Here are some interesting tidbits about the lack of credible people arguing against global warming:
Allow me to present a few names. Massachusetts Institute of Technollogy's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen complained to the Boston Globe about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's flic. Neil Frank, who was considered authoritative when he was the director of the National Hurricane Center, told the Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.
University of Virginia professor emeritus Fred Singer' co-authored a book," Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1,500 Years," that argues that global warming is not human-induced but based on a solar cycle. Last year, 60 Canadian scientists signed a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in which they argued that there is no consensus among climate scientists.
By Debra Saunders, whose writing I respect immensely.
Update, 1/31/07: One person I do not respect is John Travolta. He wants me to do something about global warming while he trots around the world in his own private Boeing 707.
Update #2, 1/31/07: Global warming is a paper tiger?
My rule of thumb is that anyone who demands the other side not be allowed to be heard, is the wrong side.
Update #3, 2/2/07: Instapundit says it best:
THE BIG GLOBAL WARMING PUSH IS UNDERWAY: I won't take it seriously until they ban private jets and stretch limos.
No, seriously. A Gulfstream III releases 10,000 pounds of carbon dioxide an hour. How can we demand "sacrifice" from ordinary Americans when our leaders -- including those who call for the sacrifice -- are flying in jets like this? If commercial first-class isn't good enough, they should stay home.
Update #4, 2/2/07: OK, Neal Boortz says it even better than Instapundit--but isn't as pithy. (Right now I can't get a direct Permalink, but go here and it's the first post on February 2nd).
WHY AM I SKEPTICAL ABOUT MAN-MADE GLOBAL WARMING?
Update #5, 2/3/07: More about scientists who don't agree with the UN report.
Update #6, 2/3/07: I don't think there's anything in this Instapundit post with which I disagree. For those of you who attend the Church of Global Warming, read it and see if it seems reasonable to you.
Update #7, 2/3/07: What would be so bad if the world got a little bit warmer?
Update #8, 2/7/07: I wonder what Nancy Pelosi's take on global warming is?
Update #9, 2/7/07: It just gets better with Nancy!
21 comments:
You continue to cite single sources at a time. Look what happens when multiple, accredited sources are examined at the same time:
"The extent of the scientific consensus on global warming—that "most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been attributable to human activities"—has been investigated: In the journal Science in December 2004, Dr Naomi Oreskes published a study of the abstracts of the 928 refereed scientific articles in the ISI citation database identified with the keywords "global climate change" and published from 1993–2003. This study concluded that 75% of the 928 articles either explicitly or implicitly accepted the consensus view — the remainder of the articles covered methods or paleoclimate and did not take any stance on recent climate change. The study did not report how many of the 928 abstracts explicitly accepted the hypothesis of human-induced warming, but none of the 928 articles surveyed accepted any other hypothesis."
In any case, there is no way to deny that carbon dioxide levels are going up at a rate that could be slowed down if we take action. It is idiotic to do nothing to save the environment. Even using the hypothesis that humans have contributed nothing to cause a climate change, the fact is that there are adverse effects to such a change, changes that we can very well prevent, and should prevent. There is nothing bad that would come of attempting to slow carbon emissions, but letting things stand as they are is an unwise decision. At the very, very least, America should ratify the Kyoto Protocol. We are the largest emitter of carbon dioxide, and we can take steps to prevent that.
Cameron, we're leaving what's known as a mini-Ice Age, which lasted from about 1600 to about 1900. This is a cyclical change in earth's temperature, and would occur even if there were no humans on the planet. That's an entirely different situation from whether or not, or rather how much, we can and should pollute our environment.
Are there *any* nations meeting their obligations under Kyoto? Any?
Remember, when I was your age, the big scare by scientists and environmentalists was The Coming Ice Age. You'll have to excuse me for not believing the hype--and it *is* hype--this time, either.
Did you read this on?
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/
2007/01/ive-always-liked-deb-saunders-writing.html
Even if the earth was getting warmer it wouldn't be that bad, Maybe it might even be like the Bahamas.
Is it warm in the Bahamas? I wouldn't know. I've never been there.
Why are you only willing to believe one side of the facts, and completely ignore the other side? Oh, I know. It's because the right supports it, because they don't want to spend a cent on reducing their emissions. They don't see an immediate difference with spewing tons of black smoke into the air every day, and they won't let some stupid scientists tell them what to do. It's obviously a waste of money to explore alternative energy sources, because oil is here to stay, and easily available from our best friends in the Middle East!
To say that humans are unable to affect the environment is absolutely ludicrous.
