Claims about climate change rebutted
Chuck Kutscher, Golden
Published January 8, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
In his Dec. 24 Differing View, "Worried about shrinking ice caps? First, do the math," Richard Savage made many false or misleading remarks.
He ridiculed my statement in a press conference sponsored by Environment Colorado that summer Arctic sea ice may be gone in five to 20 years. The National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder determined that on Sept. 16, Arctic sea ice extent set a new record minimum of 1.6 million square miles, or 22 percent below the previous record low set two years ago. No wonder NASA glaciologist Jay Zwally said, "The Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free at the end of summer by 2012."
Savage stated, "Antarctica . . . is gaining - not losing - ice." On the contrary, as reported in the March 24, 2006, issue of the prestigious journal Science, measurements by NASA's twin GRACE satellites indicate that between April 2002 and August 2005 the Antarctic ice sheet lost an average of 37 cubic miles of ice per year.
He pointed to the average sea level rise over "the recent 50 centuries" as evidence, somehow, that it will continue at that same rate. But in the May 4, 2007, issue of Science, Rahmstorf et al. state, "The rate of rise for the last 20 years of the reconstructed sea level is 25 percent faster than the rate of rise in any 20-year period in the preceding 115 years."
For people like Savage who reject the science because they fear "tax increases," I recommend they look at the real cost of climate change. A new University of Maryland report concludes, "Delayed action (or inaction) . . . will likely be the most expensive policy option." Unfortunately, that is exactly the head-in-the- sand approach that climate deniers like Savage are still peddling.
I urge Rocky Mountain News readers to listen instead to what our climate scientists are telling us and demand solutions to this rapidly worsening problem.
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
January 8, 2008
7:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Oh please. The letter writer is right. Look at the NASA time lapse footage of the arctic from 1979-2003 at: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n... You can SEE the visible SHRINKING of the ice, looks like about 1/2.
Then you have the breaking off of numerous ice shelves, such as the Ayles in Dec 06 which was 41 square miles (more than 11,000 football fields), the Ward Hunt Ice Shelf, the Larson B in 2002, and the Pine Island Glacier break.
Then there was the DOUBLING of the ice discharge from the Jakobshavn Isbrae (a major component of the mass balance of the continental ice sheet) which started in late 2002.
So, for those who don't think there's a problem with global warming, since you seem to have all the answers, explain these occurences to me please, as well as why we shouldn't be concerned. Guess we're lucky we are in CO!
January 8, 2008
7:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Global warming deniers have a lot in common with holocaust deniers. They refuse to face disconcerting facts.
Thermometers provide direct measurements of global warming. Ice cores from glaciers provide data going back approximately 100,000 years or so. Glaciers are melting so fast that, in geological time, they are being hit with a blowtorch.
This evidence is corroborated by permafrost melting. Structures built on permafrost such as apartment buildings in northern Russia and Siberia are collapsing. The permafrost is being melted by the sustained increase in temperatures.
The current mass extinction event is human caused. Much of this is due to habitat destruction, over-hunting, poison, stress, and resulting diseases. Some species are unable to migrate to new locations where the temperatures are cool enough to sustain them. Gardeners in cooler climate zones are now able to grow plants from warmer climate zones. This may be good for gardeners. For the vast majority of uncultivated species, it's very bad or a even death warrant.
The greenhouse effect is well known physics. Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas absorbs infrared light, also known as radiant heat. So, more heat is trapped in the atmosphere when it was previously radiated out into space during the night. This effect is small on any given night, but these small effects add up over the long term.
The sources of CO2 are numerous. All of them have been stable, following a budget of production and absorption over millions of years except for one. The new variable is human produced CO2, which does not adhere to a budget. Plants absorb CO2 and fix the carbon into a solid by photosynthesis. Unlike plants, we create far more CO2 than we absorb by burning carbon-based fuels. We also destroy jungles and forests, and pollute the oceans, worsening the imbalance.
The radiant output of the Sun fluctuates and the Earth passes through clouds of subatomic particles, such as neutrinos, that may effect its core temperature to some extent. Measurements of solar output show that this is not nearly as significant as human-caused global warming. The core temperature of the Earth is not the issue.
American scientists were major contributors to Kyoto Protocol. It was not designed to punish America. It was designed to put the world on a carbon budget using a gradual process of improvement. The Bush regime refused to sign it. Now global warming deniers use that as if to say Kyoto was not important enough. Perhaps Bush was not smart enough to understand what's at stake.
The Earth is not what's at stake here. The planet will remain no matter what we do. The simple truth about environmentalism is that, in spite of all protestations to the contrary, it's really about saving humanity from itself.
January 8, 2008
7:17 a.m.
Suggest removal
freethinker07 writes:
The measurement of arctic ice in square miles is intriguing. Ice is a solid. Solids are measured in cubic rather than square measurements. Kutscher's statement makes as much sense as saying that someone will drink 15 square inches of water instead of a cup of water.
In fact, in the following paragraph he uses a quote that correctly uses cubic miles referring to antarctic ice.
January 8, 2008
7:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Sell everything and move to higher ground! Right. The sun, the moon, and the earth contribute over 99% of the effects in play and some unproven "claims" by these people are taken seriously?
January 8, 2008
7:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
I don't think anyone denies that global warming (or cooling) exists. The whole issue is whether or not it is "man-made" or how much human activity contributes. If that is the case, then what can we really do about it? And as for those that think that this part of the global warming question has been settled (like AlGore seems to), it is NOT.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cf...
As this link shows, there are MANY qualified and respected scientists that seem to question the hysteria that surrounds this issue and they are intimidated to speak against the PC crowd. I am willing to discuss this issue, but for anyone trying to tell me it is settled and the cause established, please spare me your zealotry.
January 8, 2008
7:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
Holier, I think it is interesting how many people who deny that there is global warming also don't beleive in evolution. Some people get all the science they need from the Bible.
January 8, 2008
7:47 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
SO, if it's a bunch of hysteric "the sky is falling", then I don't need to worry about the arctic shrinking in 1/2 in 24 years, or glaciers discharge doubling, or components of the ice sheet breaking off? Please address this! These are FACTS, not hysteria.
January 8, 2008
8:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
HolierThanThou wrote, "Carbon dioxide (CO2) gas absorbs infrared light, also known as radiant heat. So, more heat is trapped in the atmosphere when it was previously radiated out into space ..."
Global temperatures do not track CO2 levels. Even though CO2 has increased in the atmosphere since 1998 by about 4 percent, global temperatures never got higher than its peak in 1998.
Furthermore, if what you say is happening, then we'd be seeing its effects in the IR images taken by satellite of the earth's surface. Because IR that can't make it past the CO2 barrier won't reach the satellites either.
