Guest Post: Michael Stafford
Disclaimer: All guest posts are the opinion of the poster and do not necessarily represent the views of moonhowlings.net administration.
M-H
To a climate change denier
Humanity, are you grieving, over global ice retreating? This summer, the sea ice covering the Arctic Ocean shrunk to just 1.3 million square miles, a record low. Worse, as ocean temperatures rise, the Arctic’s summer ice covering will continue to contract- more “record lows” can be expected to follow in quick succession. If this trend continues, the Arctic could be ice-free in the summer before the end of the decade.
An Arctic Ocean devoid of summer sea ice would be a catastrophe for humanity. Ice reflects solar radiation back into space; open water absorbs it. As a result, without summer sea ice, the Arctic’s water temperature will rise, further fueling global warming in a vicious feedback cycle and playing havoc with existing weather patterns.
And it’s not just Arctic ice that’s melting. Glaciers are retreating across the planet- a phenomenon poignantly documented by the Glacier Research Imaging Project, the Extreme Ice Survey, and the U.S. Geological Survey’s Repeat Photography Project at Glacier National Park in Montana. Indeed, scientists predict the latter will be glacierless by 2030.
But we don’t need to look to melting ice for evidence of climate change. In many cases, we simply have to glance out the window at our own yards and gardens. According to the USDA, planting zones in the United States have shifted northward dramatically since 1990. And there is evidence that the USDA’s plant hardiness guidelines may underestimate the extent of this change because they use 30-year average minimum temperatures that don’t capture the accelerated pace of recent warming.
So far, we’ve turned up the planetary heat by an average of .8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial temperature levels. Most experts believe that warming must be kept below 2 degrees in order to avoid major problems. Beyond 2 degrees, things start to get dicey for human civilization.
But that’s exactly where we’re headed. According to David Roberts at Grist, “[i]f current trends continue, we could hit up to 6 degrees by 2100. That would likely exceed our ability to adapt, which is a polite way of saying it would lead to massive human die-off.”
The dying, however, will commence in earnest long before we reach 6 degrees.
As severe droughts become more frequent, food prices will rise, and shortages will occur. Initially, these will be only minor irritants in wealthier nations. But in poorer parts of the world they will be deadly. The specter of famine will stalk these lands.
Death will come in other ways as well- through conflicts sparked by instability generated by desertification, starvation, and rising seas; through floods; and through diseases made more virulent by a warming world. Ironically, many will also die from air pollution caused by the very emissions fueling climate change. According to DARA International, by the time the last glacier disappears from Glacier National Park in 2030, up to 100 million people will have died from causes related to climate change.
And that’s just the human cost; climate change will be devastating for the global economy as well.
How did it come to this? In short — greed. A moneyed interest and a small band of ideologues have waged a successful campaign to sow doubt and confusion in order to delay action and protect their profits. But they do not bear sole responsibility. Doubts are easy to sell to listeners looking for any excuse not to be persuaded. Such is the case here. Rather than confronting frightening facts, we fly from them. We dig mental bunkers, and we hide. We persuade ourselves that we are marked with some special favor, and that the worst will never happen to us. This is our most dangerous conceit. If we are dupes, we have at least been willing ones.
Now, time is of the essence.
To halt global warming at 2 degrees Celsius we must take concerted internati
onal action to rapidly reduce emissions. This requires solidarity, leadership, and courage. Given present conditions, it is difficult to see how this can be achieved.
Conversely, to fail, we simply have to continue on our present course. Our inertia has its own momentum.
Watching the ice recede across the planet fills us with sorrow. When the ice disappears, our hopes for a decent common future vanish with it. We may survive as a species in a world without the ice and the glaciers, but we will not flourish.
In the end, it is humanity we mourn for.
Very nice. Always good to see someone express their beliefs.
Did someone abduct Cargo?
Is the mother ship hovering over Richmond?
@Cargosquid
If Cargo has returned, sorry for all the goobledegoop under the post. I didnt realize it was there and hope I cleaned it up.
How were things on the mothership while they held you captive?
He said ‘beliefs’ not ‘facts’. 😉
Words have meaning!
This wasn’t meant to by funny, was it? What’s wrong? Did Al Gore promise to share some of his carbon credit money with y’all?
Marin got it.
Marin didn’t get all of it. Marin didn’t get me.
Didn’t we have this same discussion not long ago? Virtually no one denies that climate change is occurring to some degree, as it has since, well, the earth formed. The global warming alarmists like to try to back skeptics into a corner by trying to get them to deny that any change is taking place, and then labeling them as flat-earthers.
