Nobel Prize Winners
In recent arguments in the commentary sections of the series of posts on Global Warming, guest Neologizer frequently cited the internationally award-winning creds of the alarmist Global Grillers as "proof" of--presumably-- scientific objectivity and integrity.
Republicus has rebutted such qualifications by pointing out that recipients of the Nobel do not always reflect the imagined characters of who we think would be worthy of receiving such a prestigious award, e.g. people of intellectual objectivity and character integrity, i.e. people who make other people proud to be people.
Case in point: PLO Terrorist and Infitada-instigator Yasser Arafat was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
Well, you say, that's the fault of the committee which decided to award him.
Yes. And, obviously, political considerations are factored in to the equation which determines the resulting winner.
So Neologizer's attempts to strengthen his argument (that is the arguments of his Global Warming gurus) by constantly waving the Nobel Prize over it as some secular sort of Divine Infallibility is what is known as an illegitimate appeal to authority, i.e. fallacious reasoning.
A story today makes my point well. Behold the "apolitical" and "peaceful" mettle of another recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace winner:
07:31 AM CDT on Friday, July 13, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News
Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams apologized Thursday for saying she could kill President Bush, remarks that drew scorn from Bush loyalists and shook up the International Women's Peace Conference in Dallas.
"My feelings now and again get way ahead of me," Ms. Williams said. "I couldn't kill anybody, but I must confess that I'm extremely angry with the Bush administration and what they have done. To say that was wrong."
Note: "My feelings now and again get way ahead of me."
Indeed. And receiving a Nobel does not make them right.
Republicus has rebutted such qualifications by pointing out that recipients of the Nobel do not always reflect the imagined characters of who we think would be worthy of receiving such a prestigious award, e.g. people of intellectual objectivity and character integrity, i.e. people who make other people proud to be people.
Case in point: PLO Terrorist and Infitada-instigator Yasser Arafat was a Nobel Peace Prize Winner.
Well, you say, that's the fault of the committee which decided to award him.
Yes. And, obviously, political considerations are factored in to the equation which determines the resulting winner.
So Neologizer's attempts to strengthen his argument (that is the arguments of his Global Warming gurus) by constantly waving the Nobel Prize over it as some secular sort of Divine Infallibility is what is known as an illegitimate appeal to authority, i.e. fallacious reasoning.
A story today makes my point well. Behold the "apolitical" and "peaceful" mettle of another recipient of the Nobel Prize for Peace winner:
07:31 AM CDT on Friday, July 13, 2007
By JAMES HOHMANN / The Dallas Morning News
Nobel Peace Prize winner Betty Williams apologized Thursday for saying she could kill President Bush, remarks that drew scorn from Bush loyalists and shook up the International Women's Peace Conference in Dallas.
"My feelings now and again get way ahead of me," Ms. Williams said. "I couldn't kill anybody, but I must confess that I'm extremely angry with the Bush administration and what they have done. To say that was wrong."
Note: "My feelings now and again get way ahead of me."
Indeed. And receiving a Nobel does not make them right.
posted by John | 6:10 AM
65 Comments:
Don't like the Nobels huh?
The scientist who discovered the genetic basis of cancer or molecular basis of how viral infections work not smart enough for you?
I bet you have no problem using the pharmaceuticals or health advice that's based on their research. But OK you don't like the Nobel ....
How about the 63 National Medal of Science recipients, 195 members of the National Academies. That have signed a petition supporting action against global warming.
The National Medal of Science, also called the Presidential Medal of Science, is an honor given by the President of the United States to individuals in science and engineering who have made important contributions to the advancement of knowledge.
It is like any other Human organization, Republicus. You are going to get the whole spectrum of human interest, greed, honesty, intelligenge, integrity, stupidity and so forth.
They have handed out so many of the silly things since 1901 (766 according to their site) that one can get just about anything.
That being said, the irony of a "Peace Prize" recipient saying the things that she did was not lost on the locals here in Dallas. The rhetoric was hot and heavy for a while.
The problem with the Human element is that ...to err is human...isn't that how it goes?
Another view on this...For those getting the "peace" prize there are differing views of what peace means. Most of them are politically motivated, of course, but not everyone is on the same side of the issues.
I fear I may get too far off on a tangent if I continue...so I will let it be.
Peace prize is an interesting contrast to nobels in the sciences. None of them are professional pacificists really they all have primary allegiance elsewhere.
Mother Teresea, Bishop Tutu and Martin luther king Jr were Religious leaders, Many polticians and your example, Betty Williams, was working as a receptionist when she won.
Contrast that with the science nobels where every winner is an accomplished professional scientist. But like I said fine you don't like nobels, how about these ....
The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint calling for action on mitigating climate
change.
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Caribbean
Canada
China
France
Germany
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Malaysia
Mexico
New Zealand
Russia
South Africa
Switzerland
United Kingdom
United States
All this short post meant to prove (and did) was, again:
"...political considerations are factored in to the equation which determines the resulting winner."
"Neologizer frequently cited the internationally award-winning creds of the alarmist Global Grillers as "proof" of--presumably-- scientific objectivity and integrity."
Neither Yassar nor miss Betty signed the petition. Scientists with Nobel prizes did. Care to comment on their scientific integrity?
Yes - No ?
how about the integrity of other "award-winning creds of the alarmist Global Grillers" such as the medal of science winners, National academy members?
Yes? No?
How about the integrity of these organizations that have all issues statements or such supporting action against human caused climate change?
Union of Concerned Scientists
Woods Hole Research Center
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Academy for Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Federal Climate Change Science Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
American Chemical Society - (world's largest scientific organization with over 155,000 members)
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
American Association of State Climatologists
US Geological Survey (USGS)
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
World Meteorological Organization
United Nations Environment Program
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
International Council on Science
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
Pew Center on Climate Change
World Wildlife Fund
Neologizer quoted me:
"Neologizer frequently cited the internationally award-winning creds of the alarmist Global Grillers as "proof" of--presumably-- scientific objectivity and integrity."
And responded thusly:
"Neither Yassar nor miss Betty signed the petition. Scientists with Nobel prizes did. Care to comment on their scientific integrity?
Yes - No ?"
Neo, again, it's about your illegitimate appeal to authority. It's clear that political considerations--decidedly favorable to liberal causes--havev infected the judgment of those on the committee who decide who is Nobel-worthy.
When deciding who should win the Nobel Prize for Peace, they give it to...YASSER ARAFAT?!?!?
The point is, on such a politically-charged issue as Global Warming (no less on the Israeli/"Palestinian" (they're Jordanians) conflict, the Nobel committee has demonstratred a self-evident favorability to Leftist causes (e.g. bestowing a terrorist the mantle of Peace-Maker and primarily blaming the U.S.A.'s industrial might for supposedly ruining the climate).
Ergo, in my not-so-humble-opinion, your constant qualifying of climatologists' credentials as validated by the Nobel Prize is insufficient proof of the objective integrity of the scientists involved in promulgating "the facts" of manmade and Made-In-America Global Warming.
I made that clear.
But you persist:
"Neither Yassar nor miss Betty signed the petition. Scientists with Nobel prizes did. Care to comment on their scientific integrity?"
Doh. If the Nobel Prize is the qualifier, I just did (for the umpteenth time).
"The National Academies representing the 21 following countries and districts have signed joint calling for action on mitigating climate change."
And WHO are they listening to on this debate? My guess is politically motivated HUMANS.
Yes, I am a politically motivated human. I won't argue there. BUT, so are they. THE point in all this is that this whole debate is politically motivated and is NOT scientifically proven....EITHER WAY!! And as such we should NOT jump on some bandwagon that could jeopardize freedoms, economies et al for the sake of an hypothesis.
Really all those scientific bodies from all those countries equally politically motivated???
China, France, India, Brazil, Mexico, Russia etc on the same page as the US?
Name anthor "political" issue where all those countries agree? or maybe its not politics and just science! Ever consider that
But OK you want to dismiss all the major scientific awardies, the scientific societies and scientifc organizations as political.
How do you explain the support of global warming action from the following ..........
Munich Re: Insurance
14 Corporate leaders urging the Prime Minister to take bold action on climate change
Statement signed by:
1. Bart Becht, Chief Executive Officer, Reckitt Benckiser
2. Neil Carson, Chief Executive, Johnson Matthey
3. Ian Cheshire, Chief Executive, B&Q
4. Mike Clasper, Chief Executive, BAA
5. Jonson Cox, Chief Executive, Anglian Water Group
6. Mervyn Davies, Group Chief Executive, Standard Chartered Bank
7. Alain Grisay, Chief Executive, F&C Asset Management
8. Sir Stuart Hampson, Executive Chairman, John Lewis Partnership
9. Sir Julian Horn-Smith, Deputy Chief Executive, Vodafone Group
10. Gavin Neath, National Manager, Unilever U.K.
11. Lucy Neville-Rolfe, Company Secretary and Group Corporate and Legal Affairs Director, Tesco
12. Trudy Norris-Grey, Managing Director UK & Ireland, Sun Microsystems
13. Hugh Scott-Barrett, Chief Financial Officer, ABN Amro
14. James Smith, Chairman, Shell U.K. Limited
The following is from a letter given at the Montreal Conference:
1. Travis Engen, President & CEO, Alcan Inc.
2. Bob Elton, President & CEO, BC Hydro
3. Laurent Beaudoin, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Bombardier Inc.
4. Russell Horner, President & CEO, Catalyst Paper Corporation
5. John Murray, President, CH2MHILL Canada Ltd.
6. Alban D’Amours, President & CEO, Desjardins Group
7. George Cooke, President & CEO, The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company
8. Doug Muzyka, President & CEO, DuPont Canada
9. Derek Pannell, President & CEO, Falconbridge Limited
10. Annette Verschuren, President, The Home Depot Canada
11. David Wilmot, Chair, Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
12. John R. Wells, President & CEO, Interface Americas
13. Brian Foody, President & CEO, Iogen Corporation
14. Jack Cogen, President & CEO, Natsource Asset Management
15. André Desmarais, President & Co-CEO, Power Corporation
16. Clive Mather, President & CEO, Shell Canada
17. Frank Dottori, President & CEO, Tembec Inc.
18. Gregg Hanson, President & CEO, The Wawanesa Mutual Insurance Company
Shell Oil Co.
Virgin Trains and Virgin Atlantic
British Petroleum
Wal-Mart
Cinergy
DuPont
Swiss Re. – (The world's second largest reinsurance company1,2)
Fitch Ratings Ltd.
Turner Construction
;Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase
General Electric
Duke Energy
NRG Energy
Statoil
Citigroup
Pfizer
AstraZeneca
GlaxoSmithKline
Business for Social Responsibility
EPA's Climate Leaders Program
Westpac's CEO David Morgan
over 100 more corporations
http://www.epa.gov/stateply/partners/index.html
What those scientist and business leaders all to political for you
how about real politicians?
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Tony Blair
President Clinton
British Energy Minister Malcolm Wicks
Seattle Mayor Gregory Nickels
Bill White, Mayor of Houston
John McCain
~300 mayors that have signed the Climate Protection Agreement:
No? How about religious leaders
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops -(the official leadership body of the Roman Catholic Church in the United States)
National Association of Evangelicals
Evangelical Climate Initiative
No?
How about the military?
The Pentagon
Six Retired Admirals & Five Retired Generals
Royal United Services Institute - British military think tank founded in 1831
No?
How about these people?
Presidents from 319+ Universities and Colleges
No?
How about President Bush and his administration's very own EPA, NASA and NOAA?
All these people and organizations have made statements admitting the science overwhelmingly supports human actions are causing global warming and action is needed
How well you prove my point!!
John, I saw this link over on Nanc's "Curtains" blog.
Attacking the Messenger: The Left Unhinged by The Fox News Channel
I thought you might be interested.
i am traveling incognito for the next few days...*:]
Newsflash:
George W Bush just awarding the presidential Medal of Science this afternoon to Torsten Wiesel, Nobel laureate and as you state "global warming fearmonger"
Since:
Presidential Medal of Science, is an honor given by the President of the United States to individuals in science and engineering who have made important contributions to the advancement of knowledge
Then:
Why is Bush choosing to honor "fearmongering polticially bent liberal scientists" with prestigous national awards of achievement? It is after all up to the president who he honors....No?
PS
how many presidential medal of science winners think global warming is just "fearmongering"???????
PSS
NONE!
Mr. Wiesel is in the field of Physiology and Medicine.
You're arguing in circles. You took exception earlier at the post devoted to the scientists who were skeptics of the party line of manmade Global Warming. You disqualified them as being "French politicians," or not in the field of climatalogy.
Now you use Dr. Wiesel as an example of a (generic) scientist who believes in Global Warming (as prognosed and promulgated by the likes of Al Gore, a Nobel nominee, it should be added).
I like the Nobel Prize. It's a fine American honor, and, more often than not, I would guess, reflects the accomplishments of the recipients. But that it is politically compromised (in several areas) is obvious, and, furthermore, it SHOULD NOT BE CITED TO STRENGTHEN THE POSITION OF A RECIPIENT'S POSITION ON THE STILL-FORMING SCIENCE OF GLOBAL WARMING--*ESPECIALLY* IF THAT RECIPIENT'S NOBEL IS AWARDED IN A FIELD OUTSIDE OF CLIMATALOGY.
That's the point of all this.
You cited an lawyer.... A LAWYER supported by Exxon as your source to critique the science of global warming.
please explain logic of inclusion of A single lawyer and exclusion of....
63 National Medal of Science recipients,
195 members of the National Academies.
United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
American Academy for Advancement of Sciences (AAAS)
American Meteorological Society (AMS)
National Research Council
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society (CMOS)
Federal Climate Change Science Program
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
UN Project on Climate Variability and Predictability
American Geophysical Union
Geological Society of America
Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006 - commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002
Stratigraphy Commission - Geological Society of London - The world's oldest and the United Kingdom's largest geoscience organization
American Association of State Climatologists
National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR)
NASA's Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS)
Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute – Ocean and Climate Change Institute
World Meteorological Organization
United Nations Environment Program
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospherice Sciences
International Council on Science
State of the Canadian Cryosphere (SOCC)
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
Pew Center on Climate Change
All of which have prominet climate researchers.
Eagerly await your attempt to obfuscate impact of these experts scientific organizations
-Neo
How do scientist know their right and you are wrong - Just read
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html
Neo..how about a list of the scientists that do not agree that man-made pollutants are the real cause of global warming?
Oh, yes, I forget my place.
Those people do not count.
Right.
Phelonus
Yes how about that list....
John already posted 15 or so of them in a previous post. There aren't many more then that and they aren't exactly pumping out the research to support their positions.
As far as your place, well since you hold a lawyers opinion above that of thousands of scientist from the most prominent climate research organizations, its clear your place is whereever you want it to be
You are still upset about that last round?
I never said I supported that guy, I just thought his article was interesting, and your arguments were weak.
Believe me, I read a lot more than that. Or, don't believe it. I don't really care what you believe.
I do remember the days when the overwhelming consensus of scientific organizations were predicting world cooling. Remember acid rain? The forests were all going to disappear by 2020 or so? I have not heard much about that of late. For those things, as well, it was not the fault of the scientific community taking an educated guess about this phenomena or that one, it was the political mileage that non-scientific organizations made out of them.
I am fine with leaving ALL the lawyers out of the topic myself, and that includes the Al Gore camp.
I take seriously this little quote: "'Climate stability has never been a feature of planet earth,' explains R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University in an article in the Financial Post.
The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3 C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long ‘Younger Dryas’ cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century's.
Dr. Patterson insists that even though advocates of the global warming theory such as Al Gore are insisting that the 'the science is settled,' that is far from being the case."
And, yes, there is research being conducted and published, even though it is not politically correct to mention it.
Bravo, Phelonius. Well said.
And I don't see how my old suv is causing warming on Mars. Seems to me, and there are more scientists coming out and saying that the SUN, you know, that BIG BRIGHT THING IN THE SKY?, is heating up. So, how will signing the Kyoto Protocals do one whit of good against, gasp, THE SUN? Do you believe the SUN is going to stop heating up just because a bunch of screaming and wailing "watermelons"* want it to?
*"watermelon"-a person who is green on the outside, but red(communist) on the inside.
So, neo, are you a "watermelon"?
Good morning, G*D bless and Maranatha!
tmw
Hi, Kelly!
TMW, Hey!!
Phelonius,
Try doing a little research on what you say before you say it. You're as bad with the facts as that Exxon payrolled lawyer
PHELONIUS myth #1: Science says there was global cooling...
This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports especially in newsweek.
No scientific organizations issued a consensus. Not sure what you "remember" here.
Phelonius bad example #2 Acid rain...Where did it go?
Oh Phelonius....bad example.
Ever hear of emmission standards? coal-burning power plants now use Flue gas desulfurization to remove this source of acid rain. International treaties like Sulphur Emissions Reduction Protocol and emmission trading has significantly reduced acid rain.
A good example of how science driving environmental policy works! and a Great example why we should do it for CO2.
Exxon Myth #3
The only constant about climate is change....
Uhmmmm right... we are causing the climate to change right now
Your example - younger dryas climate change was not clearly global and evidence supports an impact event directly prior to the younger dryas. I don't recall any giant meteors hitting the earth in the last 25 years.
The only climate forcing that is changing is all the greenhouse gases Humans are putting in.
Hi Widow....
FYI
In recent decades solar activity has however been relatively stable, (1978-2006 TSI ranges 1365-1368 Wm2) and regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming.
Not the SUN try again!
Recently, there have been some suggestions that "global warming" has been observed on Mars (e.g. here). These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/10/global-warming-on-mars/
Neo said: "the sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the 1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."
Actually, I think Solar flaring has significantly increased in tandem with global temperature upticks (as well as with the warming phenomenon on Mars).
....the big problem for blaming the sun for the recent global warming is that there hasn't been a trend in any index of solar activity since about 1960, and that includes direct measurements of solar output by satellites since 1979....
some fun fun reading for you
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Finally don't you know.....
Sunspots are the fault of the Republicans in the senate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=433
opps
here's the fun fun reading for John and Widow
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
Proc. R. Soc. A
doi:10.1098/rspa.2007.1880
Published online
Recent oppositely directed trends in solar climate forcings and the global mean surface air temperature
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
Neo,
Wow. I had no idea that the University of Ottawa and the University of Carleton are merely puppets of the evil Exxon Corp.
I bet that is news to them alright.
As to Global Cooling, I do remember a great deal of excitement about that. But, if, as you suggest, NEWSWEEK made the whole thing up out of whole cloth, then the editors of NEWSWEEK at the time should be trotted out and shot, I suppose. I seem to remember watching a man or two, claiming to be scientists, being interviewed about the thing at that time. But since there were no scientists involved, that must be a bad memory.
