Timothy Ball wrote an excellent piece yesterday on the hysteria of the Global Warming crowd, the danger of going against the political juggernaut we call the Global Warming industry, and why it’s all foolish scaremongering.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
[…]Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification.
[…]No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don’t pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970’s global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990’s temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I’ll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
[…]I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen’s. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology – especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don’t understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
There is much more in his essay. Tales of being maligned by fellow academics and colleagues who asked how he dared to go against the grain. Everyone believes it so it must be true right?
Incredibly just today there was an article that should send shivers down your spine on this subject. When a scientist DARES to question the holy seat of Global Warming then you better get ready for the unemployment line:
In the face of evidence agreed upon by hundreds of climate scientists, George Taylor holds firm. He does not believe human activities are the main cause of global climate change.
Taylor also holds a unique title: State Climatologist.
Hundreds of scientists last Friday issued the strongest warning yet on global warming saying humans are "very likely" the cause.
“Most of the climate changes we have seen up until now have been a result of natural variations,” Taylor asserts.
Taylor has held the title of "state climatologist" since 1991 when the legislature created a state climate office at OSU The university created the job title, not the state.
His opinions conflict not only with many other scientists, but with the state of Oregon’s policies.
So the governor wants to take that title from Taylor and make it a position that he would appoint.
In an exclusive interview with KGW-TV, Governor Ted Kulongoski confirmed he wants to take that title from Taylor. The governor said Taylor’s contradictions interfere with the state’s stated goals to reduce greenhouse gases, the accepted cause of global warming in the eyes of a vast majority of scientists.
“He is Oregon State University’s climatologist. He is not the state of Oregon’s climatologist,” Kulongoski said.
Ok, so no unemployment line, but the simple fact remains that if you disagree with the Holy Seat then you will pay. Good science huh?
In 2004 Mr. Ball gave an interview to the Frontier Centre for Public Policy which is also quite enlightening:
FC: Could you summarize the evidence that suggests the world is cooling slightly, not warming up?
TB: Yes, since 1940 and from 1940 until 1980, even the surface record shows cooling. The argument is that there has been warming since then but, in fact, almost all of that is due to what is called the “urban heat island” effect – that is, that the weather stations are around the edge of cities and the cities expanded out and distorted the record. When you look at rural stations – if you look at the Antarctic, for example – the South Pole shows cooling since 1957 and the satellite data which has been up since 1978 shows a slight cooling trend as well.
FC: A corollary of the popular theory of global warming is that its cause is human activity. But aren’t changes in the climate a product of cosmic forces beyond our influence, i.e., the sun?
TB: Yes, when David Anderson or the federal government says we are going to stop climate change, it is the most ludicrous statement in the history of the world. The climate changes all the time and dramatically. All you have to do is sit here in Manitoba and imagine that just 20,000 years ago, which in the Earth’s history is nothing, you would have been sitting under about 1,000 meters of ice. In fact, 20,000 years ago there was an ice sheet covering Canada that is larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. All that ice melted in less than 5,000 years and we are not even sure where all the heat energy and the causes of that melting that occurred came from. So to suggest that the fractional amounts of CO² that humans are putting up has any influence on global climate is really quite ludicrous.
FC: What is your opinion of the scientific underpinnings of the Kyoto Accord?
TB: There are none. One of the most distressing things that is argued for Kyoto, is they are saying, ”What’s going to stop pollution?” It has nothing to do with pollution and even if the full Kyoto Accord was implemented you would not be able to measure scientifically the effect that that would have. In other words, it is completely immeasurable scientifically. So, it is a policy based on ideology and economics and politics and has nothing to do with science. Proof of that, by the way, is that Russian President Putin, who agreed to sign the Kyoto Accord, said exactly that. He said, I am signing this not because the science is there but because Europe has put pressure on us to sign it.
FC: Well, you have said that Kyoto is really an extension of the ongoing trade war between Europe and the United States. Can you explain that?
TB: Farmers know, but most urban people don’t know, that there is a huge trade war going on globally between the U.S. and Europe. You see it in the farm subsidies and all of the other things. In the trade wars Europe saw an opportunity – they think that the trade imbalance is in favour of North America because it has low energy costs – so they thought if they could put a carbon tax onto North America then they could level that trade playing field with regard to production of products and also in terms of market sales. Europeans, of course, have also agreed to the Kyoto Accord but because they are very involved in nuclear and other things, it will have only a very minimal effect on their economy, whereas, for North America it would be quite devastating.
