is off today”!!!
What some of us old enough to remember the Global Cooling Hysteria of a few decades ago highly resent are the insults, arrogance, and narrow-mindedness of those promoting the man-caused global warming theory. If you raised a rational skeptical question you were regarded as some sort of anti-intellectual troglodyte or anti-science airhead in a most insulting manner.
Yet this Global Warming Hysteria is a virtual mirror image of the Global Cooling Hysteria:: Media fed and grant-grasping inspired as well as political gravy for some.
At least the Global Cooling Hysteria was apparently not buttressed by fraud, deceit, and hoaxes as apparently the Global Warming Hysteria has been so puffed up by.
I hate to break it to Tom, but Susan Thistlethwaite put the term “global weirding” out to the general public first. I’ve got a link to her piece in the Washington Post and commentary [url=http://reformedpastor.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/when-the-going-gets-weird/]here[/url].
And now, after that shameless play for traffic, I return you to your regularly scheduled comment thread.
[blockquote]Ann and Thomas Friedman live in Bethesda, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C. The July 2006 issue of Washingtonian reported that they own “a palatial 11,400-square-foot (1,060 m2) house, currently valued at $9.3 million, on a 7½-acre parcel just blocks from I-495 and Bethesda Country Club.” Friedman is paid $50,000 per speaking engagement.[/blockquote] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Friedman.
Speaking of Global Warming, not exactly a modest carbon footprint.
#9. David Fischler,
Could we have a case of plagiarism by the esteemed Mr. Thomas Friedman?
[blockquote]It’s global weirding, in fact, and that’s climate change in its erratic weather pattern manifestation.[/blockquote] Susan Thistlethwaite
[blockquote]I prefer the term “global weirding,†because that is what actually happens as global temperatures rise and the climate changes.[/blockquote] Thomas Friedman
[blockquote]you really wonder if we can have a serious discussion about the climate-energy issue anymore.[/blockquote]
I thought the discussion was over. Maybe what he means is we need to listen more carefully. Oh I know, we don’t understand.
[blockquote]summarizing everything we already know about climate change in language that a sixth grader could understand[[/blockquote]
There, that’s better. Now it’s at our level.
here’s the Friedman manse: http://neveryetmelted.com/wp-images/FriedmanHouse.jpg
I’ll believe it’s a problem when he and Al Gore etc. act like it’s one. And not a second before then……
To agree that radical reductions in carbon dioxide emissions should be mandated, one must find that all four of the following propositions are true:
1. The climate of the earth is warming at rates and to degrees not previously experienced prior to the modern era.
2. The climate’s warming is the result of the burning of carbon-based fossil fuels.
3. There are measures that can be taken to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to a level that will at least materially mitigate if not fully negate the effect on climate.
4. The incremental costs of these measures is less than the cost to mitigate the warming effects.
If any one of these four propositions cannot be determined to be true, the case for mandatory radical reductions in carbon dioxide emissions falls.
Now, there certainly may be other reasons to reduce the importation of oil such as defunding the sponsors of terrorism or reducing the net transfer of wealth from consuming nations to producing ones. It may also be prudent to look for sources of energy that are renewable or, at least, practically inexhaustible. However, those are good and sufficient reasons in and of themselves and do not require belief in these four highly debatable propositions in order to be good policy.
Where the advocates for carbon dioxide reductions err is in trying to base their policy on silliness like polar bear populations (not declining at all, by the way) or exaggerated estimates of sea levels rising. In fact, sea levels have varied hugely over the last few thousand years for all kinds of reasons and human populations have adjusted by moving up or down hill or building their houses on stilts. The Dutch started building dikes and pumping stations long before carbon dioxide emissions could possibly have been the cause of sea levels rising. If some low-lying areas become uninhabitable, it would be far less costly–not to mention more merciful–to pay the populations to move than to destroy the modern world’s economy and let those same people starve. And, of course, if the seas do rise for any reason, natural or anthropogenic, people will have to accommodate that reality…as they have done for thousands of years.
#7 Some of us think Maureen Dowd is off every day.
OK, guys, I really don’t understand what is going on here.
FACT 1: Global temperatures are rising and have been rising as a general trend since shortly after the Industrial Revolution began using steam power extensively. Although there have certainly been some periods of a decade or so during which the trend slowed or even slightly reversed itself, there were other decades–such as the 1930s–when temperatures were rising even faster than they have been recently. 2009 was the 2d hottest year since 1850 globally, and actually was [i]the[/i] hottest in the Southern Hemisphere. Yes, there was some really cold weather this winter in some places, but some other places (like Labrador and Siberia) have been unusually warm. The ten years beginning in 2000 were the hottest decade out of the last 15. I am not aware of any serious research that questions this general long-term warming trend; nor have I heard anybody question that this trend is, on balance, a bad thing for a majority of the world’s people. The cause of the trend may be debatable, but the fact that it is occurring is not.
FACT 2: CO2 levels have also been rising during this same period that–perhaps coincidentally–began with the Industrial Revolution. Not only has this period been marked by an increase in CO2 production from steam and internal combustion engines, but there has also been massive deforestation and desertification that has reduced CO2 absorption. I would not be surprised to discover that there has also been a rise in other gases like methane–more people have been eating more meat from more chickens and cattle, flaring more natural gas, and depositing more material in landfills, among other things. Again, the results of that trend may be debatable, but the fact that a change in atmospheric composition is occurring is not debatable, and neither is the fact that human activity is contributing to some degree.
FACT 3: CO2 and methane, among other gases, have the property of allowing the transmission of energy from the sun to the earth’s surface while trapping the return flow of energy from the surface back into space. That’s why Venus is so hot. Again, one might debate the consequences of this fact, but this physical property of the gases is simply not debatable.
FACT 4: While nobody can claim (and I haven’t heard many responsible scientists actually claim) that Fact 2 is the [i]sole[/i] cause of Fact 1, Fact 3 makes it clear that the rising greenhouse gas levels cannot possibly be helping the situation. Even if factors such as solar activity, the earth’s movements, or volcanos are causing the majority of the warming trend, it simply is not debatable that the human greenhouse gas contribution is playing a part, to however minor a degree, in the overall trend.
FACT 5: Reputable scientists differ over what the long-term trends are likely to be if greenhouse gas levels continue to rise. However, most of the computer models that have been developed so far seem to be under-predicting the trend, rather than exaggerating it. The last time we had a comparably rapid rise in global CO2 levels was at the Paleocene-Eocene boundary about 55.8 million years ago; the reason that this is a boundary is that there was a significant extinction event at this time caused by a 6Ëš C. rise in global temperatures. Scientists have recently applied the global-warming models to this event, and discovered that temperatures during the thermal maximum actually rose about twice as far as the models would predict. In our own day, the temperature rises in the Arctic have also been significantly greater than the models would predict.
FACT 6: There are things that human beings can collectively do to reduce the production of greenhouse gases and/or to increase their absorption. Each of those things carries certain costs along with its benefits. It is certainly debatable whether the costs exceed the benefits, but it is really not debatable that the reduction of greenhouse gas levels does carry some benefits. Entirely apart from the climate issue, there are such things as the conservation of finite resources, energy independence, the stewardship of God’s creation, etc.
So, again, what is going on here? Why aren’t the people who oppose liberal ideologues like Al Gore offering a cost/benefit analysis of why his suggested policies will do more harm than good (and perhaps suggesting alternative policies), rather than arguing with demonstrable facts like 1-6 above? It is sadly reminiscent of the efforts in the 17th century to argue with the heliocentric model of the solar system or the efforts in the 19th century to argue for the creation of the world on October 23, 4004 B.C.
Actually, Dale, there was a very long warming period during the Middle Ages, where temperatures were one to two degrees warmer than they were during the recent warming period. No huge industrial emissions at that time. That was followed by what was called “the mini-ice age”. There is very little correlation between CO2 causing rising temperatures. In fact, the temperature increase preceeds the rise in CO2, leading many scientists to conclude CO2 levels rose BECAUSE the temps rose.
A very good, very detailed critique of the Human Caused theory can be found at the website [url=http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html]Blobal Warming a Chilling Perspective[/url], run by the West Virginia Plant Fossil folk. The documentation is on the site.
Peace
Jim Elliott <><
“Global” not “Blobal”. I haven’t had my coffee yet.
#16. Dale Rye,
[blockquote]OK, guys, I really don’t understand what is going on here.[/blockquote]
My criticism is of the hypocritical and condescending messenger Thomas L. Friedman who is a self taught “expert”. My criticism of your facts is your certainty about a causative relationship amongst the variables. Everyone who ate carrots in 1880 is now dead. That is a perfect correlation coefficient of 1.0. Unfortunately, it is not a causative relationship. You argue that certain facts are not debatable but I would argue that the relationship between these facts is debatable. [blockquote]Even if factors such as solar activity, the earth’s movements, or volcanos are causing the majority of the warming trend, it simply is not debatable that the human greenhouse gas contribution is playing a part, to however minor a degree, in the overall trend.[/blockquote] OK, my question is, “How much do we contribute?” [blockquote]It is sadly reminiscent of the efforts in the 17th century to argue with the heliocentric model of the solar system or the efforts in the 19th century to argue for the creation of the world on October 23, 4004 B.C.[/blockquote] And here you really don’t offer a relationship at all, only condescending comparisons.
