Ari Melbor (Huffington Post op-ed)
The most striking part of the first full-blown debate in the Republican primary was the total rejection of science.
In a surreal scene near the night’s end, Gov. Rick Perry likened the people denying global warming science to Galileo. To observe that he has that history exactly backwards — it was the Church that accused Galileo of heresy in 1633 for scientific theories which were on the right track — is merely to observe that Perry’s substantive errors come with their own stylistic snafus. Perhaps that is fitting. More consequential, however, was the answer that Perry failed to provide.
The original question asked him to name a single scientist that supported his views. None of his opponents seized on the gaffe, since apart from the exception-of-the-night, Gov. Huntsman, every other candidate was aiming for the same conservative turf on which Perry stood. And unlike Gov. Palin’s famous inability to name her sources, the media is likely to put Perry’s problems aside, in order to focus on the “fireworks” that finally broke out between top tier candidates.
Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that nearly everyone running for the Republican nomination is anti-science? I was flabbergasted when Perry mentioned Galileo, like this was something to brag about. He volunteered that “Galileo got outvoted for a spell.” What kind of stupid-speak is that? “The Church (Catholic Church) kept Galileo under house arrest for years because he would not retract his claim that the sun was the center of the solar system and that earth revolved around the sun. Translation: He was tried by the Inquisition because he espoused heliocentrism. Galileo was “suspect of heresy.” He remained under house arrest until the day he died at age 77. That’s a bit more than being outvoted and a little longer than for ‘a spell,’ even in Texas.
On October 31, 1992, Pope John Paul II formally apologized for how the Galileo Inquisition was handled and issued a declaration acknowledging the mishandling by the Church. Einstein called Galileo the father of modern science and Stephen Hawking attributed Galileo with having more contributed more towards modern science than any other individual. And Perry links people denying global warming to Galileo?
Why on earth would anyone drag out what happened to Galileo as an example? How embarrassing. Not only does Perry not know anything about science, he knows very little about history. Did he name one scientist who claimed there was no climate change? He is did, I must have missed it.
I am just not comfortable with a president who rejects both climate change and evolution. I am not real comfortable knowing that the Roman Inquisition is being equated with being ‘out-voted.’ The United States has to compete in a scientific world. How can it do that when commonly accepted theories are rebuked by its wanna-be president?
The Republican Party really needs to rethink being the Anti-science Party. Listen to Jon Huntsman.
HIs “base” doesn’t give a shite. So long as he is:
against abortion
homophobic-homohostile
blames everything on democrats
demonizes liberals even more
preaches that the poor deserve whatever they get (or more likely don’t)
denies anything is wrong with the environment
AND
claims to be a Christian
He can do say whatever he wants and people will still “admire” him for his morality and passion.
Shit, if Diaper Dave Vitter can hold onto his seat – despite preaching family values and the “sanctity” of marriage…while frequenting DC call girls who put him in a diaper (per his requests), Perry will sail on by with his statements about Galileo….as with his governor’s proclimation that the entire state of TX be mandated to pray while he collaborated with the religiously drunk and megalomaniacs during his recent “rally”
Galileo….selected by a Texan.
On the humorous side, I know some Texans who would say Perry picked the wrong person since everybody knows the universe revolves around the Republic of Texas 🙂
I have to look at this more. I didn’t hear Perry denying science in any way last night. I heard him questioning Global Warming BullCrap, which any wise person would have to do, but I need to find proof that he’s denying science.
He has denied evolution and climate change, despite volumes of evidence to the contrary.
Global Warming Bullcrap? Are you serious? There is plenty of evidence that the earth is getting warmer. What does it take? A meteorite up side the head? All you have to do is be alive to know that the earth is getting warmer. Check out Glacier National Park. There’s a clue. Now while we might disagree on why and what to do about it, we can’t disagree that it is happening.