FC: How could so many scientists be on the man-made global warming bandwagon? Are their views derived more from political science than hard science?
TB: Well, their views are from political science, their views are also a function of where you go to get the funding and who provides the funding. But also, the majority of the scientists who are on the Kyoto and global warming bandwagon know nothing about the science. David Suzuki is a perfect example. He has said publicly that he would be happy to debate genetic modification with anybody, because that is his area of expertise. Well, I could say the same thing to him, that he doesn’t know anything about global warming or climate change and so I will debate it with him and so you have this problem. The other problem is that so many of the scientists who are quoted as being on side with global warming are actually doing studies on the impact of global warming and climate changes and their studies then are listed as evidence for support of it. They are not, they are just starting with the assumption that global warming is going to occur, and what effect that would have. That is not support or proof at all.
FC: Are public funds for research that confounds the conventional wisdom impossible to obtain? Do scientists have to form their conclusions in advance to suit the zeitgeist?
TB: This is a part of the problem, You have the scientific problem about global warming and, as Richard Lindzen said, the consensus was reached before the research had even begun. But the other side of it is that if you are getting money to prove a certain point, then you are going to try desperately to prove that point. The whole point about scientific research is you have a hypothesis but you must be prepared to accept what is called the null hypothesis. That is that your hypothesis isn’t true, that something else is true. That’s true science. But what is happening now is that you set out to prove the science and there is a temptation to jiggle the data to make that happen and it is really a very unhealthy scientific environment in which to operate.
FC: Why is the famous “hockey stick” graph wrong?
TB: The ”hockey stick” graph was draw by Michael Mann, Ray Bradley and Malcolm Hughes in a paper published in 1998. It is referred to as the ”hockey stick” because the handle of the graph reflects temperature being essentially unchanged for a 1,000 years and the blade is a sudden up- turn in the 20th century. It is wrong because Michael Mann fixed the data. I can’t describe it any other way. Two Canadian tried to reproduce the results using the same data and the same methods but got completely different records. So that whole study, which has been the basis of the United Nations report and is the basis of the government of Canada’s argument, shows there is clear evidence of the human signal in climate change. It is based on completely wrong science.
But we all know what the answer to this kind of interview will be by the lefties. "He is a paid shill for the oil companies!" They listen to no one other then those stepping in line with their world order. Global warming must exist to them you see, they just HAVE to have this win. I mean they have nothing else to live for seeing how Bush was elected twice. The space-time continuum was spliced by those two elections.
Poor widdle fellows.
Anyways, enough with my rants. Lets move on to another guys rant:
To those who asked, yes your author has been bending over the IPCC political summary and no, there is nothing new to say as there is nothing new in it. The above graphic sums it up neatly. It is still all based on computer models with feedback. There is a strange combination of sophistication and naivety among the modellers: they think that they can improve an inadequate model by increasing the cost of computers and hence reducing the cell size. As predicted the IPCC has cynically offloaded its star exhibit, the hockey stick, as though it had never happened. Real scientists do not have that option. There are many interpretations of the holy writ, mostly scary, but by now number watchers know where to go to get closer to the truth.
Correspondence suggests that number watchers have followed fashion and formed a consensus, which is that the IPCC procedure of holding back the scientific chapters so that they can be edited to conform to the political summary is an outrageous abuse of everything that science once stood for. A string of numbers and graphs with no provenance is useless (except as a tool for religious propaganda). Nevertheless, the bulk of the media follow with ovine complacency.
Which brings us to:
Three inconvenient truths about climate sceptics
(as gleaned from media acolytes of the UN IPCC)
(a) They don’t exist.
(b) They are all mad.
(c) They are all in the pay of Exxon-Mobil.
Yuppers, all paid for by those eeeeviiiilllllll oil companies. Global warming just has to be true, Leonardo said so!
And finally I will leave you all with a chart that depicts the actual scientific method used to come up with Global Warming.
Ouch!
Other’s Blogging:
- Mike’s America
- The Paragraph Farmer
- Rathergate
- A Blog For All
- Thoughts Of A Conservative Christian
- Redstate
- MND
- Pirate’s Cove
- Seixon
- Carol Platt Liebau
- California Conservative
- Right Wing News
- Newsbusters
See author page
Heh…nice find, Curt.
I find it odd that the motives of climatology alarmists are never questioned; yet since the skeptics find themselves ostracized and their funding revoked, and so find funding from “big oil”, their motives are held in suspect. That would be fair, if only the same standard of scrutiny were applied to the motives of the alarmists.
Here’s another example of “shutting down debate” by those claiming that the science is on their side:
And of course, the messiah of the movement, Al Gore, won’t even debate what he believes.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
The above is a short, clear technical discussion of effect of water vapor on global warming. Here’s a short excerpt…
Water vapor, the most significant greenhouse gas, comes from natural sources and is responsible for roughly 95% of the greenhouse effect (4). Among climatologists this is common knowledge but among special interests, certain governmental groups, and news reporters this fact is under-emphasized or just ignored altogether.
Conceding that it might be “a little misleading” to leave water vapor out, they nonetheless defend the practice by stating that it is “customary” to do so!
Curt: You beat me to the punch again. I had just read Ball’s piece at Peter Glover’s and was going to post it. When do you sleep?
To: “Three inconvenient truths about climate sceptics”
I would just add:
D. Scientists who dissent from the prevailing left wing view are either not real scientists or their work does not stand up to peer review.
Rubbish of course, but that’s what they say.
You’ll note from the comments of earlier Global Baloney Hawks that no matter how eminent the scientist, unless he meets the criteria laid down by the Global Baloney Hawks, they simply refuse to acknowledge it has any validity.
But of course Al Gore can do a movie with all the intellectual integrity of a Michael Moore blame-America epic and he’s nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.
I’ve had it with the Global Baloney Hawks (anyone think of a better name, let me know). Following the rules many of these same people set down regarding discussion of the Iraq war I issue the following edict:
All Global Baloney Hawks are required to have served as a U.S. government employee with responsibility for environmental issues. If not, you have no right to offer an opinion.
Just as it is with the Iraq war, dissenters from Global Baloney are not bound by that restriction.
So, I’m sitting here with my ID badge from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any Global Baloney Hawks who want to take me on better append a photocopy of their ID first.
Nice job.
Follow the money and you will find lots of conspiracies.
Can you please link to the big report about how the people who started the Iraq War have such close ties to the war profiteers?
Here’s some starting points: Halliburton, KBR, The Carlyle Group, etc.
You can’t trust anyone’s BS when there’s $$$ to be made.
The Bush Admin incompetent?
Hardly. $9 billion in in reconstruction money doesn’t go missing because of incompetence.
They knew exactly what they were doing.
Robert? Can you at least demonstrate the intellectual capacity necessary to stay on topic? Thank you.
Ok, let’s follow the money:
This is one of the best…no it is the best refutations of the Global Warming fiasco. It is all about money in the form af a tax for the UN. The sky is falling …
Uhhhh Robert? Did you hit on the wrong post here or do you just travel around the blog world dropping those left wing turds like candy?
I mean really.
Get some new material.
Going around squawking “HALLIBURTON, HALLIBURTON” like some global cooling deranged parrot is just TIRESOME.
You’re about as serious as Reasic.
I can guarantee you Robert was one of those drive-by Salon readers who crawled out from underneath his rock…cough KOS cough…and felt the urge to scream HALLIBURTON!
Really, these people are in need of some serious meds
That’s interesting that you say that, Mike. I’m still waiting for the info I asked you for from our comments on a previous post in here. You have still not provided me with any substantive material to back up your claims that you made over there, and yet you say that I’m not serious.
What in the world are you talking about? How is a government position more valuable in this debate than scientific research? It seems that you have your priorities all out of whack. That you’ve been in politics means nothing in this debate, as Bush has proven recently with his appointment of oil lobbyist, Phil Cooney, to a position where he was reviewing and editing the work of scientists.
Curt,
As to Ball, he has been retired from the University of Winnipeg since 1996, and hasn’t done any peer-reviewed research in the last 11 years. This is not to say that he’s not entitled to his own opinions on the subject, and I’m sure he’s very knowledgeable on it. However, if he wants to disprove the idea that global warming is caused by humans, shouldn’t he be doing it in the scientific realm, through some sort of research? The claim that global warming is caused by humans is based on research. Why not debunk it through the same channel, instead of just going on a public PR campaign?