The issue is the cause of the change, not that the climate is somewhat different than it was when we were kids (I mean the generation of Moon, myself and some others on the blog).
I’ll again ask the same question I asked before. Why is sea level at Ostia Antica in Italy now two kilometers (about) from where it was in Roman times? Nobody ever answered that question. There is no denying that fact because all you have to do is take a trip to Italy and see the ancient Roman ruins of where the port was (good excuse for a trip to Italy – scientific research). Are we now to believe that if sea level rises back to where it was then (highly unlikely) that that change was caused by human activity, but the receding over the past 2,000 years was not? If natural cyclical or other factors caused the sea level to recede, why are those same forces excluded as possible, or more accurately the primary, contributors to change in the climate now?
Currents are usually to blame. Look at Vancouver Island. the japanese current produces a temperate rain forest.
I have no idea. I would rather assume the climate changers are correct and start making changes where changes can be made. Does that mean jump off a bridge? No. It means to be mindful and make the changes we can.
@Need to Know
Need,
Its not worth going through this again, especially to counter a guest poster, that’s not likely to read the response. It won’t change his mind. He’s a convert, a true believer.
He used to come here to answer responses.
Cargo, I am going to suggest something rash and venture to say he probably knows as much about climate change as you do. Now who decides who is right and who is wrong?
I am not an environmental scientist. I can only go from observations.
What else do you think it could be if it isn’t all the millions of cars spewing out emissions each day? What could it possibly be?
@Cargosquid
Cargo, I’m sure you are correct. However, I’m open to be persuaded. To emphasize, I do not deny that climate change is occurring. However, will some advocate of anthropomorphic global warming please take a step beyond that fact and provide some convincing evidence that the change now is primarily because of human activity as opposed to natural forces that have caused the climate to change over the past millions of years.
In the UK, you can show a strong correlation between cyclical birth patterns and stork migrations. That doesn’t mean I believe storks deliver babies. I need the proof of causality rather than just a correlation.
The argument thus far is only that carbon dioxide has built up in the atmosphere because of human activity. OK, we agree on that. However, how does that negate the impact of non-human forces that have shaped the earth’s climate for most of its history? What is the scientific (not ideological or political) rationale for dismissing those forces now, and attributing climate change almost exclusively to anthropomorphic factors?
I’m very serious. If an advocate of anthropomorphic global warming can provide convincing answers to the questions I’ve asked, I’m open to being convinced. I’m a skeptic on most things and don’t jump on bandwagons. In fact, the more people who do jump on a bandwagon, the less likely I am to join them.
And Moon, note that I have not once mentioned the name of a certain former vice-president. The current VP is much funnier anyway.
I just think the whole argument has gotten silly. To deny that carbon emissions are harmful to the environment and thus to humans is just flat earth thinking. What a shame that common sense and reason can be held captive by political thinking, regardless of how knuckle dragging that thinking is. I have just stuck climate change denial in with the creationists in my own mind.
If I were you all I wouldn’t want my political party to be tied to anti science.
See…this is where we differ. I admit that the Earth may be warming, but I don’t have the answer to why, that it might have any number of reasons. I can and have admitted that. You just insult people for their disagreements with your belief.
You are making blanket statements like “anti-science” when you know its not true. There are SCIENTISTS that disagree with the idea that CO2 is the cause or that CO2 can even cause the “forcing” that is required for their idea of global warming. Or, for that matter, increased CO2 is harmful outside of any non-proven heat forcing. More CO2 is PROVEN to be beneficial for more crops. Correlation is not causation.
When WE make generalizations, you call us on it. So there it is. In your mind, disagreeing with a scientific HYPOTHESIS is the same as “creationism” all the while you disregard anything that we put up that is actually based on science.
Please, point out to me where you have found arguments that prove YOUR point. My argument is that there is disagreement, that THEIR hypothesis is not proven. Your argument is that they are correct.
So, instead of insults like “knuckledragging,” why don’t you just do what other scientists do…agree to disagree until they can find enough evidence to prove their assertions. I’ve done so in the past and you just disregard any findings because you disagree with the site they are on, or disregard my statements because I’m not a “climate scientist” but you take Stafford’s at his word even though HE, TOO, is not a scientist. He just happens to agree with you.
ah knucle dragging and chest thumping…
I don’t mind generalization where generalization is appropriate. For instance saying that most vegetation in north America is some color of green…that’s ok. Saying that most people want Romney ro win or Obama to win, not so much.