Finally, I think it is common sense to think that 100 million cars on the road daily on a planet might have some impact on the earth. Throw in plants spewing out waste and by products, and acres of deforestation happening daily and there is pretty high probability that coupled with natural occurrences there is going to be some sort of change over the years.
I simply don’t know why this should come as a surprise. Do you deny science also?
From Huffington:
He says its a theory that’s out there.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/18/rick-perry-evolution-video_n_930802.html
There has been a dramatic confrontation in the climate community during the past week. Spencer and Braswell have published a paper which casts doubt on the intensity of cloud feedbacks that amplify global warming. The warming caused by carbon dioxide is very mild. The only way to get the catastrophic warnings predicted by the IPCC is to have large, positive amplification (i.e. positive feedbacks) due to clouds and water vapor.
A strong proponent of AGW (Dessler)has already fired off a paper to contradict Spencer and Braswell, but flaws in his draft have already been noted.
So a scientific battle is under way. At this point, Spencer and Braswell have not been decisively refuted. There will be many attempts to do so. If their paper stands up the, “consensus” will have to account for smaller cloud feedbacks. This suggests that the climate may be much less sensitive to CO2 warming than previously thought and doomsday climate scenarios are highly unlikely.
And it also suggests that Rick Perry is not anti-science after all. He may just be right.
This all suggests that
@Kelly, if Perry had scientific data to support his denial then I might listen. However, he doesn’t. He bases his opinions probably on politics. It obviously isn’t science.
Don’t you think all scientists have bickered and bantered over their various fields of study? Of course they have. Some science is more controversial than other science. Scientists are egotistical just like everyone else. Just because they are fighting doesn’t mean it ain’t true. Throw in some politics to enrich the pot.
Me? I will go back to common sense and what I can observe with my own 5 senses.
Please ignore the last line. Bad self editing ….
@Moon-howler
You know – we know we can destroy habitats that are small. We can destroy a waterway by diverting it. We can render a water supply undrinkable by what we put into it. We can see smog and TASTE the air knowing it is foul.
The Eastern Europeans devastated their forests with acid rain brought on by sulphuric emmissions from their energy plants and factories. The forests of Chopin are far different than they once were.
Hell, with so many on birth control we have altered the hormonal makeup of some of our water systems that amphibians are inhibited from reproducing.
And with all that I have said I leave out mass deforestation, CFC residue, toxic dumping and even landfills.
But NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO……we could not possibly be responisible for global climate change for our activities. I mean we only put thousands tons more carfbon in teh atmosphere from our driving, energy consumption and meat demand than ever recorded in history. BUT NOOOOOOOOOOOO we have NO part in what is going on in the environment WHATSOEVER.
We’re DISconnected, you see…..(and I mean that in more ways than one).
/sarcasm
“Is anyone else uncomfortable with the fact that everyone running for the Republican nomination is anti-science?”
I see that statement as flawed. Generally medical doctors are not “anti-science”.
BTW, still love this one. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/tomtoles/2010/10/05/c_10062010.gif
The flaw is actually I should have said nearly everyone. And on the other hand, must one be against all science to be called ‘anti-science?’ No one disputes all science. it is impossible.
So it is all up to Spencer and Braswell? The dynamic duo of all scientists to decide what is right and what is not? Despite a majority of scientists weighing in on saying man’s activities ARE a cause of global climate change?
Well, yes then…let’s leave it to those two to tell us all what is truth and what isn’t.
@Bubba
If the numbers and calculations presented by Spencer and Braswell are not refuted (i.e. Nothing wrong with their calculations, no bad assumptions), then they will have successfully DEMONSTRATED that an underlying tenet of AGW is wrong. This is not a political essay — it is a scientific paper that uses NASA satellite data and model calculations to make their case. Someone will have to show why what they have done is wrong — otherwise it cannot just simply be dismissed by the IPCC.
@Kelly, isn’t most science constantly being refined and adjusted as more knowledge is gained? At what point to we decide this is a silly argument?