Yet, the images are sharp, clear and detailed. That says the IR is making it through the CO2 with no significant loss.
January 8, 2008
9:01 a.m.
Suggest removal
Wes writes:
Posted by Michael on January 8, 2008 at 7:39 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"I don't think anyone denies that global warming (or cooling) exists. The whole issue is whether or not it is "man-made" or how much human activity contributes. If that is the case, then what can we really do about it?"
Another flatearther echoing the oil industry perspective that we are a hydrocarbon culture and no amount of "facts" are going to change our lifestyle habits. Regardless of whether the heating of the earth and the rise of the oceans is man-made or not only dinosaurs do nothing when faced with change. Man is a problem solver and it has been the ability to adapt and change that has led to his survival. Instead of weeping for the oil companies Mike might want to consider the new green technologies that will power tomorrow. Some people sit in the shadows and complain while others seize the day and change.
Here is a good article on the melting of the Greenland ice sheets.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/01/0...
January 8, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
So, even after thousands(yes, thousands!) of the world's most reputable scientists have concluded that global warming is a fact, there are still those who deny it or who put the blame on nature, rather than man. The irony is that a handful of "scientists" funded by such ethically challenged players as Exxon-Mobil and other coal and auto companies have deliberately tried to sabotage the debate with skewed and biased data.
I implore those who still believe that volcanic events and not human behavior is to blame for this phenomena to consider the one to one correspondence of increasing global temperatures and the beginning of the industrial revolution. Ice core analysis reveals the spike in atmospheric CO2 beginning in the early 1800's and following the same growth curve as our rate of consumption of fossil fuels,
I know that in my lifetime we of the " baby boom" generation won't be seriously impacted by global warming. Our children and grandchildren will pay the price for our foot dragging and denial. If I thought there was an opportunity to mitigate global warming only slightly by sacrificing now for the future, I would still do it for the sake of future generations.
January 8, 2008
9:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
HolierThanThou wrote, "[Kyoto Protocol] was not designed to punish America. It was designed to put the world on a carbon budget using a gradual process of improvement."
Bull. If that was true, then it would have applied to everybody. Instead, it put the tightest restraints on the US, while leaving some of the worst polluters in the world like China and India off the hook.
"The Bush regime refused to sign it."
The Kyoto Protocol came out in 1997. That puts it in the Clinton administration. He refused to sign it, and he was correct.
January 8, 2008
9:15 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
HolierThanThou equates global warming "deniers" to holocaust deniers. This is absolutely ridiculous.
The case for global warming is debatable. However, let’s say for the sake of argument that it’s not debatable at all. Let’s say humans are without a doubt causing temperature increases, and there are absolutely no other factors involved at all.
The effects this will have are predictions, and predictions are not facts. Predictions are nothing more than speculation. You could say that the odds are in favor of a prediction coming true, but a prediction can’t logically be presented as a fact.
The Holocaust is a very well documented historical event. We know it is a fact because it is something that has already happened and the documentation is there to prove it. People who question the predictions of the effects of global warming are questioning predictions of the future, not of documented history. The comparison makes no sense at all.
January 8, 2008
9:29 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Equating Al Gore to Hitler is no better than equating global warming skeptics to holocause deniers. Gore may be an idiot, but he's no mass murderer.
January 8, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Actually, 2005 was the hottest year on record. In fact, 4 out of the last 7 years are the hottest on record." - Tbone
I read that link - the graph and "recorded" temps goes back to 1880!!! A measly 127 years on a planet that many believe to be 6 BILLION years old. Yes, that is a great way to evaluate overall historic global climate and temp changes. That is similar to looking at a stock market graph from this morning and drawing a conclusion about stocks over the last 150 years. Ridiculous to the extreme.
January 8, 2008
9:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
An_Engineer writes:
Interesting debate amongst the various participants. However, not a lot of verifiable data has been introduced. As such, for the debate on Artic and Antarctic ice mass, here are three articles with data that has been properly referenced.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/ind...
http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencec...
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/...
Check the articles out and then check the references out. After that, draw your conclusions on the data.
For the comment on the temperature records for the 21st century, it would appear that the data cited was somewhat in error. 2007 was not the warmest year on record and was not even close. Please refer to this link for an analysis of the yearly temperature records for the 20th and 21st centuries. You will then see where 2007 actually stood.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2008/01/200...
January 8, 2008
9:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
Tbone,
Look at the bottom graph in your link. You could almost draw a straight horizontal line across the peaks of the global temperatures since 1998. In any case, it does not track a 4 percent increase in CO2 since then.
From http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/r...
"The 2005 global temperature was statistically indistinguishable from the standing record set in 1998."
January 8, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
NotChasB- I am not gullible, I actually go out and RESEARCH, something you don't do. I look at the data, rather than rely on uninformed opinions like you. So how does that make me gullible?
Regarding your "Global warming has been coming for a long time and man has no control over it", what a bunch of BS. While the earth has natural warming and cooling trends, it is evident we have had an effect on that cycle, which we could mitigate if we chose to do so.
Michael-
"the graph and "recorded" temps goes back to 1880!!! A measly 127 years on a planet that many believe to be 6 BILLION years old"
Um, hello, the core ice data goes back further than 127 years- between 400-650,000. While that may not be the age of the earth, that is a big chunk, and more than enough since it documents several natural cycles of warming and cooling. What IS important, is that since the start of the industrial revolution (around 1880) when we started pumping emissions in the air, is that the CO2 levels started spiking far greater than in any previous cycle- almost double. [http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/scie...] That data is undeniable and proves that man's activities HAVE affected this cycle. Further, it IS cause for alarm, since there is a direct correlation between CO2 levels and temperature.
Folks, look at the data. You skeptics out there STILL haven't addressed the evidence I raised previously, and here's even more data for you. If visibly seeing the arctic shrink in half in 24 years isn't enough for you, or the fact we are seeing the effects NOW in the ice shelf breakage and temp records, what in the world does it take??
January 8, 2008
9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Gore my hero? Please. I said nothing of the sort. I am anything but a fan of Al Gore. I call the man an idiot and you call him my hero? How does that make sense?
January 8, 2008
10:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
NotChasB-
If I'm gullible, and Al Gore is a liar, what about your own eyes? Look at the NASA footage of the arctic shrinking: http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...
It is undeniable. The arctic is shrinking. The question is what will the result be? We've already seen one: the breaking of ice shelves. Another is temperature; according to NASA, over the past 30 years, the earth has warmed by about 1.08°F. More important, it affects us since:
- The world's 10 warmest years have all occurred since 1994, in a temperature record dating back a century and a half. (United Nations Weather Agency)
- 2006 was THE warmest on record for the US. (NOAA)
- 2006 was the fifth warmest on record for the world. (NASA)
- 2007 is predicted to be THE warmest on record for the world.
