· The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short, I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.
o I just have a hard time agreeing with this, since the United States basically is the political and economic power behind the U.N. Not to mention the fact that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the U.N.’s initiative research group for the topic) is hardly the only organization conceding to the evidence for global climate change and its anthropogenic origins. See: USEPA (anti-American?), Pew Center on Global Climate Change, U.S. Global Change Information office (little outdated, but provides some good perspective)
· Because after the fall of the Soviet Union and worldwide Communism many in the anti-capitalist movement moved to the environmental movement to continue pursuing their anti-free enterprise goals. Many of the loudest proponents of man-made global warming today are confirmed anti-capitalists.
o I just want to see the basis for these claims. No citation, no credibility Neil.
· Because the sun is warmer .. and all of these scientists don't seem to be willing to credit a warmer sun with any of the blame for global warming.
o Again, where is the information on the temperature of the sun coming from? And what is the degree to which the sun is warmer? How was the data on the sun’s temperature collected? When the report(s) was published, was it peer reviewed? All of these questions play a vital role in determining the value of the claim that “the sun is warmer,” and until they are addressed, this line can be discounted.
· The polar ice caps on Mars are melting. How did our CO2 emissions get all the way to Mars?
o We’ll ignore the lack of citations here because this is simply an example of lacking logic. Though it seems like the temperature of mars would directly relate to the earth, there is no evidence to suggest that. It certainly could, but I could find no research that suggests that it is. Until then, noting changing conditions on Mars is just noting changing conditions on another planet, for which there could be innumerable explanations that have absolutely nothing to do with why the climate on our planet is changing so drastically. You cannot compare unlike entities without impetus—it is just poor science.
· It was warmer in the 1930s across the globe than it is right now.
o First of all, no citation, so no way to be sure this data is true. However, in the time scale over which warming and cooling trends are assessed and addressed, 1930 might as well have been yesterday. If we’re in a 100 year cooling microtrend it makes sense that the 1930’s would have been warmer. Again, it is poor science to examine a spike or an abhorrent data point as a solitary reason…the science of climatology is based on trends, and a ten year spike means little when compared to the entire aggregate warming trend (Jones 2004).
· It wasn't all that long ago that these very same scientists were warning us about "global cooling" and another approaching ice age?
o Um…well, people being wrong in the past doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re wrong in the future. Under the auspices of your implicit argument, I could examine round-earth supporters Copernicus won over and wonder, “weren’t these very same scientists claiming the earth was flat not very long ago?”
· How much has the earth warmed up in the last 100 years? One degree. Now that's frightening.
o This is just an example of ignorance. One degree of average temperature change in a single century is unprecedented and hasn’t been observed since before the earth supported human life (Jones 2004).
· Because that famous "hockey stick" graph that purports to show a sudden warming of the earth in the last few decades is a fraud. It ignored previous warming periods ... left them off the graph altogether.
o There are plenty of other graphs. See: Jones 2004, Brohan 2006, Schmunk 2008
· The infamous Kyoto accords exempt some of the world's biggest CO2 polluters, including China and India.
o True, but what do the inefficacies of a body of “legislation” have to do with the validity of a scientific theory?
· The Kyoto accords can easily be seen as nothing less than an attempt to hamstring the world's dominant capitalist economies.
o And can just as easily be seen as an attempt to responsibly reevaluate the global industrial and political perspective on energy use, unchecked emissions and environmental responsibility. It is all a matter of perspective, Neil.
· Because many of these scientists who are sounding the global warming scare depend on grant money for their livelihood, and they know the grant money dries up when they stop preaching the global warming sermon.
o Yes, but this is reflexive: many of the people opposing the theory would be financially impacted by tighter environmental controls and would, realistically, have to make some significant lifestyle changes, so there is a lot of motivation to dishonestly oppose it. Also, the scientific community’s peer-review process does a great deal to abate biases, while the industrial and corporate community has little incentive or measure for doing away with theirs.
· Because global warming "activists" and scientists seek to punish those who have different viewpoints. If you are sure of your science you have no need to shout down or seek to punish those who disagree.
o Gross generalization and rhetorical spiking may work on radio talk shows, but it is not reasonable in debate. This point either needs to be expounded or will be disregarded.
· What happened to the Medieval Warm Period? In 1996 the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued a chart showing climatic change over a period of 1000 years. This graph showed a Medieval warming period in which global temperatures were higher than they are today. In 2001 the IPCC issued another 1000 year graph in which the Medieval warming period was missing. Why?
o It isn’t gone, it just isn’t identified by marker. Still right there in the data (IPCC 2001).