You misunderstood what I was saying about Acid Rain. According to the USGS Acid Rain is still a significant problem, primarily in the north-east. My point is that the "panic button of the day" is what gets attention. The reason that you do not hear about it anymore, in my humble opinion, is that people just got tired of hearing about it. When that happens, politicians get tired of talking about it. They no longer have to impress anyone with 'fix it quick' legislation. AFter that, it is the free market and citizens that have to make the difference.
For example, here in Texas there is the very serious notion that our power-grid needs to be grown. The Texas Power and Light bunch wanted to run in with a bunch of coal-burning plants, because the costs of burning natural gas have gone up quite a bit. The customers of Texas Power and Light have launched a grass-roots effort to control the number of these plants and that there is a general consensus that people are willing to pay a bit more for electricity if we can just keep the environment cleaner.
Now, the real beef I have about the climate change panic button is not that the earth is experiencing climate change. That is pretty well noticed. What we do not have is a "control" on this experiment. We do not have an example of another earth where there are no humans. What we do have is a growing body of data that suggests something of a climate history.
We now know about the "Little Ice Age" and its impact. That was, in fact, a global phenomena. I was involved in a research effort on the explorations of Coronado through the southwest USA, and one of the focuses was on the climate that Coronado faced. He crossed the Rio Grande by walking over it because it was frozen solid. We corroborated the unusual climate with temperature graphs that covered Europe, the mid-east and as far as China for his time-period. It came about that Coronado came to the US Southwest in the very coldest time of the little ice age.
The research I have looked at strongly suggests that the much earlier Younger Dryas period was, actually, a global event as well. If you expand the time frames even further out, it is clear that the global climate has changed many many times.
At the core of this, of course, is the question of "why" the Earth changes climates like teenagers change clothes. Solar concerns are not secondary, but foremost considerations. I do not think it is that hard to see that if Mars has been warming during the same time period that the Earth has, then there just MAY be a correlation.
Every measurement of the sun shows a decrease trend in irradiance in recent decades………… But because a different planet with different orbital variation with different axial wobble with a different atmosphere, different surface composition, different seasonal variation, different climate, different magnetic core and different length of year might show slight warming in one geographical area that means the sun is causing warming on earth?????
Despite your deep philosophical analogy about teenager apparel, An asteroid hit the earth and that likely caused the younger dryas. We are pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and that’s causing the current warming. The top scientists in the world, (nobels, presidential medal winners, national academy members –by the hundreds) Every major scientific organization involved in climatology, thousands of climatologists and tens of thousands of scientists concur with this.
But you somehow you’d rather listen to lawyer or a couple of other contrarians trying to get notoriety regardless of merit or evidence. There are many interesting scientific aspects to GW-climate change and I would certainly respect your “humble opinion” if you wanted to discuss them but not when you just regurgitate the same old tired anti-global warming diatribes (global cooling scare, mars is getting warmer, it must be the sun etc etc), they’ve been refuted a hundred times over by the facts but that doesn’t seem to matter to you.......did it ever occur to you as strange that an obscure lawyer is the only one discussing these “interesting” articles published in the top Scientific journals (Nature/Science etc)? Guess not.
Many people don’t know the science and I can understand their confusion but with you
I think there’s one clear explanation - you’re an ideolog.
You probably read the WSJ editorials or go to some anti-global website, drink their cool-aid and take it as the truth. They tell you Mars is warming, it must be the sun and being an ideolog you believe it and then come here and blog about it. No matter how ridiculus it is.
John,
I know you like weather reports so here's one for you...
The world experienced a series of record-breaking weather events in early 2007, from flooding in Asia to heat waves in Europe and snowfall in South Africa, the United Nations weather agency said Tuesday.
