Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
As you read this long editorial you find that the professor was threatened with a lawsuit for making his position public. What’s wrong with this picture? Have the nutballs from PETA taken over the debate?
I mention this because of Grist Magazine’s writer David Roberts calling for the Nuremberg-style trials for the “bastards” who were members of what he calls a global warming “denial industry.” Industry? Which side of this debate seems to be an industry? Not the skeptics, that’s for sure. In Grist September 19, 2006 he says, “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full worldwide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war crimes trials for these bastards — some sort of climate Nuremberg.”
So this guy equates honest (and obviously legitimate) scientific debate with trials over the Nazi extermination of 6 million Jews in WWII. Does this make sense to anyone who is not an a-hole?
Roberts
found by Mad Dog Mike
Fortunately, at the most useful levels, this discussion has nothing to do with common sense — that delightful phrase meaning, in fact, “we’re too damned lazy to read the essential reports from bodies like the Max Planck Institute” — etc..
In practice, there are more sincere, hard-working scientists wasting their idle moments trying to accommodate their work to dimwit creationism — than are wasting their time on rationales which “forgive” human beings for the way we’ve crudded up the house we’ve grown up in.
Copouts are still copouts. Wasting print and electrons on dweebs whose only mandate is making the copout palatable to people who otherwise might stand up on their hind legs — is an historic pratfall.
That’s about all. Go see your priest and be forgiven. It works as well. It’s as irrelevant.
Let me tell you something you non believers.
since the 80s, down here in the tiny coastal town of Tela, on the northern coast of Honduras; we have lost at least 100 feet of beach.
34. “since the 80s, down here in the tiny coastal town of Tela, on the northern coast of Honduras; we have lost at least 100 feet of beach.”
That at best proves that global warming has occurred. That means nothing. As I’ve stated numerous times, the climate of the earth has changed drastically in its history.
Do you honestly believe that after billions of years the climate of the earth would suddenly stop changing?
SN – Can we really ‘prove’ that cigarette smoking gives you lung cancer, (Sorry John), I dont think so. But are you willing to take the risk when the evidence strongly suggests it. What if your wrong about the CO2 factor? The stakes are too high to just take a wait and see approach.
No matter what side one comes down on, the overriding consideration for a number of us is this:
When amoral multinational corporations, the side in this controversy that stands to make – or not make – not millions, not billions, but trillions of dollars, combine that with the evidence of thousands of years of history proving that human greed – for relatively microscopic gains, mind you – will make humans do absolutely anything conceivable. What results is an absolute certainty that if there is deception afoot, you can bet the Saudis’ Swiss accounts to a bus transfer that it comes from the ones who want those trillions. To assume otherwise is the epitome of just-fell-off-the-turnip-truck naïveté.
And thus proclaimeth the not-at-all-greedy Ghoti
“Maybe it’s because he’s retired, as John already pointed out. Or maybe its because of what Ball was talking about. The opposing side of the debate gets ignored and buried.”
He retired from academia, but he’s very much gainfully employed. The link in my first post at the very top lists his current activities.
Please go take a look at how busy he has been.
Your comment was in response to the comment that he has not had any work published in any peer-reviewed journals. From my link:
“In January 2007 in a column on the Canadian website, Straight.com, Mitchell Anderson wrote of Ball that “Over the past five years, he has published no less than 39 opinion pieces and 32 letters to the editor in 24 Canadian newspapers. Fifty of these pieces ran in papers owned by CanWest MediaWorks. These efforts totalled an incredible 44,500 words.””
Yet he has no time to publish a single piece in a peer-reviewed journal.
Second, ignored? A Google search of this article reveals that it has been cited 14,700 times and it has been only two weeks.
Tim Ball is an active oil industry shill that has time to question Global Warming, but no time to actually put his claims up for examination by his peers.
