Sunday, May 27, 2007

Climate Change

Kerplunk nails it, yet again.

Here's a question. If billions of dollars were spent developing financial forecasting models so we could tell what the markets would be like in 50 years' time and they had almost no ability to predict what happened in the past then should politicians bet trillions of dollars of the world's economy on their accuracy?
Climate modelling is non-trivial stuff. It's clear that none of the models are anywhere near getting it right in spite of the billions of dollars that have been spent on them.

There's just too much information out there disputing the Church of Global Warming catechisms that the only ones who are blind are those who will not see.


Ellen K said...

I think the hype is reaching the point that only "true believers" are still adherents to the World According to Gore. What I want to know is that after two years of drought, we are now in a period where it has rained almost every day for a month. All the Global Warming advocates say we are headed for another Dust Bowl. If industry is what causes Global Warming, and industry was at a virtual standstill during the Depression, could someone explain to me how the original Dust Bowl came into reality? Furthermore, if there is more Carbon dioxide, won't there be more vibrant plant growth and hence, more production of oxygen as a biproduct of that overgrowth? Just wondering...

Mikeat said...

ellen k

I’m from the Gulf Coast. Remember after one hell of a 2005 hurricane every jackass on TV was screaming about another massive hurricane season in 2006, with a Katrina a week, all thanks to Global Warming

The numbers


Tropical Storms: 12
Hurricanes: 12


Tropical Storms: 5
Hurricanes: 5

Now we’re hearing about another massive season where we “may have another massive hurricane strike in the Gulf Coast…”…in other words, it “may” also be the season we break the record and have only 4 TS and 4 Hurricanes.

Gotta love it!

Ellen K said...

The Church of Global Warming sounds like a joke, but it has all the earmarks of a cult.
1. There's a somewhat charismatic leader (If Gore could be called that...)
2. Celebrities are friends and supporters of said charismatic leader.
3. The code of belief brooks no doubts-you either accept every word, or you are an infidel.
4. The "church" and its leaders believe they are the only holders of "the truth".
5. The "church" believes that unnamed conspirators are acting behind the scenes to discredit them.
6. Secrets from within the "church" are believed to give the faithful access to the truth.
7. Initiation in the way of restraint, recycling, regression from technology and other isolation results in adherents blindly following the leaders.
8. A belief that endless supplies of money, all of which is to be turned over without question (by the taxpayers?) is to be spent on "special programs" to alleviate or appease the climate gods.
9. The belief that questioning any of these goals, any of the programs or any of the methods of obtaining money is equal to apostasy.
10. The belief that the "little people" should suffer deprivation for the good of the "special people" (See Barbara Streisand's house and ask yourself if this is a balanced use of resources according to the opinions of the Church of Global Warming)

Darren said...

EllenK, as usual you've hit the nail on the head.

Tyler said...

In response to Ellen's first comment, I hope you weren't serious when you said:

"If industry is what causes Global Warming, and industry was at a virtual standstill during the Depression, could someone explain to me how the original Dust Bowl came into reality?"

This to me demonstrates a big mis-understanding not only of science and the way the world works, but also of the global warming issue in general.

The dust bowl was not and never has been claimed to have been caused by CO2 levels or global warming. The dust bowl was caused from overuse of land and a lack of fertilization of the soil. But the most troubling thing about this is that you don't seem to understand that global warming is a relatively gradual process according to human timescales (months, years, even decades) It's not as if a five-year lul in US industry in the 30's would stop global warming in its tracks.

As for the CO2 and plant growth relationship, very few plants (if any) are limited in their growth from a lack of CO2. The bigger issue is lack of water and/or essential nutrients (calcium, zinc etc.) Temperature also has an impact on their growth, to a far greater extent than does variation in CO2 concentration. Again, to say that more CO2 should be causing more plants to grow even taller demonstrates a lack of understanding of the basic science behind what you're talking about.

Tyler said...

As for Ellen's second comment, when has anyone ever said a "non-believer" in Global Warming was an infidel. It seems to me you're the only one who thinks those who don't agree with you are somehow morally wrong.

The somewhat obvious distinction between any form of religion and Al Gore's message is that the latter is based on reason. "Conversions" to Global Warming (if that's the proper term) occur not because the converts were consoled and given a sense of purpose in life by Gore's message, but because they analyzed and rationalized what he had to say and came to the LOGICAL and RATIONAL conclusion that it was true. No such logical and rational process occurs within the minds of anyone religious, at least not with regard to their belief in a diety.

The "Church of Global Warming" does not believe it is the only holder of the truth any less justifiably so than do chemists believe in the current model of the atom. Nobody has ever actually seen an atom. But physicist came up with the atomic model and it made predictions about the world that jived with what we observed on larger scales. There were plenty who were in denial about atoms until the evidence became too overwhelming. Same for Global Warming. The majority of the scientific community feels the Earth will heat up due to human behavior, and these predictions have matched experimental data. Circumstantial evidence in science is highly common and not untrustworthy. The Global Warming scientists' use of circumstantial evidence is no less untrustworthy than physicists' use of circumstantial evidence to prove the existance of the atom.

The major difference between GW science and religion is that no form of worldly evidence could change the mind of an Evangelical like the late Jerry Falwell or Pastor Ted Haggart. By contrast, if you were to present a wealth of evidence contradicting the current consensus of the scientific community, they would be willing to alter their predictions and conclusion in the name of a search for the truth. Your comparison between science and religion is flawed in so many ways, and this difference between acceptance and rejection of contrary evidence is just one example of an irreconcileable discrepancy. Whether politicians like Gore would be so apt to change is uncertain, but that's really irrelevant to the issue.

Darren said...

Tyler, the new term for people who don't accept the so-called science behind the Church of Global Warming is "denier". We're not infidels, we're "deniers". Sounds to me like a difference without a distinction.

As for the science, there's too much of it that calls into question man's impact on so-called global warming. The fact that the Church believers have to try to silence the "deniers" indicates that they know this as well. Feel free to check out my latest roundup on this topic: