Blogcritics Comments on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Comment by Cannonshop on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:26:05 EDT

heheheh... Worse. I'm an Infidel, an Unbeliever, a Skeptic, Amatuer scientist, shade-tree mechanic and all those other nasty things, unfortunately, Halliburton doesn't have to buy me, and I don't get on well with god, goddess, or any of those other higher powers people allege exist. I'm a fanatic's worst nightmare-I think for myself. So, when I'm burnt at the stake as a heretic, will it be with ethanol, corn-oil, or what? I hope it's a renewable resource!

Comment by Al Barger on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 16:09:24 EDT

So then Cannonshop, which are you: A stupid Christian or an evil tool on the payroll of Halliburton? We're putting you on the list for our eventual prosecution of environmental war criminals.

Comment by Cannonshop on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:58:48 EDT

Al, ya gotta understand-once upon a time, Colleges tried to teach people to think critically, to examine statements and assertions, to use evidence and consider counter-arguments on their own merits. There's plenty of fanatics on both sides of this issue, and the strawman argument is a favoured chestnut of political conflicts, while Academia has diverged from considering all the evidence available to a dogmatic approach centred on Grants and Political/Social Acceptability. It's socially acceptable to be very 'green' and environmentalist, it's politically easy to back 'green' sounding causes, even in the face of hard evidence. it's HARD to go against the consensus and demand that ethical standards be upheld when addressing a 'Movement', especially when said movement can be used and abused for political gain by ones allies. MOST of the people who are willing to stay in Academia tend to be big-government folks, and "Global Warming" is kind of a porkbarrel bonanza for them. The best scientific minds, unfortunately, tend to be involved in, as the movie "Idiocracy" pointed out, regrowing hair and prolonging erections. Professor Mann's infamous "Hockeystick" graph showing runaway global warming a few years ago is a prime example-a guy with a Masters degree in math showed you can get the same results inputting random numbers in place of the recorded measuring data, meaning the model relies on cooked books. Cooked books or not, it was sufficient to justify Kyoto in the minds of painted-prince politicians and luddite activists, who rightly spotted a chance to exploit an apocalyptic scenario for an immediate gain in prominence and power. Americans are a moralistic bunch, so are Europeans, whether they admit it or not, and a chance to find a "New, secular Sin" to condemn is a great opportunity to exploit those urges for a gain in authority and power.

Comment by Cannonshop on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:44:20 EDT

damn, my grammar is offal (as in fecal output), too many 'finally' when it should have been 'alsos'...ah well.

Comment by Al Barger on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:42:32 EDT

I try to be generous with people whom I disagree with, but I have trouble finding any way to accept that Mr Tobis is even intending to be honest with this nonsense excuse for an article. For starters, he wants to paint it that the opposition to global warming propaganda is coming from Christian evangelicals as some kind of religious issue. It is not. He's just completely making that up out of the air. Also of course, opposition to destroying the economy and surrendering our industry and pretty much of our economic liberty to the likes of Al Gore couldn't be based on a lot of people honestly disagreeing. No, it must be an evil conspiracy by Evil Capitalists (a redundant phrase, surely). To answer the title of the essay, no there isn't even really a debate. This is because the global warming true believers (the real religious faith element here) won't actually debate. They declare that they are irrefutably, inarguably correct. Then they put out ad hominem straw man attacks like this article claiming that the only opposition to their plans to rule the world comes from the stupid (religious folk) and the evil (businessmen). Better watch out: MANBEARPIG's gonna get you!

Comment by Cannonshop on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:36:28 EDT