Dvorak,
While that blogger got it wrong, Tim Ball is ” NRSP Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee”. Here is what his profile on their website says right now, first sentence:
“Dr. Ball is a renowned environmental consultant and former professor of climatology at the University of Winnipeg.”
http://www.nrsp.com/people-timothy-ball.html
Sorry, but this is just one of many example of this lie. Also, I find it handy to hit Google before expressing a feeling of triumphalism in a public forum.
In any case, the only thing I find “fishy” is your attitude about this matter. Again, I highlight my earlier comment where I noted that 100% of organizations receiving ExxonMobil funding question GlobalWarming.
And yet:
““Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. This scientific debate only exists in newspaper articles.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/03/global-warming-myths/
You think all 928 are part of some “fishy” conspiracy? Remember, these are peer-reviewed. None of the critics of Global Warming are willing to put their claims up for scrutiny. They’d rather wage their battles via letters to the editor and Op-Ed pages.
If ExxonMobil is indeed correct about this issue, why don’t any of the ExxonMobil fund recipients submit their work to peer-reviewed journals? That’s awfully strange behavior don’t you think?
36. “What if your wrong about the CO2 factor?”
Over the course of billions of years the climate of the earth has changed drastically. Twice in the earth’s history ice completely covered the planet. On other occasions there was no ice.
In the 70s the climate was getting colder. So of course the dogma was a new ice age. Now the climate is getting warmer, so the dogma is global warming.
Do you really believe that after billions of years of change that the earth’s climate has suddenly become static? Because that is an implicit part of your argument. If global warming is being caused by humans, it’s implicit that the climate should not be changing. That the only reason it is getting warmer is because we’re screwing it up. That it really should be remaining constant over years, decades, etc, if we just left it alone. Do you really believe that?
38. “Yet he has no time to publish a single piece in a peer-reviewed journal.”
Maybe he has time, but because of his politically incorrect views, they refuse to publish them. That was my point. I guess I didn’t express it well.
Let me guess Dvorak. You never believed in global warming. So far, so very wrong. I don’t believe opinions should be suppressed, but pro-warming scientists have been silenced as well. Not to mention the “scientific institutions” that have been propped by oil money. Read a Bill Mckibben book, and check back in with us.
41. “You never believed in global warming.”
I don’t know how many times I have to say this: The issue is not whether there is global warming. The issue is whether it is being caused by humans. They are two completely different things, but you guys love to lump them together.
All the proof in the world that the climate is getting warmer is still no proof that we’re causing it.
“Over the course of billions of years the climate of the earth has changed drastically. Twice in the earth’s history ice completely covered the planet. On other occasions there was no ice.”
Agreed.
“In the 70s the climate was getting colder. So of course the dogma was a new ice age. Now the climate is getting warmer, so the dogma is global warming.”
I dont remember that, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I was in my teens so I wasnt politically concious. Or maybe even conscious.
“Do you really believe that after billions of years of change that the earth’s climate has suddenly become static? ”
Nope, never said that. Said it was probably solar, with us contributing.
Maybe if you went back and read the posts, you would see that. I too believe the problem is probably cyclical. What I AM saying is, I believe humans are a contributing factor, that the deforestation of the Brazilian rain forests, the lungs of the earth so to speak, along with the increasing population and industrialization (think China) is killing us. And that just throwing up your hands is defeatist.
Sometimes I forget my situation from that of most people. I have been for years working myself into a minimal lifestyle. Within the next year, my home will be solar (on the grid when needed) and independant. I have had to live without power due to natural disaster for extended periods of time, 6 months in one instance. This was, for me, an eye opening experience. So forgive me if I do take the subject seriously. I believe you are correct that change is inevitable. Its the natural cycle. I also believe if we can delay the inevitable we should. I have no children, but if I did, that would be my first concern, the future.
So we are not that far apart, except I prefer to be proactive, as opposed to reactive when it may be too late.