· Why has one scientist promoting the cause of man-made global warming been quoted as saying "we have to get rid of the medieval warming period?"
o One scientist does not discount or affect the work of thousands. Plus, who said this, and when? A name and source would be nice every once in a while.
· Why is the ice cap on the Antarctic getting thicker if the earth is getting warmer?
o Huh? According to whom is it getting thicker? (I have an image file that appears in the print version, but I can't figure out how to get it on here. Expect me to update when I do)
· In the United States, the one country with the most accurate temperature measuring and reporting records, temperatures have risen by 0.3 degrees centigrade over the past 100 years. The UN estimate is twice that.
o Geographically limited data doesn’t mean much when you’re talking about global aggregate temperatures.
· There are about 160,000 glaciers around the world. Most have never been visited or measured by man. The great majority of these glaciers are growing, not melting.
o If they’ve never been visited or measured, how can you know that they’re growing? Again, a source?
· Side-looking radar interferometry shows that the ise mass in the West Antarctic is growing at a rate of over 26 gigatons a year. This reverses a melting trend that had persisted for the previous 6,000 years.
o I can’t comment on this one…I don’t have the qualifications to interpret the data, especially without seeing what the expert opinion of its publisher is. Once again, I’d really like to see the source.
· Rising sea levels? The sea levels have been rising since the last ice age ended. That was 12,000 years ago. Estimates are that in that time the sea level has risen by over 300 feet. The rise in our sea levels has been going on long before man started creating anything but natural CO2 emissions.
o Yes, the earth has been warming for the last 12,000 years, and lots of ice has been melting, mostly due to natural methane (Walter 2006, Mongabay 2006). What we’re concerned about is the increasing rate of sea level rise.
· Like Antarctica, the interior of Greenland is gaining ice mass.
o Again, according to whom? Are you sure you’re looking at the data correctly? Have you ever heard of “Moulins?”
· Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today.
o Really? I haven’t seen the data that suggests that.
· During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased.
o See above argument about over emphasizing the importance of data spikes.
· Why did a reporter from National Public Radio refuse to interview David Deming, an associate professor at the University of Oklahoma studying global warming, after his testimony to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee unless Deming would state that global warming was being caused by man?
o Because NPR are assholes, but they do not determine the temperature of the earth.
· Why are global warming proponents insisting that the matter is settled and that no further scientific research is needed? Why are they afraid of additional information?
o I don’t think anyone is insisting that. I think what people are insisting is that we have enough data to make us pretty worried, so the time is now (or 100 years ago) to change our habits of consumption.
It comes down to this…in the end, what does it hurt? The initial economy? Most policies that have to do with reducing consumption will actually streamline business and encourage efficiency, so the long term fiscal effects are likely to be positive (lower capital required to run the business, despite higher initial capital of a changeover). Let’s be honest here Neil, who and what does it hurt to make these changes, especially when the alternative is potentially so severe? An economy doesn’t do much good if our species is extinct.
References:
Brohan, P., J. J. Kennedy, I. Harris, S. B. Tett, and P. D. Jones. "Uncertainty estimates in regional and global observed temperature changes: a new dataset from 1850." Journal of Geophysical Research 111 (2006).
IPCC. Variations of the Earth's Surface Temperature for the Past 1000 Years. Raw data. 2001. http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/slides/large/05.16.jpg
Jones, P. D., and M. E. Mann. "Climate Over Past Millenia." Reviews of Geophysics 42 (2004).
Mongabay. "Methane Emissions Rising, Could Worsen Global Warming." Mongabay. 27 Sept. 2006. University of California, Los Angeles.
Morgan, Granger, and Tom Smuts. "Global Warming and Climate Change." U.S. Global Change Research Information Office. 4 Feb. 2004. Carnegie Mellon University.
Schmunk, Robert B., ed. "GISS Surface Temperature Analysis." Goddard Institute for Space Studies. 06 July 2008. NASA.
"Science & Impacts." Global Climate Change. 2008. The Pew Center on Global Climate Change.
USEPA. "Science." Climate Change. 20 Dec. 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Walter, K. M., S. A. Zimov, J. P. Chanton, D. Verbyla, and F. S. Chapin. "Methane bubbling from Siberian thaw lakes as a positive feedback to climate warming." Nature 443 (2006): 71-75.
0 comments:
Post a Comment