The scientific reality is that on virtually every claim, the scientific case for man-made climate fears has collapsed. The only thing "worse than we thought" is the shoddy journalism of the mainstream media, which parrots global warming activists' baseless talking points.
Consider these facts:
The Antarctic sea ice extent has been at or near record extent in the past few summers; the Arctic has rebounded in recent years since the low point in 2007; polar bears are thriving; the sea level is not showing acceleration and is actually dropping; cholera and malaria are failing to follow global warming predictions; Mount Kilimanjaro-melt fears are being made a mockery by gains in snow cover; global temperatures have been holding steady for a decade or more as many scientists are predicting global cooling is ahead; deaths because of extreme weather are radically declining; global tropical cyclone activity is near historic lows; the frequency of major U.S. hurricanes has declined; the oceans are missing their predicted heat content; big tornadoes have dramatically declined since the 1970s; droughts are neither historically unusual nor caused by mankind; there is no evidence we are currently having unusual weather; scandals continue to rock the climate fear movement; the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has been exposed as being a hotbed of environmental activists; and scientists continue to dissent at a rapid pace.
Monday, October 24, 2011
Global Warming
Happening, or maybe not so much?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
1. Let's have SOME respect for actual facts, please.
2. If I name 10 professional science organizations (the kind who produce peer-reviewed academic journals) who support the scientific reality of anthropogenic global climate change, will you kindly direct me to one who does not. If we go more rounds (my 10 to your 1), who do you suppose will run out of organizations first?
Rejecting what an overwhelming majority of professional scientists accept--due to the overwhelming fact-based evidence puts you in pretty dodgy company.
It's not that science doesn't value OpEds in the Washington Examiner or Forbes... No wait, it IS that.
IF there's an issue, I'm more inclined to believe it's caused by that big yellow ball in the sky--despite what *some* scientists hoping for grant money and publishing fame say.
"All this has happened before, and it will happen again."
Perhaps you'd be interested in this post from 2 years ago:
http://rightontheleftcoast.blogspot.com/2009/11/climate-change_27.html
Maybe there *is* a wolf, but if you've cried wolf enough, well....
BTW, Dean, what kind of vehicle do you drive while the planet heats up? If you truly believed in the apocalypse, wouldn't you walk or bike?
The vehicle I drive allows me to get work and back up to two full work weeks on a single gallon of gas. Are you doing better?
I support legislative mandates to require higher fuel efficiency standards. Auto manufacturers wail and gnash teeth with every increase, then miraculously figure out how to meet the higher standards.
Do resist them temptation--strong as it is--to individualize public policy. Conservatives relish retorts such as, "If you think taxes should be higher, YOU (alone) should volunteer to pay higher taxes!" But they fail the consistency test (among other things) when it comes to gay marriage, abortion-rights, and so on. (Nobody on the left will ever force you to gay-marry OR have an abortion.)
And when a high school math teacher presumes to know better than essentially all professional climate scientists, the folly is embarrassing. The parallels in non-scientific thinking among climate change deniers and young-Earth creationists is striking.
You can choose to believe *some* climate scientists if you want to. I don't believe them; they haven't convinced me. Nice dig on me personally, though, thanks for that.
Don't question my personal choice of vehicle if you don't want me to question your personal wisdom on the issue. If I was out of bounds, I was merely following your lead.
I am curious about your use of the term *some* where it means *virtually all*.
I agree with *some* astronomers who believe heliocentrism is settled science. I do so with full knowledge that a "Galileo Was Wrong" geocentrism conference was held recently in the shadow of Notre Dame. There were presenters there with PhDs.
I also agree with *some* biologists on the fact of evolution. Theories on the mechanics of evolution persist as the should. But I am unaware of any professional, published biologist who denies the fact of evolution. Nor do I think there is a vast conspiracy among the scientific elite to keep creationists/intelligent designists down.
And given your stated appreciation of intellectual honesty, I'm disappointed you didn't herald the recent findings of climate skeptic, Richard Muller.
A lesser person might conclude you appreciate intellectual honesty only when someone reverses their beliefs to align with your own. But I know you better than that.
1. The dig on me wasn't in reference to automobiles--but nice attempt at obfuscation, of which I grant you're a master.
2. Are you implying that as soon as 50% believe something, that's the new rule? That's what I'm inferring from what you've written, but I'm sure you'll correct me.
3. Nice attempt at a dig, but someone's already linked to a story about Muller in the comments. I saw no reason to do a full post on it.
4. Maybe I just require more evidence than you do. Maybe I'm more of a skeptic than you are. Maybe I don't "go with the flow" as easily as others might. Sorry, appeals to authority and some witticisms might win you a few claps at a debate, but they don't address my questions about how these changes have happened before and about why these apocalyptic catastrophes always need to be solved with the same smorgasbord of leftie wet dreams (see my link above), among other questions. You can continue to insult me and/or question my intelligence, but I don't think (I could be wrong here) that you get as much enjoyment out of that as you would from changing my mind around to your way of thinking--and you're definitely going about that the wrong way.
