The American Thinker Slaps Down Global Warming

[Blindside]

So to completely deny that humans have anything to do with the earths climate getting warmer is pretty hard to do with a straight face IMO. We might not be the only cause, but we are one of the causes.

Sure, but are we a significant cause? Minor climatic shifts have been happening regularly throughout our recorded history, the Little Ice age ended in the 1850s, a 1 degree shift in global temperature that corrected (or changed) in something like 5 years (according to ice cores pulled from the Rockies). The Little Ice Age ended the Medieval Optimum, a time when they were growing grapes in Greenland. What caused the Little Ice Age? What caused the Medieval Optimum? Does either period represent whatever the average climate is supposed to be?

Quite frankly I'm pretty skeptical that humans will get it together and solve the greenhouse gas issue, it is a "Tragedy of the Commons" on a global scale.

Lamont

 

[Sukerkin]

Excellent re-iteration of the salient undercurrents and attitudes, Tellner (can't rep you because you've been buffed elsewhere this evening (ooh er missus!)).

 

[Xue Sheng]

To tellner :asian:

Not to tellner but his post did cause me to post this

The planets axis moves, it wobbles actually and... well.. there is nothing we can do about that... Oh and the planets orbit around the sun... well that changes as well between very circular (time of the Dinosaurs - no not me) to elliptical, (now)... and oh yes the planets orbit is slowing, has been since it started spinning and we can do absolutely nothing about any of that.... but green house gases... come on.

Yes the planet warms and cools in cycles but generally not this fast. If my memory serves me, and I could be wrong here (if I am feel free to correct me) the cycle that we are suppose to be in right now is a cooling cycle heading towards another ice age... not a warming cycle.

 

[Sukerkin]

I don't know why this issue keeps coming back to life.

Climate changes - that's a given. If you argue against that then your rights to cognitive activity need to be revoked forwith .

There are several mechanisms which control global temperatures - some we understand to an extent and some we do not.

One of these mechanisms is that certain atmospheric gases work to ensure that the planet retains more heat than it radiates. That's why life can exist here in the first place.

Human actions have resulted in a monumental increase in at least one of those so-called 'greenhouse' gases. This process has suddenly escalated because the CO2 sump of the oceans is now saturated and they can no longer soak up as much of the excess as they have been doing.

Global temperatures have started to rise, having wide-ranging and unpredictable effects on global weather patterns and, more importantly, global sea currents.

Countervailing 'natural' mechanisms may kick in to reduce the temperature rise or they may not; we don't know enough to say.

Can we do anything about it? That's the important question. The short answer is, no, we can't. But that's no reason to get behind the effect and push.

We should have been entering a deepening ice age as of a couple of decades ago and it's (speculatively) largely been human activity that has ensured this has not occurred due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. However, the cycles that govern the planet will only be denied for so long and chaotic inversions of steady (ish) states are the norm rather than the exception.

These inversions tie in pretty closely with extinction events (Blindside will know much more about this than me I suspect) so rather than bickering about whose fault it is and if we're to blame or not, it would be much more intelligent to begin to plan how we can survive the possibility of rising average temperatures and sea levels with their concommitant dis-ordering of the weather patterns upon which our societies are predicated.

 

[Makalakumu]

I know that the globe is warming and I'm pretty sure humans figure into the equation. That's not a debate for me. What is debateable, is the political side. I'm very skeptical of the "solutions" that are being proposed and I'm afraid that these "solutions" will just become another vehicle for the elite to push their agenda. What's to stop this issue from starting a global corruption racket that does nothing but line the pockets of the uberrich at the expense of us little folk?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

This may sound like a sarcastic question, but its quite serious:

If given a list of scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?

 

[Big Don]

This may sound like a sarcastic question, but its quite serious:

If given a list of scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?

That is a very good question.

However, a 2003 survey of 530 international climate scientists from 27 different countries by two German environmental scientists, Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, tell a different story.http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=72914&src=
To the question "Are humans causing climate change", 55.8 percent agreed but 14.2 percent were unsure and 30 percent disagreed.

That's not a consensus... A consensus is when EVERYONE agrees, not when nearly a third disagree. Science is not a democracy.

Grist Magazine’s staff writer David Roberts called for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he termed the global warming “denial industry.”

Roberts wrote in the online publication on September 19, 2006, "When we've finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we're in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards -- some sort of climate Nuremberg.”

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/2006/9/19/11408/1106?show_comments=no
That isn't science, it is at best, politics at its worst.

Or, perhaps it is a religion.

Dictionary.com defines religion as:

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. 2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion. 3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions. 4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion. 5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith. 6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion
The definition sure fits the behavior.

 

[Sukerkin]

I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', Don, when it comes to the nature of science.

The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case generally accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.

As Todd said earlier, nothing is ever proven, something can only be disproven. Even then, if it's 'close enough' for practical use then it'll do - for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity is actually wrong but it approximates well enough for us to use it.

As always with a matter such as the one under discourse inthe thread, personal opinion and prejudices are going to count for more than all the links and reasoned argument in the world.

I can understand why people dig their heels in when they see those whose motives they distrust getting 'in on the act' but the flip-side to that is that to flatly deny human impact on the environment is pretty near to wilful disbelief.

The globe seems a huge place but it's a mass of interlinked complex systems that are quite delicately balanced in some cases - as I said before, we don't understand how an awful lot of it works in detail but a rough 'close enough' picture has formed of late. That picture can be painted in an 'alarmist' colour scheme or a 'pragmatist' one but in the end it turns out looking fairly similar.

Of course, one orbital wobble or solar blip and all bets are off as it then becomes as significant as arguing about whose fault it was whilst the house burns down around you .

 

[Blindside]

http://gristmill.grist.org/print/200...ow_comments=no
That isn't science, it is at best, politics at its worst.

Or, perhaps it is a religion.

What does that comment have to do with science? Just because some blogger is ranting about something, even a blogger who has "editor" by his name, it doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion.

Lamont

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', Don, when it comes to the nature of science.

The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case generally accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.

The globe seems a huge place but it's a mass of interlinked complex systems that are quite delicately balanced in some cases - as I said before, we don't understand how an awful lot of it works in detail but a rough 'close enough' picture has formed of late. That picture can be painted in an 'alarmist' colour scheme or a 'pragmatist' one but in the end it turns out looking fairly similar.

I would absolutely agree with your point on scientific epistimology. However, how do you react to his showing that 44.2% vs. 55.8% of scientists surveyed either disagree or are skeptical about man-made global warming? That is hardly an insignificant number.

 

[Sukerkin]

Quite true there, Kenpo.

I have to confess that I've been very lax and not followed that link to see what my impressions are on the survey (and the surveyed).

I also have to confess that I'm not a climate scientist, I'm just what used to called "Well read" so my words carry no 'professional weight.

The reason why I tend to get drawn into these discussions repeatedly is not that I'm an evangelist for the Global Warming Corporate Mafia; indeed, I'm still more than ready to believe that this sudden warming explosion will trigger an inversion. It's that I consistently fail to grasp why there is so much resistence to trying to do what we can to make sure we're not making things worse then they need to be.

That's particularly true when it comes to developing non-polluting alternative sources of energy. It's a given that petrol is a magnificent energy store and the oil companies, via vast economies of scale, are able to get it to us for a ludicrously low price. Those attributes make it hard to beat, especially when most of the proposed alternatives are simply the same 'model' dressed up in new clothes with a different 'fuel' that isn't as good. Even those that look superficially great, like many of the electric car designs for example, simply move the pollution a step back towards the source and generate an even worse problem with other elements of the technology (the batteries are an ecological nightmare to dispose of).

There are approaches that could break the mould if fully developed tho' e.g. photo-voltaic cells combined with fuel cells to use the sun to provide the power to get the hydrogen you need to drive the car. No magic bullets as yet tho' .

 

[michaeledward]

The world is, neither flat, nor the center of the universe. Earth, Fire, Wind and Water are not all the elements. These were all scientific consensuses at their times.

To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.

 

[michaeledward]

If given a list of scientists who do not believe in man-made global warming, who here would believe them, or perhaps become a little more skeptical?

Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.

Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
Show me who is funding their research.

Show me the evidence that is contrary to their claims.
Show me where their funding is sourced.

 

[Big Don]

Not Me. I would not believe anything because of a list of names.

Instead, show the evidence for their claims.
Show me who is funding their research.

Show me the evidence that is contrary to their claims.
Show me where their funding is sourced.

Because people, like Al Gore who make money by exploiting fear of global warming caused disaster are somehow more trustworthy?

 

[Big Don]

To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.

No, not a lie at all. When the "great" scientists of the time all believed the earth was flat and/or the center of the universe that was indeed, regardless of where the idea came from, a consensus of scientists, just as you claim there are now, supporting the idea of man-caused global warming leading to mass hysteria, dogs and cats living together, etc

 

[Big Don]

What does that comment have to do with science? Just because some blogger is ranting about something, even a blogger who has "editor" by his name, it doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion.

Lamont

That blogger suggests trying those who don't agree with his perception of the world as some kind of war criminals. No, that doesn't really impact the general scientific opinion, but, should I be able to try British people as criminals because they are so "stupid" as to spell COLOR with a U?
Dictionary.com defines religion as:

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Those who blame man for global warming have a set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of global warming.

2.a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

Those believing in human caused global warming are clearly a group with a fundamental set of beliefs

3.the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.[/ quote] There is clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that man is causing global warming

4.the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.

Doesn't apply

5.the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.

Those who believe man is the cause of global warming clearly practice those beliefs and ritually observe that idea

6.something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

That man caused global warming is something some follow devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience.
That's five out of six definitions of religion that apply to those who believe in man caused global warming. That is a higher percentage than climate scientists who believe in man caused global warming...