SN- “Over the course of billions of years the climate of the earth has changed drastically. Twice in the earth’s history ice completely covered the planet. On other occasions there was no ice.”
Agreed.
“In the 70s the climate was getting colder. So of course the dogma was a new ice age. Now the climate is getting warmer, so the dogma is global warming.”
I dont remember that, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. I was in my teens so I wasnt politically concious. Or maybe even conscious.
“Do you really believe that after billions of years of change that the earth’s climate has suddenly become static? ”
Nope, never said that. Said it was probably solar, with us contributing.
Maybe if you went back and read the posts, you would see that. I too believe the problem is probably cyclical. What I AM saying is, I believe humans are a contributing factor, that the deforestation of the Brazilian rain forests, the lungs of the earth so to speak, along with the increasing population and industrialization (think China) is killing us. And that just throwing up your hands is defeatist.
Sometimes I forget my situation from that of most people. I have been for years working myself into a minimal lifestyle. Within the next year, my home will be solar (on the grid when needed) and independant. I have had to live without power due to natural disaster for extended periods of time, 6 months in one instance. This was, for me, an eye opening experience. So forgive me if I do take the subject seriously. I believe you are correct that change is inevitable. Its the natural cycle. I also believe if we can delay the inevitable we should. I have no children, but if I did, that would be my first concern, the future.
So we are not that far apart, except I prefer to be proactive, as opposed to reactive when it may be too late.
#40 – SN
“Maybe he has time, but because of his politically incorrect views, they refuse to publish them. That was my point. I guess I didn’t express it well.”
Sorry, lad, but you’re suffering from a misapprehension common among nonscientists. Mass-market publications responsable and accountable to no one – such as Scientific American, once one of the world’s finest and most respected magazines, now better known as Scientifically Correct American, now that they ignore all work that doesn’t support the PC ideology – they are free to play ideological favorites. Peer-reviewed journals, particularly the world’s two preëminent ones, Science and Nature, do not.
Science has a level of integrity that people more familiar with the moral vacuum of present-day laissez-faire capitalism find bizarre and alien, if not beyond belief. Without insistence on demonstrable fact – as diametrically opposed to the totally amoral, mercenary rationalizations of the highly-paid spinmeisters of corporate PR – science ceases to function.
– – – – – –
#38 – A_B
“““Science Magazine analyzed 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming published between 1993 and 2003. Not a single one challenged the scientific consensus the earth’s temperature is rising due to human activity. This scientific debate only exists in newspaper articles.”
http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/03/global-warming-myths/”
I’d like to add that the so-called “controversy” re global warming has an exact parallel in what creationists like to call the “controversy” between evolution and ‘Intelligent Design’. Among scientists, on both of those issues, and for the same reasons, there is no controversy except among laypeople who do not understand the scientific method. And they are, by definition, incompetent to judge the true scientific merits – or lack thereof.
“You think all 928 are part of some “fishy” conspiracy? Remember, these are peer-reviewed. None of the critics of Global Warming are willing to put their claims up for scrutiny. They’d rather wage their battles via letters to the editor and Op-Ed pages.
If ExxonMobil is indeed correct about this issue, why don’t any of the ExxonMobil fund recipients submit their work to peer-reviewed journals? That’s awfully strange behavior don’t you think? ”
As the great Graham Chapman used to say on Monty Python, “He’s right, you know…”
Power hunger have corrupted the debate to the point that it is very difficult to determine the truth. Science sources are being corrupted (nasa.gov). Pseudo-science “sources” are used for ammunition (thinkprogress.org). Paper tigers are put up to discredit the opposition (Tim Ball). Kids are brainwashed in Humanist schools to be storm troopers for the P.C. side (Animal Farm).
When the same side first tells us to give them control because of global cooling and then tells us to give them control because of global warming, what is the common denominator? Why won’t these people just leave us alone? Religion. Marxism has all the characteristics of an atheist religion. They still intend to take over the world.
