Yet Another Post on Global Warming

Yep, back once again with a post on Global Warming (my most recent posts: A Few Thoughts on Global Warming and AoS: “An Inconvenient Energy Bill”). First I thought I would point you to this ironic story where a polar ice trek meant to draw attention to global warming was called off due to frostbite.

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

I suppose the adventure did draw attention… just maybe not the kind they were looking for.

“They were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming,” Atwood said. “But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.”

Oh, so global warming will actually bring colder temps… gotcha. And this quote from Ace:

Does empirical evidence fail to support global warming? Ah well, no problem: Because, you see, global warming also has the insidious attribute of being too unpredictable to actually ever be proven via normal scientific processes like prediction and confirmation.

As Jim Geraghty says, “Global warming is now simply what we used to refer to as ‘the weather.’”


Another article from Ace points us to a NY Times article about Gore’s use of science, From a Rapt Audience, a Call to Cool the Hype:

Mr. Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. “Unless we act boldly,” he wrote, “our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes.”

Some backers concede minor inaccuracies but see them as reasonable for a politician. James E. Hansen, an environmental scientist, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies and a top adviser to Mr. Gore, said, “Al does an exceptionally good job of seeing the forest for the trees,” adding that Mr. Gore often did so “better than scientists.”

Still, Dr. Hansen said, the former vice president’s work may hold “imperfections” and “technical flaws.” He pointed to hurricanes, an icon for Mr. Gore, who highlights the devastation of Hurricane Katrina and cites research suggesting that global warming will cause both storm frequency and deadliness to rise. Yet this past Atlantic season produced fewer hurricanes than forecasters predicted (five versus nine), and none that hit the United States.

“Hardly a week goes by,” Dr. Peiser said, “without a new research paper that questions part or even some basics of climate change theory,” including some reports that offer alternatives to human activity for global warming.

Geologists have documented age upon age of climate swings, and some charge Mr. Gore with ignoring such rhythms.

“Nowhere does Mr. Gore tell his audience that all of the phenomena that he describes fall within the natural range of environmental change on our planet,” Robert M. Carter, a marine geologist at James Cook University in Australia, said in a September blog. “Nor does he present any evidence that climate during the 20th century departed discernibly from its historical pattern of constant change.”

In October, Dr. Easterbrook made similar points at the geological society meeting in Philadelphia. He hotly disputed Mr. Gore’s claim that “our civilization has never experienced any environmental shift remotely similar to this” threatened change.

Nonsense, Dr. Easterbrook told the crowded session. He flashed a slide that showed temperature trends for the past 15,000 years. It highlighted 10 large swings, including the medieval warm period. These shifts, he said, were up to “20 times greater than the warming in the past century.”

Getting personal, he mocked Mr. Gore’s assertion that scientists agreed on global warming except those industry had corrupted. “I’ve never been paid a nickel by an oil company,” Dr. Easterbrook told the group. “And I’m not a Republican.”

It is an interesting article that still tries to say that overall Gore did a good job… but admits that he has probably gone too far.

Yet one more Ace post (have I been linking to him too much?) that directs us to Riehl World View’s post Brit Doc: Thatcher Started Global Warming Craze that discusses a British documentary (by Martin Durkin) that aims at debunking global warming.

The original theory was from a fringe scientist and when it surfaced nearly all mainstream scientists found it laughable. Man’s contribution to CO2 in the atmosphere is so small when compared to the contributions from volcanoes, plants and especially the oceans, it’s doubtful man could effect anything, let alone climate, by producing CO2. But Thatcher had a problem and a plan.

The previous government had been brought down by a devastating and violent coal mine strike and another strike came along as she was in office. Being determined to break the cycle of labor, a large part of it being coal miners, reeking such havoc and ultimately dictating terms to the government, she was determined to move the country away from coal as a power source.

Not trusting Middle Eastern oil as a power source that would produce stability , she wanted to move Britain toward nuclear energy in a major way. The strongest selling point was that nuclear energy was clean and she seized upon the CO2 theory, reasoning that if she could increase concern over coal, she’d be able to implement plans to begin building nuclear reactors.

Millions of government dollars were placed on the table at Britain’s National Academy of Science to produce specific science that heightened concerns over CO2 as a serious health and environmental concern. The meme, if you will, and the dollars available to scientists for such work grew, in Britain and across Europe and even in the US. It was the seed of the Global Warming industry we see today.

The Great Global Warming Swindle (the documentary) can be watched at Google Video. Check it out.

Oh such a fun topic.

Categories: Social Commentary
  1. Mr. Turner
    March 21st, 2007 at 16:44 | #1

    Look at Charles Krauthammer’s commentary in the latest edition of Time Magazine if you get a chance. Don’t care much for the Magazine, but I did get a free sunscription and it is interesting to see home some people think. On this particular article I enjoyed his revelations concerning buying carbon offsets and the smoke and mirrors that this is about.

  2. March 25th, 2007 at 12:14 | #2

    Sorry to say but I totally disagree with you. Global Warming does not equal weather. Daily weather is one thing. Global temp change is quite another. Just look at the amount of ice melting… or the fact that polar bears are about to be on the endangered list. The evidence is HUGE.

    What I don’t get is this… what about dealing with global warming is scary to proponents? Reduce-Reuse-Recycle isn’t good? Eliminating our dependence on foreign energy is not worth it? Building structures that make good ecological and economic sense and are energy efficient is not the best policy?

    At least you can agree that the Green Life is a good one, right? What would Jesus think?

  3. March 25th, 2007 at 13:39 | #3

    I know Global Warming isn’t weather… but it should affect weather. From what I have seen, if Global Warming is happening, it doesn’t have anything to do with humans. There is ice melting… there is also ice accumulating… The evidence is not huge.

    While I can’t speak for all opponents of global warming, I can peak for myself: I am not scared of it (it seems like those that are for it are scared of it), I am against it because I think it has become completely political and part of the bureaucratic problem. There is so much money spent on this that could be better spent on numerous other areas. Reduce-Reuse? Sure. Recycle? Maybe not.

    Also, companies are often hurt by those that place the “global warming threat” ahead of development. So are developing nations that might want to industrialize but are punished because pollution that they might create could harm the earth.

    I am not sure what eliminating our dependence on foreign energy has to do with global warming? Yeah, sure we should try to be self sufficient, but I don’t really see why this is some huge scary issue. Why not use the oil that we have? Yeah, we should come up with alternative sources, of course, does that mean we should completely give up on oil? No, it is there, why not use it? I would be perfectly fine with nuclear, but it seems that many still have issues with that as well.

    “Building structures that make good ecological and economic sense and are energy efficient is not the best policy?” No, that is great policy, but that should be done for the sake of being better stewards of the earth and because we want to use our energy efficiently, not because there is some perceived threat. But those that don’t have the resources or technology to do that shouldn’t be punished either.

    I just hate the “we are doomed” tactics that are meant to get people to spring into action. The Earth has been through so many changes, we will adapt. Even if that means the temp goes up 1 or 2 degrees over the next 1000 years.

    Sure the green life is a good one, but not so good that I am willing to waste my money on it at the expense of other things. I would rather my money go to a local church or world vision than wind energy… or taxes spent on combating the scary global warming threat.

  1. No trackbacks yet.

%d bloggers like this: