Global Warming Op-Ed

[Proteas]

-------------------

Are you afraid? Very afraid?

Well, if you aren’t, you should be. And if you are, you aren’t scared enough.

In just over a week, we are about to be treated to yet another Cassandra-style warning about the “fate of the earth,” this time from the International Panel on Climate Change.

It has become part of the background noise in our daily lives: the constant refrain that the world is rushing headlong into certain doom.

A doom, that is, that you will suffer unless you hand control of the economy and your daily lives over to the very elite that is warning of the impending disaster: the media, the left-leaning political class, and academics. As long as we surrender to the tender mercies of their magnanimity and good will, all might yet be well with the world.

When I was growing up, the crisis was the population bomb. The exponential growth in human population was inevitably leading us all into a bleak future of death, disease, and mass starvation. "The battle to feed all of humanity is over. In the 1970s and 1980s hundreds of millions of people will starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. At this late date nothing can prevent a substantial increase in the world death rate..." wrote Paul Ehrlich.

Of course the population bomb blew up in Ehrlich’s face, and now most major countries in the developed world are faced with the economic problem of population decline and increasing obesity, not mass starvation.

But being wrong hasn’t stopped the doomsayers. There is always something to be very afraid of. In the 70’s it was Global Cooling, “limits to growth,” the energy crisis, and the yellow peril of Japanese economic expansion; in the 80’s it was nuclear power, nuclear war, nuclear winter, Alar on our apples, and the conversion of the middle-class into a vast cadre of homeless people; in the 90’s we were introduced to global warming, genetically modified foods invading nature, and the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” These days worries center on global climate change, the bird flu, and peak oil.

The evidence for anthropogenic climate change (man-made global warming to you and me) is said to be “overwhelming” and “irrefutable” in the copious amount of pre-publication press the new IPCC report is garnering.

Well, count me among the skeptical few.

It’s not that I know for certain that the IPCC is selling snake oil this time, because I don’t. In fact, I have no doubt that a number of brilliant scientists without a particular axe to grind are concerned about possible human-induced global climate change, and have been involved in researching the issue.

It’s just that the IPCC’s existence and funding are wholly dependent upon there being a “crisis,” and they have established a terrible track record in their previous 3 reports that should make all of us especially skeptical. In their last report they prominently featured the compelling “hockey stick” graph of global temperature over time. The graph showed a stable global climate for the past 1000 years, until men started to really muck it up in the 20th Century.

It made for a compelling visual—much as Paul Ehrlich’s demonstration that we were headed to certain doom in the 70’s and 80’s—but it was inconveniently and ridiculously wrong. The centerpiece of the 3rd IPCC report, it is now as thoroughly discredited as Ehrlich’s predictions of mass starvation. What makes this particular case of bad science was not only how obviously wrong it was (did no climate scientists notice the lack of the Medieval Warm Period or the Little Ice Age in the graph?), but how prominently promoted it was as “proof” of human-induced climate change.

That certainly doesn’t mean that the current IPCC report will be as flawed, but it certainly opens up room for more than a little doubt about whether the proof presented should “shock the world” into action, as the Chairman hopes.

The common denominator of all these recent predictions of doom is that we are told that there is only one way to prevent certain disaster: hand over our individual freedoms and control of the economy to a political elite. In the 60’s and 70’s Ehrlich suggested compulsory population control (a suggestion taken up by China), luxury taxes on cribs and products aimed at children, and the establishment of a government bureaucracy called the Federal Bureau of Population and Environment.

More recently we have seen proposals for carbon taxes, subsidies to favored technologies such as “alternative fuels,” stepped up urban planning to promote population density, forced recycling and greater and greater government control of the economy through taxes and subsidies in general. The content of the predictions themselves is irrelevant, the general solution is always the same: hand control of politics and the economy over to an elite who know what is good for us, and they will save you from yourselves.

In other words, hand money, power and fame to the few and they will reward you with your lives. Pretty much the same deal that feudal lords gave their serfs.

