Sometimes I wonder if "emotional hijacking" means, "this guy looks like he really believes this so I'll dismiss his concerns" to you, Bill, because you're quick to use the term [and you're certain the other guys books are dumb and excited about the one you endorsed, which (per the reviews) said that liberals are crazy and conservatives just didn't go far enough (no other faults to find with our current administration?)]. For me, it's best used when someone baits someone with an opinion and they go nuts on the topic. I'm not sure, for example, that Al Franken is just profiteering off existing worldviews. He appears to really care about his issues, unlike, say, a talk show host who's antigun then gets gun toting guards, or a politician who makes a fuss about responsibility and values and then trades in conflicts of interest and is bought out.
Tellya what, I'll read one of yours if you read one of mine... or you could skip the talking head books and stick to other critiques like "Life in the emerald City" and others I could refer you to.
"Just think we need a lot more science and a lot less oratory."
Agreed, which was my original issue with the blogger who started us all off. The gas-temp-acid math exists and we STILL don't know what it shows, we just have people sounding off about what they think it might show.
"I don't want to believe, I want to know" --Sagan
Global Warming III
Moderator: Available
Just out of curiosity, for those of you who are so dead-set against the idea that human activity contributes to global warming, why are you so certain? To me it looks like there X much evidence supporting that conclusion, and it also looks like some percentage Y of that evidence may not be valid. Even if you think Y = 100%, I'm not sure why you'd conclude the opposite of what X is intended to prove.
Or to put it simply: Why are you so adamant that humans are not contributing to global warming?
Or to put it simply: Why are you so adamant that humans are not contributing to global warming?
I'm not one of those people, but the reason for the reaction is easy enough to understand. It's not merely an academic question for armchair philosophers. The answer to the question has powerful implications on the formation of policy. A time-honored tactic is to declare certain things as facts (which are not established as such) in order to bolster a policy proposal. If you think that's what's going on, that "green" folks are pressing their preconceived agenda and merely trying to capitalize on an ambiguous environmental situation, you might want to force the issue.Valkenar wrote: Or to put it simply: Why are you so adamant that humans are not contributing to global warming?
Mike
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Mike sums it up pretty well.
To some extent, Justin, you're engaging in strawman tactics. However you're not alone so I'm not going to jump all over you about it.
The environmental scientists whose works I have enjoyed reading have not been "dead set against" anything. We do affect our environment; that is a certainty. However the models they have on climate change and the data they have reviewed through history suggest that the "fragile earth" concept is a fabrication designed to keep the grant money coming in. It will however have its champions in certain corners of the environmentalist world.
I was in the academic research environment years back. Even in medicine, they have a fairly striking political bent. Why? Because politics ultimately are a local thing. Researchers in academia live and die by grant money, and said grant money tends to wax and wane with various political administrations. Meanwhile there are many, many commercial research opportunities, although the academic types sometimes consider such results "tainted" by corporate money.
Environmental science wasn't much of a way to make a living as a research professor until the whole man-driven global warming doom-and-gloom theory came about. If you can get government worried about something, then you can convince them to throw more research dollars at it. So research from academic sources may be tainted just as much as corporate research.
I AM a professional researcher. And in my line of work, you need to be pretty good at the "sniff test" or you chase a lot of worthless ideas. This is a fatal flaw in both academic and corporate research. The more I look at the evidence and various theories, the more I see a more robust earth which is affected a lot more by the sun than it is by redistributing a relatively small amount of carbon back to where it came from. Do I expect changes from increasing CO2 levels? Yes. Am I worried? In some ways, not at all. As I see it, there will be winners and losers. And the net may just as likely be positive as it is negative. At the very least, all the greenery in the world is going to love it.
There's also a practical side to all of this. The significant burden of proof here is on the alarmists, and not those who have been pointing to other causes of climate change well before CO2 became a boogeyman. It will take astronomical resources to turn this ocean liner around, and to what end? Latest data show the vast majority of increases in CO2 output coming from China. We can't and won't control that. Changing our economy to a CO2 neutral one isn't going to happen unless our lives depended upon it. And there's no evidence that it does. So even if I believed some of what is being hypothesized - which I don't - my response in the end is a big shrug.
If you want to get me and others excited, then talk about more important things like what we'll do when all the fossil fuels are gone.
- Bill
To some extent, Justin, you're engaging in strawman tactics. However you're not alone so I'm not going to jump all over you about it.
The environmental scientists whose works I have enjoyed reading have not been "dead set against" anything. We do affect our environment; that is a certainty. However the models they have on climate change and the data they have reviewed through history suggest that the "fragile earth" concept is a fabrication designed to keep the grant money coming in. It will however have its champions in certain corners of the environmentalist world.
I was in the academic research environment years back. Even in medicine, they have a fairly striking political bent. Why? Because politics ultimately are a local thing. Researchers in academia live and die by grant money, and said grant money tends to wax and wane with various political administrations. Meanwhile there are many, many commercial research opportunities, although the academic types sometimes consider such results "tainted" by corporate money.
Environmental science wasn't much of a way to make a living as a research professor until the whole man-driven global warming doom-and-gloom theory came about. If you can get government worried about something, then you can convince them to throw more research dollars at it. So research from academic sources may be tainted just as much as corporate research.
I AM a professional researcher. And in my line of work, you need to be pretty good at the "sniff test" or you chase a lot of worthless ideas. This is a fatal flaw in both academic and corporate research. The more I look at the evidence and various theories, the more I see a more robust earth which is affected a lot more by the sun than it is by redistributing a relatively small amount of carbon back to where it came from. Do I expect changes from increasing CO2 levels? Yes. Am I worried? In some ways, not at all. As I see it, there will be winners and losers. And the net may just as likely be positive as it is negative. At the very least, all the greenery in the world is going to love it.
There's also a practical side to all of this. The significant burden of proof here is on the alarmists, and not those who have been pointing to other causes of climate change well before CO2 became a boogeyman. It will take astronomical resources to turn this ocean liner around, and to what end? Latest data show the vast majority of increases in CO2 output coming from China. We can't and won't control that. Changing our economy to a CO2 neutral one isn't going to happen unless our lives depended upon it. And there's no evidence that it does. So even if I believed some of what is being hypothesized - which I don't - my response in the end is a big shrug.
If you want to get me and others excited, then talk about more important things like what we'll do when all the fossil fuels are gone.
- Bill
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Ian
I didn't invent the world "emotional hijacking." It's a common phrase used in the world of emotional intelligence research. If you read some of the works of Goleman, there's plenty on it. And he'll supply neuroanatomical explanations for the phenomenon.
Some of your buttons are more obvious than others. But then I've known you for years.
And all of the pundits who make a living attracting attention to themselves have a style that's easy to recognize if you look for it. It's like watching a puppet show and seeing the person holding the strings rather than the puppet, or watching an action movie and seeing the cinematographic techniques used to create the effect rather than the effect. Ann Coulter wants to pi$$ you off. She makes a lot of money doing that. The same goes for Michael Moore and the people he likes to poke at.
Al Franken is no unbiased party, and he doesn't make himself out to be nonpartisan.
By the way, I merely suggested you read a book. It's an entertaining read, and you could probably get through the book in an afternoon. It is worth mentioning that your characterization of the material is wrong, which is not surprising given that you haven't read it.
- Bill
I didn't invent the world "emotional hijacking." It's a common phrase used in the world of emotional intelligence research. If you read some of the works of Goleman, there's plenty on it. And he'll supply neuroanatomical explanations for the phenomenon.
Some of your buttons are more obvious than others. But then I've known you for years.
And all of the pundits who make a living attracting attention to themselves have a style that's easy to recognize if you look for it. It's like watching a puppet show and seeing the person holding the strings rather than the puppet, or watching an action movie and seeing the cinematographic techniques used to create the effect rather than the effect. Ann Coulter wants to pi$$ you off. She makes a lot of money doing that. The same goes for Michael Moore and the people he likes to poke at.
Al Franken is no unbiased party, and he doesn't make himself out to be nonpartisan.
By the way, I merely suggested you read a book. It's an entertaining read, and you could probably get through the book in an afternoon. It is worth mentioning that your characterization of the material is wrong, which is not surprising given that you haven't read it.
- Bill
Reductio ad absurdum
"Or to put it simply: Why are you so adamant that humans are not contributing to global warming?".
The term "global warming" is really has no meaning in the context determined by the neo-religiosity of the left's focused effort to negate the US, control OUR, not THEIR lives.
The earth, atmosphere, oceans, tectonic plate movements, undersea volcanic activity, methane 'farting' from the earth, including biomass interactions, seasonal and epochal variatons, to name a few variables,etc. [e.g. those nasty cyano-bacteria that procdued that poisonous gas oxygen .. that we now need to live] form, in the words of Norber Wiener, a cybernetic system.
"Heat happens. "
Reductio: Let eliminate all humanity .. will that stop global variations in temperature? Who will volunteer? I know whom I would start with if given the authority - 'Run crazy Al, run". [GRIN +++]
Is it not terrible that our ancestors caused the ending of the last ice age with their SUVs 30,000 years ago?
My dear Dad's dictum: "never argue with a drunk, reason has no effect." LEO's have the best solution, hancuff them, throw them into a holding tank, and then let them sobre up.
In summary, so what if humans are a variable in temperature fluctuations? In my irreverant and now increasing intolerance for mythic thinking stupidity I say
FLUCTUATE THEM! [Grin+++++]
The term "global warming" is really has no meaning in the context determined by the neo-religiosity of the left's focused effort to negate the US, control OUR, not THEIR lives.
The earth, atmosphere, oceans, tectonic plate movements, undersea volcanic activity, methane 'farting' from the earth, including biomass interactions, seasonal and epochal variatons, to name a few variables,etc. [e.g. those nasty cyano-bacteria that procdued that poisonous gas oxygen .. that we now need to live] form, in the words of Norber Wiener, a cybernetic system.
"Heat happens. "
Reductio: Let eliminate all humanity .. will that stop global variations in temperature? Who will volunteer? I know whom I would start with if given the authority - 'Run crazy Al, run". [GRIN +++]
Is it not terrible that our ancestors caused the ending of the last ice age with their SUVs 30,000 years ago?
My dear Dad's dictum: "never argue with a drunk, reason has no effect." LEO's have the best solution, hancuff them, throw them into a holding tank, and then let them sobre up.
In summary, so what if humans are a variable in temperature fluctuations? In my irreverant and now increasing intolerance for mythic thinking stupidity I say
FLUCTUATE THEM! [Grin+++++]
I know you didn't invent the term, Bill; I said I wondered if it was your way to dismiss the views of other people by saying they're hijacked, have buttons, and now, are the puppets of Ann Coulter, it seems (how would she make any $ pissing me off? She makes money telling uniformed people what they want to hear, which is why actual conservatives seem to hate her, too). Instead of responding to my basic point, which is that we all have opinions and like-thinking talking heads, and you're no exception, or respond to my offer to review material from "the other side," you dismiss me as having buttons and BDS, Franken (without reading him) and scold me for dismissing your book (without reading it), after I just wrote he may be a "perfectly upstanding" guy and was willing to read his book.
I don't get it. Or maybe I do--you're a lot more reasonable than O'Reilly, but whenever someone disagrees with his biases in his biased "No Spin Zone," their oppositely biased opinions get (selectively) dismissed.
Meanwhile, while CO2 may not be causing major climate change that justifies major policy change, we could be missing all the other obvious stuff (overpopulation, habitat loss, resource strain) to justify other major policy changes that might not be all that different in the end, eg, when one is running out of gas whether or not the sky is falling, one ought to use more efficient cars or public transportation especially until the air is less brown.
I don't get it. Or maybe I do--you're a lot more reasonable than O'Reilly, but whenever someone disagrees with his biases in his biased "No Spin Zone," their oppositely biased opinions get (selectively) dismissed.
Meanwhile, while CO2 may not be causing major climate change that justifies major policy change, we could be missing all the other obvious stuff (overpopulation, habitat loss, resource strain) to justify other major policy changes that might not be all that different in the end, eg, when one is running out of gas whether or not the sky is falling, one ought to use more efficient cars or public transportation especially until the air is less brown.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Please read part of my response to Justin, Ian.Ian wrote:
Meanwhile, while CO2 may not be causing major climate change that justifies major policy change, we could be missing all the other obvious stuff (overpopulation, habitat loss, resource strain) to justify other major policy changes that might not be all that different in the end, eg, when one is running out of gas whether or not the sky is falling, one ought to use more efficient cars or public transportation especially until the air is less brown.
Here's what I think, Ian. I think the whole global warming thing is a big front. If you prefer stronger words, it's a crock. It is a conclusion in search of evidence and a problem.Bill wrote:
If you want to get me and others excited, then talk about more important things like what we'll do when all the fossil fuels are gone.
I think people want more trees, fewer SUVs, less suburban sprawl, fewer Super Malls and Wal-Marts, less materialism, a land teaming with roaming buffalo, clean rivers and streams, and a simpler life where people play more hide-and-seek and less video games.
This is admirable.
What isn't admirable is creating a crisis over a non-issue, and using that as an excuse to trample on our rights to pursue fortune and OUR OWN vision of happiness - however warped. What isn't admirable is hitting us all in the pocketbook because new age hippies want to force us all to live in their vision of the Promised Land. I'm all for peace, love, lots of "safe" copulation, and maybe a little herb on the side. I like puppies, fish, and baby seals. Hell, I have my own hyper-efficient home on a piece of Eden where I preserve native plants rather than bring in the usual crap that everyone MUST have in their yards. (Do you have living American Chesnut trees on your property?) I hate SUVs just like the next person. I think they are stupid, and the people who drive them are idiots.
But... Keep your &#%$ *@% hands off my bloody wallet. Don't create a Fascist state which forces us all to drive politically correct vehicles while the chosen few live on mansions and ride around in limousines while the paparazzi capture their every burp and domestic spat.
Tell me the truth. Tell me you want a simpler life. Tell me you hate SUVs. Tell me you love trees and wild animals. Tell me you really don't like people that much, or are tired of the trend towards overpopulation. Get me excited about what you want.
Tell me about REAL problems such as the draining of millions of years of irreplaceable stored energy. Convince us all that we need to figure out what the next generation is going to use to heat their homes and run their economies. Talk to me about what al Qaeda does with our oil dollars.
But don't tell me a lie and then tell me it's a reason I must be forced into a lifestyle I may not happen to like. Because when people do that, I respond in two ways. First, I am compelled to shoot the lie down. And second, I point to the emblem on the flag of the state of Virginia. I'm a Jeffersonian at heart; I don't care much for tyrants.
- Bill
"I'm not sure what to make of the first part of your last post, Ian. It's so heavily laden with opinions and mischaracterizations that it really shouldn't be part of this discussion."
You've clearly been hijacked. Your buttons are showing. Come back to the discussion when you can be more objective....
Seriously though:
"Are you going to read Goldberg's book or not? If you do, then you'll understand why I asked you to do so."
Sure, I'll find his book, whether or not you continue to completely ignore the issue I'm raising, which is your blanket dismissal of opinion books you disagree with without reading and your unmitigated enthusiasm for the books that you endorse.
You've asked me to revisit your post on the assumption that I think you aren't aware of other reasons to change policies. Actually, we just happen to agree on that point. So the large part of your last post about creating a false front of global warming to push other agendas... lets just say I'm sure other people will find it helpful but it needn't be written for me.
"But... Keep your &#%$ *@% hands off my bloody wallet. Don't create a Fascist state which forces us all to drive politically correct vehicles while the chosen few live on mansions and ride around in limousines while the paparazzi capture their every burp and domestic spat."
Ok, so here's the problem. If you want to change the way business works, and what we drive and stave off the end of petrol for a few house, you have to change behavior. Education isn't great at that. People fret about global warming, and they fretted all the way to the SUV dealer. What dropped purchases? Gas prices. Money talks. Education for tobacco use is swell. What happens when you raise the price and restrict public use? Use goes down. If it's a totally noncoercive policy it won't coerce anyone, and won't help, and so what's the point?
We do know that a lot of these changes don't cost money and your $#%%$^ wallet could be just fine. But I think we ought to push mileage standards up, like the rest of the world. That won't create junky cars, it will push innovation. Afterall, it was the California no emissions law that created the first modern all electric car and the end of the law that killed it; a hybrid technology push from Clinton excited the Japanese who gave us their nifty technology. And this may save money by reducing gas costs eventually. I also have no problem with gas taxes. They are regressive hitting the poorest hardest but there are ways to compensate them, eg, reduce other regressive taxes accordingly. We can also toughen standards for homes and lightbulbs and so on without ruining our economy. It's just a whimpering from our underperfroming auto industry and energy industry transmitted through their politicians that indicates otherwise.
"Do you have living American Chesnut trees on your property?"
No Bill, I don't. Do you have palm trees? Incidentally, where was your $%%$&^$% outrage about the SUV subsidies to make bad choices to parallel your outrage about incentives to make good choices? At least when I get hit by a car that wise policy encouraged it'll hurt less than the SUVs.
You've clearly been hijacked. Your buttons are showing. Come back to the discussion when you can be more objective....
Seriously though:
"Are you going to read Goldberg's book or not? If you do, then you'll understand why I asked you to do so."
Sure, I'll find his book, whether or not you continue to completely ignore the issue I'm raising, which is your blanket dismissal of opinion books you disagree with without reading and your unmitigated enthusiasm for the books that you endorse.
You've asked me to revisit your post on the assumption that I think you aren't aware of other reasons to change policies. Actually, we just happen to agree on that point. So the large part of your last post about creating a false front of global warming to push other agendas... lets just say I'm sure other people will find it helpful but it needn't be written for me.
"But... Keep your &#%$ *@% hands off my bloody wallet. Don't create a Fascist state which forces us all to drive politically correct vehicles while the chosen few live on mansions and ride around in limousines while the paparazzi capture their every burp and domestic spat."
Ok, so here's the problem. If you want to change the way business works, and what we drive and stave off the end of petrol for a few house, you have to change behavior. Education isn't great at that. People fret about global warming, and they fretted all the way to the SUV dealer. What dropped purchases? Gas prices. Money talks. Education for tobacco use is swell. What happens when you raise the price and restrict public use? Use goes down. If it's a totally noncoercive policy it won't coerce anyone, and won't help, and so what's the point?
We do know that a lot of these changes don't cost money and your $#%%$^ wallet could be just fine. But I think we ought to push mileage standards up, like the rest of the world. That won't create junky cars, it will push innovation. Afterall, it was the California no emissions law that created the first modern all electric car and the end of the law that killed it; a hybrid technology push from Clinton excited the Japanese who gave us their nifty technology. And this may save money by reducing gas costs eventually. I also have no problem with gas taxes. They are regressive hitting the poorest hardest but there are ways to compensate them, eg, reduce other regressive taxes accordingly. We can also toughen standards for homes and lightbulbs and so on without ruining our economy. It's just a whimpering from our underperfroming auto industry and energy industry transmitted through their politicians that indicates otherwise.
"Do you have living American Chesnut trees on your property?"
No Bill, I don't. Do you have palm trees? Incidentally, where was your $%%$&^$% outrage about the SUV subsidies to make bad choices to parallel your outrage about incentives to make good choices? At least when I get hit by a car that wise policy encouraged it'll hurt less than the SUVs.
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Thanks, Ian. I needed a good laugh this morning.Ian wrote:
Incidentally, where was your $%%$&^$% outrage about the SUV subsidies to make bad choices to parallel your outrage about incentives to make good choices?
Care to get my back on this one, Rich?
If there was a good search engine on this Forums website, I could drown you, Dr. Ian.
- Bill
I think this is another issue of emphasis and not of black and white. I remember reading you critique the matter and found this:
"The only reason soccer moms are driving these fat-bottomed, high COG trash vehicles is because of a loophole in the CAFE restrictions that was designed to protect truck drivers doing business in rural areas. That artificial incentive killed the family station wagon and created a perverse economic incentive for moms to drive junior in a 7 seat "crossover" vehicle with enough ground clearance to serve dual duty as a rain hut at the school bus stop.
By the way, I believe that loophole finally got eliminated. Good. Anyone noticed that the family stationwagon is starting to make a comeback?"
I wasn't saying you were excited about the incentive, but I don't recall a level of concern that included dire warnings of facism, admonitions to keep our hands off your wallets, and appeals to Jeffersonian principles. You felt it was a mistake to get one but you didn't use the nuclear option on the incentive. Sometimes, people get a little more worried about incentives when they sound leftist or environmental than when they don't, even if the incentive is less sound--that's all I'm saying. But I'm glad it was worth a laugh and it was a pleasure sparring as usual (this issue looks fairly well exhausted from the looks of things).
"The only reason soccer moms are driving these fat-bottomed, high COG trash vehicles is because of a loophole in the CAFE restrictions that was designed to protect truck drivers doing business in rural areas. That artificial incentive killed the family station wagon and created a perverse economic incentive for moms to drive junior in a 7 seat "crossover" vehicle with enough ground clearance to serve dual duty as a rain hut at the school bus stop.
By the way, I believe that loophole finally got eliminated. Good. Anyone noticed that the family stationwagon is starting to make a comeback?"
I wasn't saying you were excited about the incentive, but I don't recall a level of concern that included dire warnings of facism, admonitions to keep our hands off your wallets, and appeals to Jeffersonian principles. You felt it was a mistake to get one but you didn't use the nuclear option on the incentive. Sometimes, people get a little more worried about incentives when they sound leftist or environmental than when they don't, even if the incentive is less sound--that's all I'm saying. But I'm glad it was worth a laugh and it was a pleasure sparring as usual (this issue looks fairly well exhausted from the looks of things).
--Ian
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
You found one of MANY of my references to this tax loophole, Ian.
Rich and I had legendary discussions on this. Any number of people (at least half a dozen) can vouch for my rants against the tax loophole that led to soccer moms driving these suburban assault vehicles. And the same people can vouch for my rants against the safety of these deathtraps.
And that's probably the 20th time I've used the above underlined expression.
You obviously haven't kept up with my writings in the last decade, Ian. I'm hurt!
As for whether or not the tenor of my comments meets your political expectations, well... I'm not running for office, boss; I'm here for the science.
- Bill
Rich and I had legendary discussions on this. Any number of people (at least half a dozen) can vouch for my rants against the tax loophole that led to soccer moms driving these suburban assault vehicles. And the same people can vouch for my rants against the safety of these deathtraps.
And that's probably the 20th time I've used the above underlined expression.
You obviously haven't kept up with my writings in the last decade, Ian. I'm hurt!
As for whether or not the tenor of my comments meets your political expectations, well... I'm not running for office, boss; I'm here for the science.
- Bill
Olorin wrote:
Not a day goes by without another news report about the dangers of global warming. The issue of climate change has captivated the attention of politicians, the public, celebrities, and scientists. While I do not doubt that the world is getting warmer, do reject the extreme claims made by many scientists and politicians as to the causes and consequences of global warming.
Now before you type out your responses “how dare you reject science” or “who are you to argue with the facts” or the new favorite “the jury in on global warming” Or as a recent poster remarked…
I do ask you to keep an open mind and read tell the end of my post. After that, feel free to call me any name you wish, I am use to that reaction from people who have never had to confront opposing viewpoints.
Lets get to it…
Now, this is a typical graph of climate change. (as far as I know all graphs were taken from sites that support the consensus view of global warming)
This graph shows the increase in temperature in the last 150-160 years. As you see, the temperature has risen steadily since the time of the Second Industrial Revolution. But look more closely at the peaks and valleys.
We see several unexpected dips in average temperature. First off, we have a dip in temperatures in the 1860s and peak in the 1880s. After the 1880s, temperatures continue to fall as the world enters WWI. Then temperatures rise steadily into WWII but then dip again in the post war years and this dip lasts almost into the 1980s. Now if one were to argue that the industrial production of WWII caused an increase in temperatures then we would expect to see a similar, but albeit less, increase in temperatures during WWI. But we do not, temperatures fell during the first great global war and increased during the second.
In addition, we see no great jump in temperature in the post war years despite this being the heyday of American industry, the rebuilding of Europe, the rebuilding of the Soviet Union, the Great Leap Forward in China, and the rebirth of Japanese industry. In fact, temperatures went down.