The World Meteorological Organization said global land surface temperatures in January and April were likely the warmest since records began in 1880, at about 3 degrees Fahrenheit higher than average for those months.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20159606/
Neo,
I have no doubt that the Younger Dryas period was caused by an asteroid imapct. I am fairly convinced that the little ice age was the result of volcanic activity, and most rapid extinction events and the climate changes that brought them about were also the result of catastrophes of various descriptions. True Ice Ages, on the other hand, seem to stem from the orbit of the earth and possibly changes in Solar activity. The coolaid I seem to be drinking is that not all of that science has yet been mapped out.
Since you are concerned about my sources, I am an amateur like most people that have an interest in these things. I subscribe to National Geographic, Discovery, Scientific American, Popular Science, and I go to various news sites because I like to keep an open mind to all possibilities.
The research I mentioned earlier had to be quite a bit more in-depth, obviously, so my job was to locate scholarly publications on the topic of the Little Ice Age and go through a small mountain of extremely boring USGS articles.
Be careful with labels, Neo. You call me an ideologue, and yet I am the one open to the possibility of other causes contributing to global warming. You will notice that while I am perfectly happy to attack the ideologues that propose massive legislation, I have not attacked any scientific organization or particular scientist.
Something else to note is that there is a tendency among the pundits to demonize those that do not agree with them. I notice you want to relegate actual scientists as being "contrarians," which is the cool-aid that the AL Gore camp is using now. I maintain that ALL scientific inquiries have to be looked at, and not just the ones that are politically correct at the moment.
P.S. what the heck are the WSJ journals, anybody? I am evidently in the dark on that one....
The *Wall Street Journal* journals are heresies which should be burned.
Like I said before every, every measurement of solar irradiance Shows a level or decrease intensity in the last decades.
Its laughable to suggest that looking at Mars through a telescope for a couple of years might somehow invalidate ever other solar measurement taken the last 50 years
The only people that misinterpret data to mean such are not using valid science. It's people like Taylor the Lawyer or Opinion pieces in The Wall Street Journal by former politicians that are perpetuating such junk. Not science
ie
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pdupont/?id=110009693
That coolaid isn't coming from science its coming from ideologues. And if you're using it as an example then you've been drinking some.
Its good that you want to look at all inquires but it seems disconcerning that you don't even acknowledge the overwhelming evidence based explanation.
You've studied past climate changes, a meteor impact that altered the climate, volcanos that also did. OK that's great but none of that is happening right now, only the greenhouse gases that we are pumping out. Why do you so readily accept that an impact caused the younger dryas but jumping the CO2 levels 40% won't change the climate? Especially when there is 1000X more data to support such.
The canoical issue of global warming is this-
These are the essential facts - human activity has pumped CO2 up 40%, atmospheric energy absorbance has increased. The atmosphere is aborbing 2W/m2 more energy then it emits.
This is the essential question that no skeptics ever answer - How could that not possiblity cause warming?
And that is why they get demonized, come up with an explanation and you will be taken seriously, ignore it and obfusicate with junk and get demonized
Again, Neo, I don't think anyone here is "denying" that there is warming.
That increased CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere trap heat is a fact of physics.
But this, Neo: "These are the essential facts - human activity has pumped CO2 up 40%..."
...cannot POSSIBLY be a "FACT." No WAY. At best, it's an educated guess, but the premising of your ENTIRE argument upon that is why you're movement has lost credibility.
1) It cannot be a "Fact." You can't prove that. There's no way that human contribution to the CO2 pool can be measured to an exact percentile. And a whole number like "40%" is just too neat to be believed as being an "essential fact".
2) You're insistence that a hypothesis, a theory, a guess, and/or a worst case scenario is an "essential fact(s)" when it's OBVIOUS that you've lowered the bar tremendously--to the benefit of your position-- of what a FACT really is compromises your personal credibility and the factual integrity of your entire argument, which collapses because of that very loss of credibility in the messenger and of the weak cornerstones (e.g. "Man's contribution to CO2 has been punped up 40%.")
Here's the facts John,
As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year
that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg.
Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 2.0 X10^13 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.9 X10^15 kg of CO2.