Maddy, I'm sure hoping that was sarcasm. Global Warming/Cooling/Climate Change is inevitable humans or not. Climate is NOT STATIC. Around AD 1000, Greenland was wheat country and they were growing french wine grapes in north Scotland. a Bit longer ago, Egypt was green and the Sahara was a fairly fertile plain a bit like Kansas in terms of climate. A Few hundered years ago, Chaco Canyon in new mexico, Mesa Verde, and Crow Canyon were good country for corn and fairly good land for living an agricultural existence. There are some (Fringe) archaeologists who think the Persian gulf might well have been a low-land valley during the ice age-much like the Chesepeake Bay was. Climate Changes. The debate about WHY is what isn't finished, or settled. The planetary orbit is not 'stable'-earth wobbles under the gravitational influence of the moon and sun, the tilt of the axis is not fixed, the orbit itself is elliptical and varies-there are some hypotheses that indicate (based on fossil evidence) that ice ages occur suddenly (in geological terms), that the climate may change unpredictably. Finally, there's the small (but not inconsiderable) issue of what probes are telling us all- probes sent into the Atlantic to measure temperature increases in 2003 aren't recording any change. Most Humanocentric global warming hypotheses rely on oceanic warming. Sattelites sent up to measure climate and weather (and take many times the number of readings that ground-based stations even CAN) aren't showing significant warming either, and certainly nothing at the rates or magnitude that the computer models insist it should be occurring at. Finally: we've been able to meaure local microclimates reliably for only about 300 years or so. The global climate hasn't been measurable in any reliable sense longer than about 50 years (if that long). Humanity is 250.000 years old if you go to the earliest recognizably "Human" hominids. Earth itself is estimated 4000000000 years old. Finally, short term predictability of local microclimates is only reliable NOW up to about 48 hours with a reliability of more than about 60%. Globally, you're talking MACRO climate, which includes all of those microclimates. Considering that economic modeling (which has fewer variables and works along predictable rules that are rather well understood indeed) has a rather poor record of success (witness the failure of centrally planed economics in the Soviet Union and pre-reform Communist China) but a better record than weather forecasting, the discussion and the need to do REAL SCIENCE before making policy decisions is real. The Evidence gathered in the experiments does not jibe with the explanation of the phenomena, therefore, the explanation is what is incorrect, not the data.

Comment by Maddy and Mr. Young on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 14:42:11 EDT

Global warming is sooooooooo not true!!! And for all of you idiotic tree huggers who do beleive it-ur WRONG!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by adaniel on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 29 Apr 2008 04:50:34 EDT

It looks as if climate change is too complex for today's democracies. Reading the article and the comments at the same time I see that we have a very similar global warming debate in Europe. It has a different focus, even a different tone, but at the end of the political process there is equally nothing. For the EU the current American governments skepticism has became a political identity building tool in world politics. However, there is almost no rational debate on the issue in Europe, either. The EU is promoting the Kyoto Protocol, which has proven that is very costly and does not reduce the level of carbon-dioxide emissions. (Not only the US, but China, Russia and India, other main emitters besides the EU are not participating in this trading system). Promoting solar energy in Germany is great for German industrialists who produce the stuff but as useful as if Canada would switch to solar energy. I believe that today's electorates are used to much narrower focused debates where they can spot the lobby groups, their own interest and gather the basic facts. Although climate change has no meaningful public debate in either side of the Atlantic, a much narrower case, biofuels does!

Comment by jesse neils on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 13:08:25 EDT

im old greg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 9 Apr 2008 09:30:03 EDT

I have been guilty of being overly glib concerning this issue. But now this is super, super serious!

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 14:08:14 EDT

Tony wrote: "To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy." I concur!! Definitely some independent thinkers on here of varying opinions. It's a good thing and the result is civil debate/discussion. I haven't participated in a global warming discussion on line for a number of years. Became a bit disenchanted with the erosion of the discussions into questioning my lack of a degree in Climate Science (it's basically a hobby and my engineering background generally provided greater science grounding than my attackers!)...and then the inevitable attack that I was working for the oil/gas industry or lobby (which I wasn't). It was frustrating. That hasn't happened here so I'm pleased!

Comment by Tony on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 13:30:15 EDT

No offense taken at all. I am actually really happy that my first post in the politics section of this magazine got such a passionate response. That was really the point. To read arguments from the intelligent people on this site and having real, fact based discussion, gives me faith that not everyone in this country has given in to mass apathy.

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:45:12 EDT

How many times have we seen the word "unprecedented" when this subject is discussed in recent years? from the Washington Post: "The Arctic ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot, according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consul Ifft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters and explorers, he declared, all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met with as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the gulf stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds." Wait a second...Huh. Upon further review, that article is from November 2nd...1922. Yeah, as in 86 years ago and counting. But wait, there's more.... "A considerable change of climate inexplicable at present to us must have taken place in the Circumpolar Regions, by which the severity of the cold that has for centuries past enclosed the seas in the high northern latitudes in an impenetrable barrier of ice has been, during the last two years, greatly abated." "2000 square leagues [approximately 14,000 square miles or 36,000 square kilometers] of ice with which the Greenland Seas between the latitudes of 74� and 80�N [roughly NNE of Jan Mayen] have been hitherto covered, has in the last two years entirely disappeared." "The floods which have the whole summer inundated all those parts of Germany where rivers have their sources in snowy mountains, afford ample proof that new sources of warmth have been opened ..." hmmm, extracts from a letter by the President of the Royal Society addressed to the British Admiralty, recommending they send a ship to the Arctic to investigate the dramatic changes. The letter was written....in the year 1817. Must have been those blasted SUVs back then. I'd say the current nonsense is...well...unprecedented. P.S. Maurice...thanks for the tip on using links!!

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:07:51 EDT

Tony, you shouldn't take offense to any of this stuff. I'm finding some of the discussion interesting. As for your comment regarding the nations that piled on to Kyoto, that's an excellent and valid question. Again, Kyoto was about politics and little to do about science. Even the adherents of Kyoto admitted that compliance with it would have virtually no effect on the climate. A combination of "bandwagon effect", "political correctness", "peer pressure", etc. led to Kyoto ratification. Now, here's a trick question - who killed Kyoto for the U.S.? Yes, officially it was Pres. G.W. Bush, but many environmentalists will tell you it was Pres. Bill Clinton. The bottom line is that Clinton wanted to play the Kyoto game and "look good" by participating in Kyoto (which was political), but he understood the detriments it posed to our country economically. Good for him - a very smart guy. He demanded certain things in the protocol, including credit for carbon sinks (forests, etc.) and India/China participation. Europe was aghast and realized that the U.S. would basically have to make no sacrifices with carbon sinks being counted. That terrified them as they saw Kyoto as a means to give them an economic advantage over us - with carbon sinks, they were screwed and we would be rewarded - they said "no way." In hindsight, it looks like they didn't need Kyoto to get that economic advantage anyway! When Clinton left office, they actually came back to us wanting us to just play ball and offered something similar to what Clinton had requested. Bush said fahgetaboutit, we're out. CO2 is not a pollutant....95% of it is naturally ocurring....plant life thrives on it....if you removed all greenhouse gasses (e.g., CO2, Methane, CFCs, etc.) except water vapor (which, interestingly, you can't tax), you'd still have most of the greenhouse effect intact (actually, about 95%...I love that number). This is much ado about nothing...except research dollars, high salaried cushy environmental jobs and another means for gov't to tax. It's a win/win for everyone, except for you and me. All the best....Stormy

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 12:02:54 EDT

Stormy, funny link! I have read a little about Bjorn Lomborg. Not a bad guy to mimic. BTW bare links are frowned on at BC. If you have questions about html code you can go here

Comment by Doug Hunter on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:33:40 EDT

"Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations." Not really. It's never hard to sell a government official on a new reason to tax and regulate. (money and power)

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:29:48 EDT

Maurice, Thanks for the link! I missed that when it was posted earlier. There is a lot to it!! As for the "scientists", I've spoken and emailed with about a dozen climate scientists. You generally won't find (with very few exceptions) any of them purporting the hysteria we see that's being fueled by "activists." My online debates with some folks generally ended with them incapable of countering my arguments when they got to the end of their 3-fold Sierra Club or Greenpeace leaflet, which was generally filled with easily refutable rubbish. Out of frustration, their last post would normally be, "you must work for the oil and gas lobby." I don't work in that area and never have... but I love science and I love truth. These folks are incapable of critical thought, scientific inquiry and thinking for themselves - they've been completely greenwashed. I'm very pro-environment, pro-alternative energy (for energy independence reasons)... but, I'm against wasting trillions to fight a fictitious monster, when that money could be better spent on genuine environmental issues (Geez, I'm beginning to sound like Bjorn Lomborg). Thanks again. BTW, if you're interested in a bit of satire from 10 years ago (and yes, I believe that site is actually funded by the oil/gas lobby!!!!)

Comment by Tony on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 11:21:36 EDT

I'd really love to hear how the warming skeptics explain the phenomina of all those countries that lined up to sign and ratify the Kyoto treaty except us. I guess we members of the "church" of global warming are not the only one's fooled. In fact, the governments of Australia, Canada, The entire EU, India, and even the freakin' Russins have all been duped by this leftist conspiracy. Wow guys! You have to have one hell of a marketing plan to dupe the heads of the world's most industrialized nations. Even the People's Republic of China claims that they are striving to reduce emissions even if, because of the economic ramifications, they are not. Some countries jumped right in, others declined because of economic reasons, but the good old US of A is the only nation to actually deny that the problem even exists.

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:45:48 EDT

Stormy, Richard Lindzen has been discussed at length on these threads. Interesting of you to mention that ..this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics.... That is the very reason I posted my link to The Church of Global Warming which contains a list of heritics.

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 10:33:19 EDT

Maurice...thanks for the note. If you are an engineer, it's probably your nature to question things. I'm not about to say that we're not affecting the climate at all, but I am willing to say it's minute in the scheme of things. If you take some time to look at the issue from a scientific perspective, it's clear that Climatology is in the dark ages. Most of the issue is politics, not science right now. For instance, the reporting today of the ice shelf that just collapsed in Antarctica. The reporting of this is quite clever, or very naive. At the end it happens to mention that this shelf is part of the Antarctic penninsula. A little research and you'll find that the penninsula has warmed significantly, but it comprises about 5% of the continent - Antarctica as a whole has not warmed -in fact, it's cooled as a whole by one degree since we began measuring temps there about 50 years ago. You won't find the media reporting that minor fact. It would be like saying the U.S. is warming, when in fact just Florida was warming and the rest of the country was cooling. Extremely deceptive. I think the right word would be propaganda. Use your engineering abilities of query and you might be surprised at the nonsense that abounds....this has become a religion of sorts and barely resembles science anymore. Scientists that are skeptics are labeled as heretics and their reputations are attacked severely (they are shills for the oil/gas industry, etc.), when in fact they are just seeking the truth. When one side of an argument can only make personal attacks against the other because they can't effectively debate the issues, it reeks of desparation. I'd start my search for truth with Richard Lindzen of MIT. BTW, he pointed out that the car he drives isn't nearly as nice as those driven by the global warmers. If he wanted to make a fortune he'd switch sides on the debate. That's where the $$ are. Later!

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Wed, 26 Mar 2008 09:23:07 EDT

Stormy, I am an electrical engineer and have been designing semiconductors for 26 years. Even with my (supposedly) keen scientific mind I have been led down the path you are describing. That shows me that the media has done a good job of mixing these issues all together. Thanks for the pragmatic slap in the face.

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 11:01:18 EDT

Maurice...thanks for posting the link to the article re: the disappearance of the harlequins. This is actually a perfect example of biologists (non-climate scientists) automatically throwing their credentials/weight on to the climate alarm bandwagon. If they would stick to their research in an unbiased fashion, they should be determining if the extinction was actually due to varied climate. End of story. But no, their activism comes through as they automatically imply that man is responsible for climate change, which in turn is causing the extinction of the harlequins. That's where I have a profound problem with this nonsense. If these biologists want to debate anthropegenic global warming with someone who similarly does not have a climate science background, I'd be happy to take them on. My background and education is Mechanical Engineering, which provides me a much better understanding of the physical sciences than they have. Yet. I'm sure these folks are included among the "thousands of scientists" who believe we're adversely affecting the climate. One problem - they have absolutely no credibility in that field (less than me, if that's possible!). Thanks again for posting however, it was an interesting article. For the record, I am pro amphibian and unlike the scientists in the article, I did not have the stomach to dissect them in high school!!!

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:21:54 EDT

Clavos ...laugh our asses off... I think I get the pun here.....

Comment by Maurice on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Tue, 25 Mar 2008 09:16:36 EDT

Great points, stormy. BTW great name for this thread. Here is an interesting (and short) article about the disappearance of harlequins. Here is a classic quote from a scientist that uses a familiar argument: "Arguing about whether we can or cannot already see the effects," he said, "is like sitting in a house soaked in gasoline, having just dropped a lit match, and arguing about whether we can actually see the flames yet, while waiting to see if maybe it might go out on its own."

Comment by stormy on Global Warming: Is There Really Even A Debate?

Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:40:46 EDT

I posted one post the other day and then return to....holy cow, all heck breaks loose and the discussion moves to religion!! Back to the topic at hand.... Michael S wrote: "The issue with the skeptical crowd is the absence of a viable alternative explanation." That's incorrect. You're putting all of your eggs in a trace gas called CO2 which comprises less than .04% of the atmosphere. I'm putting my eggs in an extraordinarily powerful, variable star called the sun. It's apparently a fairly strong influence seasonly as well as daily, considering the temperature in my backyard can vary 40 or more degrees in a day. I'll give you a list of scientists as long as a bad Woody Allen movie who agree with "it's the sun, stupid." Tony wrote: "So, again I ask the question. If global warming is not real that we can just pump whatever we want into our atmosphere and nothing will happen? I mean you really, seriously believe that?" Tony, you have a very static view of the atmosphere. That is, everything that enters the atmosphere stays there until the end of time. Here's a novel idea for you: CO2 is absorbed by plant life (remember photosynthesis in your 9th grade biology class?) and is also absorbed/released by the oceans. As far as pumping "pollutants" into the environment, hell no...I never said I was for that. As far as CO2 emissions, I'm not concerned, nor should you be. For those promoting solar, well, that's just swell. We can cover Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky and New York State with solar panels...and power, I don't know, maybe 1/3 the country. SUPER!! I say let's go nuke. You'll save yourselves from the dreaded and scary (and harmless) CO2, and the rest of us will be happy with clean domestic energy Dave Nalle wrote: "Tony, reread Stormy's comment. It's the most cogent thing on here, including your original article." Thanks Dave...I always aim for cogent! Glad I attained it for a change!