That Darn Science...
It seems that there are still those who disagree with the global warming alarmists. Unfortunately, their voices are often not heard. Why? According to this MIT professor, the alarmists are ignoring or silencing their views.
The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism. Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes. After all, who puts money into science--whether for AIDS, or space, or climate--where there is nothing really alarming? Indeed, the success of climate alarmism can be counted in the increased federal spending on climate research from a few hundred million dollars pre-1990 to $1.7 billion today. It can also be seen in heightened spending on solar, wind, hydrogen, ethanol and clean coal technologies, as well as on other energy-investment decisions.So when a fellow blogger like Wulfgar makes these claims as "fact," you can take them with a grain of salt: "It is a simple matter of fact that truth is not open to a single piece of contrary evidence. Is the climate getting warmer? Yes. Does human activity play a role in that? Yes"
But there is a more sinister side to this feeding frenzy. Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
So, according to the alarmists, there is not a "single piece of contrary evidence." According to an expert, there is:
Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have increased by about 30% over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming. These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent globalThat will teach us to get our science from weblog authors.
warming.
8 comments:
Great post. I've tried to counter the global warming juggernaut for years. I posted a the same article several days back. Most illuminating.
Here in Montana we don't have to worry about global warming - it's been so windy all that water from the pola icecaps melting would be evaporated in no time.
You know that I meant polaR! I speak much faster than I type. But not any better. . .
Gee, ya know I coulda swore I posted something here. It wasn't inflamatory, just contrary. What a woos...
I am not a "woos," or even a wuss.
The only time I have deleted a comment is when it refers to me by name, contains other identifying information, or contains extreme profanity. In that case, I always re-post the same comment without the offending information.
Therefore, I am betting my lack of woos-ness against your a) computer ineptitude or b) lack of accurate recollection.
gg,
Ok, sorry. I'm going to plead technical difficulty as when I tried to post this yesterday, all I got was an error message. Perhaps that happened on my earlier attempt, or perhaps I flubbed it. I'll take you at your word that you don't malk-around with the comments here.
To summarise my first comment. Will any academic do if they tow the denialist line? It doesn't really matter as long as they have some perty letters behind their name, right?
Lindzen has his position due to some good work he did earlier on in his career. Since 1999, he has forwarded a novel theory that has since been shown to be less than plausable based on satellite measurements.
Is it really that you guys think 99% of scientists in this field are nutz or part of a conspiracy? Or is it that you fear public admission of AGW will result in policies that'll crash the economy? Cause frankly, the only venue that "debate" still rages is in the editorial pages of U.S. newspapers.
Definately not a woos....
hh
When you throw around claims like "99% of scientists in this field," you really don't help your cause. So far the standard blog argument supporting the belief in global warming seems to be 'everybody knows it's happening.' Would you please email me your poll showing that 99% of scientists in the field agree on anything, or even that a large majority do?
My point is this. Global warming is real. Fine. But we don't know if our activity is causing it, we don't know if anything we can change will stop it, and we don't know if it will be a bad thing in the foreseeable future or ever. Obviously, conservation of resources is a good thing in its own right, but there are many who want to use this 'science' for political purposes, i.e., impose Draconian measures designed to hamstring the Western economies.
Is this because they are anti-capitalist (yes), hate the west (yes), or feel that the way to raise up third world countries is to bring down more successful countries (yes)?
But we are going to do this based upon climatology data that is literally comparable to one grain of sand on Waikiki beach? I did the math on another post and, given the age of the earth, if we had global warming and cooling once every 25,000 years, it would have happened 180,000 times during the life of the earth. And you want us to change our habits based on computer models operating on 100 years of data?
As far as a debate raging in the newspapers, I disagree. The U.S. media was one of the first to dive in headlong to the hysteria which, if you read the original piece and those linked, would be apparent to you.
gg
But we don't know if our activity is causing it, we don't know if anything we can change will stop it, and we don't know if it will be a bad thing in the foreseeable future or ever.
This is apparently the kernel of our disagreement so I'll focus on this. I think if your life were dedicated to looking at the data available on, and understanding the mechanisims of, the dynamics of the Earth's atmosphere then one could take your opinion at face value. At it is, you are a no doubt capable Doctor of jurisprudence focusing on the legal dynamics in GF.
An as long as you're willing to trust and believe these spokespeople of the business as usual economy, both in the U.S. and more importantly now in Asia, then you'll remain complacently decieved.
Global Warming has been predicted, both as a natural consequence and as that of human activities, since the discovery of the state of Venus' atmosphere in the 50's. I remember not so long ago one could tune to the AM frequency of choice to hear the soothing denial that global warming, or even ozone degradation for that matter, is even happening and is furthermore a machination of crypto-communists. Ask yourself this: When did you accept that "global warming" is real although not by humans.
If you were interested, I could direct you to a site that has some informative information on the "how do we know and why do we believe" of AGW. I've tried this in the past with folks, but that site has already been plastered with the "anti-(west, U.S.,god, capitalist)" plaster that some choose to use when confrunted with peer-reviewed science on the topic.
Recently surfaced ice cores show that this is the hottest decade in about the last 1 million years. If your first inclination in the face of this statement is to refute rather than understand, then you're part of the problem.
hh
Post a Comment