Anti-global warming arguments have no more integrity behind them than global warming arguments do; furthermore, nobody could ever argue that letting all of our emissions make their way through the atmosphere is better than doing something about it.
We can do something to curb emissions. There's no reason not to. To ignore the issue for the pursuit of wealth is selfish and ignorant.
Cameron, I don't believe what I do because "the right" believes it. I take my experience, my knowledge, and my belief structure, and come up with the conclusion I come up with.
I have no problem with curbing emissions if there's a not-extremely-onerous way of doing so. We Republicans like the environment--forests are a great place to take our families while we're practicing family values :-) Wealth, national wealth, is what allows us to protect our environment; let's not forget that there were more trees in America in 1999 than there were in 1899. Wealth. Want more proof? Go check out the environment in 3rd World countries.
You claim I ignore evidence. I don't ignore it, I explain it differently than "Man is causing the earth to heat up." You are the one who seems to ignore evidence, such as mini-ice ages and the cyclical nature of climatic events.
Why do you *choose* to believe man is some culprit here, and not just along for the ride--as he was every other time this has occurred?
"Why do you *choose* to believe man is some culprit here, and not just along for the ride--as he was every other time this has occurred?"
It might be the weight of all those peer-reviewed, scientific journal articles. You know, the ones you're dismissing. Apparently the scientists are a bunch of anti-business lefties plotting to to subvert free enterprise. Good thing you see through their plot.
And every time you trot out a list of "heavy hitters" who go against the grain, you sound like a flat-earther or a creationist. You can dig up outlyers in any human endeavor. For someone who likes to consider himself a member of the mainstream, you travel pretty far from it when it comes to science.
Global warming is real and is exacerbated by human activity. That's the concensus of scientists who work in this field. They're not thrown by your mini-ice age talk or "I saw a scare story on TV in the 70s that was wrong" objection. Those tired chestnuts are the *true* yawners. And when it comes to climate science, I'll bet on the climate scientists to know more than the high school math teachers. Teaching algebra? I'll go the other way.
Anyway, get up to speed! If W can, why can't you? Why entrench so firmly on the wrong side as the evidence grows and swirls around you? Is Bush just a sell-out now?
And for the record, scientists have reached a concensus that the earth is round (oblate spheroid) and it was evolution, not creation or intelligent design that brought us to where we are now.
Sorry, Chicken Little, I'm not buying it. The people I've mentioned aren't crackpots--I listed their qualifications. They have a lot more knowledge about the subject--from a scientific point of view, than Al Gore, Josh Hartnett, or even you. For those scientists who support what you support, well, I don't believe them. I want them to explain away my counter-arguments first, not just try to silence those I agree with.
Thanks for the yawn. It points out that Bush has acknowledged the reality of global warming *and* the fact that man IS a culprit.
Both of which put him ahead of you in understanding the problem. Gore's got you pegged; you're not going to acknowledge the problem because it IS an Inconvenient Truth, and you would prefer not to be inconvenienced.
Oh wait. John Travolta's doing something irresponsible (that would apparently not be irresponsible if he agreed with your assessment of climate change)? Well then, to H*ll with Kyoto!
Tell me how Britney Spears doesn't weather-seal and I'll jump to your side, because these are the make-or-break arguments in the science of climate change. Thanks for cutting to the chase on this stuff. Science was always so difficult and thought-intensive, but celebrity shenanigans--now that stuff I git.
Why didn't your hero, President Clinton, even *try* to push for Kyoto? My guess is he knew better, knew it wouldn't help anything, and knew that he'd get just as much mileage supporting it as he would fighting for it.
How *are* those other countries doing regarding the Kyoto targets, anyway? Inquiring minds want to know.
Here's some fresh news of actual climate science, assuming you're interested in actual science.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change.
Clinton was no hero of mine. I describe him as the best Republican president the US had in the last 20 years. But that's no compliment. If he'd had a pair, the leading "liberal" on the Supreme Court wouldn't be a Ford appointee.
Inquiring minds can find the current status of the Kyoto protocols should they want to know. But here's the gist (from Wikipedia):
"Comparing total greenhouse gas emissions in 2004 to 1990 levels, the US emissions were up by 16%, with irregular fluctuations from one year to another but a general trend to increase. At the same time, the EU group of 23 (EU-23) Nations had reduced their emissions by 5%."
Any other inquiries?
Yes, yes, I'm all aware of the UN's report. It's not being released until May because *it's not finished yet*; they're just releasing a summary soon. A summary of a report that's not finished yet.
