Advertisement

Opinion

Opinion

The global warming power play

January 16, 2010

Advertisement

— A familiar philosophical question goes like this: If a tree falls in the forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?

Here’s another: If a doctrine falls, will enough believers admit they were wrong and withdraw support for policies associated with it?

The “doctrine” of global warming, now euphemistically called “climate change,” suffered a severe blow last week as much of Europe was buried in record amounts of snow and sub-freezing temperatures. “Experts” who believe in global warming, uh climate change, went on television where they bravely tried to make a distinction between weather, which they said was about what happens today, and climate, which is long term. Most of it fell on deaf — and cold — ears as growing numbers disbelieve the “experts,” relying more on their own “lying eyes.”

Writing Sunday in London’s Daily Mail, columnist David Rose analyzed recent scientific data amassed by eminent climate scientists. Rose says that far from a warming planet, “The bitter weather afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years.” Rose cites data from the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, which found that, “Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 percent, since 2007.” This, he says, challenges “some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as their claim that the North Pole will be free of ice by the summer of 2013.”

During last month’s climate summit in Copenhagen, more than 150 scientists with backgrounds in climate science wrote an open letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, a global warming believer. The letter begins, “Climate change science is in a period of ‘negative discovery’ — the more we learn about this exceptionally complex and rapidly evolving field the more we realize how little we know. Truly the science is not settled.”

The scientists challenge 10 of the main claims of the global warming-climate change true believers and write, “there is no sound reason to impose expensive and restrictive public policy decisions on the peoples of the Earth without first providing convincing evidence that human activities are causing dangerous climate change beyond that resulting from natural causes. Before any precipitate action is taken, we must have solid observational data that recent changes in climate differ substantially from changes observed in the past and are well in excess of normal variations caused by solar cycles, ocean currents, changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters and other natural phenomena.”

That seems more than reasonable, but politicians in Europe and America want to rush through additional restrictions on how we live in order to seize more power. This is the major reason for their panic attack. As new scientific evidence adds to the body of information, history and common sense, the power grab by the politicians is in peril. The hurry-up offense, to employ a football term, is being used to rush through legislation before the defense can devise an effective response. But the defense is now on the offense, and the offense is being forced to poorly play defense.

Should we do nothing about our consumption of petroleum? No, we should use this window of opportunity to decrease our reliance on petroleum, not because of “climate change” but to deprive the oil-producing nations of money too many of them use to underwrite terrorism. This should satisfy both the global warming disciples and deniers and make America and Europe less dependent on nations that wish to destroy our liberty. But threats to liberty are not limited to some oil-producing nations; they can also be found in the British Parliament and in the American Congress.

The falling doctrines now make so much noise that only those without hearing fail to notice.

Comments

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

"Here’s another: If a doctrine falls, will enough believers admit they were wrong and withdraw support for policies associated with it?"

That's a Really good question Cal. Unfortunately, your long string of editorials tells me quite clearly that, at least in your case, no, it doesn't happen.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"“Experts” who believe in global warming, uh climate change, went on television where they bravely tried to make a distinction between weather, which they said was about what happens today, and climate, which is long term. Most of it fell on deaf "

And Cal is about as deaf as they come when it comes to that which he doesn't want to hear, but he sings yet another chorus of "La La La," as loudly as he can, just in case.

0

Fugu 4 years, 6 months ago

Nice Cal. Citing a columnist from London’s Daily Mail is solid affirmation of a cooling earth. (sarcasm)

0

50YearResident 4 years, 6 months ago

Something for you non-believers to contemplate. Global warming in the summer caused extreme evaporation which collects in the atmosphere causing high humidity. In the summer this high humidity releases to cause extreme flooding. In the winter this high humidity when cooled in winter blocks the sun with more clowds and loweres the temperature enough to release the moisture as extreme amounts of snow which lowers the temperatures even more. This is what we are having due to global warming.

0

Centerville 4 years, 6 months ago

Here's the silver lining of our winter weather: we won't have to listen to any more Kansas politicians blubbering about global warming.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Well, the good news here is the left is not disputing the facts just Cal Thomas. They have done here exactly what he said they would in the first two paragraphs of his article.