Are we trying to say that the burning of fossil fuels has nothing to do with atmosphere? Are we trying to say that the earth isn’t warming up? Are we trying to say it is warming but there is no real reason for it?
What is the ultimate bottom line here?
So y’all still believe in AGW, huh? Yes the earth is getting warmer, but how many times does science need to tell you that it’s the sun, not man, that controls climate change. “Science”……O…M…..G. If you’ve ever even accidentally had some history get into your ear-holes or eye-sockets, you should know that the earth’s climate has been changing since the beginning. The notion that man is the cause is hilarious, and it has been shown to be junk science again, and again, and again. I absolutely believe in science. Example. I support stem cell research 100%. Evolution? you bet. AGW BS? No thank you.
Now I have to go look for proof that Perry has denied evolution. Honestly, I seriously doubt that he did. So far, all I’m seeing is the latest desperate attempt to attack the Republican front-runner with everything that isn’t nailed down.
Well, seems as if Spencer and Braswell aren’t all you hype them up to be….and seems as if the scientific community finds their “results” not exactly earth shattering as you claim.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/09/02/update-on-the-spencer-braswell-paper/
Oh what’s that? The Spencer and Bradwell paper has been touted by Fox News – a media outlet that repeatedly denies climate change?
Oh what’s that? There were errors and false anaolgies drawn from Spencer & Bradwell’s data?
WOW. SHOCKING.
Wait! There’s MORE!
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/editor_of_remote_sensing_agree.php
In fact, if you google Spencer & Braswell Paper you get a boatload of links on how the paper shouldn’t have been published and WHY.
So much for Spencer & Braswell being the epitome of climate change science. Despite their impressive NASA imagery…..
How one interprets and explains the data seem to mean something – especially if one is using said data to mold and fit into one’s political agenda…or sponsor’s agenda.
Things that make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm……………………..
I think what M-H refers to as “anti-science” is really anti-Democrat or anti-liberal.
A lot of school teachers are liberals so they rushed to condemn teachers painting those who devoted their lives to teaching the next generation as evil, greedy freeloaders. Michelle Obama tried to encourage people to eat more healthy foods so they kicked back at the Iowa State Fair eating fried butter on a stick.
Data are available to show changes in climate in recent decades, including warming. Those are data, facts, and not a matter of debate. However, the earth’s climate is constantly in flux. For example, a Little Ice Age followed a period of warming during the Middle Ages from AD 950 to 1250. The article on Wikipedia is very interesting on the Little Ice Age, and contains a link to another article on the Medieval Climatic Anomaly. The article reviews numerous possible causes of climatic change.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Ice_Age
Establishing facts is one thing but determining causes is another altogether. Human activity was clearly insufficient to explain a period of global warming from AD 950 to 1250.
When we discuss causes, we must consider the sources of the proposed explanations. Academic research is subject to peer review and often requires grant funding. That process injects inevitable pressure to conform to prevailing biases and dogmas. In other words, researchers not concluding and publishing that human activity is the cause of climate change/global warming are unlikely to get tenure and promotion, or research grants. I know that this bias exists in all fields of research because I spent some of my career in an academic environment.
Moreover, profit and political motivation drive much of this debate. Al Gore is the best example. Visit the website of Al Gore’s investment firm. Go to www and .com for generationim (I’m avoiding a second link so I won’t end up in moderation). Gore has created a personal crusade out of global warming, which is aimed at making him even richer than he is now, and advancing his political ambitions. His movie, “Inconvenient Truth” contains numerous errors and falsehoods, and even uses special effects from Roland Emmerich’s “Day After Tomorrow” film. The main difference is that Emmerich conceded that his film was fiction.
Anyone, Rick Perry or anyone else, who refuses to accept the current global warming dogma is actually showing greater scientific objectivity than those who jump on the global warming political and corporate bandwagons. Let’s add Jeff Immelt, CEO of GE to the corporate crowd promoting global warming as a path to greater profits.
Is human activity one possible source of climate change? Absolutely. Is it the only factor? Absolutely not. The only people making such claims have personal stakes in the outcome of the debate. Climate models couldn’t even tell us that Hurricane Katia was not going to hit the US until it was virtually on our doorstep. Now, we’re supposed to believe that climate models can isolate one factor (human activity) and tell us what will happen decades into the future. Highly unlikely.
Scientific objectivism calls for questioning and skepticism. Those who refuse to accept blindly what the “mainstream” is telling us about the causes of global warming are more “scientific” than the Al Gores, University Department Chairs, Corporate CEOs and politicians who have personal vested interests in our accepting their claims carte blanche.
You should read “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” and it goes into detail on how the current populist movement via the GOP started with the anti-science crusade, and YES it has to do with their impression that science = anti-god, elitism. How back in the early 20th century the rockafellers, carnegies and company from the northeast were the “elites” and how their policies seemd to hurt those of Kansas and the midwest. Like the Civil War, old vendettas never seem to fade, but rather ingrain themselves in the body politric as a status quo….
Need to Know –
The mini ice age to which you refer was caused by a volcanic eruption in Asia. An explosion powerful enough to re-arange the landscape there and erupt enough volcanic ash into teh atmosphere that created that mini-ice age. Krakatoa is what you are reaching for. In that instance, Human activity did not cause the eruption.
BUT that ONE EVENT was enough to influence global climate from the amount of crap that was thrust into the atmosphere. The reasons for that mini ice age are NOT “unknown”
However, on that principle, together with natural events AND increasing fossil-fuel combustion over a century…whereby we know that the CO2 remains in the atmosphere in increasing amounts thereby trapping heat….we might not be the ONLY thing, but WHAT ELSE explains it? Has there been another krakatoa?
And if Human activity should be dismissed, then what about the Ozone Layer? Was it not stated that usage of CFC’s in aerosol sprays and refrigerants amassing in the atmosphere caused the ozone hole??? Funny, after bans on CFC’s were enacted and enforced….the Ozone hole regenrated itself. Now here is a case in point of mankind having direct influence on teh global environment and man’s actions to remedy it, linking man to the source of the problem, the hole did not expand to include the entire planet. Man-made – man solved.
So why is it so preposterous to think that burning fossil fuels, done by mankind en masse, is such a ludacris thing to state and investigate? Is man that infallible in his need to drive everywhere and have everything at his fingertips?
CORRECTION – KRAKATOA was in the 1800’s. My bad…..
I could have sworn I heard of a volcanic eruption in the middle ages that resulted in failed crops…
like your wikipedia link, it does state increased volcanic activity, with no volcano singly responsible
http://www.eh-resources.org/timeline/timeline_me.html
BUT having said that, I still stand by my argument that if volcanoes erupting majorly to impact global climate (with a few singular events of eruptions), why can man not do the same?
@Not Me, Bubba
And the explanation for global warming during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly would also be human burning of fossil fuels during the latter part of the first millennium? Perhaps volcanic activity is the primary explanation of the onset of the Little Ice Age, and without it global warming and the Medieval Climatic Anomaly would have continued even longer. Those darn serfs, peasants and barbarians driving around in SUVs burning fossil fuels in AD 1000 must be the cause.
@Need to Know
All I have to say is OZONE HOLE. I remember the political circus surrounding that one too – the circus of freaks who claimed NO WAY PEOPLE DID IT!!!!!!
But it turned out that, well, yeah, there was enough scientific evidence that our activities on a global scale WERE responsible for the layer’s breakdown.
http://www.theozonehole.com/
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/history_SH.html
So why then is it such a crime, an abberation, an ABOMINATION to state and demonstrate that our happy motoring and fuel burning ways, in conjunction with natural physical events is changing our global climate?
And why are some people so adamant that there’s no way tiny people can do such a thing? Why are the ones who are funding anti-climate-change science the ones who are profiting off of fossil-fuel consumption – and cheering on the melting of the polar caps…while salivating of the potential resource that lies beneath? There is money to be made on both sides of the coin, so propping up old Al Gore as the bogeyman of pseudo-climate change as some modern-day robber barron is laughable.
The question lies rather within…..why are the proponents of the “there’s no such thing as climate change” funding and pushing their industry studies so hard? The global economy is driven on fossil fuels. Without it our way of life will die. Nobody wants to see that happen. But on the same side, nobody wishes to live in a world turned climactically upside down. And if we can invest the respurces of fossil fuels we have now to secure a future whereby foissil fuels will become less necessary…why not? Because the fossil fuiel industry doesn’t like to imagine a future where it has no place, even if we have to remove every mountaintop and breathe exhaust.
I remember the tobacco industry acting the same when studies showed cigarette smoke was bad for your health….and people laughed about 2nd hand smoke….turns out that science wasn’t so far off from what was true. That seems to be the case whenever an industry props up its own scientific panel to “disprove” its critics and opposing evidence.
Why are my posts stuck in moderation? I’ve never had this problem before…..
@NTK
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1200 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?
Firstly, evidence suggests that the Medieval Warm Period was in fact warmer than today in many parts of the globe such as in the North Atlantic. This warming thereby allowed Vikings to travel further north than had been previously possible because of reductions in sea ice and land ice in the Arctic. However, evidence also suggests that some places were very much cooler than today including the tropical pacific. All in all, when the warm places are averaged out with the cool places, it becomes clear that the overall warmth was likely similar to early to mid 20th century warming. Since that early century warming, temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the Globe. This has been confirmed by the National Academy of Sciences Report on Climate Reconstructions. Further evidence (Figure 1) suggests that even in the Northern Hemisphere where the Medieval Warm Period was the most visible, temperatures are now beyond those experienced during Medieval times.
Secondly, the Medieval Warm Period has known causes which explain both the scale of the warmth and the pattern. It has now become clear to scientists that the Medieval Warm Period occurred during a time which had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity (both resulting in warming). New evidence is also suggesting that changes in ocean circulation patterns played a very important role in bringing warmer seawater into the North Atlantic. This explains much of the extraordinary warmth in that region. These causes of warming contrast significantly with today’s warming, which we know cannot be caused by the same mechanisms.
Overall, our conclusions are:
a) Globally temperatures are warmer than they have been during the last 2000 years, and
b) the causes of Medieval warming are not the same as those causing late 20th century warming.
I will check not me bubba, could it be too many links?
Thanks! Figured it was a glitch of some sort….
Yes Moon, LOVED the irony of Perry using the example of a man persecuted for being a scientist in the face of religous ideology to prove his own point of being against accepted science!
@SlowpokeRodriguez
You don’t know what I believe or don’t believe in.
Let’s see, I am supposed to do what now to become an educated person like you, pokie?
Of course the sun is the main control agent in climate. doh. Man is a recent newcomer to earth and we sure had climate before he got here. On the other hand, it is totally absurd to believe than man can exist on the earth without having impact on it.
Climate change happens over time in most cases, unless we are talking acute changes that result from ash clouds. (or hypothetically nuclear winters) I speculate that we don’t even know the half of it yet. For instance, who would have thought that the once-thriving Chesapeake Bay would be in the state it is in now? Man or sun? That’s a little smaller eco-system than the earth or the atmosphere.
Reread my initial post. I started with the assertion that data show changes in global climate, including warming. The debate degenerates into nothing but polemics when people take extremes, such as claiming that nothing has happened in global climate over the past century or so on one side, and an almost religious-like faith that human activity is causing global warming on the other side.
Those arguing either extreme have agendas other than truth. Perhaps oil companies advocating the former, and ideologues and profiteers from the Al Gore camp the latter. Neither is pursuing truth; only their own agendas.