As to the Oregon issue, I don’t see anything wrong with it. It’s bad enough that he is carrying the title of “State Climatologist” without actually being affiliated with the state of Oregon. Then, his views are not in line with the policies of the state. Here in Alabama, we have a State Climatologist too, but he’s appointed by the Governor.
As for Ball’s 2004 interview, much of what he has said has since been discredited. I’ll give an example:
This satellite data he’s referencing is from the work of Dr. John Christy, who I am very familiar with. He is a professor here at UAH, and is also our State Climatologist. His data, at first, showed cooling in some areas (I think it was the tropics) until his data and methods were questioned by other scientists. After some adjusting for decay in the orbits of the satellites, among other things, the data ended up falling in line with the model data from other scientists. Christy has also since changed his position. He has now stated that he believes global warming is happening and that humans are the main cause.
Ball was also asked about the “hockey-stick” graph:
The two Canadians’ work he referred to was not peer-reviewed. They also tried to submit their work to Nature, but it was rejected.
I’ll once again extend my offer to you guys to submit some scientific research that supports your claims.
Wordsmith,
Let’s get into the issue of motives. For the denial side of the issue, we know for a fact that companies like Exxon are funding think tanks and scientists who dispute the majority on global warming. The motive is clear in that case. Exxon et. al. would clearly benefit from not taking action to stop global warming.
Now, on to the majority of scientists. I guess I need you guys to help me understand this one. So far, it seems that you’re saying that they need their grant money, so they “tow the alarmist line”. Are we talking about federal grant money here? What is the source of the grants? Why would those people want to ruin our economy? I might be able to see why the scientists would want grants, but not why those supplying the grants would want to continue to fund something that they didn’t believe in. I mean, is it obviously false to them, but they have sinister ulterior motives? If we’re talking about federal money, I’d be surprised to find out that our government was pressuring scientists to research in favor of human-caused global warming in order to keep getting their grant money.
I honestly want a better explanation of this one. For me, I don’t get it. It seems more like a choice between an obvious motive on the part of the industry and scientists who are actually doing unbiased research. If you think I’m mistaken on that point, please explain for me how.
Also, on the issue of the Weather Channel lady, I think she had a valid point. Many on the denial side have clouded that issue, but her point was that the American Meteorological Society’s official position is that global warming is happening and is caused by humans. Therefore, if a meteorologist goes against their society’s view on the issue, maybe they should not be associated. I’m a Civil Engineer, and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers. First of all, I can be a Civil Engineer and not a member of ASCE. It’s my choice whether I want to take advantage of ASCE’s benefits (and pay for them). I can only assume that AMS is the same, but I’m not sure. Second, I could see how it might be like ASCE’s official position is that our national infrastructure is in bad shape and is in dire need of repair or reconstruction. If I went around, touting my ASCE credentials, and at the same time, telling people that our infrastructure was fine, they might have a problem with that. It’s only a hypothetical, but it’s just to help illustrate how I think it’s been blown out of proportion. I think it started with a legitimate request and is not that big of a deal.
I don’t have much time here, but I just have one quick question about this one:
I’m really confused as to what your (all of you) argument is against global warming. One says it’s a natural cycle, another says solar effects, and still another, water vapor. Are there any others? Why isn’t there one solid answer for why it’s not caused by humans? It seems more like there are just a bunch of theories being passed around so as to create confusion on the issue.
A lib agreeing with the firing of a individual because they didn’t march in lockstep with the politicians…..color me surprised.
And, as I called in my post, a lib disagree’s with the scientist. Why? Because he hasn’t written a paper in 11 years.
Your a waste of my time, and I would dare to venture Mike’s time, Word’s time, and probably Skye’s time.
Go chain yourself to a tree or something would ya?
A few important pieces of information about that, Curt. First of all, the guy won’t be losing his job. He would only lose the title that he wasn’t given by the state in the first place. He is also not even a climatologist. He is a meteorologist – big difference. Neither does he even possess a PhD. So, in light of the facts, the guy doesn’t even qualify to be considered a climatologist at all, much less a “State Climatologist”. So, your statements are not factual, and therefore, your outrage is unnecessary.