I agree Centerville. the blubbering over global warming has gone down. The entire Northern Hemisphere had to go through freezing temperatures to do it though.

0

tomatogrower 4 years, 6 months ago

Could someone please tell me why it would be bad if we quit using so much oil, much of which is bought from countries that hate us? Why would it be so awful to find clean, reusable energy? Oh yeah, Cal probably is heavily invested in the oil industry. It all boils down to money.

0

Fugu 4 years, 6 months ago

The willfully ignorant deniers will continue to downplay climate science as some sort of religion or cult. They always seem to mention Gore, showing that they would rather politicize science and dumb down the science than actually learn and argue the science. Little do they know that their appeal to unreason and relentless use of banal rhetoric makes them sound more like a cult of blind followers than those who choose to side with empirical evidence.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

tomatogrower (Anonymous) says…

Could someone please tell me why it would be bad if we quit using so much oil, much of which is bought from countries that hate us? Why would it be so awful to find clean, reusable energy? Oh yeah, Cal probably is heavily invested in the oil industry. It all boils down to money. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I don't know one person that disagrees with your point tomato....even Cal Thomas agrees with you. Just strip all the global warming, humans are bad, crap and get to the point. And we can do that by drilling in the USA until that new energy solution is provided....till then we wait, and wait, and wait.

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

"Well, the good news here is the left is not disputing the facts just Cal Thomas."

There are facts going both ways. But at this point I only read Cal's column until the first blatant hypocrisy, which usually happens in the first one or two sentences. Whatever facts he presents are never the full story, and generally are deliberately skewed by ideology and only used to demonize rather than openly discuss. The only thing you'll ever learn from his columns is how to do the same.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"Well, the good news here is the left is not disputing the facts just Cal Thomas. "

Jonas beat me to it.

+1

0

TheYetiSpeaks 4 years, 6 months ago

As a human-induced climate change denier, I would just like to say that now that the pendulum of scientific and public opinion begins to swing the other way its important that we don't forget the big picture. Just because our pollutants may not be altering the planet in a significant way, it does effect our health. We SHOULD lower the amount of pollutants in our air.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"I would just like to say that now that the pendulum of scientific and public opinion begins to swing the other way its important that we don't forget the big picture."

Public opinion can work like a pendulum, but science does not. And that's the only big picture.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Yeti, I think it would be easy to get universal support for your point from everyone. It would be easy to go forward from that point together. But that global warming baloney was built on a house of cards.

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

"Yeti, I think it would be easy to get universal support for your point from everyone. It would be easy to go forward from that point together."

Clearly not. Why do you think we keep harping on the global warming issue? I think it's because it's been effectively politicized, is uncertain, and so allows a Wonderful strawman to keep us from making any real progress or having effective dialog on the matter of our environmental impact. Can you articulate a real difference in the method we'd use to lower pollutant levels and the method to reduce the chances of global warming?

"But that global warming baloney was built on a house of cards."

Overstepping data into conclusions, is more like it. But then, that's not a hallmark reserved for that particular demographic, even solely on this issue.

0

50YearResident 4 years, 6 months ago

I hope all you deniers live long enough to see the results of global warming and eat your words. What do you think is causing increased world flooding and record amounts of snow and rising ocean levels? Please explain if you can.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Jonas the data your side uses is being investigated for fraud. The Northern Hemisphere is under record cold temperatures, we have had two cold summers in a row....what else do you need? Global warming is dead. It plays well with liberals here but even the world walked away from it just last month.

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 6 months ago

Gorespeak: Warming = record cold

0

JJE007 4 years, 6 months ago

Why is it ALL political? It seems to be because of the multinational nature of politics in all monetary rapist times. Blind greed oversteps the boundaries of good business. Competition fails in its necessary commissions of injustices. The beast insists on being and that beings die for its pleasure and in its ignorance.

But it's all about that lack of sustainability which resides in our own homes, our hearths...our beds.

As far as I can see, it seems as if screwing your neighbor is the only way to survive and the only thing to promote.

