51 comments

  1. Doug Deal says:

    If temperatures this month were normal, the global warming zealots would claim the weather is too normal and thus it proves global warming.

    The hottest year on record was actually in the early part of last century, since they corrected a systematic error with some recent measurments. If the planet was indeed warming as catastrophically as these high priests of global warming claim, then we should have far exceeded that.

    The real junk science is coming from “scientists” that think a single heat wave equates to long term climate data.

  2. buzzbrockway says:

    Spacey, Spacey, Spacey….junk science?

    The “we’re all going to die unless we out law SUVs and capitalism right now” crowd are the peddlers of junk science.

  3. Harry says:

    Congress and the international community (working together) need to mandate a reduction in cyclical variances of solar radiation.

  4. Jmac says:

    The fact that it’s hot right now in Georgia is no more proof that global warming is occurring any more than the fact that this state has cooled slightly over the past hundred years.

    Those are local measurements, and to determine global warming patterns one has to observe the global surface mean temperature (and those are going up).

    But, seriously, you can’t cry ‘junk science’ and talk about their being an unnecessary tilt toward one end and then hold a panel which offers no representation of opposing views.

    Listen, I disagree with that panel’s findings, but whatever. My larger problem is that it was hand-picked and offered no critical debate or discussion on the actual issue at hand. Believe it or not, the overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in global warming and believes it is heavily influenced by man’s interaction with the environment.

    A more fair – and realistic – approach to the panel would have been to actually include one or two folks who said that and let the panel debate, discuss and present those views to the legislators.

    What we got instead was a sham.

  5. Harry says:

    The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in global warming and believes it is heavily influenced by man

  6. Harry says:

    From NCPA/IBD – Truth Stripped Naked

    As global warming protesters pose sans clothing on an Alpine glacier,
    more experts are documenting how puny man’s effect on climate is and
    how futile are attempts to change it, says Investor’s Business Daily
    (IBD).

    Consider:

    o In a letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public
    Works, astronomer Ian Wilson estimates that the global economy
    will spend trillions of dollars trying to avoid a warming of
    (about) 1.0 Kelvin by A.D. 2100.

    o Robert Giegengack, chairman of the department of earth and
    environmental science at the University of Pennsylvania says
    Al Gore’s claim that temperatures are increasing solely
    because man-made CO2 is trapping the sun’s heat is plain
    wrong.

    o Climatology pioneer Reid Bryson says temperature has gone up
    since the early 1800s because we’re coming out of the Little
    Ice Age, not because we’re putting more carbon dioxide into
    the air.

    Further, in a study published this month in the journal Science, U.K.
    researchers said: “A common criticism of global climate
    models.has been that they only include factors such as solar
    radiation, atmospheric aerosols and greenhouse gases, which are
    affected by changes outside the climate system, (while neglecting)
    internal climate change variability that arises from natural changes
    from within the system, like El Nino, fluctuations in ocean circulation
    and anomalies in ocean heat content.”

    It’s no surprise that environmentalists would resort to soft porn to
    make their case, since scientific arguments and evidence aren’t
    working, says IBD. One thing that won’t be denied by climate
    change deniers is that global warming emperors indeed have no clothes.

    Source: Editorial, “Truth Stripped Naked,” Investor’s
    Business Daily, August 23, 2007.

    For text:

    http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=272674697218671

  7. TPSoCal says:

    Global warming is caused by all of the hot air coming from the global warming crowd. What ever happened to that “ice age” we were warned about during the 1970’s?

    You know what they used to call global warming in the old days? Summer.

  8. SpaceyG says:

    Call it what you will, I just don’t think Mother Nature is very happy with what we’ve done since 1934… or 1761, or 1961 for that matter. Nor will She ever be unless we try to find ways to cut down on the crap we pump into the atmosphere. We pump crap into our bodies, we get obese and disgusting and die. We pump chemicals into a natural entity, oh say, otherwise clean air, it’s gonna die too — eventually. Why anyone wouldn’t want to help keep our planet as clean as possible is beyond me. We’ve only got one! Oh well, let our kids deal with it, eh? Same as social security.

  9. Doug Deal says:

    SpaceyG,

    If you actually believe the reason that people disagree with you WANT to harm the environment, you might want to put down the kool-aid man mug for a second before your tongue is stained a permanent shade of purple.

    All of these wonderful fixes in search of a problem cost huge amounts of money. Before we start wildly spending the fruit of other people’s hard labor, we better well be absolutely CERTAIN of the following.

    1) Global warming is actually happening outside of natural and expected fluctuations in climate.

    2) Global warming is more harmful than it is beneficial. (Did you know higher level of CO2 make crops more productive? Did you know must of the warming is expected to happen in place that are inhospitable to man? Did you know that mass extinctions have never happened due to excessively warm weather, only excessively cold?)

    3) Global warming is being caused by man and intervention by man can stop it.

    There is significant doubt in all three. There is no emergency. The patient is not bleeding to death, so the rational way to proceed is to wait and watch.

  10. SpaceyG says:

    Heck, Harry. We can start with this stinking dumpster in my condo complex. Note to self: never purchase property 20 feet away from communal dumpster. When it’s 100 degrees for 2 weeks straight, that stuff in there rots extra quick.

  11. Jmac says:

    The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes in global warming and believes it is heavily influenced by man

  12. Harry says:

    Why IS such a course of action a good thing, to require the public to spend money on this junk science? You’ve convinced the legacy media, but you haven’t convinced the public of the pressing need. But heck, it’s August, it’s hot, so make your case.

  13. rugby_fan says:

    Allow me to channel the unifying power of Icarus…

    Both sides are peddling “junk science”. Anyone who thinks that humans and fossil fuels aren’t damaging the atmosphere are as stupid as those claiming that global warming is indeed happening.

    The earth is ending an ice age and temperatures are rising as a result. Are we exacerbating the problem with added Greenhouse Gases, wouldn’t be surprised. Should we wait and find out for sure, I’d rather not.

  14. jsm says:

    I’m constantly amazed at what the uninformed general population will believe. Here are just a few articles to help some of you get your facts straight:

    “But Leahey, Patterson and Ball don’t stand alone as voices crying out in the wilderness as to the foolishness, wastefulness and ineffectiveness of Kyoto. They are joined by no less than 19,700 other scientists — 95% of them Ph.D’s — who have signed the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine petition which states in part: ‘There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.'”

    http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Columnists/Corbella_Licia/2005/10/13/1259866.html

    “There IS a problem with global warming… it stopped in 1998”

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/09/do0907.xml&sSheet=/news/2006/04/09/ixworld.html

    “But I think what is happening now is that we are increasingly seeing a tailspin into hysteria over the global warming discussion, where it is almost commonplace to say things are worse than we thought.”

    http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=112806D

  15. Doug Deal says:

    Jmac,

    My degree is in Chemical Engineering and although I do not have a degree in physics, I was also a physics major. The number of classes, labs and such that I had taken in college has given me a decent perspective of what is and is not junk science.

    Pointing to single events that support your pet theories such as the current heat in the southeast and ignoring others that don’t like the 59 degree high in NYC a couple of days ago IS junk science.

    When Katrina struck with all of those other Cat-5’s, several of these so called “scientists” came out and blamed it on Global Warming, particularly man made global warming. Of course these experts also predicted this year and last year to be monster seasons. This is junk science.

    I never said that I am against the exploration and research of alternative fuels, but the promises of the most popular of these is also junk science.

    Bio-diesel made from waste grease can only be a drop in the bucket for the demand of oil.

    Ethanol made from crops will cause food prices to soar through the roof, and has technical issues that cannot be overlooked.

    Wind power is unworkable. Have you ever seen what a Megawatt capable wind turbine looks like? The towers are like 400 feet high, with rotors that span 300 feet in diameter, and the tips of these rotors travel at over 100 MPH. They also have to be placed in placed with a rather constant wind, and can be damaged easily in gale force and stronger winds. I.e. the NIMBY crowd will stop that.

    Solar power. Ridiculously expensive. 1 square meter of earth (about a square yard) can only supply 1.5 KW of power if the earth’s atmosphere was a vacuum and solar panels were 100% efficient and placed at the equator. (A KW is 1000 W, or about 10-20 light bulbs). This power is only available at most 12 hours a day, and you better have clear skies, so that reduces it down to 750 Watts. The atmosphere absorbs about half of the solar radiation, so that reduces the hourly average to 375 Watts. Then, the solar panels would only realistically (using far advanced technology than we currently have) recover 40% of that energy. That leaves us with about 150 Watts per square meter, if every day is sunny. You would have to cover about 60,000 ft^2 in order to reach 1 MW. One should price out how much 60,000 ft^2 of solar panels will run.

    The only workable one is nuclear, but too many people fear what they can’t understand.

  16. TPSoCal says:

    I absolutely agree that we should take care of the environment. I am a conservationist, but I think some on the left have taken this to hysteria. I think we need to find a balance, we should not pollute to the point of a health crisis and we should not regulate to the point where we have the economic output of Cuba.

