Meteorologists Censored for Speaking Out Against Climate Change Hysteria
10 March 2009
49 Comments
BY: NCVIKING
We are all familiar with the runaway indoctrination train that is anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change; now here is a meteorologist claiming gross and blatant censorship by the media for anyone speaking out against it.
No, really?
Can’t upset The Goracle and his CC minions on their quest for a socialistic Carbon Footprint “tithe” for all the World’s citizens. Or the significant riches to be had by the promoters in perpetuating this Global Warming Climate Change lie.
“The debate, as you also know, is masked by media censorship, bias and distortion.”
- Why Are We Still Listening to Ben Bernanke? - August 31st, 2010
- Favre Returns for One More Year - August 18th, 2010
- Mosque at Ground Zero and the First Amendment - August 18th, 2010
- NFL Predictions 2010 - August 10th, 2010
- Basil Marceaux ... Magnificent! - July 23rd, 2010
This farce of Global Warming is ridiculous. This is all about Socialism, taking from the have’s and give to the have’s not. It amazes me to see Republicans, like McCain and Newt, say we need to do something about it, when there is nothing to fix.
http://franklinslocke.blogspot.com/
Instead of standing on principle, they would rather cave to the wave of hysteria for political expediency.
You guys do know that a meteorologist is to climate scientist as a bank teller is to monetary policy, right? Here are a few things to consider
- the media may have linked current hurricane activity to global warming, but climate scientists have not. What climate scientists have said is that warmer oceans would feed strong hurricanes (a true fact even today)
- the science of global warming is all about the acidification of the oceans and about the about of CO2 and water vapor trapped in the air — items that meteorologists would never measure
- you can label science as socialism, as Franklin Locke does, but then again Franklin Locke sees a socialist under every bed
- if you think about the business model of global warming you will see that the way to lead back to prosperity and beat China in the 21st world dominance is to go green everywhere. I can show you the business model that would drive us right out of this depression
- staying with current oil is short death: limited supplies, and our enemies get all of our money
I’ll debate this with any one at any time
I agree with Mike that
Global WarmingClimate Change is different from meteorology. In fact, most of those who opine on this subject did not study climate, but rather beefed up on it in their spare time. This goes for those believing in man-made catostrophic global warming as well as those against it. No one dismisses St. Al out of hand because he studied Government and nothing to do with Climate, only because he is a Chicken Little using questionable science.The falacy is that there is any “consensus” on this subject at all. Those who believe in “doom and gloom” want people to see only their side of this issue, and dismiss those disagreeing with them as “anti-science” or “holocast deniers”. If anything, there are credible scientists supplying convincing evidence that disproves elements of the global warming doom scenario.
No need to go into all of that here. It is just safe to say that the conversation is not “over” and that there is evidence on both sides.
I’m ready for a little more global warming, sorry, climate change in the midwest.
Funny how recently the term has changed to “Climate Change”. That kind of encompasses everything, right. So, let me get this straight, if we move from season to season, isn’t that “Climate Change”? Now I see why we are spending a gazillion dollars on this subject….
It’s all a big boondoggle to get more and more of our money to throw down the rabbit hole to “research the problem”. How about looking at historical trends? From the research I’ve read recently we might actually be in a cooling trend that has been going on for years. Truth is, we could never ever “ruin” the planet in a million years. To believe this falacy we would have to believe we are actually gods (small g). Don’t think I’m in that category.
Of course, this is just my opinion.
The term Climate Change was never used to refer to seasonal changes – that’s just plain ridiculous. Further, before you decide there are no effects from burning fossil fuels, what about the acidification of lakes in the US, particularly OH through Maine; or of smog in every city.
There are very good economic and globally strategic reasons why you would want to get off oil, never mind just plain old climate change. I’ll explain why below.
The original post and many of the responses refer to tactics of radicals and nut cases that exist in all human activity and debates. Frankly, and I mean this a little tongue-in-cheek, for everyone who has denied this meteorologist there are also those who refer to the other side as St. Al.
This name calling and cries of persecution are a distraction from the issue: is climate change real and will it negatively impact our future?
I doubt the conversation on climate change is over (or “over”) or will ever be over. Someone, somewhere will debate that it hasn’t and won’t happen. Climate change will pass you by like the I 55 has passed by US 66. I doubt that there will ever be consensus, anymore than there is consensus on any other issue. These study-it-some-more are distractions that will place America at a strategic disadvantage.
(I get paid to help companies move from the study-it-again phase.)
There are two reasons to move forward and forget study-it-again: that nation’s economic survival, and the science.
Today, most of the oil we will import is from Canada, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Venezuela, Kuwait, and about 8 other countries. Your money is going to some of our enemies. Every time oil goes up, its a tax on your wallet.
It is also no secret that oil is a scarce resource and will be going up. While the US could find more, or drill off shore, or drill in new places in Alaska, the total expected production is just 3% of our current needs.
You have already paid a substantial price for oil: it went from 99 cents to $4 before it settled back at $2. There is no guarantee that it will stay at $2.
You can ignore this problem, or you can say lets get to clean energy. If the US were to lead in clean energy: solar, wind, thermal, we would provide a way to break the hold of Russia and the Middle East over Europe and the US.
Every indication is that this would be far cheaper than current costs with nuclear power.
Then there is the little matter that the science all points to Climate Change (sorry Rob Smith, post a link to the facts you posted). Try this one for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Change
Still think it’s all just weird socialist mumbo jumbo?
sarcasm? [sahr-kaz-uhm] –noun
1. harsh or bitter derision or irony.
2. a sharply ironical taunt; sneering or cutting remark: a review full of sarcasms.
Just thought I would share the definition with you Mike. Not sure you understand the word.
Oil is plentiful. We have more than enough in the world (and tons in the US – much of it we are barred from drilling due to eco-freeks) to sustain us until we find something else that works as well. Nothing does.
Let’s explore all the great ideas to replace oil, coal and all other fossil fuels. Not for the sake of “climate change” or some other reason, but for economic reasons. I agree, and have for years, that Nuclear is a vital answer to power. If we would have built new plants and expanded 20 years ago things would be much better. That doesn’t solve the oil issue for our wonderful vehicles, but it’s a start on another front.