Frankly, that's fine with me. People who believe and thrive in this philosophy are ripe for tonight. They are fat, lazy and stupid. They are eager to whine about being preyed upon but have become such easy prey, much like the poor upon which they've fed. They are conspicuous in their arrogance, rather than their power, and far less protected by their flawed beliefs than they seem to think. They are jokes who kill by the grace of their beneficence but have lost almost all of that grace.

Puff up your chests like your factory chickens. We will eat your words and minds and bones and become you as you become us...the decorations of glut and overpopulation.

Just kidding. Everything is fine!~)

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

Nice thoughtless response, Leedavid. Thank you for illustrating my point so effectively. Assuming my "side" sweeping generalization, over-reached conclusion.

Whenever you're ready to stop barking and answer my legitimate question, let me know.

0

forward 4 years, 6 months ago

First of all -Nice 007!

There's an interesting common thread here - for some, a short term bout of frigid weather in the northern hemisphere is enough to "prove" that there's no way that the earth is in a warming period that could be decades long (or not). If your region has a drought, does that mean the whole world is drying up? Do you just see what is going on around you today and not think of a bigger picture? Isn't it intuitive that a closed system that has solar energy added continually is at risk when you increase green house gases and decrease CO2 consumers (tropical forests)? Forget believing in one doctrine or another.

0

uneekness 4 years, 6 months ago

What's the motivation? Cal's nefarious climate do-gooders first were in it for the money, with the riches to be found in alternative energy from the sun and wind. Except that no one can own it, and making turbines and solar panels offers about a thousandth of a percent of the money to be made by keeping the status quo.

Then it was for lucrative research grants! Except that these are generally tenured professors, and the research dollars would be there whether climate change were discovered or not.

So now it's just a amorphous "power-grab". Yes, those nerds who you beat up in high school are exacting their revenge on humanity! Forcing you to drive in econoboxes, rather than cool SUVs and muscle cars, thus negating your advantage with the ladies! Curse you nerds!

All Cal does in these things is demonstrate he does not understand the definition of "aggregate" and "mean". It's cold today! Global warming is over! And he sounds like a 9-11 Truther with his "99 people saw a jet crash into the Pentagon, but this one guy says it was a missile, so your arguments are negated" - style of combing for contradictions. Of course all of the scientists won't agree. They're scientists, no Republicans. Science is never exact or unanimous. But it does build large bodies of evidence that becomes overwhelming over time (like another thing Cal disagrees with - evolution). 150 scientists out of the 20,000 are working on and acknowledge the problem is nothing. Climate change is happening. It may not be a straight line to a different world, but if we wait for the Cals of the world to realize it, it will be too late.

0

Fugu 4 years, 6 months ago

"The Northern Hemisphere is under record cold temperatures, we have had two cold summers in a row….what else do you need? Global warming is dead"

Really!? This is all the evidence you needed to be convinced that global warming is 'dead'?! Please.... please don't ever consider science as a profession.

You would do good to educate yourself on the subject before making outrageous claims. Here, this might help:

"If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold?" http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20100115_Temperature2009.pdf

0

jeremyhay 4 years, 6 months ago

I'm a Brit. I'm posting here because I once lived for for a short time in Lawrence. (A superlative place.....). I now live in Germany. Without wishing to be immodest, I'm a fairly well educated person (BSc in Statistics etc.).
"London’s Daily Mail" is a joke newspaper read by the elderly and uneducated, to whose tastes this "rag" panders. Man-made global warming is a fact agreed by 99.9% of climatologists. The solution to this problem is also agreed by the overwhelming majority of scientists. These are the people - and philosophy - that brought you the world in which you live. Disregard them at your peril! Even though what they are saying may make you feel uncomfortable.

0

Ralph Reed 4 years, 6 months ago

@All, re jeremyhay, 1353.

Hear, Hear!

0

Centerville 4 years, 6 months ago

There's a lot of emotional attachment to the But-All-The-Kids-Believe-in-Global-Warming craze so I'll approach this from anothe angle. Think of how much more of your life you can live now that you can stop recycling! Whoopee!

0

Flap Doodle 4 years, 6 months ago

"Man-made global warming is a fact agreed by 99.9% of climatologists." That figure keeping creeping upwards every time some goober repeats it. Expect to see 105% agreement by Tuesday.

0

Mixolydian 4 years, 6 months ago

Fugu (Anonymous) says…

Nice Cal. Citing a columnist from London’s Daily Mail is solid affirmation of a cooling earth. (sarcasm)

Actually, the way that global warming is coming unraveled, I'd take the word of the Page Three girl on this topic.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 4 years, 6 months ago

"Actually, the way that global warming is coming unraveled,"

What way is that?

0

anon1958 4 years, 6 months ago

The right wing nuts always declare any scientific consensus they object to as a religious viewpoint. Once this occurs it should be recognized that they have surrendered the issue completely.

I wish the JW would find some right of center columnists that were not as senile as George Will, ignorant as Cal Thomas or intellectually lazy as Sourkrauthammer. Then something interesting worth discussing might appear.

0

melott 4 years, 6 months ago

Marion, you are too smart to fall for that stuff.

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

"a far-left loon called for censorship"

Citation?

0

jonas_opines 4 years, 6 months ago

Because if I had a nickel for everytime somebody said that something was a call for censorship when it wasn't, I'd have some cash to spend too.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 6 months ago

"Without wishing to be immodest, I'm a fairly well educated person (BSc in Statistics etc.). "

Cool. Excellent. Let's see what you have to say.

"Man-made global warming is a fact agreed by 99.9% of climatologists. The solution to this problem is also agreed by the overwhelming majority of scientists."

Yeah, not so much.

0

Olympics 4 years, 6 months ago

http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/15/paging-neil-cavuto-uah-global-satellite-data-has-record-warmest-day-for-january/

"It’s almost certain by now that January 2010 will also be the globally warmest January on the UAH record"

Enjoy it you anti-science republicans.

0

Ken Lassman 4 years, 6 months ago

Marion, Reid Bryson has indeed had a distinguished scientific career and contributed significantly to a number of fields. Most importantly, he has been who looks at the data first and built conclusions that match the facts.

Too bad he died right in the midst of this ongoing controversy; in 2004, even the IPCC was not completely committed to saying that the evidence was undeniably showing the anthropogenic nature of the undisputed rises in global temperatures. The IPCC changed its tune after the evidence became overwhelming, and I'd take a guess that Reid would have too had he lived longer. The tobacco scientists were fairly convincing too, until the evidence became too overwhelming. And like it or not, this is a peer driven endeavor, and when the sun sets, the consensus of 1500 climatologists trumps 150 scientists. The minority has the burden of proof, and they simply continue to fall way short of coming up with a better explanation than the consensus view, which is that human emissions are tipping the balance of all the factors, resulting increasing global temps.

I like to continue to consult the data, and the best one stop shop place continues to be NOAA, which has a global data site: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/?report=global

Maybe Cal should have consulted this site before writing his denialist diatribe.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

Something for you larryville global warmists to contemplate:

Lawrence was once beneath a glacier. How much coal-fired power plant and car exhaust did it take to make those glaciers recede?

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

“Man-made global warming is a fact agreed by 99.9% of climatologists"

99.9% of astronomers used to believe the universe orbited the earth. They were probably paid to think that or threatened with banishment if they didn't push the lie, just like global warmists.

0

Olympics 4 years, 6 months ago

Lawrence was once beneath a glacier.....Careful there Liberty. Your republican friends will banish you for believing the earth is more than 6000 years old.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

"Careful there Liberty. Your republican friends"

That's nothing. Wait until they find out I'm in favor of legalizing all substances you might want to ingest and be able to legally pay women (or men) for sex. When they find that out, they will really hate me.

Did I mention that burning the American flag is patriotic?

I can outleft the left really easily on a lot of subjects and I don't need to wrap my opinions in euphemisms or lame excuses like the hemp wackos or the pro-choice (when the choice is murder) rabble.

Moral: libertarianism sets you free.

It's weird. I agree with the left on probably a majority of issues, but I despise them for the socialist and anti-American trainwreck they have made into what was once the great political party of the common American. I haven't found a reason to despise the right, even when I don't agree with them. Except maybe for lincoln and the terrorist he set loose on the south. Being a southerner, I do despise those two.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

snap_pop_no_crackle

That one is epic. I was wondering when someone would bring it up. Now we find out that they don't want to ruin America's economy only with massaged data and computer hacks, but also with the ramblings of some third-world liar that managed to get published in a pop journal.

Anthrogenic global warming a lie. Don't let them urinate on your leg and then tell you it's raining.

0

Ken Lassman 4 years, 6 months ago

Get over the so-called climategate guys. Talk about skewing reality, the scientific community has looked hard at the data manipulation and emails and didn't even find smoke, let alone fire. don't believe me? Fine--check out Nature, Science, New Scientist or any number of mainstream science journals and let me know what you find out.

And as for you comment: "Lawrence was once beneath a glacier. How much coal-fired power plant and car exhaust did it take to make those glaciers recede?"

Cute, but irrelevant, of course. That was around 600,000 years ago, and yes, of course we humans are not the only thing that affects climate--never claimed otherwise. I DO remember fondly ice skating every winter on ponds around here in the 60s and 70s, sometimes as early as November. Could have ice skated here this winter, but not in November.

0

jaywalker 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty,

Are you One? You sound like our original, just wanna make sure. Good posts, either way.

0

uneekness 4 years, 6 months ago

Linus Pauling, Ph.D. (1901-1994), was the only person ever to win two unshared Nobel prizes. He received these awards for chemistry in 1954 and for peace in 1962. He contributed greatly to the development of chemical theories.

In 1970, Pauling announced in Vitamin C and the Common Cold that taking 1,000 mg of vitamin C daily will reduce the incidence of colds by 45% for most people but that some people need much larger amounts. (The RDA for vitamin C is 60 mg.) The 1976 revision of the book, retitled Vitamin C, the Common Cold and the Flu, suggested even higher dosages. A third book, Vitamin C and Cancer (1979) claims that high doses of vitamin C may be effective against cancer. Yet another book, How to Feel Better and Live Longer (1986), stated that megadoses of vitamins "can improve your general health . . . to increase your enjoyment of life and can help in controlling heart disease, cancer, and other diseases and in slowing down the process of aging." Pauling himself reportedly took at least 12,000 mg daily and raised the amount to 40,000 mg if symptoms of a cold appear. In 1993, after undergoing radiation therapy for prostate cancer, Pauling said that vitamin C had delayed the cancer's onset for twenty years. This was not a testable claim. He died of the disease in August 1994.

Just because one scientist, however prominent, comes up with a theory, doesn't make it trump everything else in the field. That's not how it works. Climate change is a consensus view not because it is "hip" or trendy or a religion, but because it is the best fit to the available evidence. Yes, all the top scientists once believed that the earth's crust was solid, but as the plate techtonics theory better explained the data, it gained rapid acceptance. That the problem with the deniers. They present no evidence to explain it alternately, they just claim scientists are faking, or want to control us, or that these things just happen. If any of the deniers actually knew real research scientists, they'd know how laughable the idea that they operate like a cabal that has decided, on a whim, to "foist" global warming on us. And of course the cabal can't back down, not with the trillions of dollars at stake on their secret investment in the unobtanium that they plan to switch the world energy grid to and...oh, wait - that's a movie plot? What do the scientists have to gain from this? Nothing? So they're only doing this because the evidence has led in this direction? But how is Glenn Beck supposed to whip us in a frenzy with that?

Just remember kids, as I've said before, don't expect all scientists to agree, and most certainly you've got the wrong lot if you ever expected them to line up for marching orders. They're scientists, after all, not Republicans.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

OK, forget the glacier. I knew it was too challenging. Riddle me this, though. Why with all the "global warming" including the "ocean warming" are we seeing fewer hurricanes?

I work for a guy. That guy wants something to happen and if I can make it happen, he gives me money. I am not unlike scientists. Just like me, they are bought and paid for.

Hurricanes are not like scientists and me. They don't need money, they need warm water. You can't buy them with money. They don't have any use for it. They only have use for warm water.

Hurricanes have been decreasing in intensity and frequency for at least 50 years. The scientists say the hurricanes have more of what they need, that is warm water, but the hurricanes don't seem to be cooperating. I get the impression that the hurricanes are a better indicator of truth than the paid scientists.

If I walk into my bosses office and tell him I can't deliver what he want's he'll fire me and find someone that can. Scientists are the same, but with a twist. They will not only be fired for not supporting the lie, but they become moot without some disaster always 20 years away from which only they can save the Earth.

You can't fire a hurricane. It doesn't care if it's poor and moot. In fact the hurricane doesn't care about anything, except the climate.

I'm a fan of National Geographic, despite it's bend to the left. In one episode on the space shuttle I remember how enthralled a crewperson was with the thin blue line around the earth, and how that almost invisible blue line was our home. That blue line was dwarfed in thickness when compared to its circumference around the earth; its 60 miles high and 25,000 miles around. Like the crewperson of the shuttle, to me it looked so fragile.

But then, the next day while on a break, I stood outside and looked up. I thought to myself, "Hmmm, 60 miles. That's a pretty good stretch straight up." Then I thought 60 miles up, 25,000 miles around in one dimension. That's a lot of air. But thats not all of it. It is also 25,000 miles around in the other dimension. Not being a mathematician, I don't know the formula, but I understand that you calculate the sphere of the atmosphere, then subtract the sphere of the earth and you have the volume of the atmosphere. At that point, I came to realize just how insignificant humans, cars and coal-fired power plants and their emissions are when compared to the atmosphere of our planet. We and all of our technology and emissions are pissants compared to that 60 mile thick ring of gasses around our planet.

It is the acme of arrogance for us to argue we have even the slightest means of affecting such a body. And I am not that arrogant.

But I could be for the right price. Just like the scientists.that massaged the data, hacked the computer models with fudge factors and parroted a third-world lie because it fit his agenda. $$$

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

"Are you One?"

Nope. I'm just 275. 275 sounded like a good number at the time.

OTOH, most people with liberty in their username will probably sound alike. The number may be random, but the liberty part isn't.

0

Liberty275 4 years, 6 months ago

"Funny how “Climategate” has kinda petered out, isn't it?"

Not as funny as watching obama rule by fiat via the EPA because a democratic senate can't pass cap and tax.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Climategate dead? I thought it was still under a complete investigation. Lets google: "Climategate" http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2010/01/16/climategate-conflicts-of-interest-and-corrupted-science/

Yep Jan 17th still talking about and investigating Climategate

More and more science folks jumping ship. People wondering does a consensus equal real science? Entire countries do not believe the concept of global warming due to humans, and now polls show the majority of Americans doubt the concept.

I would say serious questions still remain.

0

uneekness 4 years, 6 months ago

Liberty275

Do you know what tenure is? Do you know how a major research university works? Obviously not, because your little fantasy bears no relation to it. What boss is giving them marching orders? The department head? Who is giving the department heads of every research department of thousands of universities around the world marching orders? And more importantly, what incentive do they have to listen? This isn't corporate science as practiced by the oil or tobacco industries. It's academic science. These guys get paid no matter what they do. That's why some deniers still have academic jobs - it's damn near impossible to fire them. Which is also fine, and if they ever find credible evidence to support their position, the consensus will swing their way.

So, again, let's review motive: Financial? None. Top down order? Ridiculous in the extreme. Evidence strongly indicates warming is man-made? Bingo. Occam's razor, Liberty275. Give a try.

And your true ignorance shows with your "garsh, there's a lotta air up there" argument. Do you know how much lead you need in your system to do significant, irrepairable neurological damage? 10 micrograms per decaliter. That's .00001 grams per two pints of blood. Small things can pack a big punch.

In the 60's, scientists studying Venus realized it was far hotter than sun energy and the density of its atmosphere alone could explain. By studying how gases trap heat, they found the answer. Certain chemicals had an outsized impact on the equation. Others applied the work to our own atmosphere and industrial capacity and discovered that we actually are pumping out enough carbon dioxide to have a measureable impact at the ppm level. Doesn't sound like much, but that's where the action's at. 50 years ago, it was at 310 ppm, now it's at 400 ppm. If the Russian permafrost begins to thaw significantly, things will get worse as it releases frozen methane, a far more powerful greenhouse gas. Doesn't matter how much Ronald Reagan-style magical thinking you use, the science is strong. Let me put it another way: termites are small, but they can still make your house unihabitable, even if they don't cause it to fall down.

0

001 4 years, 6 months ago

“Well, the good news here is the left is not disputing the facts just Cal Thomas. ”

Jonas beat me to it.

+1

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Porch, why do you refuse to acknowledge there are very serious concerns and doubt about the notion of global warming? Both in and out of the science community. Climategate is being investigated and like all investigations let the thing run its course. Emails clearly indicate data being hidden and removed from record. We will never know what that data showed or proved.

What happens when a kid takes a science project to the teacher and says this isn't the data I collected, its the data I am using? LOL!

Loved your map....China supports global warming on your map.....China? Iran? Korea? You must be kidding.

0

uneekness 4 years, 6 months ago

leedavid

Yep, climategate shows clearly that some scientists can be dicks, especially when having to deal with those that offer nothing constructive to the argument. The databases involved are not the only ones in existence, nor are they the sole ones used for all research. Nor were they "fudged" as denials fervently hope: http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/energy/2009/12/12/climategate-science-not-faked-but-not-pretty_print.htm

See, guys like leedavid and liberty 275 are used to the usual way these things work: company honcho or politico wants something done, issues orders, smashes opposition, etc. So they try and make this thing they desperately don't want to believe fit that scenario. It's a conspiracy! People are being bought! Or ordered around! Or bullied! Something! Anything! Wahhh! Wahhhh!

But this is science. Guy sees some interesting data. Plugs it into another experiment. Gets interesting result. Publishes. Others pick it up. Try to replicate. Some problems occur in the details, but the general outlines are taking shape. Others try different wrinkles. Same overall results. Evidence piles up. Now lots of people are poking at it, trying to find the flaws, pushing the boundaries. If the conclusions still hold, it becomes consensus. If not, it either disappears or comes back when better tools can sharpen the focus on it.

Just because it's not what you want, leedavid and liberty, doesn't mean you can teabag it away. That's not how the science cookie crumbles.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Somehow the planet came out of an ice age without humans driving SUV's. That has been the case for millions of years. Now we are cooling. The water levels are low not up. Hurricanes are smaller and less frequent.

Source: http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/01/climategate_the_truth_hurts_wh.html

Don't let the truth hit you in the head. Sorry Uneekness. What am I saying, neither of you will read it. Too locked in your belief the world is ending and it is our fault. The sky is falling and all of that stuff.

0

leedavid 4 years, 6 months ago

Anyone remember the 1970's when the experts said the earth was cooling?

Newsweek article 1975

http://www.denisdutton.com/cooling_world.htm

Today Russia believes in gobal cooling and global warming

"In addition to the global-warming challenges, we need to address 'global cooling' effects and to do so promptly," the prime minister said."

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/Resource-Wars/2010/01/12/Putin-worries-about-global-cooling/UPI-42451263317400/

0

uneekness 4 years, 6 months ago

You played your hand, leedavid. "Anyone remember the 1970's when the experts said the earth was cooling?"

Except that they didn't: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends.

The study reports, "There was no scientific consensus in the 1970s that the Earth was headed into an imminent ice age.

"A review of the literature suggests that, to the contrary, greenhouse warming even then dominated scientists' thinking about the most important forces shaping Earth's climate on human time scales."

See, this has building for decades. Science. Slowly gathering evidence. Even while there were regional cold temps, the overall trend lines were showing warming. But it would take another 25 years to build to consensus, because the people involved have been following the evidence, not doing it on a whim as a "power grab."

Here's terms you might understand: when you think your transmission is going out, usually there are a few signs - some hesitation when shifting gears, etc. But if you have a short patch where this doesn't happen, do you think, "well, it's fixed itself. No need to worry. It just does that sometimes." No. You know you still have to fix it.

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.