Anti science? Yea, there seems to be a lot of what I call anti science going around on this issue. By anti science, I mean those who oppose the notion of climate change just because its the politically expected thing to say,. Sorry, that is anti science.
I do know that the growing seasons are getting longer in my area and that glaciers in N. America are melting at unprecedented rates. I have read other indicators.
I know that smog and carbon emissions are bad for us. I have known that my entire life. Maybe I was first aware of it as a kid at the gas station. Cities are often 10 degrees warmer than the burbs around them. Whaat causes this? Most people think carbon emissions.
Bottom line, I am not willing to take the chance over someone else’s political ideology. Mine is more to not put the light out…to encourage scientists to pursue all information in this area. I see nothing insulting abotu that. I think coming along and taking crack shots at Mann is insulting.
Cargo, I am only balls to the wall on one topic and this one isn’t it.
There is plenty of room for general discussion. You and your friends here seem to be absolutist.
The computer ate my response.
Basically I dont need proof for my points because it is pure opinion and things I have observed.
Did you miss the disclaimer at the beginning of the article? I put that on all our guest columnists including ones that Moe does.
I neither agree or disagree. I shared his opinion.
You don’t know how I feel so I don’t know why you are saying he agrees with me.
Mann is a target because of HIS actions. He’s the one with controversial science methodologies and a refusal to share data. His emails don’t help either.
You’re not willing to take a chance on what?
AGW predictions have failed to come true 100% of the time. NOTHING has met their models. They have not been able to repeat any of their science models using real world data. They make contradictory weather predictions, etc. The idea that carbon dioxide is the problem has NOT been proven, yet, their “solutions” entail the wreckage of economies. When Kyoto was being touted as the solution of AGW, they were asked, “what’s the result if all the Kyoto protocols were achieved?” Their answer, “1 degree less heating at the end of 50 years.” Notice…after that, no country pays any attention to those people. Every country has dropped the Kyoto protocols.
Everyone states that reduction of air pollution, smog, water pollution, land pollution, and the creation sensible land use, etc needs to be done. But CO2 has not been proven to be a pollutant EXCEPT by political types, including the “climate scientists” that ALL get their money from gov’t. Hmmmmm, if those scientists are “proven” right, that means more power for politicians. I wonder who they will support? They even get good press from it.
One example of CO2 increases. CO2 has been shown to increase by massive amounts about 700-900 years AFTER the past global warmings. This has been determined by ice core proxies and by tree ring data. And Hey! Look it at that…its been 700-900 years after the last global warming.
Try this book from the library. http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245
@Moon-howler
Absolutist?
http://youtu.be/G2y8Sx4B2Sk
Because we refuse to accept THEIR hypothesis at face value without proof?
We’ve already stated that the world might be warming. “Might” because other data states that that might have paused.
All we are asking for is proof. Or repeatable, empirical data.
Don’t you think the proof is there that the world is warming?
Simpel temperature bears that out.
Here ya go…an alternate view of CO2
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/globalwarming.php
http://www.co2science.org/index.php
That’s funny.. #17 with one link is in moderation, but #18 is not and #19 with two is not.
Strange.
I have told you I am not going to argue the science of it with you. I don’t believe either of us have the background to argue our own points and I don’t want to read crap you pull from some right winger.
That isnt the issue,
Let me just be blunt. I am open to many ideas. I am not open to the smug cackling I hear every time the idea of global warming or climate change comes up. I have heard it for years and it just makes me think the cacklers are ….sigh..knuckle draggers.
You have no clue what I think because you are too busy being married to one idea.
I know that the earth is warming. I firmly believe that man’s habits and behavior are linked to climate change. Why wouldn’t they be? As for why how and wherefore, I will leave that to those with credentials in climate and environmental sciences.
I am not going to be absurd and disavow what hundreds of people are suggesting because of politics. Yes, I have heard that for years. Titter, snicker hee hee over anything environmental. Its like real men thing the earth is all renewable.
You can believe what you want but you share the earth with people who want to ensure that the earth is habitable for future generations.
Drinking water and trash removal are going to be critical issues in the future. Lets not make climate change part of those environmental issues.
So Cargo, what is melting all that ice in the satellite picture? This isn’t all Michael Mann. Just keep him out of the conversation. He is a distractor.
What is melting all the ice and what is causing the trend?