I like *this* web site:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/
"Former meteorologist and weather expert Anthony Watts maintains this site, skeptical of the man-made global warming topic."
I especially like his coverage of Climategate:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/climategate/
1. It's not a mere 50%. More like 99%.
2. I don't presume that you'll ever come around to my way of thinking on anything we ever argue about. My father long ago assured me that "no one ever wins an argument." He was correct as far as the adversaries were concerned. But onlookers are a different story entirely.
3. It's never too long before the "I'm more of a skeptic than you are" chestnut gets hauled out. But it's as vacuous as any other argument.
Science has self-correcting mechanisms that prevent bias from trumping objective reality. If someone can substantiate valid, scientific takedowns of climate change, evolution, or heliocentrism, they'd make a name for themselves.
But it doesn't happen. AGW deniers cherry-pick data points and crow about those points in opeds and financial magazines. It's the deniers who have a political agenda. They are right-wingers looking to plunder the environment. Hoping to make a quick profit while unconcerned about long-term, irreparable environmental harm.
Such people do not respect the methods of science. Nearly everyone who reads the data objectively joins the consensus conclusion: climate change is real and is accelerated by human activity. Those who feel marginalized by this consensus have elected to stand to the margins, rejecting conclusive evidence.
The stark reality is that we're already too far along a destructive path to do much about the coming peril. If we stopped all carbon emissions tomorrow, the world would continue to warm. The planet is on a course for destructive change and there are harsh limits on what anyone can do about it.
But I'd rather slow it down than speed it up.
Wait. "Climategate"? Really? That was investigated; there was no there there. Anthony Watts? You accept the opinion bloggings of a TV personality while rejecting the work of the National Atmospheric and Oceanic Administration and work published in the Journal of Geophysical Research? Watt's SurfaceStations.org has been investigated and found wanting.
You buy cherry-picked data blogged by a TV personality while I buy the peer-reviewed work published in the community of professional climate scientists. For this, you claim the skeptical high ground while I am charged with appealing to authority.
Seriously?
Yes, seriously.
Hansen is a demonstrated political hack (making NASA's claims suspect) and no one addresses *my* questions. I'll remain skeptical of those who are *adamant* that this *is* happening, and who, just coincidentally, say things like this:
"It's the deniers who have a political agenda. They are right-wingers looking to plunder the environment. Hoping to make a quick profit while unconcerned about long-term, irreparable environmental harm."
and at the same time come up with solutions that are entirely leftist.
Nope, I'm not buying it.
I've read statements like this, that ring true to me: "I'll treat global warming like it's a crisis when the people who tell me it's a crisis act like it's a crisis." Until then, and until they answer my questions, I'm not going to believe them.
Oh, and if you use Wikipedia to "prove" Climategate was false--they didn't fake data? they didn't suppress findings? they didn't collude?--well, you have no basis for attacking Watt.
Here's a hockey stick for you.
Climategate was investigated and found to be without substance. The wiki link provided access to the many studies done by grown-ups that concluded there was nothing worth bunching anyone's undies. Is such universal dismissal all part of a vast conspiracy to you?
Your error is filtering science through your political lens. You accept as science OpEds in newspapers, blogs, and Forbes while actively rejecting the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Geophysical Union, etc.
The science doesn't demand anything in terms of a solution and cannot reasonably be rejected simply because a politician wants to act on the reality it portrays.
You're in essence saying that if a politician uses science to support legislation that will force everyone to drive a Prius, then the science must be wrong.
That's simply not how it works.
And if all professional scientists don't lockstep agree to drive Priuses, that doesn't mean climate science is bunk, either. The science persists regardless of human decisions.
You and I need not worry too much; the worst will arrive after we're gone (I hope). I needn't worry at all, I suppose, since I don't plan on leaving offspring behind. If I were a little more libertarian, I'd shrug and figure, "not my problem."
You gave yourself away when you went on your mini-rant about those eeeeevil "right-wingers looking to plunder the environment". At that point, it's hard to take your "science" seriously, since you've shown yourself to be as interested in the politics of the issue as I am.
Seeing the blatant politics of the plunderers doesn't preclude anyone from an evidence-based understanding of the scientific facts. Nor does my siding with the left on the policy issues. The fact of AGW is acknowledged by all major scientific organizations and nearly all publishing climate scientists. Your objections are drawn from non-scientific sources (TV personality blogs and newspaper OpEds).
You're showing yourself as someone who has no interest in science or regard for how science works. That's OK, I suppose. Sad. But we all have choices to make.
Here's today's example of right-wing, agenda-driven politics doing its best to silence fact-based science, Texas-style;
Scientists and conservationists accuse the state environmental agency of editing references to climate change and sea level rise out of a public report — because the agency, like Gov. Rick Perry, is skeptical of global warming.
I think it's your *politics* more than any "science" that drives your views on this topic. If you believed facts, so many other opinions of yours would be different.
Post a Comment