In addition to the temperature, it affects us in the increasing number of storms and changing intensity:
- The number of category 4 and 5 hurricanes has almost doubled globally over the past three decades. (Science Magazine)
- 20% of hurricanes in the 1970s reached Category 4 or 5.3 WHEREAS 33% of hurricanes in the 1990s and 2000s reached Category 4 or 5.[3]
- 100% increase in intensity & duration of hurricanes and tropical storms since the 1970s.[4]
- 63% Increase in hurricane intensity & duration linked to higher sea surface temperatures.[4]
- 2005: Year with the most intense Atlantic-basin storm ever recorded: Hurricane Wilma.
- 2005: Year with most hurricanes in the Atlantic on record.
- 2006: Year with one of the strongest tropical cyclones to ever hit the South Pacific. Cyclone Monica made landfall in Queensland, Australia on April 19.
- 2004: Year with the first hurricane ever recorded in the South Atlantic. On March 26, Hurricane Catarina made landfall 500 miles south of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.[5]
$100 billion: Estimate of damage caused by hurricanes hitting the U.S. coasts in 2005 alone. [National Climatic Data Center]
Yep, I must be "gullible" looking at the data, nothing to worry about...
(Sources available on request, can't hyperlink all due to blog constraints)
January 8, 2008
10:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
NotChasB-
Name calling doesn't refute FACTS, from respectable agencies like NASA. Thanks for showing that you don't allow reality to get in the way of your opinions!
January 8, 2008
10:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
glowrock writes:
NotChasB, in your everlasting, ahem, wisdom, since you consider NASA to be a biased and bogus information source, exactly what source(s) do you believe to be unbiased and reliable?
Let me guess, anything sponsored by an energy company or by an auto manufacturer?
January 8, 2008
10:57 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Why not compare global warming deniers to holocaust deniers?
They both deny history.
Global warming deniers refuse to face facts like:
1. The Earth's temperature was cooler and is now getting hotter.
2. Glaciers were once larger and present in more places.
3. Species that once thrived are now as extinct as millions of Jews that once thrived in Europe.
4. The melting of the arctic is not raising sea level because that ice is already afloat, but landed glaciers on Greenland and Antarctica will flood highly populated coastal regions when they melt.
Some of you need to quit revising history. Kyoto Protocol was written in the 1990s but the Bush regime (the Clinton administration being history) has stubbornly refused to ratify it. See the time line:
http://maps.grida.no/library/files/st...
If Al Gore had been elected, something tells me he would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol.
One of the ironies about strong environmental policy is that it always proves to be beneficial to the economy by creating new industries and jobs despite the hue and cry from conservatives that it will kill them.
CAFE standards literally saved the American auto industry from itself. They were producing gas-guzzling lemons in the 1970s. When the Arab oil barons decided to insert the reamer up America's collective kazoo, Americans turned to Japanese-built cars that got better gas mileage. CAFE standards forced our automakers to build a better product and made them viable again. Then they circumvented the CAFE standards by selling light trucks as passenger cars or sport utility vehicles (SUVs). Judging from their sales trends, it's only a matter of time before they come crawling again, hat in hand.
Citizens in USA produce an average of 24.3 tons of CO2 emissions per year while the average for the world is 5.6 tons of CO2 per person per year.
Global warming deniers refuse to face these facts because of gluttony, greed, fear, and stupidity. It's funny to watch people worry about getting killed by something that has almost zero probability of hurting them. Car wrecks kill about 50,000 Americans per year and maim even more. Our present government will spend a trillion dollars in a vain attempt to grab the world's second largest oil patch to sustain are unhealthy addiction to oil. All that money would be better spent on energy conservation and things like a more cost-effective transportation system.
Of course, taking a train or bus isn't just safer than driving with traffic jam induced road rage sufferers. Global warming deniers might have to actually walk a few blocks every day from the train station or bus stop. Gasp! That might cause them to loose some of those folds of fat that we admire so much.
January 8, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
akeegan writes:
While reading some of these blogs, it’s interesting to me that many of those people that feel impelled to respond are also those that choose NOT to do the research. In the same way that Richard Savage failed to do his research on the real state of our ice caps, these responses are full of factual inaccuracies. If blogger ‘Earl’ had done his research, he would have known that the Clinton Administration did in fact sign the Kyoto Protocol on November the 12th, 1998. The United States Senate has yet to ratify the Protocol. And if blogger ‘freethinker07’ had done his/her research, they would have known that sea ice extent is actually, by definition, “the total area covered by some amount of ice…ice extent is typically reported in square kilometers” (See the National Snow and Ice Data Center’s glossary at http://nsidc.org).
The real issue (above and beyond the falsities being promoted in many of these blogs) is that these climate skeptics write a few sentences in hopes of discrediting decades of scientific research, research that is based on the work of thousands, research that is performed by some of the greatest minds in the world, and research that is then REVIEWED by other great minds.
Kutscher’s point is a critical one: man-made climate change and its effects are more than well-documented by prestigious and well-respected research institutions.
And in support of Al Gore, the reason he does not debate on climate change is that there simply is no debate. So for those who acknowledge and want to address this very real problem, check out the American Solar Energy Society’s “Tackling Climate Change in the U.S.” at www.ases.org.
January 8, 2008
11:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Holier,
That is nonsense. Nobody questioning the predictions of global warming deny documented history.
“Glaciers were once larger and present in more places.”
Sure. Who denies that? We all know about past ice ages.
“The Earth’s temperature was cooler and is now getting hotter.”
There’s a little debate about that, but I’m not really seeing anybody denying that there has been any change. The question is how significant it is, what the cause is, and if there’s anything people can do about it.
Regarding melting glaciers, that is a prediction and not a documented historical event.
All of the predictions about global warming are exactly that, predictions. Do you not understand the difference between a prediction of the future and a documented historical event?
January 8, 2008
11:08 a.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Correction: That second sentence should have said "denies" rather than "deny".
January 8, 2008
11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
akeegan wrote, "And in support of Al Gore, the reason he does not debate on climate change is that there simply is no debate."
I don't buy it. The very fact that there is a lot of back-and-forth views on it in this thread alone says the debate is very much alive.
It's clear to me that the reason Gore refuses to debate skeptics is that he fears that his fraud will be exposed.
January 8, 2008
11:33 a.m.
Suggest removal
Z_man writes:
Clearly, the underlying cause of all the argument over global warming is that some people think global warming is somehow "bad". Where does this come from? 1000 or so years ago, Greenland was named "Greenland" because it was, well...green! People raised cattle there.
Somehow, Chuck and his ilk think global warming is bad. I'll welcome it.