The prophesies of doom and gloom are just another version of a political and intellectual elite grasping for power. And of that, I would say, you should be very afraid.
David Strom is the President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidStrom /2007/01/25/are_you_afraid_yet

----------------------

Normally, this is the point in the topic where I would rant and rave on whether I agree or disagree with the author of the story. But I can't, there's not a damn thing I disagree with in the op-ed! Is there a global warming problem? I don't doubt it, but it kind of bothers me that there are hardly ever stories on the news that might show to contrary. But that's "Objective Journalism" for you I guess...

[Boltrig]

Well thats what you get. I want to refrain from using the phrase "uneducated masses" so instead ill just call them moronic. You put an idea into their heads and if it catches, feed them more of it. People got wind of this global warming thing, and its now a massive issue, with ever increasing coverage of the up to the minute doom we are descending into.

[random8982]

I personally believe that Global Warming exists, and that is a very real thing. I don't know when it's effects are going to be irreversable, or when we're even going to start to feel effects from it. For all I know, it's happening right now and I don't even know it. All I have to go off of is what all these 'experts' are projecting and publishing in their articles and notes and what the media is taking and contorting from them. 30 years seems to be a round number that is accepted as the P.N.R. and in order to prevent that, we need to do it now and blah blah blah, etc etc etc.

What I'm more interested in is the cause of the unusual weather patterns around the world (The United States for example...when was the last time New Mexico got this much snow and New England got nothing??) I really doubt that huge amounts of snow in the southwestern portion of the United States is caused by warming. What needs to be figured out is the bizarre weather patterns because if there is a massive climate change in a place where we have, say, rain forests, then reprocussions on the world could be pretty intense.

[Sentio]

It's true that the evidence against global warming is very rarely mentioned by the media, and it most certainly does exist. I've mentioned this in a few topic recently, but anyone interested in the counter view on global warming should read Michael Crichton's book 'State of Fear'.

This book takes the opposite stand point and has references from journals and studies throughout showing evidence against global warming. On top of that it is also a very good read and a great piece of story writing.

I personally am not decided either way, although there is a lot of evidence to suggest that industrial growth and carbon emissions are causing a great deal of the weather changes observed in recent years so we certainly should be looking at cutting down fuel emissions. Whether these changes are all linked in with a general warming of the atmosphere and planet as a whole I am not sure about- according to most theories Northern Europe is likely to suffer an ice age due to disruption in the Gulf Stream for example.

[stafffighter]

At 1/26/07 02:40 PM, Proteas wrote:

----------------------

Normally, this is the point in the topic where I would rant and rave on whether I agree or disagree with the author of the story. But I can't, there's not a damn thing I disagree with in the op-ed! Is there a global warming problem? I don't doubt it, but it kind of bothers me that there are hardly ever stories on the news that might show to contrary. But that's "Objective Journalism" for you I guess...

Would that come before or after the report that shows no health risks from smoking? There comes a point where the truth of an issue is undeniable and global warming seems to have finally reached that point.

[TheMason]

At 1/26/07 05:51 PM, stafffighter wrote: Would that come before or after the report that shows no health risks from smoking? There comes a point where the truth of an issue is undeniable and global warming seems to have finally reached that point.

It will become undeniable when there is a study produced by climatologists that does not need to be "tuned" in order to bring computer generated models and simulations in line with the observable reality, a tuning which adjusts the original model's predictions by magnitudes of up to 50%. Don't forget the graphs that are based upon incomplete and unreliable data. Give me real science, not hysteria...

[random8982]

At 1/26/07 05:51 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Would that come before or after the report that shows no health risks from smoking? There comes a point where the truth of an issue is undeniable and global warming seems to have finally reached that point.

I think the evidence behind global warming is about as reliable as evolution. It's not complete. Just because the evidence isn't all there, doesn't mean it isn't true though.

And on another note, thank you to proteas for getting rid of the spam problem. You've saved millions of brain cells X-D

[Sentio]

At 1/26/07 07:28 PM, random8982 wrote:

I think the evidence behind global warming is about as reliable as evolution. It's not complete. Just because the evidence isn't all there, doesn't mean it isn't true though.

And on another note, thank you to proteas for getting rid of the spam problem. You've saved millions of brain cells X-D

Actually the evidence for evolution is vastly more convincing than that for global warming. The fact is that the main science behind evolution is widely accepted as fact, with only the details around the edges still under question. for example scientists aren't sure how big an influence natural selection is compared to neutral selection, but there is no doubt that both occur.

Global warming on the other hand has evidence in favour as well as plenty of evidence against it. For example there are a number of glaciers that are actually growing rather than receding (the media never mentions these). Much of the data taken showing rising temperatures is taken from cities as well, which is down more to increasing population and industry than carbon emissions. Rural areas throughout the states are actually getting colder in many places.

The media is not to be trusted- they simply show the data that produces the best story. If you want to find out the truth you need to read scientific journals etc. as they have genuine data.

Like I said, there is data that provides evidence for global warming, and by no means am I saying it does not exist. It just isn't as clear cut as the media would have you believe.

[MortifiedPenguins]

I think our society just really doesn't care anymore.

I mean, whats going to happen.

20 feet of raised water, Europes ecosystems will be screwed up, animal and nature will be damaged.

Nothing Americans really care about.

I think we have been desensitised to it by being countlessly told that doom will be coming.

[stafffighter]

At 1/26/07 09:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote: I think our society just really doesn't care anymore.

I mean, whats going to happen.

20 feet of raised water, Europes ecosystems will be screwed up, animal and nature will be damaged.

Nothing Americans really care about.

There is that part about Florida dissapearing and apartments in New York being only slightly harder to find.

[supkill47]

Personnaly, I firmly believe in global warming. I live in a small town of Quebec, QC, for those who don't know, we had a average temperature of SIX degres celsius for December. Some of the scientist are pointing El Nino but I don't think it can explain it all. I think the real problem is not wether the problem is thrue or not, it is about the media coverage it his getting. Media is using desinformation for age, it is just the time that we figure it out. They use their power over the population to get the most money out of us. No matter how.

[TheMason]

You know I saw on CNN last night a story about how a school district in Washington (the state) has banned Al Gore's An Inconvient Truth from its science coursework because it would have to also cover alternative theories. It also brought up the National Science Foundation's decision not to endorse the film for classroom use.

Also for the bit about Europe disappearing, there were dire predictions for radically rising sea levels by 2000...they were off by like 300%...

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/26/07 10:16 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 1/26/07 09:28 PM, MortifiedPenguins wrote:

There is that part about Florida dissapearing and apartments in New York being only slightly harder to find.

No one really likes Florida as long as Disney World is still there.

And besides, there will just be more of coastal apartments available.

It's a win win situation.

[stafffighter]

At 1/27/07 06:15 AM, TheMason wrote: You know I saw on CNN last night a story about how a school district in Washington (the state) has banned Al Gore's An Inconvient Truth from its science coursework because it would have to also cover alternative theories.

Are these the same laws that make them present alternatives to evolution?

[Begoner]

At 1/26/07 02:40 PM, Proteas wrote: Is there a global warming problem? I don't doubt it, but it kind of bothers me that there are hardly ever stories on the news that might show to contrary. But that's "Objective Journalism" for you I guess...

Does gravity exist? I don't doubt it. However, it bothers me that there are hardly any stories on the news that might provide opinions to the contrary. Just once, I'd like to see somebody say that God is responsible for moving two objects together with a force equivalent to the product of their masses divided by the square of the distance between them. But I guess that's "objective journalism" for you.

Speaking of objective journalism, how come I never heard anything about Saddam not having WMDs on the news? Or about there being no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Of course journalists are not objective; they are hired by obscenely rich, conservative men with a political ax to grind; if even the right-wing mainstream news does not dare dispute global warming, that is simply incontrovertible proof that it exists.

[Draconias]

At 1/27/07 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote: Does gravity exist?

Sorry, but your analogy is invalid. Gravity is a direct, easily measurable force that acts according to understanble mathematical laws. Global Warming, on the other hand, is a relative state in a chaotic system with billions of variables, an unknown level of natural variation, unknown buffering effects, unknown consequences except in the truly extreme, unknown repercussions from those consequences, and is virtually impossible to predict with any accuracy over either the long or short term.