I don't consider Wikipedia to be a scholarly source on this topic, just as you probably won't consider JunkScience.com a reputable source:
http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Look.html
So you flatter yourself with the notion that a high school math teacher could walk into an international conference of climate scientists and stop them dead in their "global warming is real and exacerbated by human activitiy" tracks with your mini-ice age objection? That's quite a different world you choose to live in. The good news is that the world of science goes on in the face of irrational folk who refuse to acknowledge reality.
I didn't know that you considered Wiki to have an agenda. Junkscience is "fair and balanced" like FoxNews. Most of the world recognizes the bias in both those sources. Let me guess, you think the Institute for Creation Research is a valid source of scientific reasearch, too, right?
But do tell: what's going on in the world of CO2 emissiions?
You make my point for me about JunkScience.com. But OK.
What's going on with CO2 emissions? I don't know, do you? Are you qualified to explain the ramifications *if* you know?
Let's assume CO2 emissions from humans are increasing. Are they increasing enough to have an effect? I recall when Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines. Contemporary reports said that that one volcano spewed more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has in his entire history as a species. Let's ban volcanoes.
Sorry, I'm comfortable with my own religion. I have no intention of converting to the Church of Global Warming.
How could this be a product of a mini ice age if the ice caps are melting? Wouldn't new ones be freezing?
anonymous, I'm not sure which "this" you're referring to. But we left an ice age about 100 years ago (it went from about 1600 to about 1900). I'd say we're in for a warming spell for awhile, after which time global temperatures will decline again.
The sky is not falling.
Ice core drillings have proven that from the 1600's to now global temperatures have contiued to rise, along with carbon dioxide levels. It's just that only now are we seeing the effects of carbon dioxide levels because they've risen so high. I think you're basing your argument pollitically, not scientifically. A liberal makes a documentary about global warming, and naturally, whether right or wrong, you object. But to tell the truth, I don't think we should be worried about global warming as much as we are. With the Middle East going nuclear, we're about to get REALLY warm if nothing is done.
I'm not sure what ice core drillings you're referring to that would reflect global temperatures. There aren't a lot of ice cores to drill in most places on the planet, and even fewer in the 70% of the planet that's ocean.
I've identified my reasons for not believing the global warming hysteria, and I would have those reasons even if Al Gore didn't make his movie. My skepticism has nothing to do with my political leanings. The President has said, on several occasions, that he thinks man could be having an undue impact (see my *yawn* link at the beginning of the post) and I don't agree with him.
"We Republicans like the environment--forests are a great place to take our families while we're practicing family values :-) Wealth, national wealth, is what allows us to protect our environment; let's not forget that there were more trees in America in 1999 than there were in 1899. Wealth. Want more proof? Go check out the environment in 3rd World countries."
So you like the earth's environment merely because it makes for a good vacation spot? That's ridiculous. If your an environmentalist, I would expect it to be for real reasons, like the fact that you care about more than your own species, that you feel humans have no right to make other species extinct, or that you take pride in being a non-destructive part of a planet that has 4,000,000 species all intricately working together in a grand web of life that evolved from a single cell 3 billion years ago. This is why I care about the environment, not because I like to go visit the forest.
As for "the environment of third world countries," a large part of the reason they are third-world countries is because they have no natural rescources for export to begin with. So people choose live to live in the middle of a barren African desert, and those people live very poverty-stricken lives due to their decision to live in that desert. What you're doing is pointing your finger at them saying "Look, the poor people have no money, that's why their home is a desert - only money can save the environment" It's the other way around. A healthy environment stimulates a healthy economy, not the other way around.
You still haven't given me any reasons to believe in your position on Global Warming. Have you seen "An Inconvenient Truth"? If not, why not. If you're confident enough in your position, Gore can't say anything you haven't heard or that would change your mind - right? Or is that what you're afraid of - that he will change your mind by using real science and statistics. I honestly don't know what you could say after watching this film to dis-credit anything he says. If you've seen it and still don't believe in global warming, you're either exceedingly stubborn or unwilling (or unable) to examine evidence and make a conclusion based on that evidence. That's really all he does is present the information - he doesn't make it preachy.
Tyler, I'm sure *you* don't think it's preachy. I'm equally sure you believe everything he told you. I'm skeptical, and there are plenty of people more knowledgeable than you and me who say so--MIT meteorology professor
Lindzen, who has specifically addressed untruths in Gore's movie. Read a little about him here: http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-for-global-warming-crowd.html
And *you* are mistaken about 3rd world countries and the environment. You can't focus on Saharan Africa and apply that to everyone. Look at the environment in the former Communist countries--and heck, they were 2nd World.
Post a Comment