Tbone - you're wrong. The planet has cooled in the last decade (1998-2005) or so. http://acuf.org/issues/issue62/060624...
January 8, 2008
11:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
We don't deny global warming, but historically speaking, the globe used to be MUCH warmer than now.
Maybe nature's taking its due course and returning us to our proper temperatures...
Besides, if global warming is caused by man's added CO2, why does rising CO2 levels FOLLOW warming trends, not LEAD them?
January 8, 2008
11:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
It still amazes me that you folks on the far right choose to disregard the conclusions of nearly every single, peer-reviewed, field appropriate scientist on the planet on this one and instead choose to accept the nonscientific, nonpeer-reviewed opinions of politicians, corporate lobbyists and "scientists" (again, nonpeer-reviewed) on the payroll of big oil.
Staggers the imagination.
January 8, 2008
11:45 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
An_Engineer:
"As such, for the debate on Artic and Antarctic ice mass, here are three articles with data that has been properly referenced.
...
http://ff.org/images/stories/sciencec...
..."
I took a look at this one, and it is off the mark. For example it says:
"In reality, the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets occupy deep basins, and cannot slide down a plane. Furthermore glacial flow depends on stress (including the important yield stress) as well as temperature, and much of the ice sheets are well below melting point. The accumulation of kilometers of undisturbed ice in cores in Greenland and Antarctica (the same ones that are sometimes used to fuel ideas of global warming) show hundreds of thousands of years of accumulation with no melting or flow. Except around the edges, ice sheets flow at the base and depend on geothermal heat, not the climate at the surface. >>It is impossible for the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to collapse<<."
Well, yeah, no kidding. Of course land bound ice sheets can't collapse, but then the Arctic doesn't have land bound ice sheets. It the collapse of ice >>shelves<< (which are not land bound) that are of concern. That's specifically what fiesty refers to in he(r) 7:04 post about the Ayles, Ward Hunt, and Larson B. Where fiesty mentions land based glaciers such as Jakobshavn, (s)he specifically refers to the discharge, not that Jakobshavn is in danger of collapsing.
So right there, that reference is nothing but a straw man.
This is one reason why I'm often reluctant to follow a posted link with something as general as "go read this". It would be much more helpful if you would at least make some sort of argument and quote a relative paragraph or abstract from the link. After wasting my time with this one, I'm not even going to bother with your other links.
(sorry for the gender-inspecific pronouns fiesty).
January 8, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
So, Jay, the above-referenced Senatorial report debunking the "consensus" matters nothing to you?
Those ladies and gentlemen have also been peer-reviewed... that matters nothing to you?
Nothing new here, libs have their collective heads stuck in the stand and refuse to listen to any counter-arguments to their preconceived notions of reality.
January 8, 2008
11:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
I stand corrected. Clinton did sign Kyoto. However, for it to be binding, it had to be ratified by the US Senate.
Clinton refused to submit it to the Senate for ratification "unless key developing countries commit themselves to limiting, if not reducing, their emissions some time in the future." http://www.sunsonline.org/trade/proce...
January 8, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
freethinker07:
"The measurement of arctic ice in square miles is intriguing. Ice is a solid. Solids are measured in cubic rather than square measurements. Kutscher's statement makes as much sense as saying that someone will drink 15 square inches of water instead of a cup of water."
Actually, Kutscher was acurrate. When he said square miles, he specifically said extent.
January 8, 2008
11:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
gary writes:
I do not deny global warming...I deny idiots like Al Gore and his followers that believe man controls the weather of the Earth. Let see 400-650 thousand years of ice research!! Compared to the Earth's exisistance!! Yep that says it all. The Earth has been going through cooling...the Ice Age and warming...the melting of the Ice Age for millions of years. It will continue to change and niether Al Gore or the rest of you can stop it!!
So go ahead you Global Warmers....tell me what melted off the Ice Age on the Earth...the cavemen and their campfires??
January 8, 2008
noon
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Ted_in_Vegas:
"Besides, if global warming is caused by man's added CO2, why does rising CO2 levels FOLLOW warming trends, not LEAD them?"
Currently rising CO2 levels >>are<< leading rising temperature.
Prehistoric records from the ice cores show that in past ice age cycles CO2 levels followed temperature, which is something AGW theory actually predicts.
So what's your point?
January 8, 2008
12:11 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ted_in_Vegas writes:
It kinda reminds me of the Catholic Church challenging Galileo...
But then again, scientist did, once, tell us that:
the world is flat
that maggots spontaneously reproduced
that man would never travel faster than 50 mph or faster than sound
that it was impossible to fly or go into space or split an atom
All of these preconceived notions were changed because bold people challenged the status quo. Libs like you want to shut them up because they don't fit the norm and belittle them to the point of lying about them (ie., claiming their not peer-reviewed, claiming that they're not ethical or in the back pocket of the oil industry, etc.)
I thought libs were supposed to have open minds, instead we find closed-mindedness. Go figure.
January 8, 2008
12:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Michael writes:
"Some of you need to quit revising history. Kyoto Protocol was written in the 1990s but the Bush regime (the Clinton administration being history) has stubbornly refused to ratify it."
and this one too from Holier than Thou
"If Al Gore had been elected, something tells me he would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol."
These are about the stupidest statements in here today. Why? Because Presidents DO NOT RATIFY TREATIES!!!!!! The US Senate does. Why was the Kyoto Treaty not ratified under Clinton or not even fought for?? Because he knew (as he is/was a smart politican) that the Senate would never ratify it - NEVER - because China and India were exempted from it. And the statement about AlGore 'ratifying" Kyoto is equally stupid as he also could not have done anything but ask the Senate to vote and the last time I looked it takes 2/3 of the Senate (67 Senators) to ratify a treaty. When was the last time 67 Senators agreed on anything. Certainly not Kyoto which was a piece of crap then and still stinks to high heaven.
January 8, 2008
12:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
Punching holes in crap spewed by global warming deniers is too easy, this could be even more fun if we had tornado deniers mixed in with them:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/...
Maybe the Bechtels or Richard Scaife would be willing to give me a couple million bucks to put on a radio show that calls these bogus tornado reports a big liberal conspiracy.
I could blame the tornadoes on Al Qaeda terrorists eating too much falafel and onions. When they all bend over to pray in one direction the vicious swine create a deadly vortex! It comes whirling over the Atlantic and slams straight into our blessed Bible-thumping heartland! Killing innocents! Razing trailer parks and decent God-fearing folks' nice homes alike! The horror! Never mind about warning systems and louder sirens! We must give billions to start another war!
The only ethical problem I would have with my new radio program is that there are plenty of idiots who would actually believe it.
January 8, 2008
12:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
You got the Kyoto Protocol history wrong, Michael.
So now the best you can do is nitpick my rhetoric? Of course, the Senate ratifies treaties. Everyone knows that. But the president is usually the one who introduces the treaty and applies pressure on the Senate to vote for it. The Senate does not meet with foreign governments or go to international conventions to negotiate treaties. The president is responsible for delegating those jobs.
So, my assertion that Al Gore would have ratified the treaty stands. I just didn't want to bore everyone with the details. This space is put to better use refuting your nonsense and poking fun at your stupidity.
January 8, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
We’re getting to the point of pure insanity here. Tornados prove that global warming is man-made? This is ridiculous.
Has anybody bothered to read the information coming from the U.N. on global warming?
Here are some quotes from the Third Assessment Report, from 2001.
“Climate variations and change, caused by external forcings, may be partly predictable, partly on the larger, continental and global, spatial scales. Because human activities, such as the emission of greenhouse gases or land-use change, do result in external forcing, it is believed that the large-scale aspects of human-induced climate change are also partially predictable. However the ability to actually do so is limited because we cannot accurately predict population change, economic change, technological development, and other relevant characteristics of future human activity. In practice, therefore, one has to rely on carefully constructed scenarios of human behaviour and determine climate projections on the basis of such scenarios.”
So….climate change “may” be “partially” predictable. The U.N. “believes” climate change caused by humans is predictable. But it goes on to say that we can’t predict human behavior, and therefore we have to rely on “scenarios”. These are not facts, they are guesses.
Here’s another one:
“In order to define future radiative forcings fully, it is necessary to make assumptions about how the emissions or concentrations of the other gases may change in the future. In addition, it is necessary to have a base scenario against which the effect of the different stabilization pathways may be assessed. The state of the science at present is such that it is only possible to give illustrative examples of possible outcomes.”
Illustrative examples? As far as I’m concerned, illustrated examples do not justify the cost of compliance with Kyoto.
January 8, 2008
12:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
“Accurate simulation of current climate does not guarantee the ability of a model to simulate climate change correctly. Climate models now have some skill in simulating changes in climate since 1850, but these changes are fairly small compared with the many projections of climate change into the 21st century.
“Some skill” in reproducing the past should concern people. Also, “some skill” in reproducing the past is not skill in predicting the future. This doesn’t make the models sound like they perform well at all.
“While we do not consider that the complexity of a climate model makes it impossible to ever prove such a model ‘false’ in any absolute sense, it does make the task of evaluation extremely difficult and leaves room for a subjective component in any assessment.”
Science, by its definition, is not subjective. These models are not science, they are subjective predictions.
“In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible. The most we can expect to achieve is the prediction of the probability distribution of the system’s future possible states by the generation of ensembles of model solutions.”
Read the end of that second sentence once more. “The long term prediction of future climate states is not possible”. If it can’t be predicted, why are we worrying about it?
IPCC predictions for temperature increase by 2100 range from 1.5 degrees to 6 degrees. A variation of 400%. Is a variation that large enough to justify the costs of compliance with Kyoto, when we don’t even know what the consequence, if any at all, of those variations would be in the future?
January 8, 2008
12:58 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Ted_in_Vegas:
"But then again, scientist did, once, tell us that:
the world is flat
..."
And you have your argument backwards. The science predicted that prehistoric CO2 levels followed temperature increases and the did.
"Libs like you want to shut them up because they don't fit the norm and belittle them to the point of lying about them"
First off some here are not "Libs".
Secondly, I don't want to "shut you up" - I'll exercise MY right to free speech and rebut your arguments. If you wish to counter rebut have at it, otherwise I really don't care how much you whine and howl.
January 8, 2008
1:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Global warming is silly. We have termperature data for a few hundred years, ice core data for 100K or so, and satellite data for a few decades. That's about 1/10,000th or 1/100th of 1% of the history of the world. Like saying that you will get fat based upon the food you ate in the last few seconds of your life.
In the past, the Earth has been entirely defrosted with no polar ice, and alternatively, entirely frozen, with a solid layer of ice over all the oceans. So, things change and man has little to do with it. Ever heard of an ice age? Well, after the ice, there must have been some global warming, and it has occured countless times in the absence of humankind.
Luckily, the Artic is floating ice, so when it all melts the sea level will not change (or, might go down slightly).
There is no scientific method in any global warming research - only models and some observation. So, with such avid support and such a lack of any realistic scientific underpinning, the only conclusion is: global warming = silly.
Seems that the only solution for envirocrats is to change the terminology from global warming to "global climate change", so that we can be equally frightened of blizards as we are of heat-waves.
January 8, 2008
1:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I have to admit that I admire you far right wing Deniers' dedication to protecting the energy industries best interests...over the citizens of the US and world....just like the rest of the republicans in washington...you are certainly good little footsoldiers.
If ANYONE on your side of the extreme political spectrum has a link to credible, field-appropriate, peer-reviewed conclusions that in any way solidly refutes the conclusions of nearly every single field appropriate, peer-reviewed, credible scientist on the planet in regards to this issue....by all means...please make your case so we can either debunk this vast left wing conspiracy or move on accordingly.
January 8, 2008
2:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH - I love your name choice: it's very imaginative! I call myself " greenleaf" because I am a professional botanist/horticulturist. I see a certain irony in your choice: are you given to a belief in mythology or are you a being teetering on the verge of extinction?- Please pardon my small joke.
Actually, it was the flat earthers and the sun revolving around the earth crowd that labeled scientists as heretics. Some things never change. If the truth is indeed, inconvenient, as it is now, scientists are called alarmists, chicken little or worse. We have a right to be concerned by what we see in our daily lives and in the research. We live here too, and are only interested in making the world a better place for our children, grandchildren and, yes, yours as well Sasquatch!
January 8, 2008
2:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Regarding Jay’s “consensus”, the following individuals believe that global warming is primarily caused by nature:
Khabibullo Abdusamatov, mathematician & astronomer at Pulkovskaya Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Sallie Baliunas, astronomer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Reid Bryson, emeritus professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Studies, University of Wisconsin-Madison
George V. Chilingar, Professor of Civil and Petroleum Engineering at the University of Southern California
Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Studies, University of Ottawa
David Douglas, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University
William M. Gray, Professor of Atmospheric Science, CO State University
William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to the World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology
George Kukla, retired Professor of Climatology at Columbia University and Lamon-Doherty Earth Observatory
David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climate Research, University of Delaware
Marcel Leroux, former Professor of Climatology, Université Jean Moulin
Tad Murty, oceanographer, adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and Professor of Geology at Carleton University
Ian Plimer, Professor of Mining Geology, The University of Adelaide
Tom Segalstad, head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo
Frederick Seitz, retired solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences
Nir Shaviv, astrophysicist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Fred Singer, Professor emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia
Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London
Henrik Svensmark, Danish National Space Center
Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, Professor Emeritus from University of Ottawa
Take your pick of the above and I’ll give you a quote and a link. Hardly a “global consensus”.