Note that in my initial post I did not dismiss the possibility that human activity is one possible source. To assume that it is the only source, or even the dominate source requires a leap of faith.
I appreciate Elena’s well thought-out post. I agree that the causes of climate change in the Middle Ages are different than today, but would add that in both cases we don’t understand fully what they were. However, the point remains that global climate changed in both periods, and in one human activity could not possibly have been a significant cause. Therefore, claiming it is the dominant cause today reflects more political and profit agendas than objective science.
I don’t dispute that data show global temperatures generally rising over the past century. However, those data are exaggerated. Most average global temperature data reflect much more the heat island effect in cities than previously, especially since World War II. It’s beyond dispute that larger cities retain heat to a greater extent than rural areas. Therefore, the spike in global temperature measures seen in the 20th century reflects an exaggerating factor that was not present during the medieval period. Appropriate adjustments of the data could show that warming was even greater without human interference during the Medieval Climatic Anomaly than it was in the 20th century.
Moreover, whatever the causes of the medieval global warming were, why do “scientists” today dismiss those possible causes so readily and constantly tell us that human activity is the sole cause of climate change in the 20th and 21st centuries?
My bottom line is that I do not deny that climate is changing and that human activity may be one of the factors. However, I take a long-term view and recognize also that historically climate changes have been much more profound than during the 20th and 21st centuries (witness the onset and end of the Ice Age). When people like Al Gore, Jeff Immelt, academics seeking tenure and grant funding, organizations with clear ideological biases and others try to tell me that the issue is definitively resolved and that those who disagree with them are Neanderthals or something similar, my skepticism kicks in.
@Moon-howler
The Chesapeake Bay is a different matter altogether. The depletion of oysters and crabs, and other ecological changes, are clearly linked to human activity. Those include overfishing, pollution from rainwater runoff, sewage being dumped into the bay, etc. The evidence regarding changes in the ecology of the Chesapeake Bay is overwhelming. The evidence of human activity being the cause of climate change relies on projections from quantitative models that can’t even tell us where a hurricane will hit until it’s almost there, and depend on the assumptions the researcher programs into the model.
By the way, I don’t support Rick Perry. I’m not writing any of this to defend him.
Bubba, Elena – interesting debate, thanks. I’ve got to take care of some other things this afternoon and will look for your further posts tomorrow.
@NTK
🙂
@El Guapo
Actually I meant that they were anti-science. If you don’t believe in cosmogony or evolution, there is a definitely a disconnect between scientific thinking and one’s belief system. Cosmogony and evolution cover a huge chunk of scientific thinking, especially if we look at geological evolution.
But they are probably anti democratic also. They probably think it is sissy to want to protect the earth from chemicals and pollutants also. Just a hunch.
@Not Me, Bubba
Glitches in the system. Shoot me an email when that happens. In all probability you have a typo in your email or you have links.
@Need to Know
But if we dismiss all the department heads, corporations, and Al Gores, then we are stuck listening to a bunch of bubbas tell us that the moon is made of green cheese.
I don’t think we can dismiss that which common sense tells us. As for Al Gore….he has been an environmentalist most of his life. He isn’t a Johnny come Lately to that party. I do not think that his environmental efforts and interests have been used to advance his political career at all. In fact, he wants no more parts of it. I cite as proof his refusal to even consider running again in 2008 no matter how many people approached him and begged. I would rather be rich than run for office also.
As I see it, much of the blow back over climate change is just an extension of one’s own personal image. Of course the earth is in a constant state of flux and of course the sun is our main engine driving the old proverbial train. That is not to say that other events can’t also impact the earth. Its probably wise to just leave the earth as much like we (meaning mankind) found it.
I would love to abolish binary thinking on this subject. It isn’t an either/or.
I was around for the tree hugging sissy syndrome back in the day. I think this subject is just an extenstion. Remember the Chesapeake Bay? I rest my case.