The two aren't at all similar.

Speaking of objective journalism, how come I never heard anything about Saddam not having WMDs on the news? Or about there being no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda?

Were you listening? The news sure as hell went on about that for awhile. How do you think you got the idea that anyone even claimed Saddam / AQ links and WMDs was the sole goal? By the way, Saddam DID have some WMDs we've dfiscovered-- they just weren't the nukes we were expecting.

[Begoner]

At 1/27/07 07:07 PM, Draconias wrote: The two aren't at all similar.

Note that I wasn't talking about the effects of global warming; I was simply stating that it is a phenomenon which does exist and does contribute to the heating up our planet. It is not a complex theory; some of the sun's rays which pass through our atmosphere are not emitted back into space due to greenhouse gases which stop them from leaving the system. This does not depend on chaos theory, nor does it depend on billions of variables. On the other hand, exactly what will happen and when is anybody's guess at this point, although scientific models have reached a consensus of sorts. However, that is not what I was referring to.

Were you listening? The news sure as hell went on about that for awhile.

Sure, but a couple of years too late.

[AdamRice]

I have a question.

So if the earth gets warmer, will evaporation of the water in Earth's oceans displace enough to lessen the effects of rising sea levels? Like if we assume that warmer temperatures cause more evaporation, will that evaporation act as a variable that downplays the amount sea levels rise? (Serious question, I have no idea)

Hrmmm, it's too bad there isn't some way we could just forcefully remove all the excess water that would cause sea levels to rise. Like damn all that extra water into space.

[JudgeDredd]

The reason we should take Climate Change or Global Warming seriously is not because it may or not be happening, or may or not be man-made, or may or not flood certain cities, but because if it does happen, then we will face a runnaway scenario, and that's serious!
.

And evidence shows we ARE reaching a tipping point. Take increasing permafrost methane release for example.

At 1/27/07 10:36 PM, AdamRice wrote: I have a question.

So if the earth gets warmer, will evaporation of the water in Earth's oceans displace enough to lessen the effects of rising sea levels? Like if we assume that warmer temperatures cause more evaporation, will that evaporation act as a variable that downplays the amount sea levels rise? (Serious question, I have no idea)

disclaimer: I'm no scientist, but here's my layman's understanding..

When something absorbs light it absorbs the light's energy as heat. Touch a white car or a black car in the sun, and you'll find the black car is much hotter compared to the white one. The black car absorbs the light, while the white one is reflecting it. Ice and snow has the same effect, reflecting nearly all the light's energy.

With blue oceans more of the high energy light (redness) is absorbed than gets reflected, but the oceans are a flat surface area, and reflection still occurs, and the light goes back towards space whence it came (that's why we can see the pretty blue Earth from space).

When evaporation occurs water vapor (tiny particles) float in the fine mist we see as clouds.
Now clouds are white and so potentially they relfect more light out to space than blue oceans. The problem here is, the white we see as clouds is refracted light (not reflected light) because the particles are not a flat surface, but send the light in all directions. So we are actually seeing is white clouds because of this. Water vapor that refracts light in a vapor cloud will basically trap and absorb most of the light as energy. As the air and water vapor heat up they gain energy, and that enery an cause powerful storms.

So as has been said, water vaper too has a greenhouse effect, but not as bad as certain gases and other polutants. The additional water vapor caused by evaporation won't offset rising oceans, but will just redistribute that water in a potentially havoc causing way (..floods and landslides, etc).

[Durin413]

At 1/27/07 06:55 PM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/26/07 02:40 PM, Proteas wrote: Is there a global warming problem? I don't doubt it, but it kind of bothers me that there are hardly ever stories on the news that might show to contrary. But that's "Objective Journalism" for you I guess...

Speaking of objective journalism, how come I never heard anything about Saddam not having WMDs on the news? Or about there being no links between Saddam and Al-Qaeda? Of course journalists are not objective; they are hired by obscenely rich, conservative men with a political ax to grind; if even the right-wing mainstream news does not dare dispute global warming, that is simply incontrovertible proof that it exists.

What are you talking about. I have to see that crap all the time (or at least I did, it's kinda died down now). I hope for the day when we find the secret hole that has his weapons, just so we can point and laugh and say haha told ya so that he had WMDs. This would also have the side benefit of getting rid of the thing that people bitch about us going there because of a lie.

[Begoner]

At 1/28/07 01:16 AM, Durin413 wrote: What are you talking about. I have to see that crap all the time (or at least I did, it's kinda died down now).

Unfortunately, it wasn't broadcast until after we had declared war. It wasn't broadcast that Saddam hadn't sought to acquire uranium from Africa since the first war in Iraq; it wasn't stated that Bush's reasons for going to war were not only false, but illegal. No, the media, controlled by corporate interests, failed miserably. Free press -- what a joke.

I hope for the day when we find the secret hole that has his weapons, just so we can point and laugh and say haha told ya so that he had WMDs.

I hope you realize that he didn't have WMDs in 2003 and so that day will never come.

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 10:57 AM, Begoner wrote:

it wasn't stated that Bush's reasons for going to war were not only false, but illegal.

You always say that, yet fail to deliver everytime.

[random8982]

At 1/28/07 10:57 AM, Begoner wrote:

it wasn't stated that Bush's reasons for going to war were not only false, but illegal.

Well...there's not much to say here other than the fact that there aren't any illegal reasons for declaring war. The only thing people look at is whether or not it's moral. You can declare war over just about anything, or even if you just want to blow the shit out of a country. It's the morality if the reason that people care about and could make it 'bad.'

Go back to history class kid.

[Begoner]

At 1/28/07 11:02 AM, random8982 wrote:

At 1/28/07 10:57 AM, Begoner wrote:

it wasn't stated that Bush's reasons for going to war were not only false, but illegal.

Well...there's not much to say here other than the fact that there aren't any illegal reasons for declaring war. The only thing people look at is whether or not it's moral. You can declare war over just about anything, or even if you just want to blow the shit out of a country. It's the morality if the reason that people care about and could make it 'bad.'

Go back to history class kid.

I never stated that a country is physically unable to declare war; I stated that doing so would be illegal. What the hell do you think the Nuremburg Trials were all about? What the leading Nazi generals were found guilty of is exactly what the top American generals are currently guilty of: a crime against the peace (or a war of aggression). Perhaps you are the one who should more closely study international law. We invaded a sovereign nation without the blessing of the UN -- that constitutes a war crime. It's the same thing that people like Dönitz, Raeder, and Speer were found to have committed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_pe ace
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_aggressio n

[random8982]

At 1/28/07 11:12 AM, Begoner wrote:

I never stated that a country is physically unable to declare war; I stated that doing so would be illegal. What the hell do you think the Nuremburg Trials were all about? What the leading Nazi generals were found guilty of is exactly what the top American generals are currently guilty of: a crime against the peace (or a war of aggression). Perhaps you are the one who should more closely study international law. We invaded a sovereign nation without the blessing of the UN -- that constitutes a war crime. It's the same thing that people like Dönitz, Raeder, and Speer were found to have committed.

War Crimes are really only prosecuted on the loser, especially when the crime is 'a war of aggression.' Just because it's written down as a war crime doesn't mean America's generals are going to be prosecuted. Besides, the UN doesn't and won't do anything anyways. They have almost no security powers and only act when the countries within the organization agree upon it.

[Memorize]

At 1/28/07 11:12 AM, Begoner wrote:

We invaded a sovereign nation without the blessing of the UN -- that constitutes a war crime.

Haha, wow, you bring a tear to my eye. First off, do you honestly think anyone is going to take your pathetic opinion of the war seriously? Considering your accusations against soldiers and who you support in the war (haha, you know who, heh).

But, just for the sake of amusement. You keep bringing up these so-called "crimes". So, tell me, if the US committed a crime by going to war, then what about France? Germany? Japan? Britain? And around 40 or so other nations who "backed" us are also part of this war?

[MortifiedPenguins]

At 1/28/07 11:12 AM, Begoner wrote:

At 1/28/07 11:02 AM, random8982 wrote:

At 1/28/07 10:57 AM, Begoner wrote:

What the hell do you think the Nuremburg Trials were all about? What the leading Nazi generals were found guilty of is exactly what the top American generals are currently guilty of: a crime against the peace (or a war of aggression).

Funny, I always though it was about baking millions of jews, gays and gypsies in the ovens.

Perhaps you are the one who should more closely study international law. We invaded a sovereign nation without the blessing of the UN -- that constitutes a war crime. It's the same thing that people like Dönitz, Raeder, and Speer were found to have committed.

"History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
- Winston Churchill

Your so naive Begoner. Look at reality and what the world is.

[JudgeDredd]

woah, quit baiting Begoner.

..........darn, this topic needs a re-boot..........

Ok, assuming high altitude clouds trap light and heat at high altitudes, that heat should escape thru the upper atmosphere into space. This is why major volcanic eruptions (and even nuclear explosions) have a cooling effect on the Earth, because the particles trap the Sun's energy in the upper atmosphere. This is why we hear that an all-out nuclear conflict would result in a nuclear-winter scenario.

Now, not wanting to limit human endeavors in production of and use of energy for transport and industry, etc, should humans find a man-made solution to global warming if it does infact become necessary?

..barring the use nukes of course!

[AdamRice]

At 1/28/07 11:05 PM, JudgeDredd wrote: woah, quit baiting Begoner.

..........darn, this topic needs a re-boot..........

Ok, assuming high altitude clouds trap light and heat at high altitudes, that heat should escape thru the upper atmosphere into space. This is why major volcanic eruptions (and even nuclear explosions) have a cooling effect on the Earth, because the particles trap the Sun's energy in the upper atmosphere. This is why we hear that an all-out nuclear conflict would result in a nuclear-winter scenario.

Now, not wanting to limit human endeavors in production of and use of energy for transport and industry, etc, should humans find a man-made solution to global warming if it does infact become necessary?

..barring the use nukes of course!

No, that's not why volcanos make the earth cooler. The reason why a volcanic erruption causes cooling is because of the large amounts of sulfur dioxide they spew out. The sulfur dioxide reacts with water in the upper troposphere to form sulfuric acid droplets. The sulfuric acid droplets are very shiny and they reflect sunlight back into space. No heat is being trapped in this situation.

In order for light to turn into heat it has to be absorbed by something and then radiated as infrared radiation. When light hits the earth's surface this is exactly what happens. But if the light bounces off a sulfuric acid droplet it is not being absorbed.

You are right about the condensed radionuclei ash from an atomic bomb though. The dust particles absorb light high in the atmosphere. The light never reaches the ground so it doesn't really affect ground temperatures. Instead the light is radiated into heat high in the atmosphere where it can dissipate back into space.
The key thing here is that less light is reaching the earth's surface.

And any ash particles that a volcano spews out would have a similar effect as the nuclear weapon.

So basically your argument is completely valid, you just left out the sulfuric acid droplet thing which plays the largest role in a volcanoes cooling effect.

And this topic is silly, we already know global warming is real. Maybe it won't create the crazy disaster scenarios that some people preach, but let us not assume that it will be harmless.

Even if the Iris effect idea comes into play to moderate temperatures, it could have unexpected backlash effects on agriculture productivity, mold growth, and other variables that might come into play in a foggier environment.

And why hinder the global warming scare? It encourages people to be more conservative with their energy use and pushes along research for renewable alternatives. This could be the pre-push to getting things inline before we wait for an energy crisis to form.

[JudgeDredd]

At 1/29/07 12:13 AM, AdamRice wrote: So basically your argument is completely valid, you just left out the sulfuric acid droplet thing which plays the largest role in a volcanoes cooling effect.

Thanks for that. {link}

And why hinder the global warming scare? It encourages people to be more conservative with their energy use and pushes along research for renewable alternatives.

I'm just pre-emptively out to appease those who will jump in and say we're anti-industry.

What, other than sulfur dioxide production which causes acid-rain, can easily off-set warming, and is still pro-industry, but without harming human health or food production? Most kinds of Global Dimming technique will affect food production, thou certain countries (Africa, Middle East) would greatly benefit from ANY relief from oppressive solar radiation and heat.