January 8, 2008
2:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
The following believe that the cause is unknown:
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Claude Allegre, geochemist at the Institute of Geophysics in Paris
Robert C. Balling, Jr., professor of geography at the Arizona State University
John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama
Petr Chylek, Space and Remote Sensing Sciences researcher at the Los Alamos National Laboratory
William R. Cotton, Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at CO State University
Chris de Freitas, Associate Professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland
David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma
Richard Lindzen, Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences
Roy Spencer, principal research scientist at the University of Alabama
January 8, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
I'll ask again anyone on the far right have any evidence that is PEER REVIEWED, FIELD APPROPRIATE AND CREDIBLE?
January 8, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
OK then, how should we interpret a newspaper article, or, for that matter, a scientific article, that begins with "Scientists now agree that man-made global warning...blah blah"?
January 8, 2008
2:52 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay, dude, pick one.
January 8, 2008
2:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Jay - the burden of proof is on those who believe in man-made global warming (not the other way around), since the history of Earth stands as proof against it. Unfortunately, there can be no scientifically valid study devised within our lifetimes that will prove a link between environmental variations on the scale of global warming and anything man-made.
January 8, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Here's one: In a recent report, C02 levels were calculated to be at their highest level in 60,000 years. Clearly, the Earth's tempurature is not it's highest in that same time period. I think this was in Nature or Science.
January 8, 2008
2:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Fischb,
Interpret it however you want to. If it's a newspaper article, remember that it's a NEWSPAPER article. If it's an article in a scientific journal, I'll bet you can find a rebuttal if you look around a bit.
It's also worth paying attention to exactly what the article says, just like with the Third Assessment Report from the U.N. in which they flat out say that they can't accurately predict what is going to happen with the climate.
January 8, 2008
3:10 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Tbone,
That's a big "if". Do we have any idea what the odds really are of something like that happening? According the the U.N., we don't.
January 8, 2008
3:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
jay,
How about Dr. Nathan Paldor, Professor of Dynamical Meteorology and Physical Oceanography. Author of 70 peer-reviewed studies, and a man-made climate change skeptic.
January 8, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
"the burden of proof is on those who believe in man-made global warming (not the other way around), since the history of Earth stands as proof against it."
this is also a myth.
If you wish to dissent (not the same thing as a debate), disregard the science and believe to the contrary what nearly every single qualified, peer-reviewed expert on the planet has concluded in regards to gw...it is you that have the burden of proof. You want to believe that there's a giant frog living on the otherside of jupiter that monitors, manipulates and manages all of existence and parties with our ghosts in the sky after we die? Guess what...still your burden of proof.
and Deniers....still waiting on that peer-reviewed, field appropriate evidence debunking the scientific conclusion and consensus on gw....and no...one guy's opinion doesn't count.
January 8, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Jay - a "scientific conclusion and consensus" refers to 2 different things. Science and the scientific method involve stating a hypothesis and then trying to validate it. This cannot be done by mere observation, but requires experimentation and testing. Analysis is not enough, there must be results generated by the experiment. It is simply impossible to perform a scientific experiement on a system as large as our environement. That is why "concensus" is the central strength of your argument. Unfortunately, consensus is weak compared with scientific evidence, and there can be no scientific evidence for any of this.
Already, Eli has invalidated your claim that "all scientist agree..."
Jay - your reasoning on this would be categorized as "inductive". On the other hand, in order for it to meet criteria to be scientific, you must reason using deduction, and then attempting to hypothesize and theorize, and finally synthesize experimental results vis-a-vis your hypothesis. If it is infact getting hotter and man is simultaneously spewign pollutants into the air, then what we have is a coincidence. Only the scientific method can determine causality.
January 8, 2008
3:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Jay,
I've provided a list of scientists who believe global warming is either natural or unexplained, and quotes from the UN's own assessment saying that they can't predict what will happen with our climate. Upon request I will provide a quote from any one of those names and a link to back it.
Here's a link to another paper (peer reviewed for your alarmist comfort):
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
You’ve provided virtually nothing. Do you have any evidence of the “global consensus”? Anything at all? Any link with peer-reviewed, field appropriate and credible evidence supporting that there is a worldwide consensus?
With the massive amount of debate over this subject, it’s obvious that there is not a consensus. The following is from Michael Crichton:
“As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.”
January 8, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH - I'm sorry that you apparently have no sense of humour. Irony is humour you know! I assume it is me you are referring to as "Einstein". Thank you!
I mentioned that I am a Botanist. I am also a business owner (I design and install environmentally friendly landscapes), a fiscal conservative and am politically independent (meaning that I have voted for both dems, republicans and independents!)
Cost benefit? Are you kidding? 20 years ago I replaced my standard light bulbs at home and business with CFLS. That alone has saved me thousands of dollars. I have saved clients tens of thousands of dollars by providing landscapes that reduce the amount of water use, fertilizer and mowing while
providing food and nesting sites for wildlife. I insulated my residence and rental houses years ago and that has not only paid for itself, but it now pays a dividend every year. My work trucks are hopeless gas guzzlers ( I will replace them in a heartbeat when the auto industry finally gets smart!) but my family car is a Prius that gets 50 miles/gallon - that's cost benefit my friend. Gas will be $4/gallon by summer. If the "oilman in office" invades Iran or does something else equally stupid watch for $5 or even $6/gallon, but hey! The oil industry will make a lot of money at our expense. You see SASQUATCH, we really ARE in this together: This country, this economy and this world. We can work together or sink together, it's our choice. I much prefer the cost benefit of renewable energy and conservation to the outdated model of dirty energy and dirty politics.
January 8, 2008
4:18 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Jay - how do you rectify the countless episodes of global warming that have occurred in the Earth's history prior to mankind, with current theories of man-made gw?
January 8, 2008
5:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
alright, I'm out....have a good night....still waiting.....
January 8, 2008
5:21 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Guess that's a "no" from Jay.
January 8, 2008
5:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SASQUATCH, Now that we have heard from the hairy, antisocial, big-footed ape, What do your other personalities think? I hope there is a deeper thinker there somewhere - for your sake!
January 8, 2008
6:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Alive writes:
My research suggests that the average number of arrogant azzholes has increased steadily since 1990. All you "geniuses" sure add credence to my calculations.
January 8, 2008
7:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
fischb:
"Jay - how do you rectify the countless episodes of global warming that have occurred in the Earth's history prior to mankind, with current theories of man-made gw?"
Well, I'm not Jay, but I'll address question of how "man-made gw" theory rectifies prehistoric warming episodes - the answer is it doesn't because it's part of the theory that >>explains<< the past ice ages.