Wait. I thought ozone depletion was going to destroy civilization. Or is that one just not popular anymore.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide is up by about 18% since the mid 1900s. Is carbon dioxide that efficient at trapping heat? The explanations I have read amount to so much hand waving, because the theory doesn’t logically explain the global warming we have seen. I’m a chemist and it doesn’t make sense to me.
Lauren, I’ve seen years worth of Science and Nature magazines, and they look to be somewhat political as well. However, both of those still managed to publish a few stories that challenge the global warming hypothesis, emphasis on few.
One thing that people should realize is that the scientists in their last UN report decided to throw out the hockey stick, because it wasn’t backed by evidence. The only reason this happened is because a few of these skeptics managed to get themselves heard enough to successfully make some more of these peers take another look. It didn’t hurt that the authors of the hockey stick wouldn’t release their results and methods. The global warming industry doesn’t want any repeats of that, so they are trying to shut down debate.
Global warming beats the alternative, global communism. Seriously most of the funding for this research comes from a questionable source, the U.N. Mostly trough its sister organizations. A body that does not even recognize basic rights, is a body not to be trusted.
HITLER
I thought I’d cut to the chase.
SN
That whole global cooling argument from the 70’s is bullshit. you need to check your memory banks on what you think you remember. If you continue to go on and bring that up I will spank you with the “FACTS” about what was reported in the 70’s and where the scientific community stood on global cooling. 🙂
Just because George Will drags up this nonsense doesn’t mean it is true.
George Will BTW apparently loves to take quotes out of context to prove his point.
George Will – Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about “extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.”.
Here is a larger section of that article – from which quote was taken out of context.
Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth’s orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends – and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.
One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar’s (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).
See how fun that is?
I have an Ace up my sleeve so bet accordingly
SN
Oh and one more thing. CO 2 is not the only compound that is involved in global climate. There are several MAN MADE greenhouse gasses So do some more research before you press that point so heavily because you are absolutely wrong. We are talking about MAN MADE pollution as well.
I really whish people would inform themselves better about this issue. I see so many people shooting off about why they think global warming ether doesn’t exist or isn’t man made when it is clear that none of them have actually looked at the evidence. Instead they hear what they want from their respective mouth piece and say “Yeah that’s what I think too”
LOL #50 – seems to be a lively discussion here.
somone up there mentioned that theres been costal beach erosion. its a beach, its made of sand, its supposed to move – also, any earthquakes/seaquakes or volcanoes?
Easy solution.
If Exxon were to put up 1% of the first quarter profits, and likewise the other oil companies, to fund some impartial studies, supervised by an independent panel, then we would get a better picture. I’m suggesting ONE percent. Besides, they would get a sizable tax deduction.
So far, there has been a lot of dispute simply because we don’t like the study’s sponsors. When the methods, results, and conclusions are open for all to see and challenge, hopefully we will have a better understanding. The results may not be totally conclusive, but they will hopefully be better accepted by all and settle some of the disagreement.
So why should the oil industry fund the study? Simply because it is their product that is the primary subject of discussion. And yes, the coal and natural gas companies may also contribute too.
***
As for David Roberts, maybe he should be subjected to some of the same justice he wants for others. Please, don’t associate this wing nut’s ideas or political pronouncements with me.
***
Peer reviewed journals publish research. They don’t publish opinions. So just because a retired scientist hasn’t published anything in over 10 years is not a reason to discount his opinion. Writing to newspapers to express his opinion should be encouraged for the knowledge he brings to the discussion. At the same time though, his opinion is just that, opinion. He has not done any independent research to refute the actual science.
#50 as in more than 50 years ago 😛
You guys can’t come up with any solutions that don’t involve the use of government force? The problem is self correcting anyways being that we can’t run the economy on fossil fuels for long. Some even suggest that we have reached peak production. Fusion or fission will be the future of our energy supply. So the fear mongering over C02 emissions is moot. We can’t have fission today in the quantity needed thanks to the irrational fear of the public. Right there you have a government/public induced scarcity on nuclear power. Its ironic that people run to the government to fix a potential problem. You don’t have to look far to see how government/public stagnates progress.
