Despite Al Gore's shrill "there is no debate" argument, the facts don't support the hypothesis. This is where you know it is NOT about science, but about political agenda. A scientist (is supposed to) sets a hypothesis then uses empirical data to either prove - or disprove! - the theory. More scientific progress is made by disproving theories than by proving them. But the global warmers want to paint those of us that are a little skeptical as flat earthers...c'est la vie.
Meanwhile, the National Snow and Ice Data Center has acknowledged that due to a satellite sensor malfunction, it had been underestimating the extent of Arctic sea ice by 193,000 square miles - an area the size of Spain. In a new study, University of Wisconsin researchers Kyle Swanson and Anastasios Tsonis conclude that global warming could be going into a decades-long remission. The current global cooling "is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Swanson told Discovery News. Yes, global cooling: 2008 was the coolest year of the past decade - global temperatures have not exceeded the record high measured in 1998, notwithstanding the carbon-dioxide that human beings continue to pump into the atmosphere.
Here's the rest of the article - read it with a sweater on!
7 comments:
From the article you cite as an example of incorrect theory: "We stress, however, that this error in no way changes the scientific conclusions about the long-term decline of Arctic sea ice, which is based on the the consistent, quality-controlled data archive discussed above."
When your own source says global warming (and its corollary cooling effects; i can recommend some literature if you are not aware of the interrelationships) is still real, what does that say about your thought processes?
So cogitate with me here:
1) Have global carbon emissions been steadily rising since the industrial age began? (yes..)
2) Is a runaway greenhouse effect a problem, with an easily-understood and visible example available? (Yes... how about Venus; it has extremely high greenhouse gas levels, and it is 900 degrees F there... bad for life, eh? Yeah, lets shoot for something like that...)
3) Is there anyone left in the scientific community who thinks that rising greenhouse levels are good for us? (Nope.)
4) Who is the only group who, as a whole, think that this is not a problem (Uh, the insane-religious-right. Only. When something bad is clearly happening (and I don't care if the reason is global cycling, or vulcanism, or emissions from cows and cars... source is immaterial) but their response is 'but jesus is coming, and after the rapture, earth doesn't matter' they NEED to be removed from the discourse.)
So... what is it that you are arguing for here? Head-in-the-sand ignorance, or the rapture argument?
What is with the Jesus hatred? Has the Christian church come out and said global warming is a hoax? And why, as a liberal, do you want to exclude anyone from the dialogue?
You need to calm down, Chicken Little, we are in NO danger of turning into Venus - closer to the Sun - anymore that we are in danger of freezing into Mars. We are in a unique place in our solar system...call it the Goldilocks Spot.
Is pollution bad? Sure. Has a runaway greenhouse effect EVER been proven? NOPE. Can we do things to improve our atmosphere? Absolutely. Should the government dictate what car you can drive, what temperature you should keep your house etc etc ? No.
As for the "is there anyone left in the scientific community" argument, thank you for doing a good Al Gore imitation, but the reality is there are thousands of scientists that disagree. Google "scientists who disagree with global warming" and sit back for a long day's read.
I am old enough to remember when the Club of Rome said we were doomed by the coming ice age...some scientists in Europe are already saying that's coming again too.
Bottom line is, the same people making these ridiculous assertions in order to tell you how to live your life can't even get today's weather right. Thunderstorms at 10AM - nope, not even close. But you will gladly surrender your freedom because of the panic they have inserted into your scalp. It's sad...do your own thinking and at least give the other side a listen before you spew the Gorean mantras.
An interesting take, but the 'big picture' answer is that there is some saturation level beyond which a greenhouse effect becomes self-sustaining. And based on current data, I imagine that there will be people saying 'we need more research, there is no consensus' until the week before it becomes too late. Is the government the arbiter of all truth? (God forbid. Terrifying thought.) But barring an arbitrary mandate (i am interested to hear what it is you tink will actuall yhappen there, btw... what, we can only use electricity on alternate days? never happen), investment in green energy and a new sense of civic responsibility should demand a place in the national and international discourse.
I also find it interesting that you refer to the goldilocks effect as if it were anything but an accident of geoligical history. Earth has been both far too hot and far too cold to sustain human life in its history. Where is it written that somehow it will not happen again? Mars use to have a magnetic field, and a more or less stable atmosphere. Venus, in its infancy, was not 900 degrees. We have planets on either side of us that experienced runaway atmopheric effects. Pretending that somehow earth is special just because right this instant we are in a butter zone of survivability seems comically shortsighted. You can keep having that opinion until the day it is no longer the case. And that day, me saying 'i told you so' is hardly going to matter.