    I also cannot stand being lectured on my carbon footprint while the Gore’s of the world travel in private jets. I care about the environment, I recycle and I even drive a hybrid. But I refuse to worship at the church of the environment and panic over the future.

  17. Jmac says:

    Pointing to single events that support your pet theories such as the current heat in the southeast and ignoring others that don

  18. Icarus says:

    Nice try on the unifying powers, Rugby. Unfortunately, doesn’t look like it worked.

    I personally don’t believe that there is a significant global warming event that is man made. The hysteria and hypocracy that surrounds this movement is over the top.

    Statements that “reasonable scientists” accept this as gospel, but those who disagree or draw different conclusions are “industry backed spokespeople” reeks of the same propaganda that Joseph McCarthy made famous to battle communists.

    That said, there are far too many on the right who want to use this as an excuse to do nothing. We import too much of the energy we use, and are not using what we have efficiently. We need more nuclear power, expanded use of diesel, and more research into hydrogen fuel cells.

    There are effective solutions that both sides would agree on, but it’s hard to take someone seriously who preaches to everyone else and then issues himself free carbon offset credits to excuse his personal excesses.

  19. Icarus says:

    Yes, but too often, the criticism for anyone that refutes man-made global warming is that they’re bankrolled by “the polluters”, regardless who they are directly funded by, and with no regard for the validity of their results.

  20. Jmac says:

    Fair enough, and such generalizations are wrong.

    However, and I’m being honest here, the majority of those I hear who dispute man’s role in climate change are often working for companies like Chevron, Exxon, etc. The problem is perception, and if there truly is this strong scientific community which disputes global warming, then it needs to speak in a more independent voice (as Michaels is doing).

  21. gatormathis says:

    Let’s see, we have one group who decries global warming, saying it is caused by cow farts, SUVs, and a multitude of other things man controls.

    We have another group who says nothing of the sort is happening.

    The rest of us are content with trying to pay our bills and hope the next day will just be somewhat better than the last.

    Using the “ice age” of millions of years ago as a beginning point, we all can easily figure what may have happened.

    The planet population of animals, mankind, and even plant life in the ice age, was a “little” less than what it is today.

    When you consider just the increase in “mammal” population across the Earth as a whole, that is tremendous. Each individual animal kind of acts like a little “heater” if you will, taking in food, air, and expelling heat, carbon dioxide, and other waste products, all while giving off a little heat..

    The U.S., which up until a couple of hundred years ago, had minimal populaton, now boasts hundreds of millions of people, each giving off a little more “heat” that an empty spot, to say the least. Every other populated area on earth, has generated greater numbers of people daily , along with other animals.

    Combined with cars, asphalt, water usage, and all the other factors society contributes, it would be stretching to say there should be no change in climate, weather patterns, or any other “given” that we think should be the same since the beginning of time.

    Man harnesses energy, changes stream flows to make energy and other amenities, and basically attempts to control as much of his habitat as humanly possible, which probably has a slow chain reaction to everything else.

    For every action, there is an opposite, and equal, reaction, so sayeth somebody reputed to be smart.

    They just found another “lost” airman from WWII, just yards from the one found a few years ago, because a little more ice has melted.

    So all this arguing back and forth isn’t amounting to doodley-squat.

    We will begin to rethink this stuff pretty soon, as markets develop for products that appear that offer economical solutions.

    Lighting could easily be swithed partially to LEDs, that can be ran off of DC current, that can be stored in batteries that can be charged from solar power, such as the small solar yard lamps.

    A friend of mine put these around his pool deck several years ago, and most are still working, illuminating his deck enough for entertaining, rather easily, at “no” cost for years.

    Tasks that take sheer “power” will take a little longer. But there are other items that we will begin to change each time a viable product comes along, reasonbly priced.

    To say that “nothing” at all is changing, is just a bad a position, as saying the world will probably end or become intolerable in a few years.

    Still I see no mass exodus of tree huggers nor anyone else heading to the woods to “pitch” a tent, all in the name of mankind…………….

    …..the “toilet paper” out there can cause to much itching if you get the wrong “brand”…..

  22. Doug Deal says:

    JMAC,

    I didn’t mean you, I meant the generalized arguments from the man made global warming crowd. I find you considerably more reasonable than them on this subject.

    My main point really is that even if it is 100%true, we are not at a crisis, and would not be for at a century at the minimum. We should progress more reasonably, and perhaps give the sun at least another activity cycle before making long term prognostications.

    (Another cause of global warming could be the fact that our air is cleaner. Cleaner air means more sunlight makes it deaper in the atmosphere. One way we could lower the earth’s temperature is to burn huge plumes of black smoke.)

  23. Mad Dog says:

    Spacey G,

    The GOP says: Pollution is GOOD for you.

    Why don’t you listen?

    Mother Nature actually sucks on the tailpipe of every Cadillac produced in Detroit. She’s a pollution slut! It’s never harmed her in any way. And, if it ever does, it was her decision to make coal, oil, and carbon dioxide in the first place.

    Shame on her.

  24. Mad Dog says:

    The idiots that think talking about the hottest year in the U.S. (1937 when adjusted) replace true science need to answer three questions.

    Is the United States the only place on the face of the earth?

    What five year period was the hottest on record?

    What ten year period was the hottest on record?

    And, since I don’t expect the America ONLY temperature nuts to know the answers to simple questions…

    No. The weather in the United States does not determine the weather in the rest of the 190 or so countries spread around the globe.

    The last five years.

    The last ten years.

  25. griftdrift says:

    Scientists don’t rely on single data points to draw conclusions. They rely on multiple lines of data and all of those point to a rapid increase on the global mean temperature.

    But if single data points are your thing, you might want to talk to some south Georgia hunters. They are asking the DNR to extend deer season by two weeks because the warmer winters of the past ten years have caused the rut to start later. Think they are starting to ponder whether this global warming thing is a conspiracy or not?

  26. Doug Deal says:

    Mad Dog,

    It is pointless to discuss a point that has become a religion to some people. You are at best ignorarnt when you claim any time in the known history of man has been “the hottest x number of years on record”.

    In the history of our planet, long before any creature even obtained sentience, the temperatures on the planet were significantly hotter (to the point that the polar regions were teaming with life) and significantly cooler (where glaciers covered most of the current temperate regions).

    Unless you choose to ignore real science, you have to admit that the current perceived varience in temperatures are a drop in the bucket when compared to the geologic record.

  27. griftdrift says:

    But Doug, there is no real denying we are currently in a rapid temperature change. Yes, they have occured in the past and always in conjunction with catastrophic extinction results. We are the first species that actually has the ability to potentially prevent an extinction event. If we don’t even try, won’t we be the cosmic joke.

  28. Doug Deal says:

    Are we Grift.

    Now that they have corrected the errors that scientists have been basing their data on over the last 7 years, the new data looks like this…

    http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D_lrg.gif

    It looks like nothing more than a local maximum matching the period in the 1940’s.

    That date that you also criticize (1937) is not the date I refer to, which is 1934, which is the hottest single year on record WORLDWIDE.

    Anyway, that is beside the point. My point is that no one can reasonably know what is going on with climate, as it is measure in terms of centuries, not years. Anyone who claims they can predict disastrous climate changes in a short period of time is a snake oil salesman.

    It could very well be that temperatures will rise over time, but it will not happen quickly, and if the evidence is clear and convincing, we can take deliberate corrective action.

  29. griftdrift says:

    But here’s the beautiful thing Doug. Just like with the fossil record, we can explore global weather over thousands and even millions of years. Many of the same tools used in deep age dating methods such as ice cores and tree rings also provide evidence of the state of the climate over periods of time. And yes, they do show fluctuations of the entire global climate. But they also show a logrithmic increase in temperature in the past 150 years.

    Look, the bottom line is climate science is complex. There may be nothing more complex in the universe than our global climate system. For this reason I agree with you that you can’t walk outside and say “whew it sure is hot today, must be global warming”. Anecdotal evidence is fairly useless and no scientists would solely rely on it.

    But we cannot ignore the larger, parallel lines of evidnce which indicate a current rapid warming nor the potential effects on the survival of millions of human souls.

  30. Doug Deal says:

    Rugby and Grift,

    I just don’t see disaster sneaking up on us in the short term. Even at the worst case, one might argue that the final results could even be benefitial to mankind and bio-diversity. Much of the Earth is still overed in frozen soil. Most of Canada’s population lives in a narrow band next to the US border.

    Personally I do not know what to think on the issue, but I am turned off by the politicizing of politics. At this point, I find the politicizing coming more from folks like Gore and the GW crowd than the other side.

    Economics is at least as important as the environment. The effect of every policy, restriction, law, treaty and solution needs to be wayed under more scrutiny than assume “even the slightest amount of global warming is catastrophic”.

    Life on Earth has existed in equilibrium for 2 billion or more years. As the planet changes, life changes, and as life changes, the planet changes. This is no fragile system. If it were fragile it would have been broken billions of years ago.

    More heat, means more moisture in the air, which means a higher albedo for the Earth, which means less solar radiation reaches the ground, which means cooling. Less heat means less clouds, which allows more radiation to strike the ground, which means heating. This is just one of thousands of stabilizing equilibriums that keep the environment in balance.

    I think there is room for GW people and anti-GW people as well as people like me to come to agreement. Nuclear energy is something that any serious GW person should support.

  31. Southerner says:

    The heat wave is not being caused by global warming. It is being caused by all of the states moving their presiential primaries up, thereby forcing the candidates to talk much more than before, and all the hot air they are generating by all the BS spouting from their mouths is why it’s hot right now.

    That’s my theory, and I’m stickin’ to it!

  32. griftdrift says:

    A few problems, Doug.

    First the Earth has not been in equllibrium for a couple of billion years. Check out the K/T extinction and the Permian extinction. Good old mother earth is a dynamic place and she will be here long after we are gone. My only point is why help along with our potential doom.

    I disagree the politicization is mostly coming from the Gore’s of the world. Rep. Lewis hosted than panel to spread doubt and misinformation. Did you know that most of the panel actually agree that global warming is man made? Its a common tactic to take the smallest shred of dissent and try to paint the whole as unreliable. Been there done that with creation vs. evolution.

    As far as this whole notion that global warming may be good for mankind as a whole? Tell that to the billion people who live along the coastline and rivers of the Indian sub-continent.

  33. Mad Dog says:

    The assertion that “Economics is at least as important as the environment.” is a false assertion.

    The environment exists outside of economics. See the lesson of Katrina. Environment trumps human economic activity. See the lesson of the December 2004 tsunami.

    Economics could not stop either of those events. Economics takes a back seat to changes in seasons. Drought, water shortages, cyclones, earthquakes, volcanoes … All a part of the environment.

    Sadly, what some some wrongly call ‘economics’ is really just capitalism or the susposed Manifest Destiny credo American style.

    “More heat, means more moisture in the air, which means a higher albedo for the Earth, which means less solar radiation reaches the ground, which means cooling.”

    The cycle is much more complex than this, including a multi-layered atmosphere that heats or cools independent of cloud cover. The outer layer, the thermosphere can reach over 1700 degree celcsius. Some temperature profiles in the atmosphere have already been changed 3 degrees warmer since weather balloons first began studies.

    The single greatest mistake in the logic of “the environment will adjust to protect us” is simply that.

    The environment doesn’t know that we exist.

    Everything about us needs a specific type of environment. Pumping pollution carelessly into Mother Nature is just like standing up in church and giving Jesus the bird.

  34. Doug Deal says:

    grift,

    The threat to rising sea levels is overblown. The only ice that has been charted significantly as retreating is sea ice in the artic, which is already seaborne, so it contributes nothing to sea levels (look up buoyancy).

    Continental ice would increase the sea levels, but even the more dire predictions do not even come close to it disappearing. It would take an average temperature increase of 34 F in order to melt it all, and it would take a millennia to melt it enough to effect man to any significant degree.

    My theory about global warming is that the use of cleaner burning fuels has returned climate to what it should have been and that it was depressed because of the fine particles of soot in the upper atmosphere. However, I am not willing to stake the livelihoods of others on that.

    The world is not going to explode tomorrow whether global warming is real or not, natural or man made. So, let

  35. Doug Deal says:

    Mad Dog,

    You do not understand economics at all. Economics involves pretty much anything that can be described as a resourse and how those limited resources are distributed.

    Starvation is an economic failure, as are recessions and most other forms of human suffering. Economics is what allows us to give comfort to the poor and afflicted. Ignoring the economic consequences of anything is a mistake that will lead to nothing but suffering.

  36. Mad Dog says:

    Doug,

    I do understand economics.

    You just don’t understand that there are many disagreements within the field on what is and isn’t economics.

    I do not care to over generalize starvation as purely an economic event. Famine and starvation have been political tools to destroy ethnic groups, consequence of war, and the results of natural disasters just to educate you and others like you of your narrow and twisted efforts to redefine the world.

    Just as you would twist the meaning of ‘record’ to include non-man made records. Clearly in the very first comment on this thread you assert a specific year as the hottest ON RECORD and then slam me for the same. You’re at best two faced.

    Similarly, you misuse “equilibrium” to mean something very static and inherently benign. The NYSE is an example of a system that reaches equilibrium with each new transaction involving indexed stocks. Yesterday

Comments are closed.