Climate science changes by leaps and bounds over a span of even five years. Hence, the new IPCC reports that are released every so often. It’s also not that he hasn’t simply “written a paper”. That’s a major oversimplification. My point was that he hasn’t done any peer-reviewed research on the subject in that time. I’m starting to notice a trend where the skeptical scientists aren’t actually submitting any research for review. Instead, their giving speeches and writing blog entries or magazine articles. It’s really interesting to see which side science is on. I’ve even asked you guys for the research citations that you said you could provide, and you haven’t done that for me.
That’s kind of what I expect from you at this point, Curt. No actual substantive debate. Just name-calling and dismissive remarks. I find it interesting that you’ll continue to post blog entries about global warming, but you won’t actually engage me in any kind of real debate on issue. All you do is insult me. It’s really childish.
I’ve tried to present to you what I consider to be valid criticisms of your points, and I back it up with data or references. If you disagree with me (think my points are invalid), you should try to actually prove me wrong and back it up with facts of your own. That’s how a debate works.
Instead, you’re making your claim. Then I dissent and back it up. Then you just dismiss me and call me names. That gives the impression that you’ve lost and I’m right.
jb, what’s misleading is this article. First of all, water vapor is not responsible for 95% of the GHE. That’s a number just slightly lower than the 98% that Lindzen pulled out of thin air a while back. He references a research paper that he supposedly got that number from, but I could only find the abstract, and it doesn’t say anything about that. If you could somehow figure that out, maybe I’ll believe the 95% number.
Here are a few sources for you that help make better sense of this issue of water vapor:
Water Vapour: Feedback or Forcing?
Water Vapor Is Not the Dominant Greenhouse Gas
This is tricky because it is based on a truth. Water vapor is indeed a major reason for the warmth that is retained in our atmosphere. However, what is important here is the change in temperature. The concentration of water vapor does tend to rise with temperature, but it is an effect of the temperature rising, rather than a cause of it. In scientific terms, it is a feedback, rather than a forcing. So, greenhouse gases increase in the atmosphere, creating a warming effect. Then, the concentration of water vapor will rise too. However, water vapor has a very short residence time (a few days), so it quickly condenses, unlike the GHGs, which have very long residence times (decades to centuries). So, they stay up there much longer. Therefore, water vapor is not a dominant factor and is not even a forcing at all, when considering temperature change, which is what climate change is all about.
Long story short, this is yet another misleading argument made by skeptics to confuse the public about the issue. Next?
You quote a scientist all too eager to parade his credentials, repeatedly, to prove he’s somebody. You point to Michael Crichton. You criticize the existing science because it’s all funded by “the other side”. But in all this, I am detecting a failure to appreciate the process of science and how consensus is achieved. Look, there are scientists out there who still argue against evolution (long ago well established), some who argue against HIV, and some who even argue the Earth is 5,000 years old (seriously!). That doesn’t mean the theories of evolution, viral theory of Aids, or geology is in serious question. They’re pretty much established and not going away because a tiny handful feel otherwise. Here too. The progress of research, studies and results has been in one direction, and one direction only on anthroporphic climate change: and it is to add to the likelihood of its existance. Note: the latest consensus study is not saying climate change for sure 100% is cause by man (unlike geology or evolution, which are 100%). They’re saying greater than 90%. And that’s what scientists do. They spiral to the truth, and eventually get there. Michael Crichton and the other increaingly few who believe otherwise, well, at this rate they’ll land up in the league of flat-landers and intelligent designers. You can choose to believe their perspective, but 99% of all scientists who do this for a living and couldn’t care a hoot about politics now disagree with you. Maybe you’re brave and smarter than them. Or, maybe, most likely in fact, you’re not. By the way, the same consensus never evolved around cooling, and climate science was a whole lot more primitive forty years ago. That argument is old and silly.
“This is tricky because it is based on a truth.”
Oh that’s the best one yet.
Reasic.
You’re a LOON!
You’re clearly a legend in your own mind. But you just attempt to filibuster the issue here and dazzle everyone with your ability to cut and paste.
But I am sorry that such an apptitude could not be used to expand the discussion on this issue. Instead, you are just wankering and displaying again and again and again and again that your ideology has blinded you to any ability to rationally analyze this issue and put it in it’s proper perspective.
I’m proud of my time at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and NO I was not a political appointee. I had the rare opportunity to cut across all fields of expertise and survey the good, the bad and the ugly of science and politics as they interesected in the environmental field.
I’ve met your kind before and types like you always end up corrupting valid research. When science becomes politicized, it is worthless.
It was good enough for over a decade but now all of a sudden it isn’t….how interesting.
And I will continue to highlight the great lie of Global Warming, and quoting scientists who dare to go against that religion. You don’t like it, then go away.
And debate you? I’ve posted my sources, you find silly ignorant reasons for ignoring them so I’ve concluded all your in this for is to prove to yourself that your right. Your a waste of time and oxygen in this “debate”.
Whoop, there it is!
reasic,
You give yourself too much credit. The problem is, you are longwinded, and frankly, no one cares. I’ve all but moved on. You want to talk about all the minute details. I’m not as passionate on the topic. You may like to think of yourself as a critical-thinker and objective; but you are clearly a victim of your own ideological filter (as are we, on the right). I don’t see what your point is in responding to my post with questions that can readily be extracted by reading what I had posted. It’s like you are looking right through what I quoted. Did you just skip over it, and just read what I wrote instead of the article I was bringing to your attention? It’d be redundant to cite the article all over again, whether from a direct quote, or putting it in my own words.
For the most part, my answer was already stated.
>
Scientists on both sides can be held suspect of motives, due to funding; I find it disingenuous to attack the motives of only the skeptics, and not the alarmists. Reread the article I quoted.
Oh? What is your analysis of this, as well?
What do you think of Robert Jastrow’s “God and the Astronomers”? Do you think the “scientific community” ever gets it wrong? How often? What makes you think scientists are impartial, nonpartisan researchers?
What do you make of this? Sure sounds familiar. (If you love posting all day on global warming, maybe that blog is for you, btw).
I just wanted to point out that in the article Wordsmith references about Al Gore’s refusal to debate his critic, the writer, Mr. Volokh, also makes the following statements which suggest a middle ground here.
“As regular VC readers already know, I believe the preponderance of scientific evidence supports the theory that human activities are producing an enhanced greenhouse effect that is altering the earth’s climate, and is likely to produce significant (albeit not catastrophic) warming over the next century. In other words, I accept the basic scientific findings of the U.N. Intergovernental Panel on Climate, but remain dubious of some of the model projections, particularly those based on highly questionable assumptions about future trends in population, economic growth, and energy use.”
“The fact is that the vast majority of the available evidence conforms with our general understanding of the [sic] how the climate system works and how it is likely to respnd [sic] to increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. There are debates and disputes about specific questions, ranging from the extent and nature of various feedback mechanisms, the relative contribution of certain exogenous factors, and how climate changes will affect other global trends such as sea-level rise, but this does not mean climate change is a made up concern. Uncertainty is a fact of life. It is one thing to note uncertainties when the stakes are high — as they certainly are on all sides of the climate policy debate — quite another to exaggerate uncertainties when politically convenient. I genuinely fear many of the governmental policies climate fears may be used to justify, but it would be disingenuous for me to respond by denying the real threats posed by climate change. I wish more of my political or ideological “allies” felt the same way.”
“The issue to me is not whether human activities are affecting the climate system (it is almost certain they are). Nor is it whether there should be a policy response — I think there should be, even if it means measures that are otherwise in tension with my fairly libertarian views of government. Rather, the issues are how we assess a risk of this magnitude and how we develop policy responses when the costs of climate policy rival those of climate change itself. Neither apocalyptic environental claims, such as those put forward by Gore, nor ideologically convenient denial of the evidence, does much to advance this debate.”
Now, to me, that position appears to much more rational and scientific than the insults and the refusals to advance scientific evidence. For example, for Mr. Ball to point to Michael Crichton’s novel–the “science” of which has been sufficiently debunked–as evidence for his argument is not really anything more but Mr. Ball falling into the same “false science” he accuses others of. His comments about cooling at the polar caps, made in 2004, may or may not be true but certainly do not explain the observed phenomenon of the sliding of the ice caps toward the ocean.
