 Man Made Global Warming Denier |
Strassel: The Climate Change Climate Change – WSJ.com — This is disappointing a lot of people. Perhaps this trend is a plot by the oil companies. Personally when I started hearing that ALL scientists are in agreement and everyone should shut their traps, I got immediately suspicious. How does that work especially with a new theory that cropped up in 1988 and was then popularized by Al Gore, a know-nothing politico. Then the smear campaign seemed odd.
Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations with an assist from the media, did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who disagreed with them as “deniers.” The backlash has brought the scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and even, if less reported, the U.S.
The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. .. Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak “frankly” of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming “the worst scientific scandal in history.” Norway’s Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the “new religion.” A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton’s Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists’ open letter.)
Found by Justin Vincent, et al.
So which industry big wigs are behind the ‘resurgence’ of the scepticism? You know there’s money behind this, don’t you? How is the average schmoe supposed to believe anything in this debate when it seems to be such a vested financial interest on both sides?
The whole debate is bogus. Why don’t be just stop polluting to the best of our ability’s and properly manage natural resources, and find out what happens?
Gore needs to find a happy place. Maybe he wouldn’t mind signing up to go into Biosphere 3 for the next 40 years to do some thorough pseudo-scientific research. Maybe some aliens from zeta-reticuli will contact him or some Scientologist, who knows. In the meantime, I just hope we don’t get attacked by Godzilla before his great message, An Inconvenient Sequel, can be heard.
What a year it has been! And now, scientists are denying the world is ending?? Gee, just when the fun is starting…
“Global Warming is just a theory.”
Theories are hunches that can be proved or disprove, thru scientific testing. Anything that can’t stand such a test, ISN’T a theory at all. So just like Evolution. Such unprovable Hypothesis are mislabeled as theories, in order to convince the unschooled public that they have more weight of certainty behind them than they truly do. A consensus of scientists, that some hypothesis is very likely true, is not a scientific certainty that it’s a theory, let alone a fact. But crackpot PHDs like Carl Sagan often insisted that Evolution was a proven fact. Mainly because his PBS Tv series depended on its unquestioned acceptance. Which is to say, he stood to get paid more for it. Which is the case of many of these things, including Global Warming. They’ve skipped over even classifying it as a theory. And moved straight onto declaring it a fact. Thus the vulgar and unscientific use of the “denier” label. Classifying any doubters as akin to Holocaust deniers. Clearly this is religious and emotional tactics, being employed by persons who claim to be above that sort of thing. Which clearly they are not. So how can their word be trusted, when employ such a double standard, to win their case?
All of this political support (D. vs. R.) for Global Warming legislation is very similar of how Prohibition was enacted early in the last century. It was used as a political football, to further the careers of the politicians who backed it. But it was just another pseudo-religious crackpot cause. That some self aspiring “reformer” got into her head, that drink was the cause of all man’s evils.
Largely compromised from the start. Prohibition eventually fell apart and was repealed. It’s now an embarrassing blot on the US Constitution. The only act to ever be repealed (so far). If that was the worst to happen, it wouldn’t be so tragic. But prohibition lead to killing, organized crime, and probably much of the drug trafficking we have today.
So, do we need another wreckless “act” to force the world into yet another experiment of reform, over very shaky science, whose proponents claim we can’t even risk the time to question it, we must act now?!! This is how fanatics talk their followers into becoming suicide bombers, you know. I’m just sayin.
Compared to the mass of the earth, I think we
are just a pimple on the chickens (earths) ass.
I do not think we are capable of producing the
massive changes predicted. That does not mean
that they aren’t going to happen as some point however due to natural uncontrollable
causes.
#34 Sorry, but the broad “theory” of Biological Evolution has withstood every scientific test applied, as has gravitation, and relativity. How do you think we “Breed” cattle and dogs to obtain favorable traits in the offspring, for goodness sake? I have read the 12,000 pages Darwin wrote. Have you?
Perhaps if you understood how science worked, you would understand more about it. Global Warming, however, is not a Theory but more of a political football. Sure, the temperatures are varying, the debate here is the direction and the cause. I agree with the dissenters on this one.
North America has an abundance of coal. So naturally, that what these G.W. fanatics want the everyone to stop using. Not Oil! The will still be pumped and burned. The fanatics only despise what North America (US and Canada) has the most of. Clearly its an economically driven plan to shift the world from coal to more oil use. And some nuclear power too. But that’s tiny by comparison. So they’ve taken to demonizing coal the world over.
If America had had the largest production of Nuclear materials, that too would have been demonized. Because the US doesn’t condone most monopolies, within its borders. So the international traders in such energy commodities prefer the use of something that’s more monopolized by a few nations, that aren’t so democratic. Like Oil.
So the fanatics want the US to give up using, and exporting, its most abundant energy resource (Coal). Simply because the said fanatics have paid a load of so-called scientists and statesmen off, to proclaim its use will lead to environmental disaster. Of course, they’ve no concern at all about throwing the world into economic disaster, by stopping the use of coal. And not just in America, where it may be possible without too much hardship. But also in developing countries, who could sorely use coal to generate enough power to bring them into the 20th century. Thus upsetting the balance of dictatorial powers many of them are subject to. People with reliable lighting, heating, and clean water, often get uppity. And they might even get start demanding higher pay for their labors. So you can see how coal use, could eventually screw up the current cheap labor market, that international bankers and investors, depend on.
Some people won’t believe anything they can’t understand or can’t percieve with their own senses, that proves exactly what!?
The fact that climate change may not be man made, does that mean we should just ignore it?
Is it really possible for people to believe that it’s just a liberal plot to take away their precious money in taxes?
As I said before, it won’t make a bit of difference, when an intense CME wipes out most planetary technological infrastructure 21 december 2012.
After that I’m sure I’ll miss reading all this wordy discourse.
“Compared to the mass of the earth, I think we
are just a pimple on the chickens (earths) ass.”
Perhaps a better analogy would be that humans are like two knats on an elephant’s back, presuming to effect the beast’s journey. Be careful fellow knats, the beast might be listening.
# 34 Glenn E. said, “Theories are hunches that can be proved or disprove[d]…”
A little nit to pick. Theories are not hunches. That’s an hypothesis – the precursor to a theory. Theories are thought out mentally and experimentally and supported by known facts. But not proved or disproved. Disproved they are discarded. Proved they are no longer theories but laws.
{26 Tindell – Personally unless you are an expert in this field an have seen both arguments you cant really know}
Not true. I hold a doctorate in a science but know nothing much about meteorology. But, I have seen the IPCC report and recognize sloppy science when I see it. Climate change is probably happening. Who/what is responsible is a long way from settled.
Doesn’t matter much as Friday the House will probably pass the biggest tax increase in history based on dodgy science pushed at them by a money hungry walrus who should have received a Nobel prize but for Economics, not Peace. After all he’s invented a whole new economy which will enrich him greatly.
Bitter? Me?
If it were that warm out, wouldn’t this dead horse have dried up by now?!?
Meanwhile.. If you wanna do the math you can..
At present exponential population growth.. How long until we are standing shoulder to shoulder over the face of the earth?
Assuming Unhindered.
#42 ok fair enough and thats the real problem the reality is I just dont know enough about what am talking about however what I do understand is taxes and money well money for the rich elite and this is not a conspriacy its simple certain individuals are obsessed with the accumulation of wealth and at some point dont get the reality check they need and they just screw everybody and what annoys me is we cant do anything about it unless we become the bad guy and change attitudes from within anyway dont be bitter lifes too short just hold out things may change one day.
While very true the earth has warmed and cooled many times in the past, there is always a reason for the trend. Sometimes we have discovered the cause, such as a meteor or large volcano, other times we don’t know.
In this case we can see how our influence on the environment is influencing climate.
#42, Taxes,
I hold a doctorate in a science but know nothing much about meteorology. But, I have seen the IPCC report and recognize sloppy science when I see it. Climate change is probably happening. Who/what is responsible is a long way from settled.
If you did have a doctorate your post should have been a little more professional.
The first thing you would know is the difference between meteorology and climatology. While one might think they are related, they are very different. The second problem is you condem with a broad brush a report without pointing to anythibng specific or contrary.
That would leave me to believe you either do hold a doctorate in something along the lines of Divinity, Scientology, or Basket Weaving, OR you were just fooling us. Either scenareo, you wouldn’t be the first poser on this board.
If you do hold a legitimate doctorate, but it is in an unrelated field, don’t hold yourself up as an expert or offer an expert opinion.
#33 – faxon – And now, scientists are denying the world is ending??
Let me fix that for you…
#37 – Alfred1 – Its absurd to imagine WE affect the weather…all effects are local and soon dispersed…its the way it was designed…the the design is flawless.
And so says the creationist.
#41 String Theory – A little nit to pick. Theories are not hunches. That’s an hypothesis – the precursor to a theory. Theories are thought out mentally and experimentally and supported by known facts. But not proved or disproved. Disproved they are discarded. Proved they are no longer theories but laws.
Good post.
#43 – Pedro – No, you won’t. After the third link, your post will be labeled spam and never see the light of day here.
True. Instant fail.
A few points:
1) Did everyone notice that this is an opinion piece in the WSJ? It has about the level of credibility of a blog.
2) With all due respect to “Joanne Simpson, the world’s first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology”, why must I point out every single time anyone discusses anything about climatology that one of the fields of science that has absolutely nothing to do with climatology is meteorology.
She may be a brilliant weather forecaster. She is a lay person in climatology.
3) “Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N.” Oh, Inhofe found 700 scientists? What sciences? Are they related to climatology at all? How many are practicing climatologists? Why do those who discount Al Gore listen to Inhofe whose credentials are identical to Gore’s, both being U.S. Senators and non-climatologists? Surely those who discount Gore and have any self-respect at all must equally dismiss Inhofe.
Meanwhile, back in the science, it appears that those who claim to be skeptics rather than deniers have not pointed their skeptical eye at the fact that the hockey stick has been shown to be real.
I posted this on another thread recently, though late in the game, and no one answered it. Let’s see if getting it in earlier this time sparks some discussion, or dare I say it, actual thought.
Here’s an article about the vindication of the hockey stick graph by a panel of experts.
http://tinyurl.com/n444w7
(splitting post to avoid being flagged)
(continued from my prior post)
Here’s a good wikipedia overview of the controversy on this one out of a great many peer reviewed publications on the subject.
http://tinyurl.com/m3x4eb
Note the final paragraph.
So, after all the controversy, the improved dataset still says the same thing as the original statement a decade ago.
Vindicated.
Here’s the full text of the 2008 peer reviewed article with the more robust dataset.
http://tinyurl.com/lxyh3g
Hey … the graph … still looks just like … a hockey stick!!
#52 – Me,
What the hell is tinyurl doing to my wikipedia link??!!? Sorry all. The link to the wikipedia controversy is here. I’m sorry if the link is too long.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy
Oh yes, John, it’s quite the controversy. The percentage of climate-change deniers among climate scientists has risen to nearly .56%!
There are literally more people who believe in elves than there are climate scientists who deny global warming.
This is the Fox news definition of a “controversy”…
#47, ‘dro,3
Whenever I feel pretty hot, I start fantasizing about all those Venezeualan women and I start feeling cooler real quick. Sometimes I get a little nausious too.
#44 – Chris Mac,
At present exponential population growth.. How long until we are standing shoulder to shoulder over the face of the earth?
Assuming Unhindered.
Good question. I don’t know. I did hear at a lecture that at current population growth, in 5,000 years the mass of humans will be greater than the mass of the planet.
Obviously, this can’t happen.
The same would be true at any population growth rate greater than zero except that the time frame would change.
Any positive population growth is, by definition, not sustainable.
Perhaps if we could terraform another planet, we could continue to increase our population. However, rather than proving we can terraform another planet, we are proving that we can’t even keep this one terraformed.
“Since the beginning of time man has yearned to destroy the sun. I will do the next best thing…block it out!”
M. Burns
#56, ‘drro,
Ahahahahahah. Unlike yours that read like an average scientific paper. Good one!
I don’t toss my education out there as “proof” I’m smarter than everyone else. Also when I dismiss something, I give facts whenever possible.
I consider it to be a fact that the science of global warming/climate change is muddier than a larger group of people would like us to believe. I certainly don’t take that to mean that it’s wrong, and I lean the way the scientific community seems to at the moment. I just think that the climate of our planet is affected by far too many complex unknowns for there to be real certainty the way the “popular” perception would have you believe.
What I can’t figure out is this:
Why is it that we can’t all behind most of the “environmental” goals, even if we can’t get behind the science?
Conservation is a no-brainer. It can’t be BETTER to use more energy to do the same tasks. I’m not talking “don’t explore space because we burn lots of fuel to do it” — some things are worth the energy expenditure! But modern CFLs are incadescents, if more complex to use. (If you disagree, try lighting for front porch with the average CFL not designed specifically for cold weather once the temp drops to ten below 0) Beyond that, LED technology will probably be beefed up to be more acceptable in home lighting, and I’m all for that too. More energy efficient appliances, better insulation. (Made from recycled materals? So much the better!) Wind and Solar power seems a no brainer for clean energy at the source of use with no strain on transport systems. Solar doubles as a means of evening out peak demand issues. Geothermal is wonderful in some climates and situations. I’d like to keep seeing exploration into tidal. We should see the value in diversification of our nation’s energy portfolio. I understand the debates on hydro and nuclear, but I think we can mitigate those concerns, and a broadly diversified energy production system means we can choose what’s right for each situation and maybe in some cases we won’t NEED to take on the risks of some options.
Sure we should keep exploring ways to use coal in ways that are safe — It is our most abundant option and maybe someday we’ll be at a point where there’s no other choice to keep up with demand — but why not conserve it where we can? Nonrenewable resources being what they are, our own oil, gas, and coal resources could be considered a long-term strategic asset. Why can’t we all agree that air pollution has a cost and that we should all work to reduce that cost? Why can’t we all agree that even if loss of biodiversity represents something that we might not be able to put a price tag that we all agree on now, we should still avoid causing damage that we can’t undo in case the cost is higher than we think? Yes, there are risk-reward trade-offs, and some rewards are worth risks — but most of the risks we’re taking are just done in the name of convenience and the lack of the vision and political will to make changes.
#60 – Common_Sense,
I consider it to be a fact that the science of global warming/climate change is muddier than a larger group of people would like us to believe.
I agree with your conclusion about environmentalism. So, if I were better at debates, I’d probably let this slide. However, I’m just way too anal-retentive to do so.
“I consider it to be a fact” is semantically equal to “it is my opinion”.
I’m curious why you chose to make your opinion sound like fact when it so clearly isn’t.
Other than that, yes, environmentalism just makes sense for a whole host of reasons. Ocean acidification is a huge one. Desertification is another. Fresh water supply is another. There are no shortage of problems for which environmentalism will, of necessity, be part of the solution.
Of course, for all such problems, human population reduction must also be a tremendous part of the solution. The planet simply can’t support so many people, with or without global warming. With global warming, the problem is orders of magnitude worse.
#61, scott, what I don’t understand is how you and I are in such strong agreement about there being too many people, but you are also such a strong supporter for giving everybody low to no cost access to healthcare, which will only aid people in living even longer.
#61 – Sea Lawyer,
It’s a good point, and one that I’ve been asked before, for obvious reasons.
I support giving people good health care and education and other things that actually do result in lower birth rates.
I want to reduce population by attrition rather than by actively killing off those who are here.
That said, I fear that this will not happen. Collapse is likely imminent. With collapse will come the Great Human Die-Off. I expect 90% mortality within the first decade of whenever the die-off begins. I’d probably expect half the remaining to die over a slightly longer period. Whether any will survive beyond that is beyond me.
Of course, that’s just a guess. And, I won’t be proven wrong in my lifetime because I intend to make sure that if the die-off begins, I’m in the first wave. I can’t survive without modern medical technology and the logistics to get it to my door.
#37
Dang, I had a bonfire/cookout last night.
My bad!
…sorry for the ‘carbon’ offset.