Voluntary Solutions
Nuclear Power: Cut regulations that kill progress
Private non profit research groups for studying new sources of power and improving the efficiency of existing power sources.
Supporting businesses that produce energy efficient products.
43. “Nope, never said that. Said it was probably solar, with us contributing.”
So you admit that earth is warming on its own. That leads to the next question. What percentage is caused by humans? And the next: Do you think humans should intervene and cool it down?
45. “I’d like to add that the so-called “controversy” re global warming has an exact parallel in what creationists like to call the “controversy” between evolution and ‘Intelligent Design’.”
You’re right. The environmentalists see the debate in dogmatic religious terms. I’m glad we can finally agree.
Just look above. The people in this forum who believe that humans are causing global warming rely on ad hominem attacks. That those who disagree are either shills or selfishly refuse to give “up their precious HumVee.” Either way, your argument is that anyone who disagrees is greedy and cannot be trusted. Hardly scientific by any standard.
51. “That whole global cooling argument from the 70’s is bullshit. “
Hey, I lived through it. If you think my experiences are BS, that’s you’re right I guess. But it doesn’t make you right.
52. “There are several MAN MADE greenhouse gasses”
Let’s see, greenhouse gases are: “water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and ozone.” So which are the several that are man made?
“isn’t man made when it is clear that none of them have actually looked at the evidence.”
Please answer my question in #39, then we’ll talk.
Science is about debate, reopening assumptions and ripping things appart. Not concensus.
Concensus is for the people to decide on for the day. Concensus sways from day to day.
I am picking up my new Hybrid on Tuesday. Why? Not because of the science of global warming… it’s for my 7 month old. It’s the right thing to do, science or no science. Concensus or no concensus. I am personally making a statement to business (in this case Honda), that I am willing to pay for a vehicle that uses less gas and produces less (not no) carbon. I hope one day to buy a zero carbon (or close to it) vehicle, that produces as little heat as possible and does not require me to use a fueling station owned by the oil companies. I hope, that my 7 month old when she turns 16 will be driving in that environment instead of the one we have now.
No science, no concensus, just my dollar speaking.
57. “It’s the right thing to do, science or no science. Concensus or no concensus. “
I agree. I stopped wearing pants for the same reason. I have no science to support my purely subjective belief that pants cause global warming, but damn-it, my belief makes me feel superior over those who believe differently, so I’ll continue until something shiny distracts me. Ooo… a Mac. I’ve got to go!
I don’t believe it, Dvorak envoked Godwin’s law!
SN you are wrong about the greenhouse gases. There are 6 main greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is number one and CO2 is numbet two. However, tallwookie, these are the major components and the manmade ones are further down the list. They are only relevant in that a wealthy businessman could Captain Planet style, decide to wreck the entire global warming debate by single handedly increasing emissions more than Kyoto could cut them.
Oops, that was J not tallwookie. To clarify, CO2 is measured in parts per million while methane and nitrous oxide are in parts per billion, and the man made ones tend to be in parts per TRILLION.
61. “SN you are wrong about the greenhouse gases. There are 6 main greenhouse gases, of which water vapor is number one and CO2 is numbet two.”
I mentioned five up above. What’s the sixth? And btw, it’s not my burden to prove there are any greenhouse gases. I’m the skeptic in this group.
Just to back up a bit, J claimed that there were “several manmade greenhouse” gases. Because he failed to tell me what those “several manmade” gases are, I found that aforementioned list of five.
It appears to me that if there are man made greenhouse gases, they must be insignificant as they are measured in parts per trillion and the fact that I cannot find any information about them. Maybe you can illuminate me and tell me what they are. Thanks.