@NTK
I don’t think that the Bay is that far removed or that it is a totally different situation. It is all man’s impact on the earth. Why should the atmosphere be any different that a bay?
We often don’t really fully understand the impact of our actions until years later.
I don’t argue climate change. I don’t have the scientific background to advance a theory. All I can do is spout the words of others. Therefore, I am going with common sense and what I have personally witnessed.
I have been following the 9/11 clean up crew and their health problems. When we look at film footage of that smoldering pile of rubble containing tons of altered God-knows-what and then listen to politicians and HMOs question whether the rising health problems of those workers are a result from that environment, you just have to shake your head in disbelief.
Who in their right mind thinks that working for over a year on that heap of debris would do anything but harm a human being? How could it not have an impact on someone’s health? Yet these questions have turned into political discussions and great denial. It sickens me. These guys were all the heroes after 9/11. now it comes the time to give back a little for their efforts and they are having to fight for every freaking bone they get. This is just another form of political denial. Remember all the excuses why they shouldn’t get medical coverage from the government?
@Bubba
The controversy discussed by Judith Curry is the dramatic confrontation to which I referred in my first post. There is no doubt that this paper is very controversial, but the gnashing of teeth by AGW proponents will not matter in the end if the findings of Braswell and Spencer cannot be disproven. If this paper stands up to scientific scrutiny, it will have a big impact.
@MH
To answer your question, you are exactly right that scientific findings are constantly being refined. But if this stands up, it will be a particularly significant refinement. It suggests that the initial, relatively mild warming due to carbon dioxide emitted by humans is not further amplified by clouds as much as previously thought. This means that much of the strong warming that has taken place over the last 30 years may have to be attributed to another cause (such as natural oscillations).
This episode has become very controversial and very personal. We shall see how it turns out.
Count me with the people that think “global warming” as a major concern – or a tool to implement “social justice” – is hooey.
A. The warming and cooling of the Earth is primarily caused by wobbles and irregularities in Earth’s orbit, that are cyclical.
B. 35 years ago, Newsweek was loudly trumpeting the danger of global cooling. In fact, today there is a growing fear that maybe things are actually going to become too cool rather than too warm. My point – we don’t really understand what is happening.
C. Models that claim to predict cooling in future have been shown to break down when compared with evidence. Particularly when measured recently against measurements taken by satellites of the troposphere. We don’t really understand what is happening.
D. Human being have a bent towards ascetism. We think that if we’re enjoying ourselves too much, that we will probably be punished for it by Mother Nature or God or something. As surely as pollution contributes in one proportion or another towards warming, ascetism undoubtably informs the global warming “debate”, irrationally.
E. Those who seek to slow human development, for reasons of ecology, have seized on and magnified (with Al Gore as chief fearmonger) “global warming” as a political issue. And, those who want the more developed nations to slow down so as to have greater “social justice” have also, which motivated ultra-liberals to push this cause and integrate it into the Democratic Party’s talking points.
F. Lots and lots of obviously phony data has been generated by zealots, and by people who make a living peddling this stuff. For example, using ground stations to measure earth’s temperature. If a ground station is located in an urban area, it detects more heat. Deliberately (in some cases) or through sloppy science (in some cases) ground stations are placed in more urban areas or have more heat-absorbing (concrete) material placed around them over time, but their measurements have been compared as if we should expect them to show the same temperature. In point of fact, we have satellites in place that can measure temperature in our atmosphere very accurately. The whole cottage industry in ground station temperatures is flawed.
Bottom line, we don’t know what’s happening or why. Now, I favor a rational approach to figuring it out. Which may not happen overnight.
Meanwhile, the zealots who push flawed evidence around and invent grand theories and shout repeatedly that “any scientist worth a dime will tell you global warming is real” are doing science, and rational thought, a disservice.
They probably do it for different reasons. In many cases, probably a personal desire to be a hero and contribute to something as important as “saving the Earth” (from ManBearPig [http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s10e06-manbearpig]).
I don’t respect it. We should be having reasoned debate about this. The people who sought to make this a political issue rather than a scientific one are precluding that and spreading disinformation. I actually do think that Perry’s comparison is a fair one. I think that a rational individual who looks at the evidence will say that we don’t really know whether the Earth is getting warmer long-term, and whether it is or isn’t that human pollution probably plays a minor role in it.
wow, who woulda thunk that we had so many people who were experts in climate change. Me, I don’t claim to be an expert, just a proponent of common sense. In what world can you pump all these pollutants, en masse, into the air while at the same time clear cutting the “filters” of the world and not believe we are doing serious damage.
We may be doing damage, and we may be contributing to some warming, but the overall cooling and warming of the Earth’s temperatures is controlled by factors in its orbit, and also the variation in the Sun’s output. Those things are real and will necessarily cause warming and cooling. This planet has gone through massive climate changes before, and will do so again.
there were those that denied the effects of Acid Rain for many years – they may still be denying that Acid Rain is man made.
I certainly remember the denial of acid rain. It was considered sissy to believe acid rain existed. Then there were those who denied smoking was harmful.
I don’t read AGW stuff. Those words are alien to me. I am not interested. See my eyes glaze over. However, people who say there is no such thing as global warming are just political reactionaries.
Rick left out my favorite–sunspot cycles. I dont think anyone is arguing that the sun isn’t the main control of earth and everything about it. However, that shouldn’t mean that nothing else has influence.
Elena is right…common sense is in here somewhere and if you dump things in the atmosphere that didn’t occur in nature than you are messing with something where you don’t know the outcome. At what point does man throw the balance of nature off kilter?
American Indians didn’t have the scientific knowledge to give a scientific cause for doing or not doing things. HOwever they just knew that doing some things would eff certain stuff up. I use them in my common sense guide. The white man spends too much time being political.
Back to the argument about standing on a mountain of debris being unharmful to man….
Maybe we can all agree that pollution and industrialization must be causing some warming.
Could we also all agree that to make alarmist propaganda like “An Inconvenient Truth” to attempt to motivate people out of fear is a bad thing? And that the science of climate change should not be politicized?
@Rick, I can easily agree with that. (first part)
I don’t think making Inconvenient Truth is wrong. It’s his point of view. It was also one of the most boring movies I have ever watched. It was fairly old when I saw it. People should be able to watch whatever they want. It is done all the time. That is what point of view is all about. You are also free to scoff at it. Actually, it didn’t scare me. What scared me worse was the number of people who said it definitely did not exist. I prefer the open mind approach and the we are still analyzing data approach.
@Pat.Herve
Big difference between acid rain and AGW caused by CO2 emissions. One can be proven empirically in a lab (I won a junior high science fair doing it) and the other can not.
When the acid rain controversy first started, it wasn’t just a science fair project. Dating myself again.
Let’s break this down further. What do you science phd’s all say auto emissions do in the atmostphere? How about CO emissions? I know what CO emissions do to individuals.
Are auto emissions a good thing? Let’s start here. I don’t care what kind…any kind of auto emissions.
@Cato the Elder
Are science hypotheses ever proven deductively? Is any inference ever involved? Is any process that is based on inductive logic ever really proven?
@Moon-howler
Read some David Hume and let me know what you think.
Can’t I please just watch paint dry? @Cato
I am far too vapid to read a philosopher.
Here’s another interesting article and video. It concerns the work scientists at CERN (more of Al Gore’s “flat-earthers”) are doing on the impact of solar activity on climate. The writer asserts that solar activity is one of many possible causes of climate change and doesn’t dismiss human activity as one of those causes.
Politics and polemics arise when someone asserts definitively that a single cause is to blame, and that we must take dramatic action now that will also, by the way, make great personal fortunes for them (Al Gore again anyone?)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111904537404576554750502443800.html#articleTabs%3Darticle