Mr. Rye #16 – I doubt that anybody disputes that reducing greenhouse gases would be a good thing. As a professional Nuclear Engineer, I make my living doing so – and I might note that it is very much in my self-interest to hop on the climate change band wagon. But I don’t, because I’m not sold on the claims of the advocates. There is reason to dispute the claims re anthropogenic global warming: as noted above, the northern hemisphere has been recovering from a mini ice age since the 1700’s. Climate change is a normal thing in God’s creation.
In general, you ask reasonable questions (although in the 17th century, Galileo at least was NOT offering particularly sound arguments in favor of the heliocentric model and Kepler still believed that the sun orbited the earth). Perhaps the matter comes down to who has the burden of proof here, those who propose radical changes to our current way of life or those who want justification before doing so. What is offered in the subject article is propaganda and moralistic grandstanding, not a cost-benefit analysis – which I agree would be a good thing. Frankly, I have neither time nor expertise to offer one save to note, as I did in #5 above, that nuclear plants will be far less costly and damaging to the environment than wind and solar, which thrive primarily on romanticism and the fact that they are not yet in widespread use such that their cost/benefit is readily apparent. I’m curious, though: what policy proposals do you support and why should the rest of us agree?
Here’s a question for all of you. Why have the ice plates on Pluto warmed and slipped? Becasue of the Industrial Revolution?
I don’t know where Dale gets his figures, but I can show research that atmospheric CO2 has not risen in 160 years,
that temperatures have not risen since the mid-90s,
that the temperature trend line is downward, not upward,
and so forth.
a thorough dismantling of this poor excuse for journalism is here:
http://bigjournalism.com/chorner/2010/02/17/tom-i-me-mine-friedman-responds-to-the-global-warming-deniers-hilarity-ensues/
# 22. A Senior Priest, Sorry, but data from NOAA, EPA, and NASA all contradict each of the three statements you make here. While I was chief of standard reference materials at the NBS, I certified CO2 reference materials for monitoring CO2 in the atmosphere. The levels increased monotonically with every reissue.
For those of you with an iPhone or iPod Touch, there is a rather nifty free app(lication) called “Skeptical Science” that addresses a lot of these issues.
Dale, I’m sure they allow both sides to be presented fairly and with balance, or is it just another “let’s bash the skeptics” site?
The only way this is going to be settled as to the cause is to have a fair, open debate. The Pro-AGW folk have not allowed that yet, and in fact, they go to great length to discredit the other side without discussing the merits of the accusations (see the Climategate emails for great examples, or just listen to an Al Gore speech).
Three temperature sets are typically used in estimating temperature, one in the UK Met Office, and two in the US, maintained, respectively by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and by the US space agency NASA. These three agencies take raw data (as far as I know, unavailable to the public) and ‘homogenize’ it to deal with the anomalies caused by local variations and discontinuities, — in some cases “losing†the raw data. The existing satellite data sets are calibrated against the earth data sets. The fact that non linear transformations are used in this data “adjustment is revealed by permutations in the list of what are considered to be the warmest years of the last century. For example, 1934 has long been considered the warmest year. “Adjustments†of the NASA GISS data to reduce the temperature difference between 1934 and 1998 actually produced one such permutation. Since linear transformations of temperature data are order preserving, these permutations reveal the use of non linear data processing. Temperature “homogenization†by a non linear functions is physically meaningless and can transform a data set consistent with warming into one in which the average falls. Nonlinear processing does not preserve the mean. That the description of a physical system be independent of the reference frame is essential to ensure that the laws governing that system are the same for different observers. This principle is violated when the same data set produces diametrically opposed results when diferent scales are used.
As a simple illustration: Imagine a planet, call it X, that has only only one weather station which for many centuries the records a constant temperature of 16°X. Suppose that in a certain year two temperature measurements are made and readings of 0°X and 36°X obtained yielding a mean of 18°X. Suppose now that the temperature scale °X is related to a scale °Y (based, say, on tree rings) by a non linear order preserving transformation which converts 0°X to 0°Y; 16°X to 4°Y and 36°X to 6°Y. When °X are used, the data shows a rise of 2°X in the mean. The same data when converted to °Y shows a fall of in the mean of 1°Y. Thus, whether we deduce warming or cooling depends on the scale used.
Please see http://pennance.us/?p=32 for more details.