 

[Sukerkin]

Don, I hate to have to say it but you're really not on-the-money with some of these remarks with regard to the history of science.

As a discipline, there was no such thing until the dawn of the Renaissance and even then these Rational Thinkers were more multi-disciplinarian philosophers than anything we would regard as scientists. Further still, there were so few of these men that it is not really accurate to try and speak of a consensus in the sense of a large body of thinkers believing the same thing.

The promoters of the world is flat and the centre of the universe were the clergy, excercising their vested (yeah, clerical pun attack ) interests in keeping the mass of the population uneducated and under control.

Don't get me wrong, it's okay to have an opinion (even a contentious one) and to argue your corner, it's what the forum is for after all. But supporting it with mis-information will garner no favours :lol:.

EDIT: that last bit didn't work, I don't think. It was supposed to have been a humerously meant sound-alike for "a rolling stone gathers no moss" but re-reading showed it didn't come out that way at all, it just sounded vaguely insulting :O. Sorry ...

 

[Andrew Green]

To claim that these things were consensus because of "science" is a lie; either intentional or from ignorance. It demonstrates a lack of understanding of the past 5,000 years of human culture. In the West, the consensus that the world is flat, or the center of the universe, came not from science but from the collective myths and legends of a sky god.

Well, the earth being the center of the universe has some pretty good supporting evidence, until you invent the telescope that is.

Until the telescope the earth would appear to be stationery, because it's motion in relation to the position of the stars was so small it could not be detected by the eye alone. So it would appear that we are stationery relative to the position of the stars, with the sun, moon and visible planets rotating around us. Except that the planets did some funny loops along the way.

Science can, and has, made some pretty big mistakes. But it's willingness to admit too and correct those mistakes is what makes science possible

The Earth however was never believed to be flat by scientists however. This can be observed with the eye. The horizon is curved, when a ship sails out to see it goes over that horizon and disappears, etc.

4 elements...5 depending on who you ask, is scientific in origin. And it does have some connection to what is observable. Everything can be made into either a solid (earth), liquid (water), gas (air) or converted to energy (fire). While it was a large misunderstanding, I can see how it could be arrived at by observation and experimentation.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Those who blame man for global warming have a set of beliefs concerning the cause and nature of global warming.

You might want to point out how the belief that man caused global warming is "concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs". Man-made global warming, simplified, is the idea that current human behavior is increasing the amount of solar heat retained by our atmosphere. That's physical science, not superhuman agency, devotional observance, or moral code.

Those believing in human caused global warming are clearly a group with a fundamental set of beliefs

You're using "fundamental beliefs" a bit too liberally here. There's a big difference between performing studies to see if a result has occurred and insisting on a notion despite any contrary evidence.

There is clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that man is causing global warming

And this makes it a religion? There's also clearly a body of persons who adhere to the idea that Cuba is 90 miles south of Miami, FL. Should I form the church and fill out the forms for tax-exemption?

Those who believe man is the cause of global warming clearly practice those beliefs and ritually observe that idea That man caused global warming is something some follow devotedly, as a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

"Ritual" implies far more than simply continuing to believe something. As for the ethics or conscience, that would be in response to what should be done about the portion of global-warming that is man-made, not whether man-made global warming is actually occurring. You have to separate the "how we shoudl respond" from the "whether it's happening".

Here's a point to ponder: these scientific whackos are claiming that human activity like burning fossil fuels and driving "more cars than the beach got sand" (Dave Matthews Band, Too Much) and presenting their ritualistic "studies", "data", and other voodoo magic to back it up. The critical response is to deny, deny, deny, despite the evidence. Which side's being more religious? All of your definitions that you pulled from the dictionary can be easily turned around on those who insist that global warming isn't affected by human behavior, and with a bit more merit, methinks.

 

[Ray]

I have to say that in some ways your views a bit 'off', Don, when it comes to the nature of science.

The breadth of investigation covered under the mantle of the single word 'Science' is staggering and consensus, meaning in this case generally accepted rather than universally, is the order of the day.

As Todd said earlier, nothing is ever proven, something can only be disproven. Even then, if it's 'close enough' for practical use then it'll do - for example, Newton's Theory of Gravity is actually wrong but it approximates well enough for us to use it.

What part of Newton's description of the force of gravity is at variance with the understanding since relativity? None that I know of. Newton didn't explain the cause of gravity, he explained the force of attraction between two masses in a neat, tidy formula. He didn't discribe the reason (gravitons and/or the curvature of space/time due to mass). Help me out here.

When I was a kid in HS, everybody was worried about global cooling.

CFCs were introduced as a means to reduce pollution. Later Sagan and friends discovered the potential impact that CFCs would have on the ozone layer.

Maybe we should set up an international body to regulate emissions of greenhouse gases. It could be budgeted based on populations (the most populated area gets the most) or maybe on square footage of a country. Maybe Al Gore could be the leader of this organization and we could buy our permits from him. Such a noble thing...

We humans are pretty smart, but not smart enough.