I’ll reserve my sourcing for my own site and not use Wikipedia for anything – open source changeable sites are not 100% accurate.
“Climate Change” and “Global Warming” are pure cases of socialism. Redistrubting wealth from the populous on spotty theories and suppositions seems like socialism to me, but I’m not a scientist, just part of the populous.
Enjoy the post and the banter though. Good fun.
The US offshore un-drilled oil reserves are estimated to be around 90 billion barrels (BB). The US consumption is approx 7-BB. That is about 12 years of oil, assuming consumption doesn’t rise.
The world consumption will definitely rise and world supplies are estimated at 17 yrs for Russia, 8/9 for the US, 8/9 for Mexico, 70 for Saudi Arabia.
These figures are misleading for a number of reasons. A country only has a certain amount of pumping capacity. If that is increased as countries lose their own reserves, then the resulting years of capacity is significantly diminished.
Innovation, investment, and building markets is as capitalistic as it gets. If you say nothing works, it is only because you have never tried this new technology yourself. It is transformative.
This innovation comes from places like Stanford, MIT, Univ Texas, and others.
Post your references anywhere you like, but do post references to back up your claims. They are outlandish and unsubstantiated.
(Your use of Climate Change as a synonym for seasonal change was neither harsh, bitter, sharp, ironic, sneering, or cutting. It was just plain odd, out of place, incoherent, and ridiculous.) Look all of those up.
OK, not sure you got it and from your post I’ll take it you won’t. I’ll try to speak slower next time I try to use Sarcasm.
Innovation is great, but no one has come up with a better solution than oil. Period. If another energy solution is financially viable it will make it to market, if it’s not, it won’t. Energy companies are not altruistic, they are in business to make a profit. If converting corn to gas is viable, then we’ll have fields of corn instead of oil fields. (The fact that we can’t produce enough corn to be a viable fuel source is irrelevant to this discussion).
If we rely on government to lead us into energy independence, it won’t happen. Most everything our government is involved with is more expensive, takes longer and is grossly inefficient. High praise for those companies that are looking for better solutions but I don’t want to pay for the research. If so, I want a dividend when it pays off!
Ok. Sounds like you still didn’t get it. I’ll try and speak slower next time when using sarcasm. Sorry.
I’m all for other options to get our energy. Fact is that nothing works better than oil. Period. If there is an option out there that is commercially viable, it will be developed. If not, it won’t. If corn can be converted into viable fuel, then we’ll have fields and fields of corn ready for use in our gas tanks (never mind the absurdity of this example). We’ve spent buttloads of money (yes, that’s a unit of measurement – here’s your source – http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Butt%20Load) on this type of production with little to show – except for higher overall per gallon cost and less overall energy production (yet another source for you – http://www.livescience.com/environment/081213-energy-debates-ethanol.html)
If we want the Government to pay for this type of research, I want a dividend when it works out! Fat chance, I know. Anything our government is involved with is too costly, grossly inneficient and will take way too long to make an impact.
You keep trying to talk down with comments like “OK, not sure you got it” and “speak slower.” It gets more ridiculous each time.
Technically speaking, you aren’t speaking and you aren’t doing anything that would convey slower, so it’s totally out of place.
Try facts, verifiable, sound, and to the point will impress the reader (and me).
Of course any new innovation has to be able to be cost effective and be capable of displacing oil. That is where capitalism part comes in. These innovative companies will get a big payoff for their risk or they will lose their investment. We want this innovation. We want to move beyond oil.
You have no way of knowing what technology will displace oil. You cannot say “nothing works better than oil.” Lots of technologies today work better than oil – they just haven’t been placed into mass production, or they don’t have the support system that oil has. Those will come.
Corn is capitalism. It has been tried, producers invested, and if it is too expensive or not sustainable then it will fail. But that doesn’t mean there aren’t other technologies in the pipeline.
I posted where we do have severe limited oil, with or without eco-freaks. I have posted where it makes lots of sense to be out of oil. What we haven’t covered is where historical trends ask you asked prove Climate Change is in progress beyond a reasonable doubt.
Do you still think its all mumbo jumbo?
The hysteria and misinformation regarding Climate Change is rampant and the whole movement has been entirely politicized. It has become a religion, and in some extreme cases so kooky that it rivals eugenics. Science no longer applies, faith in the so-called consensus rules.
The conclusion of warming due to C02 was debunked right out of the gate with the IPCC’s own data, showing an 800 year lag between increases in warming and subsequent CO2 levels. In other words, core samples didn’t show C02 causing warming but warming caused increases in CO2. The Goracle made an arse of himself using this in An Inconvenient Truth, yet wins a Nobel Peace Prize, Oscar, Grammy, etc. I am belaboring this point because it is essential to the movements major flaws.
Energy conservation and best practices to protect our resources and the environment we live are noble, proper and good policy, except in any case of human detriment. The problem with Climate Change hysteria is that CO2 nonsense has completely taken over the green movement, absorbing all research resources for some faulty predetermined conclusion.
I am in absolute agreement that alternative energy sources must be discovered for strategic, economic and national security reasons. No question. But an overblown, contested and flawed scientific theory on CO2 is not a means to an end. Neither is taxing industry to death for that matter. National security, economic prosperity and the health of our environment is. The free market is already getting green, like in the building industry with USGBC/LEED programs and many others. Wasting time, money and valuable government resources on CO2 sequestering is foolish.
I agree with NCViking on this. This is not an all-or-nothing situation. We don’t have to either make love to oil or cuddle with Green policies. We can do both (in other words, have a balanced approach). Reducing dependencies on foreign oil is good for many reasons, including reducing polution, but the man-made, catastrophic, doom-saying global warming scenarios are as silly as the man-made, catastrophic, doom-saying global cooling of the 1970’s. Were they wrong then, or are they wrong now? Remember, these were the genius scientists at the time… and they had great ideas to fix the planet from doom then.
IMHO, it is arrogance that leads us to believe that any change of temperature different from what baby boomers experienced in their youth is abnormal and dangerous, that we have the ability to doom the planet by this minor change, or that a 10-year period of time in our planet’s history is indicative of all future trends. Climate change doomsayers ignore history.
The difference between today’s nut and yesterday’s nut is that yesterday’s nut wore a sign that said “the end is near”. Today’s nut uses a powerpoint presentation.
Still pushing the name calling by using “Goracle.” Nice touch.
If you happen to think that scientists study Global Warming per se with a single minded fanatical conclusion (all paying homage to a single political force), then you just don’t understand how basic science is funded.
It is a farce to state or conclude all labs around the world are politicized in one direction. It is an attempt to discredit all research as politics based without looking at the merits of the science.
It is also asking the readers to accept that no labs or scientists, that no one in the Nobel committee has scruples. According to you, it is yet another apparently world-wide conspiracy. Oh, please.
Basic science is funded to gather data. Data gathering, such as at Greenland, Antarctica, Siberia, etc.. just gathers basic data. It is theory independent. Data gathered is published (especially if it is a DOE study). Scientists look at it and recommend other collaborative data gathering projects. Eventually you have a complete picture.
Scientists may have a secret agenda, but the debate among scientists is designed to make sure a theory is proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Debate is the primary method used to keep them honest.
On to the science,
The problem with Climate Change is not the temperature – it is the acidification of the oceans. When the entire CC issue was raised, a search began to find data in the geological record of past temperatures, CO2, solar and volcanic activity. They found that while in the past CO2 may have trailed temperature rises, today we have CO2 rising without the traditional mechanisms. The producer of CO2 in the past was volcanic activity; today it is fossil fuels, and it coincides too well with the Industrial Revolution.
You cannot ignore current facts. The search is on for the cause, and human activity has been judged as the cause by the IPCC and Nobel committees, to name a few.
There is a very long timeline of global temperatures, ice ages, and CO2, and there is indeed an 800 year gap (actually 600-1000 years) between temperatures rising and CO2 levels rising. There is also a correlation between solar activity and temperatures. Earth orbital changes or solar activity obviously has the ability to increase or decrease our temperature.
What would produce this CO2? Certainly volcanic activity, probably some very large forest fires, and maybe temperatures mix with methane and other trapped chemicals to produce CO2. CO2 in the past was a natural phenomena.
Coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, CO2 has been rising above all previously recorded levels. We have been pumping CO2 at record levels into the atmosphere and it has been mixing with the oceans, creating the acidification effect. Some models predict that CO2 can raise temperatures by trapping sunlight. That mechanism has been working on planets like Venus and Jupiter. If it existed on Mars it might have made Mars habitable.
This chart http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Climate_Change_Attribution.png is the basis of the current debate. The question is how to find the current source of warming. Nobody has been able to prove that this warming trend is solar activity, or planetary motion.
The level of CO2 has been acidifying the oceans, which is leading to the destruction of eco systems. Scientists cannot ignore these facts.
So now it’s about acidification of the oceans, not global warming, or cooling – it’s cooled over the last 10 years, or ice age as it was in the 70’s … no ‘climate change’, er, melting ice caps, wait not melting, getting thicker in Antarctica. Tornadoes? Nope, a warmer planet would ensure extreme air masses colliding causing twisters would be less frequent. Hurricane activity due to warm oceans? Nope, Ocean has a multi-century temperature memory (aka centuries ago something happened to make the oceans warmer today). Polar bears? No Canadians say population is up. Ocean levels? Nope. Wait … new victim of the month? The movement is badly crumbling, and I have documented this here in the blog often. Fact is that this hysteria has cried wolf too many times rendering potential issues like the oceans getting more acidic to just another potential false alarm. And what the heck could we do about it anyway? Dismantle civilization and move back to the trees, only to later realize it was some tectonic shift deep in the ocean that released a vast previously sequestered pocket of trapped CO2? Yes, forgive me for being very skeptical (and sarcastic).
To say that Climate Change CO2 is not politicized is just plain wrong. I have documented case after case after case in this blog alone of it, including (but not limited to) CO2 Cartoon Monsters indoctrinating our children, to crazy theories linking GW to everything including kidney stones! The IPCC is also political in spades, there are scores of reports documenting this. And yes, Nobel is tainted by giving The Goracle (again, being sarcastic) a prize. I reported here on how a judge in England mandated classrooms showing AICT correct 9 blaring errors in the movie. He was being conservative, there are quite a few more. It’s not worthy of any prize except for greatest work of fiction.
I am going to repeat something I have posted many times here that I feel sums it up:
It is massively arrogant and ignorant to think that:
1. Man has a total understanding of our climate (or oceans for that matter) to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet to catastrophe;
2. Man has the enormous power and understanding to prevent this huge, complex planet’s warming, cooling or next ice age for that matter; and
3. If Man commits trillions of dollars in an effort to reduce his collective CO2 footprint there will be a perfect, consistent climate for all creatures to enjoy. Yeah, right.
Oh and what the models conveniently fail to include is that we were warming out of a ‘Little Ice Age’ that started around the 13th century and ended in the middle of the 19th century. Before this Ice Age, Vikings farmed in Greenland, easily navigating the now impassable waterways. Ever been to London? Look at the street signs. This vineyard, that vineyard. Why? It was a booming wine country back before the Little Ice Age – warmer than today. Was it Roman horse flatulence that was warming the planet to catastrophe back then? (More sarcasm, sorry)
AND I never called it a world-wide conspiracy. I have described it as a runaway train.
There are crazies on all sides. For every child indoctrinator there is a blogger calling out the “Goracle world wide conspiracy”. Does everyone have to shut up before you will accept that there is no conspiracy, or is there a conspirator under every bed?
I doubt climate change is a “movement” and I doubt that the science will crumble away. Maybe to you the Nobel committee is all about politics – never mind the peer review rigor. According to you, they are all in a world wide socialist conspiracy.
Ocean acidification is not “So now it’s about acidification of the oceans…” It was always a well understood threat of climate change. But coming like it does in your response, I had an “ah ha” moment – you don’t really fully understand the mechanics or impact. If you had been, it wouldn’t be news. Here is an article from 2005 and I am sure I can locate many more going way back http://royalsociety.org/news.asp?latest=1&id=3250.
You failed to answer basic questions I asked in my last post. I wonder if you do have any fact based answers.
The central question is where is all of the CO2 in the atmosphere coming from? Scientists looked and they analyzed the contributions of everything from cows to volcanoes. They concluded it was human activity. It coincides too neatly with the rise in industrial production.
CO2 has always trapped sunlight. A simple High School experiment can demonstrate that, and the data can be interpolated to show what amount is trapped at what concentrations. It is made even more potent because it traps water vapor.
Several outcomes are visible – even noted by outstanding Republicans. The polar cap is melting, the ocean levels are rising, the coral reef is absorbing CO2, and the ocean is acidifying (in measurable degrees). It all will have an impact on ocean life, and with it everything up the food chain.
It is impossible to get good science, and therefore make good decisions, by following the CC debate on the media, specifically on different media outlets that reprint the press release of the day.
You love to put words in my mouth. Not a conspiracy, a runaway train.
Anthropogenic CO2 Climate Change Hysteria is a political movement, no question. Increased CO2 having an impact on anything is theoretical and continually debunked, and revised and debunked and revised, etc. Debate is on going. The only people being told to “shut up” as you put it are ones who are skeptical. They are told it is settled science, the debate is over, and are ostracized by their peers, by the media, by people like you for not agreeing.
I assume your continued diversion to ocean acidification means you agree that warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emission is debunked? Here is an interesting video, part 1/4.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI … just using the ice core data all scientists have. Nothing unusual at all in the period we are in. Also a good composite article: http://www.northstarwriters.com/ct136.htm
This is why I am saying ’so now it is ocean acidification?’ Scientists have a lousy track record with this. I remain skeptical. And why worry about Ocean Acidification when fish poop takes care of everything? http://www.columbian.com/article/20090115/APA/901151397 Please.
To the one question in your reply, No, CO2 emission is not debunked. Not by far. Ocean acidification is caused by anthropogenic (human) CO2 emissions. One goes with the other and more than proves that CO2 is a causal effect.
My point is one that even Dr Carter agrees with: that CO2 are way above any recorded data throughout geological history. So I ask you again where does the CO2 come from? What happens when it is absorbed by the oceans?
You include me (or at least people like me) for “ostracizing (skeptics) … by the media, by people like you for not agreeing.”
This forum is a sort of peer review where hard questions are asked, like where is your data and how does it justify your conclusion. No one is asking you to remain quiet.
Peer review publications are the only trusted source for scientific information. Dr Carter’s slides that you quote are not peer reviewed. My link below is from a peer review scientist. The peer review system demands that difficult questions be asked of any conclusion before it is published.
So, no, I do not buy your contention that debunkers are “ostracized” (to quotes you). What are ostracized is bunk science. It applies equally to both proponents and detractors of any position.
You also know, but chose to ignore (or promote the false theory) of a single minded monolith media, a favorite target of conservatives. The media is not a monolith.
For every NY Times there is a WSJ. For every SF Gate there is a NY Post. It is an open, free flow market of information – far from the “shut up” hysteria/ run away train that you are pushing. The open press allows anyone with a point of view to be publish and be heard.
The links you posted all aim at Global Warming. Reading the IPCC, the report predicts that temperatures would rise. That rise would be greatest at the poles. See about 21:37 in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2T4UF_Rmlio&feature=related. Note also that the scientific community has been studying GW or CC since the mid 1960s.
You can dismiss temperature raising as a natural phenomena. Maybe its an Earth wabble or the Sun warming. The video link you posted from Dr Carter makes the point that we’ve been warm before.
Yet debunkers conveniently ignore several points:
- CO2 is higher than at any time before in recorded geological history
- CO2 is increasing every day due to human activity
- CO2 has shown destructive environmental effects
Is it your view that CO2 can continue rising for ever without any effect? What is your collaborative evidence?
I did want to separately address the rampant misinformation about climate change. There is. The sources are many
- the media, whether favorable or not doesn’t always get it right.
- the researchers often can’t explain it in a way that the general public can understand it.
- it easily becomes all about temperature and polar bears dying.
- sensationalism in the press is just out of control both on the left and on the right.
- worse than sensationalism is outright manipulation of the facts. It happens on all sides of the political spectrum, many times very intentionally.
- nut cases are all around us, so it just gets worse.
- the debate is often, but not always, politically motivated by all sides.
- You and I are not, by trade, climatologists or even scientists (I presume not in your case). So our debate has to be to drag proxies.
- unfortunately, which proxies? Their science may not be very good. Could we tell? I doubt we could.
- so our debate is about the framework of the debate: who to trust, who is corrupt, who is out of control.
- we could probably understand this topic better and provide a service to readers if we made this more of a discussion rather than debate (or debate for political points).
Didn’t ask that. I asked if you agree that warming due to anthropogenic CO2 emission is debunked? Your statement provides nothing proved. It is impossible to relate the two unless science knows 100% of the ocean floor and has verified every single pocket of sequestered CO2 under the whole entire ocean. So acidification of the oceans due to anthropogenic CO2 is a theory only.
This is absolutely false. http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
You are right; there has been no ostracism, as defined, by you in this comment string.
Wrong. The only truly trusted source for science is measurable facts. Not predictions and computer models. Dr. Carter is simply presenting the Greenland Ice Core Data. Same data used by the IPCC.
Yes, skeptics are ostracized. http://www.akdart.com/warming5.html
They have also been accused of being akin to holocaust deniers. http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/02/09/no_change_in_political_climate/
I’ve never called the media a monolith. I have generalized it on occasion as the mainstream media, but nothing is absolute. http://www.chomsky.info/articles/199710–.htm
I have called the movement of anthropogenic CO2 Global Warming or Climate Change a runaway train. Also, here is one blaring example of “shut up” tactics by followers of the movement. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528
False.
Hypothesis only.
Hypothesis only. It has certainly proven to have positive effects as greenhouse managers pump it in to get plants to grow larger and healthier.
No. My view is that I am unsure.
My view is that scientists have proven time and time again to be wrong. Wrong on the predicted ice age in the 1970’s; wrong on predictions at the turn of the millennium of temperature increases today (it has cooled); misleading on cause and effect of CO2 and warming; on and on. Scientists are not gods, they are fallible when it comes to predictions. Going off of your planetary analogy on an earlier comment, every time science sends up a probe to discover something related to the solar system they discover that previous theories were wrong. This is good, as Dr. Carter rightly points out that science is not about consensus, science is about (continually) testing hypotheses. When scientists or a political group like the IPCC say that a theory or hypothesis based upon models and predictions is settled science, or that debate is over, be wary.
My view is that scientists in this area have a pretty poor track record so I am skeptical of new ‘sky is falling’ hypotheses based upon this theory.
My view is that it is not settled science. No theory can be. Be wary when anything in science is treated as such.
My view is that it is massively arrogant and ignorant to think that:
1. Man has a total understanding of our climate (or oceans for that matter) to be sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet to catastrophe and/or that acid levels in the ocean is due to human activity and not another cause;
2. Man has the enormous power and understanding to prevent this huge, complex planet’s warming, cooling or next ice age for that matter; and
3. If Man commits trillions of dollars in an effort to reduce his collective CO2 footprint there will be a perfect, consistent climate for all creatures to enjoy.
I have supported my views with a large amount of references in this blog and in these comments as evidence of my view point.
Agreed
Agreed, whether right or wrong.
To the detriment of future ones that may or may not be true. It cries wolf.
Agreed, in many instances.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Agreed, except in this comment stream or in the case of Dr. Carter who prefaces his presentation with “I have no axe to grind … I am an agnostic when it comes to human-caused global warming”
I like the debate to verifiable facts and theory. Like the ice core data is a verifiable fact from the lab. Analysis of it is subjective. Theories and predictions using it along with other limited data for modeling have proven fallible, and is very subjective. Right or wrong.
I don’t see the politics in our debate, unless you consider my occasional sarcasm to be (which is only used for emphasis), or your occasional assumption of my opinions based upon my conservative political views.
Either way, good stuff for readers.
As far as I am concerned, ocean acidification is a visible, measurable fact, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080522181511.htm, and for teh science and consequences http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification.
So is the melting of the ice caps and recession of glaciers http://www.awitness.org/journal/melt_ice_cap_glacier.html.
There is also the perception of cooling of average temperatures in the last 10 years, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/. The data points are all within the noise margin so long term trends are impossible for the trend.
You were right to point out CO2 levels in geological time were higher, but to refine it a bit, I sincerely meant since the end of the great lizards (and the rise of mammals), or a geological time of 65 million years. I was trying to distinguish between some of debunker studies that go back 30,000 years (to the last ice age).
The chart you provided shows that when CO2 was much, much higher, mean temperatures were also much, much higher. Only lizards and sea life could survive.
The O2 levels are produced by plant life, and until the rise of plants and forests, CO2 could not be dissipated.
Some conclusions are that CO2 pumping into the atmosphere is bad, as is the corresponding and rapid acceleration of deforestation. As a consequence of these conclusions one cannot definitely say that CO2 is bunk. We can measure that it has been on the rise. CO2 production comes, in large part, from fossil fuels.
We do not have to understand “100% ocean floor and every corner of it” to decide that ocean acidification is due to CO2. All that is needed is to locate several random spots and measure CO2 levels and its consequence, calcification. At any one spot you could argue things like volcanoes or river run offs.
I bet that there are places in the ocean that are CO2 free, just as there are places that have higher than expected concentrations. It’s all due to wind, rain, and runoff.
Last item, you and I use terms like “skeptics are ostracized” and persecuted differently. That there are people here and there that feel sufficiently self righteous to ostracize and persecute I have no doubt. I read your comments as I think you have intended it, that they are ostracize and persecute by responsible and mainstream researchers. That’s the part that hasn’t been proven and one which I very much doubt exists.
My point was linking it to global warming due to anthropogenic CO2 is theory. I have also seen it where most sea life will parish by 2050 due to this. More alarmism or true? My bet is on alarmism since these theories have proven suspect.
You tell me. http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
Interesting, thanks for making my point on predictions.
Yet the temperature models are well within historical cycles, as pointed out by Dr. Carter in the ice core data.
We don’t know that.
Is that a problem?
But is it a problem? CC hysterics says yes and that it is warming the planet to catastrophe. Not true. You have pointed out that it is acidifying the oceans. Maybe.
So we don’t need to understand where all of the CO2 in the ocean may be coming from, when in the past there were many acidification events from natural events? My point was that you cannot conclude this as fact. It is a theory.
Yes, it is happening. http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=865dbe39-802a-23ad-4949-ee9098538277&Issue_id
I do not accept Sen Inhofe as independent and unbiased. There is no accounting of whom was denied and for what reason. The article is suspect and until you can find a credible scientist who was denied you have no case (only a sort of hysteria on the right).
If you want more evidence of how Inhofe earned this distrust, read
Inhofe Recycles Long Debunked Denier Talking Points.
I’ll quote it briefly (this appears part way into the article):
Inhofe’s Office claims “More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims.”
Yet the vast majority of those names are simply repeated from a 2007 list that was widely debunked, see Inhofe recycles unscientific attacks on global warming” and here and here and here. Let me repeat what I wrote at the time.
“Padded” would be an extremely generous description of this list of “prominent scientists.” Some would use the word “laughable.” For instance, since when have economists, who are pervasive on this list, become scientists, and why should we care what they think about climate science?
I’m not certain a dozen on the list would qualify as “prominent scientists,” and many of those, like Freeman Dyson — a theoretical physicist — have no expertise in climate science whatsoever. I have previously debunked his spurious and uninformed claims, although I’m not sure why one has to debunk someone who seriously pushed the idea of creating a rocket ship powered by detonating nuclear bombs! Seriously. read more…
The first thing that struck me when I viewed Dr Carter’s presentation was that the sarcasm. Presentations from deeply professional sources are, well, professional. They are free of scorn and sarcasm. In fact, the first rule when someone is putting out more bull than fact is the reliance on sarcasm to fill in the gaps when logic and facts would fail. It is a form of deflection.
This blog and many of the posts here are thick on sarcasm. Draw your own conclusions as to how it is received.
I can respect scientists don’t know everything or of being skeptical.
An independent inquiring mind could come to the following reasoned conclusion with teh evidence that is not under dispute (it is satellite measure, independently verified by NOAA ships)
- you can measure the ph factor of the ocean at random points
- you can measure the change in the ph factor day by day, and year over year. The data shows it is increasing.
- so you basically can see that ph changes are largely even and additive over the years
- the possible sources are volcanoes, fissures (sea or land), and CO2 absorption. River outflows would produce local and observable variations.
- compute the ability for a volume of ocean to absorb CO2 and then compare the available CO2 with the observed absorption. The numbers are as expected.
- to not believe that you would have to find an alternative plausible explanation.
I am sure you still won’t believe it, but at some point some science has to make sense. It does to many people.
Many other studies can be found in the excellent debunking website, Skeptical Science:
- Ammann 2007: “Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century.”
- Foukal 2006 concludes “The variations measured from spacecraft since 1978 are too small to have contributed appreciably to accelerated global warming over the past 30 years.”
- Usoskin 2005 conclude “during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source.”
- Stott 2003 increased climate model sensitivity to solar forcing and still found “most warming over the last 50 yr is likely to have been caused by increases in greenhouse gases.”
- Solanki 2003 concludes “the Sun has contributed less than 30% of the global warming since 1970.”
- Lean 1999 concludes “it is unlikely that Sun-climate relationships can account for much of the warming since 1970?.
- Waple 1999 finds “little evidence to suggest that changes in irradiance are having a large impact on the current warming trend.”
- Frolich 1998 concludes “solar radiative output trends contributed little of the 0.2°C increase in the global mean surface temperature in the past decade.”
Regarding Inhofe, it’s irrelevant whether you accept him or not. There is evidence of a letter from the President of the American Council on Renewable Energy outright threatening a skeptic with destruction of his career.
Sarcasm in this blog on occassion is used for emphasis and humor (just like Dr. Carter was doing). Almost all OpEders or presenters do this to hold interest and illustrate points. Belittling the content of this blog with offhanded innuendo does not assist your arguments.
The measured data you show is incomplete. Gaps are filled in with modeling and assumptions, which make it fallible. The scientific community has a lousy track record regarding CO2-AGW. They have cried wolf too many times. Are they doing it again? Maybe, maybe not. You believe they are not. I am unsure.
Please accept this comment about sarcasm as not a reflection of your blog: we both agree that Dr Carter uses sarcasm, which in his case makes his presentations unprofessional. It dilutes his message.
My comment about how “draw your own conclusions as to how [sarcasm] is received” was definitely not innuendo. Innuendo demands subtlety. It is also not news, as I have called it out before.
Facts hold interest, intriguing questions illustrate a point, sarcasm is a deflection mechanism.
As far as Marlo Lewis being threatened, that is a distraction. We have agreed that there are nut cases everywhere. The sphere of influence of ACORE is very limited. It is not NASA, not the government, not even Inhofe. It is about equivalent to the debate on this blog. The fact that it is on Inhofe’s site is more damaging to Inhofe reputation as impartial.
Note that Marlo Lewis is not a scientist, so how is the science of debunking affected by this threat? None.
Your comment says “Gaps are filled in with modeling and assumptions, which make it fallible. The scientific community has a lousy track record regarding CO2-AGW. They have cried wolf too many times.”
Actually, no. No models are necessary for the analysis I presented. The scientific community doesn’t have a lousy track record: they predicted the melting of the ice caps and rise of oceans.
The bigger question is whether they will continue to be right in the future. You are well aware of the hockey stick in CO2. How much longer do you believe we should keep pumping CO2 into the atmosphere?
Another million years? Another thousand years? Just another couple of centuries? Just another 50 years? How long?
I believe it enhances it.
You were indirectly implying deflection of facts and bull in this blog and in our comments. It was not constructive. I accept your reaction from your last comment.
No. Sarcasm, as I have defined our use of it here, and Dr. Carter’s, is for emphasis and humor to hold interest and illustrate points. Facts can be very boring presented without some lightheartedness.
Is this a new question? My original comment that started your argument on this point was:
The only people being told to “shut up” as you put it are ones who are skeptical. They are told it is settled science, the debate is over, and are ostracized by their peers, by the media, by people like you for not agreeing.
This is not limited to scientists. This is systemic, whether one group is taking the high road or not on the issue. I have given example after example of ostracism up to and including the nature of the post this string is based upon. Further, policy that affects you and me is not enacted by scientists.
The ice caps are not melting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKLiHWRaJU4&eurl=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/&feature=player_embedded
Sea levels are not rising: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils-Axel_M%C3%B6rner
Scientists are all over the place. It is far from settled and alarmism in most cases has proven unjustified.
This is the problem. Credibility. Cry wolf too many times, you lose it. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/media_credibility_not_ice_caps_1.html
Or continue to be wrong and we spend trillions of dollars trying to fix nothing and possibly (in our arrogance and ignorance) create a big problem, where there was none there to begin with.
Oh, and I am aware of the Hokey Stick (sarcasm). It was debunked. Actually, the nature on how it came to be and how it was debunked or not, or so, makes a great point. http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2008/8/11/caspar-and-the-jesus-paper.html
I am not sure what the red/purple blob was in the polar-ice-cap video link you posted. It didn’t mean anything.
However, you can view satellite photos for the last 20 years
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7T7beACtQs that shows a separate trend. It is only notable because the polar ice cap has not receded as far since we’ve been watching it (say 100 yrs or so).
It isn’t just the ice cap, it’s glaciers, etc…
Whatever your thoughts about the benefit and wisdom of sarcasm in presentations, you need only go to a few scientific ones to realize that professionals provide professional presentations. Sarcasm is not used; humor is. We’ll let readers draw their own conclusions about the enhancement and entertainment value.
Sarcasm is by its nature a personal attack as it is derisive of the person and idea being presented without providing a substantive basis.
I don’t think using Goracle enhanced or entertained your argument, if you needed an example. Just my opinion.
You said the ice caps were melting. The video is of enhanced satellite images of the arctic ice sheet from August 2007 (red) to August 2008 (purple). The colors were used so the viewer can see the difference. It got bigger last year.
Now it’s glaciers? Glaciers grow, melt, move … it’s their nature. The arctic ebbs and flows, ice has been more plentiful in the past, and also less so, like when Vikings could easily navigate the waters.
I love The Goracle one, primarily because the website is so hilarious. http://www.goracle.org.
Glacier receding has always been part of the observed global warming. They aren’t just contracting and expanding.
Polar ice cap trend from 1979 – 2007, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hgvNO_WT9o&feature=related.
A better picture of 2008 is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXhcKyYOb9Y&NR=1.
It is important that it increased from 2007, but it is impossible to draw any long term conclusions. Maybe we’ll go back to the ice shown in 1979 slide in the next 25 years.
Looks like it ebbs and flows quite a bit, moving all over the pole from season to season, and year to year. But what is the optimum ice coverage at the north pole? 25 years ago? Today? Last Year? The 25 year average lowest? During the Little Ice Age? During the Medieval Warm Period (Vikings)? Can there be an optimum and be constant? Will the ice be gone? Is the lessening over the last century and beginning of this one simply natural cycle, or the beginning of catastrophe? Is the expansion of 2008 good news or bad?
It is arrogant and ignorant for mankind to be definitive about any of this. It’s much too complex of a system, we are very limited in information and the earth keeps proving us wrong. Heck, the Titanic was an unsinkable ship, right? Icebergs told us no. But we are so much smarter now then back in 1912. They said the exact same thing of folks a century before them.
If I may interupt…
I have made this point thousands of times, on this blog and others, in conversations and in typed notes…
What is the correct temperature/climate for Earth? Let’s face it, we know for a fact that there were ice ages. We also know there have been warming periods. During these times, there were no SUVs, and no factories spewing wicked CO2.
If this was the case, what was the ideal climate? If the temperature is increasing, so what? Unless the average surface temperature of the Earth gets up another 30 or so degrees, we are probably more than safe. In fact, there has been quite a bit of scientific support that rising temperature would actually be better and save lives.
Forgive me for not documenting, but I don’t care as much as you two, but feel free to look it up… it is out there.
Either way, I am right even if Mike implied earlier that I was over using quotes in my reply. I think that was a wee bit of sarcasm on his part.
So destructive… must dismiss all his responses.
GW and CC proponents have been around since the 1950s. The models then predicted the caps, CO2 rise, etc… Is it bad or is it good? There are winners and losers.
Is it withing predicted models? So far it is worse than predicted models.
Is is arrogant, ignorant? Hardly ignorant. As humans we process information. If we see a child crossing the street into the path of an oncoming traffic, is it arrogant to predict or to intervene?
There are some basic computations that give you specific answers. For example, you can take all of the usable land and the average yield from agriculture to compute how many people this will feed. It’s not science, it’s math.
You can then start to make intelligent guesses about future food production, future population growth, and decide at what point do we need to make difficult decisions.
Similarly, you can take the CO2 growth to population ratio in the last 200 years and compute the CO2 say at 2050 or 2100. That CO2 has to go somewhere: plants, ocean, hand in the atmosphere.
You can then take a look at the heat absorption factor for the ocean, atmosphere, etc… These will give you a handle on the problem. It’s math, not even science.
Is growth going to go negative anytime soon?
One answer is to innovate in terms of pollution. Imagine if we could burn more efficiently, or reduce CO2, or burn less of it. For example, high compression coal. Or bind it with an agent that could produce Nitrogen to fuel crops.
If we get out of the deny/accept mode and focus on things we can agree upon, such as math, it would build a much better future.
(my career: getting people to move to the next step)
I am sure there are elements here on which we both could agree, and in which we both could agree about the future direction.
It’s not like looking at oncoming traffic, this would imply that it is obvious, which it is not. It is debatable.
Here’s a better analogy:
It is more like looking at a parked car. We know the car is there. We know it can be used to transport us (good) or run us over (bad).
Do we cross the road? We know in the past it has moved. And in the past it has sat idle.
Is it dangerous? Not sure. If it sits there, no. If it runs toward us yes.
Do we stop what we are doing, use 20 out of the 40 dollars in our pockets to buy a grenade and bomb the car because it might? What if we just destroyed our only mode of future transportation?
If it were me, I’d rather keep the 40 bucks and cross the road.
I don’t think math is debatable.
By math, I meant my examples on CO2 and population, not this price shopping on grenades.
Math can be only as good as it’s data imputs; used in this case to forecast with limited information. There is nothing basic about the earth’s climate and oceans. We are not even close to fully understanding these incredibly complex systems. It is arrogant to believe we do (settled science, no more debate) and ignorant of us to act using fallible theories.
The analogy’s use of money was provided to illustrate society and governments spending trillions upon trillions to solve a problem that may not even be there.
The math question was not about modeling complex systems. It was about knowing when you have to make difficult decisions. It has nothing whatever to do with science, settled or otherwise.
ALL OF US have a responsibility to find a way to make intelligent choices about complex systems. Finding by when we have to make a decision is probably the most important decision we can make – it doesn’t matter whether we are right, center, or left.
The time to make a decision may be near or far, so we’d like to know how much time we have for debate and what is at risk if we continue debating. I bet that we can, together, can decide what matters and what doesn’t.
So, how do we make intelligent decisions about complex matters?
- variables and outcomes have uncertainties. It is one thing to say A results in B, it is quite another to say A has a 90% chance of causing B.
- the mathematics of uncertainty has been developed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It is the basis for insurance and bonds.
- find out what you know and don’t know. If data is not matching projections, then you know that something is missing. Find the missing data.
- attach weights to data. If something causes a lot of damage and something causes minimal damage, or if something is huge and other variables contribute small effects, attach weights to decide what to pay attention to.
- find the rates of change in the data that matters most.
- find what is at risk if we don’t decide.
- find the furthest out date that you can make a decision.
- make some cost projections about deciding early versus deciding later.
What you get from this type of analysis is a risk factor and a % certainty. Different scientists are very likely to attach different weights to data, so the spread of data can also be computed.
For large spreads of data, something no one ever talks about in popular GW debate (they do in real science), we can find a system for refining the spread.
I sincerely doubt that your concerns over GW science is all about politics. The above analysis can help everyone better understand the decision time frames and risks involved.
How can one possibly make a good risk assessment and decision with such grossly inadequate information? Or when people being relied upon to provide risk analysis are in disagreement?
Bottom line, we do not understand nearly enough about the earth’s climate and oceans to make decisions that will affect us in such potentially dramatic ways.
It is your assessment that data is grossly inadequate. You have no basis to make that judgment. If the data was actually grossly inadequate, then I would bet that Dr Carter would have called it out.
If there is inadequate information, then it is our responsibility to find out what we know and what we don’t. The issue of GW should not rest in limbo. It should settled, one way or another.
To keep it in limbo is really irresponsible to our and future generations. It is playing football with facts. I doubt you would approve or endorse that as a course of action.
Bottom line, we need to find out what we do understand completely enough to make decisions and what we cannot ever find out. It is not as if we don’t know anything at all. We may understand 80% for all you know. You cannot tell me because we have not made the type of uncertainty analysis I described.
It is grossly inadequate. Science is split on this. Further investigation is a pragmatic and thoughtful course of action when the stakes are so high. Hysterics is not.
I am sure it is unintentional, but to say that the scientific community is split and that all of the data is grossly inadequate is nonsense, at best.
- No scientist on either side of the debate questions the data or the quality of the data being collected.
- To say split obscures the actual facts. Is science split 80/20, or 90/10, or 50/50? Very few qualified scientists have come out against GW. To be accurate you should say 90/10 are split, in favor of GW (or whatever the percentages are).
- The debate isn’t going to come to a he-said/they-said stand still. To remain engaged in the debate, to draw the other party to your point of view, you have to find a way to evaluate the data. Debunkers have provided their interpretation without much qualification. That’s a big reason why they are sidelined.
- To remain in the debate they must take a proactive leadership role. If they are right, their viewpoint will be borne out by the weighing of the information, by the careful analysis.
- Even something like determining the time frame by when tough decisions should be made would yield significant benefits to debunkers.
Your position on this, the no, never, no way, inadequate, can’t, won’t answers are a dead end. Others will be engaged in the debate and will come to conclusions. I am beginning to believe this is more politics than science for you.
I am not injecting politics into this other than pointing out that the movement is political. I did not say the quality of the data being collected is bad. It is inadequate or insufficient to draw a definitive and actionable decision that can affect us all so profoundly. And yes the scientific community is split on this as thousands are coming out against it. This should not be ignored for expediency.
This pretty much discredits everything you (and possibly all other GW debunkers) have to say about science.
Climate scientists have drawn their conclusions. They believe their data is adequate and have staked their reputations on it. That’s a pretty good endorsement. The answer is, it was good enough for science.
That said, science is about debate. There is no science without debate. One person postulates a mechanism to explain nature and everyone else tries to find holes with it.
If a prominent scientist was able to put a hoe in GW, then we’d all hear about their research findings. That never materialized. Draw your own conclusions.
Thousands? Inhofe, who would know, couldn’t find a list of qualified 700, but some how you have thousands. I doubt it. All you need is a few qualified scientists. Find them. Apparently Carter is not treated as one. I don’t doubt it because his presentations lacked the profession rigor.
I provided a way for everyone to come together. Rather than pursue the possibility of better understanding the problem you chose to drive the political agenda part.
It’s not science that you are interested in, it’s politics.
I don’t understand how pointing out that CO2-AGW has been politicized discredits anything. To dismiss skeptics or my arguments because of making this point is a reach and quite frankly, makes no sense.
It sure has and is growing.
By coming together, do you mean by moving past debate to action? This is trying to understand the problem better? Dismissing rapidly growing skepticism? Subjectively dismissing Dr. Carter because he presented lab-tested data (used by the IPCC) and used sarcasm? Data that clearly shows nothing is happening out of the ordinary?
Go ahead and Google “Global Warming Skeptics” and have at it. I am not interested in sending any more evidence up for it to be subjectively dismissed – my argument stands on it’s merit. Nor am I willing to banter this any further now that your argument has evolved into profiling me in an attempt to make a point.
Besides, we are probably both tired of repeating ourselves. The readers can decide.
I read your post as the debunker movement is a political movement. GW science is about science, not politics. I am not interested in the he-said/they-said politics.
Rapidly growing? A bit of up-selling there. It’s not the numbers of people but the value of the scientific facts.
The GW debate needs to be solved by finding a way to understand the facts and by when we have to make intelligent decisions. This issue will not be debated into infinity. By coming together I suggested a path where both skeptics and proponents could weight the data and assess the their importance and long term implications.
I dismissed Dr Carter because his conclusions are invalid and incomplete. His message is highly diluted as unprofessional by his reliance on sarcasm.
The Dangers of Global Warming Reporting In The Press
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXaruC4vJCU
Standford University
Trackbacks
Cap and Trade to Stop ‘CO2 Monsters’ Will Cost Trillions | The Great Illuminator
A Civil Heretic’s Take on Global Warming | The Great Illuminator
Leave your response!
Our Growing Debt
Countdown Timer
in 26 months, 0 weeks, 3 days, 0 hours, 29 minutes, 12 seconds
Latest Illuminations
Subscribe to Posts
Categories
Authors
Archives
Center Links
Conservative Links
Great Forums
Liberal Links
The Great Illuminator
Most Commented
Tags