Let’s back in up a bit…all the way to the year 1000.
What this graph shows is multiple estimates of global temperature in the last 1000 years. The first thing that one should notice is that the dramatic rise in temperature portrayed in the 150-year model is less pronounced when you add 1000 years of perspective.
As you will notice, the temperature of the earth is basically the same as it was 1000 years ago, a period called the Medieval Warm Period. If you want to get technical, it is .4 degree hotter than it was 1000 years ago. Ya that’s what all the fuss is about, less that ½ of a degree in the last 1000 years. Lets back it up again, this time 2000 years.
This picture gives us a good perspective of the Medieval Warm period as it shows us the cooler temperatures that preceded it. The interesting thing about this graph is that the global temperature has dropped by .61 to .90 and the world did not end. It also hit as high as .2 over norm and, once again, the world did not end. In addition, unless I am mistaken, the dark black line is in fact based on computer modeling and not actual recorded temperatures. (hence the astrix)
And finally my favorite chart, all the way to the year 450,000 BC.
This chart shows the ebb and flow of global temperatures over the last half million years. Now to me that looks like a fairly consistent pattern of heating and cooling. And while I will admit that the global temperature does tend to follow the CO2 level in parts per million, it does not always reflect or mirror global temperature. Often global temperature seems to jump ahead of or lag behind the C02 level, sometimes it does not react proportionally to the level of C02 in the atmosphere, and at times, it runs counter to it.
In addition the global patterns of warming and cooling that have taken place in the last half a million years cannot be blamed on human activity or industrialization as humans have not had the ability to affect the climate by producing C02 until very recently. So why then do we see this pattern of warming and cooling?
However, I do not want to pump C02 into the atmosphere, pollute the rivers, or kill the endangered snails. But when I see the kind of fear mongering going on in regards to global warming, from the Al Gore’s and Leo Dicaprio’s...that Florida will be the new Atlantis, and that we will all live in a world covered by water I tend to get a little suspicious. I think I’ve seen this in a movie…
So why? Why the alarmism? Well that’s easy. The Global Warming = apocalypse, gives scientists three things. First, it gets them national attention. Next, it gets them money in the form of grants. Finally, it gets them influence with politicians and other powerful elites. In short, it gets them respect, money, and influence. And that is why they will never allow any academic debate on this topic.
While I am at it, I will include a list of other things that scientists told us would be the end of the world…
Global Warming (Now)
Y2K (2000)
The Hole in the Ozone Layer (1990s)
The Depletion of the Rain Forrest (1980-1990s)
Acid Rain (1980s)
Global Cooling (1970s)
Overpopulation (1960s)
Under population (1930-1900)
I can keep going if you like…I left out Killer Bees!
In twenty to thirty years, the issue of global warming will be forgotten and a new HOT issue will have taken its place.
In fact, I will tell you what it will be…
Are you ready? It will be the lack of fresh drinkable water.
And that is how it works, when one issue has run its course, you jump to the next, and so on…and so on. It’s the politics of fear…
Found this quote.
Feel free to poke holes or support it. Just putting it out for discussion.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Thanks, Adam. This gentleman makes the very argument I was making.
The only thing missing here is the reason for the fluctuations which go back half a million years. I've already explained that.
This plot shows recent fluctuations.
This shows longer-term fluctuations.
Carbon-14 data can project these trends farther back. Note that the axis here is reversed, with the most recent date being on the left. All the known maximums and minimums of global temperature follow this trend quite nicely. In particular, you can see the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reflected quite nicely. (Compare plot with the one above in Adam's post)
- Bill
The only thing missing here is the reason for the fluctuations which go back half a million years. I've already explained that.
- Cosmic radiation affects cloud formation.
- Variations in sunspot activity modulate cosmic radiation.
This plot shows recent fluctuations.
This shows longer-term fluctuations.
Carbon-14 data can project these trends farther back. Note that the axis here is reversed, with the most recent date being on the left. All the known maximums and minimums of global temperature follow this trend quite nicely. In particular, you can see the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age reflected quite nicely. (Compare plot with the one above in Adam's post)
- Bill
