Like a Diamond in the Sky
The position of climate change denialists these days is roughly the same as that of Flat Earthers from the day that Yuri Gargarin circled the Earth in a capsule. That is a continual denial of something which it is no longer tenable to deny, and being something of a student of human nature in all its aberrations, I ask myself, as many have before me, "Why are they so?".
There are many answers: a deep faith in unregulated market forces; a deep faith in big energy companies; a deep faith that a god created the world in a perfect form 6000 years ago, and humans are too puny to damage that creation; a hatred of those dirty hippies who should all have been shot in the Sixties. But there is another thread running through all of those -- a belief that no environmental issue, no conservation cause, no piece of the natural world, must ever be allowed to get in the way of big profits for big business or of the ever accelerating human population.
Everywhere you look around the world, forests are being smashed and burned, species hunted to extinction, ocean floors ravaged, rivers polluted, sand dunes paved over, coral reefs bombed, mountain tops blasted. And everywhere a new problem becomes evident, and people concerned for our world mobilize to try to protect some vestige of creation, the forces of big business bring to bear financial and legal and lobbyist and union and media and political pressure and ensure that no conservation cause can ever succeed.
And they get away with this because they convince Joe Public that it is "jobs or the environment" and because "saving spotted owls" can be made to seem of concern only to tree huggers, and because there is always the impression, promoted by the media and the tourism industry, that there are plenty of wild places left, just over the hill, just around the river bend, just on the next island. The world can be made to seem inexhaustible.
But along come scientists, not those soft girly greenie sympathizer biologists, but hard real male physicists in white coats, to tell us that the actual planet as a whole is in trouble. Not just piece meal battles for a patch of forest here, a beach there, but an invisible gas permeating the atmosphere, rising inexorably in concentration, and warming the planet towards a tipping point or two which could make the planet unlivable for humans in the sense that we have understood living in the last 100,000 years or so. And suddenly big business, and the politicians they have nurtured, and the peasants hoping for crumbs from the rich man's table, one day, and their enablers on talk back radio and Murdoch Media, are faced with the prospect that having won every battle in their drive to totally exploit the planet they may, finally, lose the war.
And so the chorus of anti-global warming propaganda, already high enough to prevent action these long ten years, is suddenly ratcheted up to a new level, as the destroyers of worlds fear that the public will, finally, like 6 billion Yuri Gargarins, see for themselves the reality of the world around them.
Too much reality on the Watermelon Blog.
Follow David Horton on Twitter: www.twitter.com/watermelon_man
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Climate change deniers continually deny the relationship between higher levels of Carbon Dioxide leading to higher temperatures.
And I always use the planet Venus as an example, with an atmosphere that is 95% Carbon Dioxide, 90 x as dense as the Earth's leading to a temperature of around 900 degrees Farenheit which is even hotter than Mercury, the closest planet to the Sun.
I'm convince that at least some of these deniers are just plain stupid and some are delusional.
Funny how trolls never want to discuss anything or provide backup comment. It's always throw up a bunch of bunk and run.
See David Horton's Profile
Hi Steven
I appreciate your comments anyway!
Cheers
David
The private sector will save us from the earth.
Since Mr. Horton's main point appears to be the sociological concerns of the global warming debate, I think I'll just address that and avoid the fact-chewing of science that others are doing already.
If, as Mr. Horton suggests, those who oppose climate change figures (aka "skeptics") are all just a bunch of redneck, Bible-thumping idiots, then I would ask him why it is that more and more SCIENTISTS with ACCREDITED degrees and backgrounds are emerging to question the CO2-based global warming theory.
The problem here, socially, is that there appears to be only two sides to this debate: either you believe the world is going to end and the sky will fall, or you believe that those people are a bunch of nutcases getting in the way of your profit margins.
Politically, this quickly devolves into a free market vs. socialist debate. Emotionally, this devolves into an "us vs. them" question.
None of these are SCIENCE, people. Science is not fact, it is the questioning of established theory and the formation of new theories.
The trouble is, neither side of the global warming debate wants to bother with science. They use it to "prove" their point, counter the other side's point, and so forth, but the debate almost always becomes emotionally charged rather than mentally driven.
In the end, valid, real scientific debate is almost always lost. Even Mr. Horton, in his opening paragraphs to this piece, inadvertently proved that point.
--Aaron
http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com
"then I would ask him why it is that more and more SCIENTISTS with ACCREDITED degrees and backgrounds are emerging to question the CO2-based global warming theory."
This scientist would like to ask those scientists to publish their findings and the data they have collected in their own studies on climate change in renowned peer-reviewed journals, like everyone else. After all, that gives them a lot more credibility than to send someone to Huffpo to advertise for a .com website which costs $9.99 per month for the annual renewal of the domain name.
;-)
Exactly.
Sorry, if it's not peer reviewed, it's NOT science.
Thank you for further proving my point. Instead of addressing what I've said, you attack my website link, which is in my signature and was not cited as any proof of anything I stated.
Typical behavior by those who are pushing the climate change due to human-made CO2 theory as religious fact rather than as science.
There have been plenty of these published in plenty of journals. NASA published at least one that I know of, Science has published a handful, as have several European papers. Just this morning, on MY website, I published an article which refuted an earlier article I'd written questioning climate change, acknowledging that there is still debate on the subject. In other words, unlike most, I'm willing to look at BOTH sides and not just the one that supports my **opinion** on the matter.
--Aaron
http://www.aaronsenvironmental.com
:P
Great, the infamous "peer reviewed literature" line. Created because it's the best way to stifle any dissent and destroy the entire idea of science, which is constant questioning and testing. Here's a great example of the value of "peer reviewed" science: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn17288-spoof-paper-accepted-by-peerreviewed-journal.html
Kill, if you're a scientist, let me ask you this. If I assume, for the sake of our discussion, that global warming per your definition, exists. What then? Tell me what's going to happen. I suggest to you that you can't. because the "projections" are all over the place. Each passing year proves more of the predictions wrong. So, because we have no idea what's going to happen, we're going to pass a bill that does nothing to address CO2, but will make Al Gore and the traders on Wall Street incredibly wealthy? This is nothing but more crap to feed the oligarchy, being sold by idealistic young people who believe in saving the planet. Reminds me of the Moonies, but I'm sure you're to young to remember them. Google 'em some time.
Why should anyone believe you?
How would you know anything about real scientific debate?
You aren't a scientist, you aren't even an amateur either.
You are just another Conservative Republican spouting the Republican Mantra that has killed this country.
Please don't bother us until we get this country moving again.
And Son, you are a typlical liberal who attacks any non believers? Nothing like resorting to stereotype to solve a discussion.
If this is really a crisis, let's do something meaningful instead of this cap and trade nonsense. Lets mobilize the country like we did in WWII, and aim for a total conversion of all cars, trucks and buses to compressed natural gas. We would lower CO2 emissions by 25% and particulates by 99%. We would create jobs in the conversion work, building refueling stations and transmission pipelines. We have a 100 year supply of domestic natural gas, so we eliminate foreign oil imports entirely, making up other needs for oil with domestic sources. We convert coal fired plants to NG, further drastically cutting emissions. Increased taxes generated can be poured into alternative fuel R&D and infrastructure.
Tell me what's wrong with that approach, Son.
The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
Thanks for burning so many strawmen at once. Their light will surely help science to find its way in the dark.
:-)
But, Kill, besides a personal attack, how do you refute that logic? Logic may be practiced by people other than scientists. It is exactly that form of science, observational RATHER THAN experimental science, that is destroying the public's respect for scientists today. We call it "junk science" in my profession, and we know we can hire a respected, gray-haired scientist to testify to any kinds of facts we want, as long as the witness fees are good enough.
I think CAUSE and EFFECT for AGW due to CO2 needs to be PROVEN by proponents. Just because both CO2 and temperature go up does not mean CO2 caused temperature to go up. Those who think this is a no-brainer probably have not looked into closely.
Ice core records show CO2 following temperature, indicating CO2 is an EFFECT.
H2O is a strong greenhouse gas, constitutes ~4% of the atmosphere, has significant effect on the Earth's albedo, and is considered by AGW proponents as a net POSITIVE feedback driven by changes in CO2 (at ~380 ppm)...?!? This doesn't make sense. If H2O were a NET positive feedback wrt temperature or humidity, any fluctuation would either freeze us out or fry us! Or is there something special about anthopogenic CO2 that has not been disclosed...?
Absorption (relevant to AGW) by CO2 occurs either in the 'wings' of the 15 um absorption band which consititue a very small slice of the outgoing LW radiation, and/or at very high altitudes. Data or warming trends do not seem to support this mechanism as causing warming (looking for warming trends at the tropical troposphere.)
These are just a few questions I have not been able to resolve. If someone can point me to a cogent proof that CO2 is causing the warming, I would like to look it over!
On co2 and temps, it works both ways; here's the Cliff Notes.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/04/the-lag-between-temp-and-co2/
Grow an atmosphere by making it denser leads to higher surface temperatures.
Do a little research in astronomy and you will find this validated.
The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.
The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.
See David Horton's Profile
Um - and the observations, not models, of rising ocean acidity, melting glaciers and icecaps, increasing droughts, changing plant distributions, changing animal ecology and behavior, and, well, rising temperature and CO2? All just screensavers on a GCM computer?
To go a bit further, how about the permafrost melting problem in Alaska?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-chameides/the-nations-energy-expert_b_234120.html
One link of many.
Then there are some problems with islands potentially vanishing: http://solomontimes.com/news.aspx?nwID=3584
If some people weren't so stuck on denial, they might find things like this out for themselves.
David,
You have hit so many points, most of which are weather instead of climate change. I will however, address several points.
A good example is snowfall. I live in the Seattle area of Washington. We had 3 or 4 years in a row where snowpack levels were continually decreasing. There were concerns that the skiing industry would not survive a few more years of this Global Warming. Then for the last 2 winters in a row, we have had slightly better than average conditions for the ski slopes. Was anyone saying maybe we were wrong 3 years ago?
As for other such events, at any given time somewhere on the globe there is someplace that has had several years in a row of drought or flooding. It changes after a few years and than some other place or region becomes the news maker.
Try sticking to one location or region and examine that regions recorded history (100 + years or more). Look at the pattern of rainfall.
An excellent website for this would be
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/cag3.html
Look at annual rainfall for your state over the last 115 years. You will see almost no longterm trand and there will be periods of drought and heavy rainfall. No global warming (er, climate change) there.
Even RealClimate.org, the most revered climate change blog site, is starting to admit that there has been no warming over the last 11 years.
Did you forget to mention increased hurricane intensity?
Take a look at the cover of Al Gore's movie:
http://www.amazon.com/Inconvenient-Truth-Al-Gore/dp/B000ICL3KG
Notice the hurricane being generated by the smokestack?
http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2008/20080506160205.aspx
“It’s also important to note that the emerging consensus among the climate scientists is that even though any individual storm can’t be linked singularly to global warming – we’ve always had hurricanes,” Gore said. “Nevertheless, the trend toward more Category 5 storms – the larger ones and the trend toward stronger and more destructive storms appears to be linked to global warming and specifically to the impact of global warming on higher ocean temperatures in the top couple of hundred feet of the ocean, which drives convection energy and moisture into these storms and makes them more powerful.”
http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/
As the middle of July approaches, Northern Hemisphere TC activity begins to pick up with the WPAC, EPAC, and NATL basins often seeing plenty of strong cyclones.
In terms of ACE, the NH total to date has varied considerably during the past 30-years. The figure shows the calendar year ACE to date for the past 30-years for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. July 13, 2009.
Using a longer-database of hurricane tracks for the globe, the recent downturn in global TC energy is nearing record low levels of inactivity - the lowest in 50-years.
David, I don't buy your "facts". For every melting glacier, there's a growing one. For every drought, there's increased rainfall. For every place with rising temperatures, there are places with below normal temperatures. Data is cherry-picked to support both sides.
Let me give you all those, however, and ask one simple question. Can you prove to me that this is not being caused by the Sun, and the increased CO2 levels are a response to the warming rather than the cause?
There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved. None of the computer models replicate this fact.
The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.
"There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years"
When are going to be rid of this myth. Source please? And don't give me some nut-job denier site--provide some published peer reviewed data to support your statement.
That one is easy Steven,
University of Alabama at Huntsville (UAH) satelite monitoring of lower troposphere, Remote Sensing Services (RSS) satelite monitoring of lower troposphere, Hadley in England using surface and ocean temperature, and even NASA GISS which also monitors surface and ocean temperature (although NAA GISS is the outlier of the four).
All four can be plotted together here:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/wti/from:1997/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1997/offset:-0.15/plot/gistemp/from:1997/offset:-0.24/plot/uah/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997
I have removed all filters, and even included the entire 1998-99 elNino event for your pleasure.
The woodfortrees site also provides links directly to the data. So there. Is that good enough for you Steven?
Nuc, explain why Venus is hotter than Mercury?
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