What do green house gases do?
Agreed. Lets NOT make climate change part of THOSE environmental issues.
And yes, I agree. The earth may be warming. But I don’t agree that its being caused by CO2.
That’s all I’m saying. I put the links up so that you can have a basis from which to state things and find out where I’m coming from. I’m not arguing because of “politics.” I’m arguing because I see other scientific arguments.
How can I not have a clue what you are thinking since you are putting out on the blog? My evidence that he agrees with you is your statements that you feel that man is causing global warming.
But anyway….we agree to disagree. I started my comments because you lumped everyone in “anti-science” because they don’t kowtow to the AGW crowd. I’m done.
Then what is causing it and why would green house gases not be part of it? The gases are part of natural, pre man, conditions that keep earth warm. It makes perfect sense that the balance can get off kilter and too many gases are released and retained.
It seems like much of what is being denied is established science.
Why do I say anti science? I do that any time politics takes away from established science.
@Moon-howler
Do you want me to answer your question or is this rhetorical?
You asked why Mann is singled out.
Because he makes “scare” statements like this.
“Mann, who is the director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, said that current melting trends show sea ice is “declining faster than the models predict.”
Rapidly decreasing sea ice suggests that the melting of polar ice sheets may occur more rapidly than previously predicted. Mann explained to the Guardian that “we [will] really start to see sea level rises accelerate,” as the Greenland and the west Antarctic ice sheets disappear.”
Except that the Antarctic Ice sheet has GAINED in the last 45 years. And the Greenland melting is not caused by AGW, according to Greenland glaciologists. ” But the unusual-seeming event had nothing to do with hot air, according to glaciologists. It was actually to be expected.
“Ice cores from Summit station [Greenland’s coldest and highest] show that melting events of this type occur about once every 150 years on average. With the last one happening in 1889, this event is right on time,” said Lora Koenig, a Goddard glaciologist and a member of the research team analyzing the satellite data.”
————————————————
He keeps stating what “could” happen as “will” happen and yet nothing he has predicted has been true. The Arctic melt has NOT been proven to be melting because of temperature caused by CO2. Other weather causes have also been evident. Arctic scientists even dispute much of the claims of melting.
I don’t bring this up to start the argument again, but to answer the question about Mann.
I believe I asked to just discuss stuff leaving Mann out of the picture because he is a distractor.
Actually, I hope he sticks around just to annoy all you nay-sayers. Science never hits it right on the first swing. All science and scientific process is a series of guesses, discovery , adjustments and fine tuning. Fine tuning goes on all the time.
I think coming along and taking crack shots at Mann is insulting.
Sorry, I remembered that as a “why is everyone taking shots at Mann?”
Well, now you know.
All science and scientific process is a series of guesses, discovery , adjustments and fine tuning. Fine tuning goes on all the time.
Actually that’s all the skeptics want, instead of this “the science is settled. We will now completely reconfigure the energy needs of the world.”
So how *I* see the skeptics is as bullies while they smuggly laugh over ‘global warming.” So can you have a discussion without bringing him into it? I just find bringing him into it and taking cheap shots to him is just partisan and pretty much ends all discussion. When that happens, I just see you (or anyone else doing it) as a mouth of the right without anything intelligent to say. Sorry….just going through a very blunt day. The discussion becomes another volley from the right with their targetted person in their crosshairs.
Now, is there discussion that can take place about climate change? Of course there is, but attacks on Mann, snickering and tittering just arent going to be part of one I participate in.
Its sort of like when discussions about Planned Parenthood involve Margaret Sangor and eugenics. Discussion is over.
I also don’t like bringing Al Gore into it either. Its his pet project. Fine. Discussion can take place without him. Besides, all discussion starts off with stupid remarks about the internet. That’s no way to get people to find common ground. It lobs a grenade.
Actually, I see no attack on Mann here other than a discussion of his actions. No laughing, tittering, etc. I won’t get int the PP statement. We have to agree to disagree on that as I feel that she IS important to the discussion…but that’s another discussion.
Mann’s work and actions are integral to how AGW has been presented and its policies advocated. He’s an activist. He’s part of the politicization of the science. I agree that cheap shots do not advance the discussion. Cheap shots are just that….attempts to make a joke.
Al Gore is not a serious part of the discussion any longer. His statements are nothing but humor.
So….all that said….there is a lot to discuss. The science isn’t hard to follow. And the examples of politicization of the science from the alarmists are numerous. I understand your concerns that pollution is bad and must be mitigated. I agree. We are disagreeing on whether the global warming is manmade or not and if it is manmade, what is causing it and what, if anything, can be done.
If the AGW side can demonstrate actual repeatable scientific experiments then the skeptic side will agree with them. So far, none of their predictions have come true, none of their models work. They keep using words like “unprecedented” when its demonstrable that certain events HAVE happened before OR the record of it happening is a only a few decades. They use propaganda and scare tactics to push a political agenda.
Why do you keep getting in moderation? It is not I who is putting you there.
To trivialize the complexity of the science …not so good.
I can’t imagine climate change not being man made, at least in part. I will also give volcanoes credit, burning off of jungles, forest fires, and sun spots some credit.
I just hate the polarization. It has been going on over environmental sciences for decades. My anger isn’t new. Once again I crave the middle. I hate people who vandalize SUVs also, for the record. I also hate people who vote 3rd party green. Yes, I am a hater.
Some “climate change” is man made. The desertification of some areas in Russia, etc are caused by overuse of water.
But, THIS climate change has not been proven. It might very well be…but, I’d rather not have economies destroyed by draconian “solutions” until then.
The polarization comes from the fact that one side is demanding harsh changes to society while the other is demanding proof before implementing those changes. Again…polarization is forming because power is being given to governments. Lessen the power of government and you will get less polarization. Much of the AGW movement is anti-capitalist. Some will say anything to advance that agenda. The science doesn’t matter to them, its just another tool to bring down America and the free market society.
And, no, that’s not hyperbole. I’ve seen the quotes about those intentions.
Why do you hate people who vote for the green parties? Sounds pretty harmless to me.
Weird…some of my posts go into moderation and others don’t.
This time, there’s not even a link.
To show you that I’m not being paranoid:
_________________________________________________
“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
– Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“We’ve got to ride this global warming issue.
Even if the theory of global warming is wrong,
we will be doing the right thing in terms of
economic and environmental policy.”
– Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
– Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations
on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
– Prof. Chris Folland,
Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
—————————————————————————–
“We are on the verge of a global transformation.
All we need is the right major crisis…”
– David Rockefeller,
Club of Rome executive member
Balance. I am just one of those people who likes balance.I think I wold rather hear the sky is falling when it isn’t than to hear there is no such thing. The no such thing enrages me because it offends everthing I know to be true from just being alive.
The third party green votes throw votes. Any third party does. Remember what Perot did.
The Canadaian minister I would discredit. Everyone else, I would have to see it in context. Some of that is pretty much what everyone who is an activist does. In each of those cases, I can see if the remarks had other material with them, they would be perfectly fine.
Additionally, if scientists see something in their work that they think will harm mankind or life, or the land, they advocate to make it not happen. That’s only fair. Less pollution, less building and density around major fault areas, less toxins in food preservation. whatever.
@Moon-howler
Ah…now I understand. Yep. I agree. Third party votes do throw the election. But its a good wakeup call for the parties if they are paying attention.
Perot won it for Clinton.
Nader won it for Bush.
I have never forgiven Nader and his AH followers.
Perot was not so clear. The people I knew who supported Perot also would have gone with Clinton had Perot not been there. I never figured that one out.
Cargo, I’ve found that almost all of the climate “deniers” have ties and/or funding from big oil, and your link is no exception: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24. It’s no big surprise that an industry with so much money at stake would fight back so hard (and so untruthfully, just like with the tobacco industry. When science isn’t on your side, you make up alternate “science.”
Almost 100% of actual climate scientists (not journalists or weathermen or other non-experts in the field) agree that the science indicates that the planet is warming unprecedentedly, and that humans burning fossil fuels are contributing. Our choice is whether we move purposefully towards clean, renewable technology, or get further behind on the technology of the future. Do we really want to rely on China to supply us with our energy sources in the future?
Cargo, I’ve found that almost all of the climate “deniers” have ties and/or funding from big oil, and your link is no exception: http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=24. It’s no big surprise that an industry with so much money at stake would fight back so hard (and so untruthfully, just like with the tobacco industry. When science isn’t on your side, you make up alternate “science.”
Almost 100% of actual climate scientists (not journalists or weathermen or other non-experts in the field) agree that the science indicates that the planet is warming unprecedentedly, and that humans burning fossil fuels are contributing. Our choice is whether we move purposefully towards clean, renewable technology, or get further behind on the technology of the future. Do we really want to rely on China to supply us with our energy sources in the future?