The recent report of the IPCC was deliberately conservative over the more “passionate” of the scientists in order to preserve the credibility of the report.
I take insult-laden posts and laments about the politics of the matter as nothing more than an inability to read and think about the subject with an open mind. As for the political situation regarding the funding, the fact of the matter is that corporate control over the continuing production of CO2 is still the reality we live with. The refusal of US industry and government over the past decade to find rational alternatives to petroleum and coal use is really the loss of opportunity in a vital business sense, for alternatives would have begun to produce a manufacturing and technological base that would not have been outsourced to foreign countries. This would have strengthened the economic base, not weakened it, as the people upholding the status quo would have us fear.
Lastly, I find it interesting that large corporations have finally understood that there is a problem out there to be solved, and have asked the government to hop to it. Furthermore, the insurance industry for well over a decade–while remaining “corporately (and politically} correct” by being silent except within industry journals–has adjusted quite carefully its models and forecasts that shows it takes the increases in climate threat seriously; and the risk management community has been quite frank in its acceptance of the increase in risk.
Kudos to “Reasic” for stating the situation rationally and with facts.
What are you talking about, Mike?
Once again, you shoot me down with insults, but you fail to address my specific arguments. Then, oddly enough, you find that you have the ability to tell me that I can’t “rationally analyze this issue”. I’m trying desperately to “rationally analyze this issue”, and you’re not responding with any substantive arguments – just insults. Could you just stick to the subject (the science of global warming) and prove me wrong, or are you having trouble rationally analyzing the issue?
Wordsmith,
You’re right. I skipped right over your second comment. I saw that it was a reply to Robert, so I skipped over it. I was responding to your first comment. I’m looking over that article now, and I’ll post any questions I have.
Wordsmith,
I read over the article you quoted in your response to Robert. Here’s my main problem with this idea: It’s all based upon the assumption that all of the scientific research behind global warming is just a bunch of bunk. The problem I have with that is that it creates an enormous conspiracy theory. In his article, Paul Driessen runs through all of the parties who are involved: scientists, politicians, environmental activists, companies, etc. According to Driessen, it seems that all of these people are in on it, well aware that it has no scientific basis. This is just too much for me to swallow. Do you really think all of these people play their part in this grand conspiracy?
The other problem I have is with the underlying assumption itself. If you assume that the science behind global warming is false, you’re assuming that the peer-review process is broken. Everyone’s got their funding sources, right? Why aren’t there more who take part in the denial side of the debate? Why aren’t there more peer-reviewed research papers submitted that contradict what is now considered a consensus? In other words, why isn’t the debate taking place in the scientific realm? It seems that it is not. I keep asking you guys for peer-reviewed science, and I haven’t seen any. The discrepancy in the research that has been done between the two sides is overwhelming. Is that just because the funding is not there from the Exxon’s of the world?
No, I don’t. But I do think there is a sort of “group-think” mob mentality. It’s got hysteria momentum behind it. And we’ve seen it all before. Of course, nothing’s garnered as much media attention as the global warming scare. But we’ve seen things in the past about predictions on population crowding, world starvation, global cooling and the coming ice age, etc. Peer-reviewed, and appearing in major scientific journals; only later to be scrapped in favor of new research, or the fact that things that were said will come to pass, yet never happened.
Is global warming happening? Yes. Is man contributing? Yes. To what degree, though? Does it matter? How accurate is it, to use computer models? And who’s to say that more positives won’t ultimately arise out of the change than negatives? How long is the natural global warming cycle predicted to last?
What is your take on Claude Allegre? William Gray? I saved this on my files, a while back:
Are the voices of dissenters being stifled? Minimized, marginalized, ignored?
It just seems like anyone who disagrees with the alarmists, either has their motives questioned or are dismissed outright.
I have tons of articles saved on file, including articles like the ones you’ve linked to (which I’ve only skimmed through and not really read- so, sorry. It’s why I haven’t really debated the science with you). I don’t lose sleep over this issue. You care more about the topic than I. I’ve seen your blog, and you clearly lean left. So I’m very suspicious of how your ideology is influencing your interpetation and notions on the matter of global warming. So forgive me if I don’t engage you in a more robust debate on what I see as just the latest in a series of scientific apocalyptic scares that are just scares.