At least that’s what a NASA scientist told Congress Tuesday.
The lead investigator for one of NASA’s flagship Earth Observing Observatories said:
On this issue, it can be shown with a simple climate model that small cloud fluctuations assumed to occur with two modes of natural climate variability – the El Nino/La Nina phenomenon (Southern Oscillation), and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation – can explain 70% of the warming trend since 1900, as well as the nature of that trend: warming until the 1940s, no warming until the 1970s, and resumed warming since then.
On his blog, environmental scientist AJ Strata explained what this means in terms of all our efforts to reduce our “carbon footprint.”
Say they reduced the CO2 25%. Say the CO2 is the driver for the remaining 30% of Global Warming (which it cannot be, but let’s just be only half as ridiculous as the IPCC), then all that effort would only impact 7.5% of the forces driving the global climate. The other 92.5% would roll on, impervious to the effort.
He goes on to assert that that CO2 actually only accounts for 10% of the climate change equation, which would mean that if we did all the things needed to cut our CO2 emissions by 25% that would result in a less than 1% impact on the forces controlling our climate.
With our economy already struggling, how worse would it be if we enacted the measures that those like Al Gore have suggested – raising taxes (including the gas tax), increasing regulations forcing businesses to lay off even more workers, increasing our need for goods from China and India since they aren’t being asked (and wouldn’t anyway) to cut their carbon emissions, etc. – to deal with a “problem” that may only reduce the supposed danger by less than 1%?
I am not surprised at this, since GWA is as obviously ideology driven as evolutionism. Proponents are looking for something to believe in, a cause to give their lives meaning. Don't tell them that the crisis they have imagined is untrue, they've already devoted themselves to it.
My one question, though – what causes el nino?
I am not surprised at this, since GWA is as obviously ideology driven as evolutionism. Proponents are looking for something to believe in, a cause to give their lives meaning.
One could as easily say this about Christianity.
Absolutely – but Christianity is a FAITH – those others pretend to be science, and people use them like a belief system to give meaning, even when the evidence is lacking.
We could argue about whether or not faith is interested in truth or evidence, but that would shift the focus. My point is that these two ideologies are short on facts and long on influencing our society, and not for the good. They just pretend to be good and meaningful. That kind of deception is irresponsible, anti-intellectual, and borders on being evil. IMRO (Reasonable opinion ;)
"Borders on being evil."
Jeez, seeker, this is nuts. Even for you.
I am serious. The reason such a deception borders on evil is because:
1. If we waste billions of dollars trying to solve this imaginary problem, imagine what good could have come from that. I view it like you might view the Iraq war – more than just a waste of money. Just think of what we could have done for the poor.
2. It plays into the further corruption and politicization of science. We used to be able to trust science. But when GWA and evolutionary ideologues get ahold of it, it gets bastardized. And so does reason. I think that borders on evil.
3. If we hurt our economy any more by implementing meaningless and useless carbon emissions regulations and taxes, it could be YOUR job or mine that has to go, and again, for no good reason. My job helps feeds my kids. Something worthless that interferes with that? Borders on evil.
4. Encouraging alarmism further polarizes our culture, and promotes fear over reason. Evil.
I think the problem with your analysis is that you just assume that the problem is "imaginary." Further, you accuse the science around the issue as corrupt and politicized. I think this is extreme and unproven. In fact, I see little evidence that your assertions are wholly true. Citing a scientist here and there who offers a contrarian view doesn't disprove the research and observation of the rest of the scientific establishment. So, you're saying that the entire roster of scientists who identify observable global warming as corrupted by politics and some conspiracy
of environmental nutjobs? It may be that the connection between human pollution and global warming isn't 100% certain, but your idea that the evidence we do have is a mere result of green-cultists is an even nuttier idea. I see no evidence of it.
There's a pattern here in your argumentation. You make the same assertions regarding homosexuality and evolutionary theory: all science which disagrees with your beliefs is the result of some vast left-wing political cultist conspiracy. The entire scientific establishment is in on the conspiracy, of course, as is the media and the education system. For evidence, you cite a few contrarian scientists, often holding biased and suspect views themselves – in fact, if anything, they are the ones tainted by politics. If there's evil afoot here, it has to lie with those who would deny our danger and obstruct efforts to rectify the situation.
Sometimes you come off as a real crank.
Further, you accuse the science around the issue as corrupt and politicized. I think this is extreme and unproven.
I’d say that the mounting evidence presented here and elsewhere, as well as the witch-hunt approach to dissenters, is plenty of evidence that we ought to be very skeptical. But it seems that GWAs have lost their ability to be skeptical. I call them ‘believers.’
Citing a scientist here and there who offers a contrarian view doesn’t disprove the research and observation of the rest of the scientific establishment.
There are three problems with this objection.
First, for GWAs, there is no amount of contrarian views that they will consider significant. *Many* important scientists whose credentials deserve to be respected are ignored because the believers believe in a ‘majority is right’ approach to science. Rather than seriously consider the contrary data and opinions of respectable and smart colleagues, they resort to majority thinking. Hardly science, but certainly the human pattern of resistance to good science we see across history.
Second, this shows the ad-hominem approach to contrary data – attack the people asking the hard questions, rather than dealing with the problems with the data.
Third, as I alluded in point one, the majority thinking in this case has been pretty clearly shown to be driven, not by science, but by ideology and politics. The IPCC was not a representative body, but an ideologically driven group of scientists who were already committed to the GWA stance before giving their ‘objective’ opinions.
So, you’re saying that the entire roster of scientists who identify observable global warming as corrupted by politics and some conspiracy of environmental nutjobs?
Nope, just the self-selected Gorites on the IPCC. Again, the *majority* of *scientists* have been very wrong in the past when driven by ideology, and I accuse them of doing it on this point, as well as evolution.
I mean, within the last 200 years, there was a time when the majority of American scientists and doctors supported eugenics. I could see you making the same argument – “So, you’re saying that the entire roster of scientists who identify observable genetic corruption in some populations are corrupted by politics and some conspiracy of Darwinist nutjobs?”
And I would answer as I did above. Not *ALL* scientists, but a majority, and those in power (a hegemony, as I have said).
To turn the tables, if you had said to me 10 years ago that homosexuality was not a dysfunction, I could have responded “Do you mean that you think the *majority* of psychological experts have erred in classifying hx as a dysfunction in the DSM? That there is some conspiracy here?”
You see, when it comes to your own cause celebre, you might argue similarly, and to some extent, even in that case you would be correct because there is not enough clinical evidence to go either way definitively.
So to summarize, I do think that the majority are wrong. I also don’t think that the IPCC panel is a good representation of scientists, though most of them may have good scientific creds. I think they were somehow selected due to their prior commitment to GWA.
It may be that the connection between human pollution and global warming isn’t 100% certain, but your idea that the evidence we do have is a mere result of green-cultists is an even nuttier idea. I see no evidence of it.
You mean you *WILL* not to see evidence of it. It’s getting plainer every day. And actually, I just read an article that talked about the fact that cleaner skies (less pollution) actually *contributes* to global warming because the haze of pollution keeps out some of the sun’s heat. Now that is funny.
Look, pollution is bad, but warming is good and normal. We aren’t really doing much to contribute to warming, though we do need to cut down on pollution. That’s what I think is true.
You make the same assertions regarding homosexuality and evolutionary theory: all science which disagrees with your beliefs is the result of some vast left-wing political cultist conspiracy.
I do make similar arguments, but you are selling my approach short. I assert that
The entire scientific establishment is in on the conspiracy, of course, as is the media and the education system.
Well, again, I think of it more as an unconscious self-deception, not a conscious conspiracy. They *believe* so strongly, driven by a need to believe it, that they willingly miss the truth. It’s happened before, and I believe in these two cases it is happening now.
As far as the media and education, they do follow the prophets of science like believers, like unthinking sheep, in part because they are cowed by your “Who are you to question the great
Ozscientists? Do you think you are smarter than them?” approach to dissent.For evidence, you cite a few contrarian scientists, often holding biased and suspect views themselves – in fact, if anything, they are the ones tainted by politics.
As I said, since you too act like one of the believers, NO amount on contrary opinions, from any source, is good enough. You do science by majority, not data.
And again, YOUR pattern is to make ad hominem attacks, calling them suspect because of their associations, or the very fact that they dare to disagree with you – you seem to classify anyone who disagrees as suspect. Your sentence above shows this classic, hegemonic, believers approach to truth seeking – you dismiss all contrary opinions and ignore any contrary data by focusing on the messengers instead of the message they bring.
If there’s evil afoot here, it has to lie with those who would deny our danger and obstruct efforts to rectify the situation.
Yes, well, what situation are you referring to? Global warming, or the unscientific, hegemonic alarmism that is bastardizing and politicizing our science, and diverting millions of dollars into potentially, if not probably useless efforts?
As I said, I think there is evil afoot here, but it’s not in the global warming deniers camp.
I guess we'll just have to disagree.
Hi Seeker:
1. Since none of us here at this forum are climatologists, we are not in a position to personally evaluate the evidence. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change–mocked by the article you linked to–"is a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. The panel was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations.". The members of this group ARE scientists, and they say something different from this guy you quote. I have no desire to reduce my carbon footprint, I'd be happier if I could make no changes in my lifestyle at all, and I see no reason to think that the vast majority of us who are concerned about global warming are any different from me in that respect. Liberals (Al Gore for example) would much prefer to focus more of our energy on addressing the great transfer of economic power FROM the rest of us TO the rich that happened since the right wing assault on the New Deal of the 70s though now. I am sure Louis would rather focus political energy on eliminating the discrimination our society visits on gays. Having to deal with global warming will take away political energy that could be better spent, so we have NO incentive to believe in global warming except that most scientists who study the issue say it's a problem. on the other hand, those who profit from the energy status quo have a very good reason to dismiss global warming–much like the cigarette industry dismissed the health damage cigarettes cause for so many years. Al Gore didn't make up this whole greenhouse thing–he talked with scientists and studied up on the sissue the way he always does.
2. I find it ironic that the same people who accuse Al Gore of alarmism are so alarmist themselves about the supposed terrible economic disaster that would come from changing the way we use and produce energy. Al Gore isn't proposing that we all go off the grid and live like the Amish.
your friend
Keith
And it's not just global warming that's alarming. What about the pollution caused by industrial society on all levels, starting with our oceans? Coral reefs are dying worldwide, for instance. There are dead zones with no oxygen in the water. Entire fish populations are collapsing because of pollution and overfishing. Entire habitats are being destroyed through deforestation, grubbing for minerals, coal, and other raw materials, and species are becoming extinct at the highest rate in recorded history through our greed, neglect and exploitation. Mankind is breeding beyond all sanity. How long do we think we can go on with this? We are so arrogant and self-centered, ignoring the balance of nature and the rights of other animals and plants to exist. We act like everything, everywhere exists specifically for our exploitation and comfort.
I predict that we cannot avoid our comeuppance forever.
Since none of us here at this forum are climatologists, we are not in a position to personally evaluate the evidence.
I entirely disagree. This assumes that the science is incomprehensible to those who are not climatologists. While we may not speak authoritatively, we most certainly can attempt and succeed at understanding the science. And if it can't be communicated in a way that others of moderate education understand, it's probably B.S.
The members of this group ARE scientists, and they say something different from this guy you quote.
I never doubted that they were scientists, I even mentioned that they might have had great credentials. What I said was that they were probably NOT representative, and chosen due to their PRIOR commitment to the foregone conclusion.
And everyone knows that the UN is not an unbiased organization, but a political one. The fact that a UN comission makes a statement of science doesn't make it authoritative per se. The data must support them.
And more and more voices, like the one quoted by Aaron in this article, are voicing disagreement with the majority, which I and other contend are sure of their position more due to ideology and politics than science.
Even worse, anyone who has spent time in science knows that models are notoriously fragile and built on assumptions, and can be entirely wrong – in fact, climate models are also necessarily very complex, and have been incredibly wrong in the recent past. To think that suddenly they are dead right about global warming is to show a lack of skeptical thinking and a lot of naivete.
Having to deal with global warming will take away political energy that could be better spent, so we have NO incentive to believe in global warming except that most scientists who study the issue say it's a problem.
Just because you have no obvious reason to support it other than that you have bought into the misinformation, doesn't mean you are credible. And just because oil companies benefit from anti GWA data doesn't mean it is untrue. That's all informative side information, but the fact is, regardless of what opinions are paraded by Exxon or the IPCC stooges (I say that respectfully ;), I think that there ARE reasons that you and other liberals lack credulity when it comes to Global Warming:
First, I think most GWAs are conditioned to respond to environmental alarmism. For decades now, environmentalism has been a mix of science and political alarmism, and those concerned for the environment have abandoned skepticality for believism. So when someone sounds the alarm, you just trust them and go along. This truth is why Newt has been calling for 'scientific environmentalism' as the conservative response to the emotional environmentalism of the left.
Second, you have obviously bought into the "it's too complex for laypeople, so we must trust the experts" <s>crap</s> trap ;). That is blind faith. I don't practice that kind of faith, not in man, not in God. And I don't think God expects such. I recommend A Layman's Guide to Man-Made Global Warming.
Al Gore didn't make up this whole greenhouse thing–he talked with scientists and studied up on the issue the way he always does.
Al Gore's movie has been thoroughly debunked. He didn't make it up, he just made a crank theory popular.
I find it ironic that the same people who accuse Al Gore of alarmism are so alarmist themselves about the supposed terrible economic disaster that would come from changing the way we use and produce energy. Al Gore isn't proposing that we all go off the grid and live like the Amish.
I'm glad you are amused, but estimating the amount of money that global warming measures will cost us is a lot simpler to calculate, and I do get alarmed because liberals have already shown a propensity to tax and spend, and no shame in raising taxes. That sucks for me, and if you believe in the laffer curve, it sucks for the economy after a certain point.
Most mostly, I am alarmed at the level of credulity and bad, politicized science that convinces so many people so completely. Such mindless leftist fundamentalism is as scary to me as far right fundies are to many liberals.
And it's not just global warming that's alarming. What about the pollution caused by industrial society on all levels, starting with our oceans? Coral reefs are dying worldwide, for instance.
The conflation of these ideas is, in my mind, a trick of obfuscation used by the left when their global warming theories are debunked.
Just like they now say "climate change" instead of "global warming," they try to put more gas into their empty tank by adding in pollution when global warming is shown to be foolishness.
Look, we are all against pollution. But global warming skeptics are not unconcerned about pollution, we are concerned alarmism is most likely stupidity – it's hurting science, wasting money, and promoting a climate of fanaticism that divides the country and makes us all look like fools.
So, global warming aside, you don’t think we face serious, even dangerous and species-threatening problems? Frankly, I’m more concerned about the problems I enumerated than global warming. And it’s not some kind of trick either (what a stupid accusation) or slight of hand changing the subject.
What is it about the right that you guys are just in denial about these environmental problems? Do you really want to stick your head in the sand while things continue to deteriorate? I thought conservative want to conserve! It really makes me angry when I hear about species extinctions, loss of the wild, non-human spaces, and other irreversable environmental destruction. Sometimes I think of humanity as a virus multiplying wildly and destroying its host.
It makes me mad too, but trying to throw in crap like global warming makes it harder to for people to support meaningful efforts as well. That's why conflating the ideas is a mistake.
You may not have been using this as some trick, but you used it just like the GWAs do when accusing conservatives of not caring for the OTHER things you mentioned in the same breath. If you weren't being tricky, you were being sloppy and ineffective.
I enumerated previously why conservatives and Christians have been grievously absent from environmentalism (Environmentalism: wilderness, wasteland, or garden?), so we have no disagreement there – but my beef is that GWA is a crime because it wastes money and diverts efforts from meaningful environmentalism and poverty work.
Sometimes I think of humanity as a virus multiplying wildly and destroying its host.
Well, this is one way to view the wickedness of man, but it's not that he is a parasite, but a poor steward – a selfish, fearful bastard, if you will.
But this parasitic view is also known as anti-humanism, and has been pushed by scientists like [guy i can't remember] who hope for a worldwide pandemic to kill of most humans so that the wilderness of nature can be restored. Very hopeful, don't you think?
I think the problem is lack of balance. No one, not even the right wing, thinks polluting is OK. The right want clean water and clean air just as the left do. We do need to be good stewards of the earth and its resources. Blithely destroying is obviously bad. Equally bad is extreme environmentalism (including so-called "ecoterrorism") that attaches a political agenda to preserving the environment, to the point where, as Seeker has said, becomes more of an issue of faith in leftist doctrine than anything else.
For example, the Kyoto Treaty is clearly politically and not scientifically driven, since it imposes greater restrictions on those who pollute less (the West, not to say they don't pollute) and fewer to no restrictions on the those who pollute more (China, India). Bush has been lambasted for not buying into the Kyoto Treaty, but neither did Clinton when it came up in his administration. The problem is that the agenda of the extreme environmentalists has been mainstreamed and accepted as fact.
As far as the unnamed anti-humanist scientist, I wonder if he would volunteer to be the first to off himself for the good of the planet. Somehow, I doubt it. That's a fate for the unenlightened/non-"progressives".
If you weren't being tricky, you were being sloppy and ineffective.
Well, this is just a blog after all, and I didn't think I needed to write a college-level response. My main point is that environmental disaster is on the horizon, with global warming, widespread pollution, species extinction, deforestation, ocean despoilation, lethal industialization and commercialism, and human over-population being its main components (have I missed anything). I'm not sure we can do anything about it. In fact, I'm pretty sure we've passed any reasonable point-of-no-return, so something is going to happen. I don't wish for human die-off, but I think it's going to happen, one way or another.
I'm pretty sure we've passed any reasonable point-of-no-return, so something is going to happen.
I don't think we are anywhere near such a point. I don't even think that environmental degradation is our most pressing concern. I think you've drunk the kool aid and bought into the panic over nearly nothing.
Ray is Back!!!
Only God knows when the End is Coming. No matter how much science we have.
I think you've drunk the kool aid…
One can accuse you of exactly the same thing. We'll see.
True. And Ray, who are you, when were you here, where did you go, and can you PLEASE explain how a 'God only knows' approach plays into our responsibility as good stewards to obey God's command to manage the creation?
Seeker:
I was here a few months back. Me,you,louis,keith and Ben, Went around on Illegal Imagrations and a few other topics. It got heated toward the end and I took a long break :-)
Seeker – "PLEASE explain how a 'God only knows' approach plays into our responsibility as good stewards"
The only thing I'm saying is no matter what man does to destroy itself "in the end" is Gods Say. The world is going to change naturally, even if "man" is not on earth. Your right though Man SHOULD be good stewards to the wonderful planet that God made with his two hands. It would make everyones time here on earth more enjoyable. I'm all for cleaner air, more trees and less polution. But the world will change get warmer and get colder with or with out the help of man.