It is a simple equation: the Earth is a single point of failure for humanity. As such we have no choice but to act as if it is of utmost importance to protect it. "Flat-earthers" indeed. Either you understand single-point-of-failure, or you don't. But acting as if the big-picture people are foolish for noticing/caring is dangerous.
Final thought: you are clearly anti-government. Whatever. But left to our own devices we can't be trusted. Remember leaded gas? Or go back further.. how 'bout the Radium Girls? (google it). Or how about the FDA and The Jungle (more google fodder, if necessary)? Government mandates stopped incredibly damaging things from continuing. There are far too many examples of people, left to regulate themselves, making painfully shortsighted decisions with far-reaching downstream deleterious effects on everyone. So man up and admit that sometimes it takes government intervention to make lasting dramatic improvements for the greater good. I know it hurts the red-state thesis of "government=bad no matter what (unless it is a republican doing it, of course)"... but you don't have leathal levels of lead in your bloodstream, your toothpaste isn't radioactive, and when you buy meat at the gorcery you know it doesn't have tuberculosis. And that's.... Bad?
Bottom line: maybe there is nothing to global warming. but if there is and we don't act, we are simply doomed. If it isnt true, what's the worst that happens? Cleaner air and cheaper energy? Ohhh... we will never survive.
Great response and there is a lot of room for agreement here. A central premise we can agree on is that we should be good stewards of the environment. Can government assist in that? You bet. For example, if a developer chooses to treat their storm water on site instead of taxing the infrastructure system, they should be entitled to a property tax deduction. Ditto if they get a building audit and take steps to reduce their carbon footprint. The biggest resource we have to combat this is the caulking gun going after the existing inventory of real estate. I am for rewarding people for doing the right thing. Ditto again if solar power is added or wind capture turbines...all good things that reduce the pull off of the grid.
Wind and solar technologies arent' there yet in terms of clean and efficient production. But nuclear power sure is. It's embarrassing, but France is proof of that.
I believe that government can do some things very well. But I am a firm believer in our founding documents and believe that Congress and the Executive branch have WAY overstepped their bounds. Couple that with an abysmally bad education system and you end up with a dependent population that waits for the Feds to tell them what to do. I believe in freedom.
The science and the agenda of the global warming movement, however, is highly suspect. I do not believe in running off and throwing money and "solutions" at problems that remain undefined. The last ten years of cooling and the constant stream of error admissions by these people should give us great cause to pause and acknowledge that every change we see is not a crisis.
Do I believe that man is special and that we have a special place in the Universe? Yes, I do. If you look at both extremes - the macro extremes of an expanding universe and the micro extremes of particle physics you are very hard pressed to arrive at the "everything is a random chance" answer. But you are free to believe what you will, mock not those that believe otherwise.
What is this 'agenda' of the green party that you refer to? They take no stance on social issues, make no promises about the future beyond the necessity of conservation and continued R&D, and (even when acing all imperious and holier-than-thou) really do have some remarkably simple solutions to save massive capital downstream... what is it that i am missing? can you embed me a few links to some reading? (now im all curious... couple that with a slow day at the office, and...)
When you look at the roots of the green movement, you will find the remnants of late '60's socialists and even graying anti-Vietnam War types. When the philosophy of communism suffered with the ignominious collapse of the Soviet Union, these folks latched onto a new religion and the green movement was born. Take Obama's own Czarina for this stuff Carol Browner: http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=316656562454429
If the agenda of this bunch were just about reducing pollution and encouraging conservation, everyone could get on board quite easily. But it is not. It is all about the economic destruction of the West through ridiculous, crippling taxes like the cap and trade system. It is about having some "czar" tell us what kind of car we can drive and the reduction of freedom. IT is about them being in control of your life. As the facts about global warming have emerged, they have become more shrill. "Case closed," Al Gore likes to preach, but he refuses to debate Czech President Vaclav Klaus or Wharton Professor Scott Armstrong...what is he afraid of?
Read Klaus's address to the National Press Club and you will get the picture: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=IS0gccWYLKQK
on it. not as slow as yesterday but if i can scam a free few minutes i'll return w/ discussion.
Post a Comment