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
Crap, it’s all crap and hysteria. no one has been able to predict the temperature to within a degree from day to day let alone years from now. While you freaks are worrying about global warming a metor is going to slam into the planet and wipe us all. I had enough fear and hysteria during the cold war, and I’m sick of it.
OK Jane Fonda – It’s either Nuclear Power or Global Warming. You can’t have it neither way.
If, in the 60’s we had captialized on nuclear technology, that the US invented, rather than listening to conventional wisdom shaped by scientifically unfounded fears promoted by attention seeking celebraties –
then maybe we could have done what the French did with nuclear power to create greater independence from foreign oil.
It would seem what should concern us most is conventional wisdom shaped by scientifically unfounded fears promoted by attention seeking celebraties. That is – being a nation of sheep.
Getting to my favorite debate topic a bit late, but I see that SN has done an excellant job presenting my side of the argument. Just a few more thoughts:
As Steve said, CO2 isn’t a pollutant. As a matter of fact, the every best air pollution control devices use catalytic and thermal treatment to convert hydrocarbons into CO2 and water. CO2 isn’t a toxic, it’s an asphyxiant; it isn’t dangerous to human health unless it displaces oxygen.
While I’m not against developing renewable resouces such as ethanol and biodiesel, people need to understand that these fuels do nothing for the smog in your cities. That car stuck in traffic is going to release the same hydrocarbons whether the fuel source is Exxon or farmer McDonald.
As to the research of global warming: I have read articles that strongly suggest the climate is warming. But the only argument I have seen that suggests the warming is caused by man comes from computer models. Sorry folks, but if computer modeling of a chaotic system is the only evidence linking global warming to man, then there exists no evidence at all.
“chaotic system is the only evidence linking global warming to man, then there exists no evidence at all. ” You totally debunked global warming with this non contradictory statement.
SN
Hey guess what? I lived through it too. It is not that your “experience” is BS. I am all about experiencing things It’s that you are wrong If you review the documents from the 70’s about the issue you will find that it wasn’t the scientific community that was screaming global cooling! global cooling! That was the mass media. If you actually read the research from back then you would know that. The quote that Mr. Ball used from the book by Lowell Ponte is typical of this kind of nonsense. He used a quote from a guy who was a science and heath advisor for Readers Digest, a futurist for a Regan think tank, and is now a radio host. Nowhere in his biography does he say or claim to be a scientist. So why do people keep using quotes from his book and claiming that scientists said this shit. Once again check your memory banks. You are wrong about where you got that impression. Your memory does not override FACT
Here is a small list of just the non ozone depleting greenhouse gasses. There is a list of ozone depleting ones too.
http://tinyurl.com/2omxbd
Some are no longer used but there are still many more than 5 or 6 MAN MADE ones
So once again your insistence that we are only talking about CO2 is absolutely false. I said several but all I needed to due is say more than CO2 and you were wrong. because you said it was “solely about CO2” and it is not. But being the nice guy I am I gave you proof of several even more than the five or six that someone said there are.
About the measured in ppm or ppb argument. Please explain why these so called insignificant amounts are of no concern. I won’t debate the significance because it is clear you have little to no knowledge of atmospheric science based on your “insignificant” statement. You have no idea of scale in regards to the atmosphere and until you do I won’t waist my time debating you on something you don’t even understand.
Don’t play like a gladiator in an arena where your knowledge is “popular science” you will lose.
Wow and I still have that Ace up my sleeve. Well ok I have a whole deck but I haven’t need to use it yet. lol
#66, CO2 isn’t a toxic, it’s an asphyxiant; it isn’t dangerous to human health unless it displaces oxygen.
Very wrong, and a very dangerous comment. CO2 will kill you even though there is still sufficient oxygen present. If the atmospheric concentration of CO2 is too high, the body can not expel it from the blood stream. Concentrations of as little as 1% will cause serious damage and 10% will kill within minutes even with 20%+ oxygen.
Getting tied up with the argument whether something is a pollutant is disingenuous. If it is harmful to the environment then it is a pollutant, regardless of if it is natural or man made. Ammonia, Sulfur Dioxide and Hydrogen Sulphide occur naturally, yet are poisonous to most life.
Many nutritional requirements are toxic to humans and animals alike. Last month there was the California woman who drank herself to death with water. Excessive iron has caused more then one death. Too much Vitamin A has been linked to liver failure.
NOTE: while water vapor may be the most common “green house gas”, it is also the least stable as a gas. It will readily condense and fall back to earth. CO2 doesn’t, it requires absorption by plant matter.
We’ve all heard of blind studies, particularly in medical research, where a test subject doesn’t know what substance he’s being exposed to. And the double-blind study makes the researcher equally ignorant of what substance he’s administering, to avoid differential interaction with test subjects that might skew the results.
Let me propose a third layer of blindness, especially applicable with environmental research. I’d like to see researchers who are completely oblivious to the source of their own funding. This may sound impractical or impossible to achieve, but in theory, it’s a hell of an idea that could significantly improve the quality of scientific research. There are too many actual agendas, and accusations of agendas, that end up giving science a black eye.
And if someone wants to call this the “Marks Method,” I won’t fight the use of my name 😉
#69 — I’ll concede the toxic issue; if you want the concentration to be measured in volume percent, then not much won’t be toxic.
But the only proof that atmospheric CO2 is causing harm comes from computer models. I’m sorry, but these computer models are not proof of anything. And I seriously doubt the credibility (and motivation) of anyone who use such models as proof.
I know there are studies that link higher atmospheric CO2 to pre-historic warm periods However, that evidence isn’t clear whether the higher CO2 caused the warming or the warming caused the higher CO2. It would seem to me that the more logical hypothesis is that the warming caused the higher CO2 concentrations; otherwise, you must first explain how the CO2 levels got so high as to cause global warming.
Cant we just sign a peace treaty with the plants? They can guarantee us the oxygen, and we can guarantee them the carbon dioxide.
There are waaaay more plants than humans, perhaps this is somesort of environmental biological warfare.
SN, sulfur hexaflouride is one, and there are many CFCs that count as greenhouse gases. sulfur hexafluoride is about 20000 times more potent than co2, but it’s appearance in the atmosphere is in parts per trillion.
J, are you really suggesting that it is these manmade chemicals that are heating the atmosphere, and not the CO2?
If the solution involves high density living, driving less and driving smaller vehicles, then it’s worse than the problem.
Big houses, big yards, big road, big vehicles. Anything else, it’s better all life on Earth end.
#73 MikeN
No! I am saying they are a contributing factor. To simply dismiss them is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of atmospheric chemistry and how much of a compound has an effect on our climate. How about if we put a 1 ppb plutonium in your drinking water? Would you be ok with that? If you are then the good things is your ignorance will lead to your timely death. If you have objections to that then maybe you do understand the scale. This isn’t the lottery this is a very complex system that we are fucking with. No one is saying we need to push it in the other direction. All they are saying is we need to stop contributing, as much as possible, to a system that is out of balance. Let it fix itself a little bit.
I was also refuting SN’s comment that it was “solely about CO2” That statement is absolutely wrong.
Just to put things is perspective
There are 1.67 sextillion molecules of H2O in a drop of water.
Now think about how many drops of water are in a gallon. Is anyone starting to understand the scale and how ridiculous it is to just dismiss compounds that don’t have a value that seems big to us?
You cannot deny the law of cause and effect- it’s a law like gravity and is inescapable; if we are spewing enormous quantities of pollutants into the atmosphere, it’s ridiculous to assume that this continual and constant action is not having a major negative effect on our lives simply because we deny that it is. Things are getting hotter and we are a very large part of the problem. Mr. Smith wasn’t kidding when he said “Humans are like a virus…”
J, you’re being silly here. If you have a compound(co2) that is in parts per million, and the others are 1/1000 or 1/1000 of 1/1000 of that, and you focus on those molecules, then you accomplish nothing. The other molecules are insignificant because of the scales, especially the manmade ones. SN is right. It’s all about the CO2. Do you think it’s a coincidence that all of the solutions involve controlling carbon? Yes some of the molecules have higher global warming potentials amplifying their effects, but it si still insignificant.
I am happy at so many intelligent replies to this post.
Also glad that I’m not the only tree hugger.
As a different angle on the older cars – not everyone can afford hybrids – though Toyota has some really nice incentives to clear out the 2006 Prius in stock.
So for older cars – instead of reducing gas intake – a technology to make them cleaner in their output, with simply replacing the muffler & catalytic converter…
IOW, a cleaner old car. Such a system would surely make your car more sluggish, but a hell of a lot cleaner.
Any car over 8 yrs old & +200K miles, the existing catalytic converter is probably useless now.
This article, from 1992, illustrates the problem. http://tinyurl.com/258vfb
Stedman found that on average vehicles in Leicester produced 2.2 per cent of carbon monoxide in their exhaust gases, compared with 1.3 per cent last year. In London, vehicles produced 0.9 per cent of carbon monoxide, compared to 1.5 per cent a year ago.
#77 MikeN
You need to read the Kyoto Protocol. There you will find you are wrong. You see because that “solution” deals with sulphur hexafluoride (SF6), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) and perfluorocarbons (PFCs) as well as CO2.
Before you go saying things that are so erroneous and make yourself look stupid you really should do some research.
Now about the ppm ppb and ppt issue. You obviously have no chemistry or scientific background. Well ether that or you were so poorly educated in it that you make stupid statements like ppb and ppt are in “insignificant” It is now clear to me that you don’t understand the scale or density of the atmosphere. Without this understanding you will continue to say dumb things like “insignificant” when referring to the amount of effect these “insignificant” amounts of man made compounds can have on our climate.
Now. Is CO2 the biggest problem? Yes. Is it the only compound we have to worry about? No! This whole CO2 is all we need to worry bout is a talking point used by the Right Wing so that they can argue that the cause may not be man made. Get off of it! Those of us who actually know what is going on won’t let you distort the issue and lie about the FACTS of the case.
SN
To answer your ridiculous question on #39
Do you really believe that after billions of years of change that the earth’s climate has suddenly become static?
No. This is a strawman argument. Of course it hasn’t . This has no bearing on whether or not we are a contributing factor. According to the data there is direct evidence that our behavior is changing the climate in a negative way. I have a better question for you.
Since you seem to think it is only about CO2 and it could be natural. What is the NATURAL cause of the sudden increase in CO2?
Just to drive by this lengthy thread…
#79
The argument against Global Warming (or at least one of the more logical ones) does not revolve around whether it is happening or even that mankind has had an effect. The core issue (IMO) is how significant is the effect and what can be done. Second hand smoke has an effect; the real question is whether it is significant.
I do not get the sense that the scientific community has consensus on the actual extent of the effect of anthropomorphic climate change nor what to do about it. Kyoto was a prime example. Simply claiming “if we throw money at it and we are wrong then no harm done but if we are right…” is to ignore the fundamental rules of scarcity. If resources are spent chasing a white rabbit, they are not spent on other endeavors like feeding the hungry and getting clean water to those that need it.
John, you said, “As you read this long editorial you find that the professor was threatened with a lawsuit for making his position public.”
Was he? I see nothing in that article that says anything like that. The closest thing is a statement where he said he had his own lawyer review a letter from another professor and his lawyer said that the letter was libelous. But that would be Ball resorting to lawyers (again), not the other way around.
#80 nailed it. There is room to question the relative significance of human activity, and a lot of assumptions are being made by some that humans are entirely responsible. But after all the peer-reviewed papers, no thinking person doubts that global warming is taking place. It’s like the supposed debate about evolution – the serious questions aren’t about whether it’s real. The questions have to do with the processes – rates, mechanisms, and in the case of changing climate, whether there are factors humans can influence (even if it inconveniences business as usual).
And 81 is right, too. Looked to me like the perfesser brought in the lawyers, not the other way around.
In Litigation, lawyers contesting with corporations often try to avoid technical debates since the side with the most money can hire the best and most expert witnesses (the side with the most money wins any technical debate). This is clearly how the “consensus” on global warming has been achieved. And the stakes in this contest are huge; we are talking about global regulation (anti-competitive regulation of production), barriers to entry for small scale bio-energy, taxation of the poor in the OECD and developing nations who wish access to relatively inexpensive Carbon energy, and of course “Carbon Trading”, a mechanism for financial intermediaries to scam billions in transfers of permits and emission rights from the First to the Third World.
This last motivation is very important to understand in context; the slave state China is exempt under Kyoto from production regulation but may create permits. This is a huge subsidy to European joint ventures and Euro-Oil companies aligned with the PRC, e.g. BP-Shell. This is why you’ll find these organizations as charter members of the International Emission Trading Association, and indirectly supporting, and coordinating the distribution of propaganda related to global warming, including Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth-a film distributed and managed by fronts linked to the CFR; itself a front for the BP-Shell consortium. See: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1425249672931646464&q=geo+karras&hl=en
And follow the links there.
Important correction regarding comment 31.
Ball’s address was CHANGED after he was caught, but ONLY on the website that is sympathetic to him.
The letter was published on-line in three reputable sources. Ball was only able to change one of them, after the fact. He changed
Dr. Tim Ball
Professor of Climatology
University of Winnipeg
to
Dr. Tim Ball
Retired Professor of Geography (1971 -1996)
University of Winnipeg
in one copy of the letter (NH Insider). He still has the dates wrong, implying that he was a Professor of Geography when he obtained his BA in 1971, but he might mean that he was “at” the University of Winnipeg then, and perhaps working as an assistant teaching labs or marking.
See
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/moyersonamerica/green/isanewsletter.pdf
See
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_politics/000947bob_ward_comments_on.html
>>>re:
In a September 26, 2006 letter to the Royal Society, Dr. Tim Ball, the leading signatory, identifies himself as “Professor of Climatology, University of Winnipeg.”
Not quite. From 1988 until his retirement in 1996, Dr. Ball was a Professor of Geography at that university. He has not, since, had any official position at U of W or at any university. So, he is not now a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg and, arguably, never was.
but when you go look at the actual letter it says this:
Sincerely,
Dr. Tim Ball
Retired Professor of Geography (1971 -1996)
University of Winnipeg