To understand that, you need to understand how science's understanding of ice ages came about. Here's a link with a pretty good historical overview:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/cy...
In short, it was discovered that the timing of the ice age cycles matched the timing of changes in the earth's orbit predicted by Milutin Milankovitch.
There were a couple problems though. The first problem was that the range of temperature change was much larger than what the orbital variations themselves could account for, and the second problem was that the pattern of each cycle had a warming period that ocurred much faster than the following cooling period, making a sawtooth pattern over time instead of an oscillating curve that gradual changes in the earth's orbit alone would produce.
So there had to be other factors involved.
One thing that was noticed was that when past temperatures rose, so did levels of CO2 and CH4 (methane).
To make a long story short, the theory explaining the ice ages that resulted basically said that changes in the earth's orbit would initiate a warming period and that initial warming would cause more CO2 and CH4 to be released into the atmosphere causing even more warming (a feedback loop). Another feedback is the ice sheets - as temperature roses, the ice sheets would receed. Because ice reflects more of the sun's radiation than bare ground or open water, the receeding ice sheets would result in even more warming (another feedbacK).
Oh, and Ted_in_Vegas if you're paying attention - that's why prehistoric temperature rises lead rises in CO2.
The modern situation is only slighty different with higher CO2 levels leading a rise in temperature which in turn starts the feedbacks - even more CO2 and CH4 in the atmosphere and receeding ice sheets which in turn cause more warming and round we go.
And that's also why the shrinking Arctic ice is a concern - it's one of the main feedbacks.
January 9, 2008
10:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
CL - great summary of theories regarding historic temperature patterns. Unless I've missed something, this line of thought makes the idea man-made global warming seem irrelevant in the scheme of Earth's pre-mankind history.
January 9, 2008
12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
Charles_B,
The entire point of "consensus" is to stifle debate by proclaiming that the matter is settled. It's fairly obvious that the matter is not settled, given the massive amount of debate over the topic. The "consensus" can't agree on the real level of impact man is having, or what the consequence of that impact if any will be. The "consensus" (IPCC) gives wildly varying estimates for temperature increase and the effect of those increases. There have also been a number of people who object to having their names included in that "consensus".
January 9, 2008
1:46 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
To acknowledge what facts, Charles? Water freezes at 32 degrees farenheit. That is a fact. Nobody talks about the "consensus" on that fact. The sun is 93 million miles away. No "consensus" on that fact either. The "consensus" is only mentioned when the science is not solid, yet supporters of man-made global warming theories constantly use the "consensus" to assert "facts". If we don't yet understand our impact on the environment, then global warming theory is not fact as it is so often presented.
January 9, 2008
1:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
I think we are actually getting somewhere with this. We all agree that what the global warming crowd has is a consensus. We also agree that, with respect to science, consensus is irrelavant. Consensus is the only thing that can be used when there is no science to support a position. Beleive me, it is used a lot in my field - medicine, and be aware that, while it is a valuable reference point from which to treat patients or view the natural world, it is essentially anti-science. Concensus is always temporary, whereas true scientific results are permanant and reproducible.
January 9, 2008
2:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Eli writes:
A consensus supports solid science? Are you kidding? From what I gather from that statement, you're essentially saying that theory and predictions of the future are solid science to be put on par with established facts. This is despite the fact that the same consensus you’re relying on says that it is not possible to predict the future of our climate.
My point with the list of those who disagree is that the whole idea of a consensus is misleading. It implies that there is little or no disagreement when in fact there is a large amount of disagreement. 1600 names on an IPCC report is hardly a global consensus. And, even if it were, the consensus means nothing.
Let's take a look at the track record of the consensus.
In years past, fever following childbirth was the greatest killer of women. One in six died from it. In 1795, Alexander Gordon suggests that fevers were infectious and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no.
1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious and the consensus said no.
1849, Semmelweiss demonstrates that sanitary techniques eliminated puerperal fever in the hospitals under his management. The consensus ignored him, and he was dismissed from his post.
In the 1920's, people were dying of pellagra. The consensus said it was infectious. Dr. Joseph Goldberger concluded that diet was a factor and demonstrated that the disease was not infectious.
In 1912, Alfred Wegener proposed that the continents had once fit together and that over time they had drifted apart. The consensus said no, until 50 years later.
The examples go on and on. Saccharine, fiber, magnetic fields, secondhand smoke, etc.
The logic used today regarding the consensus is that science has advanced, so the consensus is right this time. This idea makes the assumption that no advances will be made in the future, that we're at the peak of scientific achievement. And so, based on the consensus, we end up with advocates for particular public policies that are not based on science, but in fact based on unproven and shaky theory. I don’t think that creating public policy based on unsound predictions is a good idea.
January 9, 2008
3:13 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Eli basically has it right. Concensus is not inherently bad, it just tends to be flawed. What is sinister is the harnessing of a consensus for stupid reasons that will lead to harm. If the consensus is that continents float on tectonic plates, fine. But if someone forms a political movement (no pun intended) to halt the "dangerous shifting of the tectonic plates", that would be silly. It's the same with global warming: consensus or not, the issue does not warrant major public policy attention. IN real life, misuse of consensus happened with the DDT ban, which elimated the single best weapon in the war against malaria, which is one of the most prolific killers of people.
January 9, 2008
5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
kozie writes:
Would you global warming deniers PLEASE check your references before you post! it just makes you sound silly. Here's a heads up on a list of websites that got contributions from EXXON.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/list...
The american conservative union foundation is an obvious one cited here. http://acuf.org/index.asp
They recieved $50,000 from EXXON.
NEXT!
January 10, 2008
9:34 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Geez, you are taking about "consensus", when you can clearly see what's going on with your own eyes! For example, I've posted it before, and I'll post it again- there is NASA footage showing that the arctic has shrunk in 1/2 in just 24 years! (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/n...) This is UNDENIABLE; with evidence so clear like this, what's the debate over??
January 10, 2008
10:14 a.m.
Suggest removal
ripcord writes:
fiesty, are you oblivious as to what the debate is about? Is it man made or a natural evolution that has been going on for 10's of thousands of years in both directions?
January 10, 2008
10:39 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
No, I'm not oblivious. As mentioned on the other blog, it's pretty clear. Both sides in this blog are arguing in absolutes- man either is or isn't causing global warming. However, the evidence (in the form of the core ice data) shows otherwise- that the earth has gone through several natural cycles of warming and cooling, has entered another cycle, but that man's activities have greatly affected this cycle. It's not an "either/or" situation, but rather a "both".
January 10, 2008
10:43 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
also, I don't believe that who's causing it is important, only if whether or not we can DO something about it. But we can't do anything while folks keep their heads in the sand and refuse to acknowledge anything is wrong.
January 10, 2008
3:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
fischb:
"CL - great summary of theories regarding historic temperature patterns. Unless I've missed something, this line of thought makes the idea man-made global warming seem irrelevant in the scheme of Earth's pre-mankind history."
I'm not sure what you are trying to say fischb.
If you take the entire earth's history into consideration then yes, it hardly amounts to a blip. If you consider the last couple of million years or so (about how long the current cycles of ice ages has been going on) then it's a different story since we are probably currently at the highest global temperatures of that period and at the highest CO2 and methane levels by far and all indications are they are going higher. When you consider that anatomically modern humans have been around for only something like 100-150 thousand years and civilization for only a couple 10 thousand of years then it's totally unprecedented.
January 10, 2008
3:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Eli:
"Water freezes at 32 degrees farenheit. That is a fact."
Wanna bet?
"The "consensus" is only mentioned when the science is not solid, yet supporters of man-made global warming theories constantly use the "consensus" to assert "facts". If we don't yet understand our impact on the environment, then global warming theory is not fact as it is so often presented."
Hogwash.
I argue almost nothing but the science, mostly pointing out where the skeptics here don't even have a frikin' clue of what the science (or even science in general often times) is. I don't make the "consensus" argument and I don't argue that GW is a "fact".
January 10, 2008
5:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
As a horticulturist, I have observed many changes in the last 10 years. I am convinced we have moved up one USDA zone from 5 to 6. Many plants that never overwintered in the past now do. Other plants, notably lilacs, now bloom earlier each year. Professional and amateur botanists have observed this phenomena across the country and the entire world. I know that this is anecdotal and not pure science.
Others have quoted dozens of sources that support one or the other side's argument that global warming does or doesn't exist or that man is or isn't responsible on some level.
I believe that ample evidence exists to indicate a major climate change is in progress. I also think anyone who believes there is even a possibility we are contributing should roll up their sleeves and take steps to mitigate the situation. Don't do it for the politicians, scientists or environmentalists. Do it for your children and grandchildren. With their futures at stake, we can't afford to be wrong, and we can't afford to wait.
January 11, 2008
8:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
fiesty writes:
Hear, hear! And it's a win-win scenario. Even if you don't think GW is happening, then you get advantages such as cleaner air and decreased dependence on foreign oil.
January 11, 2008
10:13 a.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Greenleaf - I like your approach and arguments, but, on the other hand, how can you beleive that climate change is, de facto, harmful? Every single species of organism you have ever worked with evolved because of environmental pressure, most of which involved climate change. The amazing bredth of species is a result of climate and environmental differentiation and, yes, change. How do you know that certain speicies, do not in fact, rely on epic climate change for renual of the species? What if cycles ranging from 50 year to 50,000 years are critical to survival of current species? What if direct mitigation of climate change (the climate change that has occured for billions of years), kills a species?
January 11, 2008
11:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Thanks fischb and fiesty as well. In the world of unintended consequences, it is good to remember that some can be regarded as favourable. My concern is for those that probably won't be so pleasant. For example, if the world's glaciers, especially those on Greenland melt, the oceans must rise. Prime real estate where many of the world's human population now lives will sink beneath the waves, resulting in a massive wave of human migration. Other human migration could be caused by the necessity of leaving previously arable land for areas that were previously too cold or dry to support crops and human populations. The result, at the extreme, would be political and economic chaos, leading to border disputes, massive numbers of refugees and wars. I think you would agree that MORE chaos in an increasingly nuclear armed world is NOT a desirable outcome.
As for the plants that I work with, I am not concerned. Most of these are Human contrived hybrids that bear little resemblance to their ancestors. As for organisms in the natural world, yes, they will adapt ( but over a period measured not in centuries but in millennia ). That future world will bear little resemblance to that of today. I agree that there will be gains as well as losses but the short term change would almost certainly be painful for all concerned, and fatal and final for many. An asteroid is given credit for the mass extinction of dinosaurs and others millions of years ago. Perhaps we are the "asteroid" of our own distruction. I don't know, no one does, but I am still worried about the children and grandchildren.
January 11, 2008
3:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
fischb writes:
Is sounds like you are aware that climate change has occurred, uninterrupted, since the earth formed. It also sounds like you fear **sudden** climate changes. Those, too, have occurred well before human industrialization. As you know, the Renaissance, and specifically the emergence from the Middle Ages drew its energy from warming climates and greater grain yields. Warming also contributed to the rise of Rome. Intermittent cooling during these periods led to things like the famine, Plague and various influenza outbreaks that, in certain situations, eradicated upto 1/3 of the population of the continents.
So, there is nothing in our history to suggest warming is bad. There is only speculation; and clear evidence that cooling is bad for humans.
Regarding you worry about refugees, and wars, and shifting border disputes: we live in an almost golden age right this moment, where the chances of you and your family being displaced, becoming refugees, enslaved, raped, etc, is basically zero. The proportion of young men dying as soldiers is at a historical nadir. Worldwide, death from warfare and other human causes have never, ever been lower. Episodes like Darfur, Iraq, etc don’t even register on the scale of human misery compared to the period from about 1750 through 1975. I just don’t understand all the fear and pessimism at a time when the lot of the average person in the average country is so much better than it ever has been. Sure, we have problems, but let’s keep them within historical context.
Re: the asteroid. I haven’t calculated the energy released by that asteroid, but the last I heard it would be equivalent to all the nukes on earth. Thus, the status quo does not seem to be releasing quite so much energy into the system to cause such destruction.
January 11, 2008
4:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
fischb, While I agree that there have been worse times in human history than the present, my concern is for the future. Those of us who are adults today have reaped the benefits of cheap energy, modern medicine and luxuries unlike any our ancestors could have ever conceived. I believe, but don't know with absolute certainty, that we may be teetering on the brink of one of those bad times in human history: the kind that we might want to avoid or, at least, mitigate. Assuming man has at least played a part in GW, it makes sense that, by modifying certain aspects of our lifestyles in regard to energy consumption, we might be able to at least delay or avoid the worst effects of GW while maximising whatever good effects may come from it.
This has been a very intellectual forum and I appreciate that. My fear is that while we as a generation can afford the luxury of this debate, future generations will pay the price of delay. Much as feisty said recently, I don't see the problem in embracing efficiencies in energy consumption. At the very least they will improve the quality of the water we drink, the air we breathe, be good for the bottom line and make us less dependent on countries that don't have our interests at heart.I believe that thoughtful contributions such as yours enrich the debate. I wish that I could approach this with the same optimism you have. I'm afraid that age has fostered a certain pragmatism in me. I see a problem for which we should try to find solutions. -And I'm still worried about the children and grandchildren.