Hence, volcanism produces about 2% of the total CO2 with the other 98% coming from anthropogenic sources.
More "facts" for you
On time-scales of ~100 years, there are only two reservoirs that can naturally exchange large quantities of CO2 with the atmosphere: the oceans and the land biosphere (forests and soils). The mass of carbon (carbon is the "C" in CO2) must be conserved. If the atmospheric CO2 increase was caused, even in part, by carbon emitted from the oceans or the land, we would measure a carbon decrease in these two reservoirs.
Number of observations of carbon decreasing in the global oceans: zero.
Number of observations of carbon increasing in the global oceans: more than 20....
there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation.
....
In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
John,
You and Phelonius are like destructive interference. You acknowledge that more CO2 absorbs more energy but deny the CO2 came from humans while he acknowledges the CO2 from humans but denies that it will absorb more energy(or at least won't explain where it goes)
So John what's your "educated guess" about where all the extra atmospheric CO2 came from?
PS More "facts" for you
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/109.htm#341
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/index.html#inv
Hey Republicus!
Cool!
Just by questioning the driving logic behind a major left-wing climate movement, we have single-handedly become a "destructive interference!"
Who would have known that your little blog could have such an impact?
ALong the lines of destructive facts, did you notice that recently NASA has had to revise its temperature readings of the last century? The hottest year on record was.....drum roll......1934.
Oh yea....the "Dust Bowl." I do remember reading something about that in middle school.
1998 is second place, and third place is 1921.
What I find interesting is that the new figures have been released in near absolute silence. Where is Newsweek when you need them? Why didn't I see anything on CNN about these new charts? Hmmmm....
Admittedly, the new figures only represent a 1% to 2% difference in the overall data, but after all the trumpeting about 1998 we have heard over the last few years, I am happy that at least these dogmatic formulae can be challenged and revisited by scientists that I do still respect a great deal.
Now we will see if the media that has enjoyed 1998 as a hallmark can be honest enough to correct at least that little mistake?
Phelonius,
Is there a point to the US (not the global mind you) temp data being revised a whole .02 degrees in 1998 ?
Also still waiting for any answer why you believe telescope observation of Mars for 4 years invalidates all the land, orbitial and space based data for the last fifty years that says solar output is not increasing.
BTW
Every year since 1990 was hotter then 1934 globally with 2005 the hottest...
Neo,
You can ignore the temperature findings from NASA if you like to. I do not care.
What you should not ignore as far as Mars exploration goes is that we have had these things called rockets for a few years now. Sometimes these rockets go out into what is called "space" and they have landed on other solar bodies known as "planets." There have actually been things called "instruments of science" that have landed on that particular planet.
Amongst them, amazingly enough, are the instruments of science that we call "thermometers."
This data is sent back to Earth via things called "radio waves." Some of these thermometers have been riding on the backs of robots that have also examined the soil contents of Mars along with regular weather reports. Now, as far as telescopes go, these have not been the ordinary 'back-yard' observer type telescopes. These instruments do something called a 'spectral analysis' where they can observe the energies of the wavelengths of light coming from extra-terrestrial bodies and observe the temperatures that sent them.
We have nearly 30 years worth of data about the temperatures of Mars through its various seasons, and, believe it or not, we have a lot of similar information about other planets in this solar system that do not rely on 'visual spectrum' telescopes alone. It is not just Mars that has been warming. Jupiter also shows signs of warming. But, astronomers are a careful lot and will not talk about data they do not have yet. Jupiter they are confident with, along with Mars and the planet Earth. Coincidence? Perhaps, but intriguing.
Solar science has only has its real roots established in the last couple of decades, with satellites that operate around the inner Lagrange point. The information we have about Mars does proceed Solar science by a large amount.
Now, as to your last statement, the significance is that 1934 is, in fact, the hottest year on record. Moreover, 5 of the 10 hottest years on record predate world war two. This is NASA, my boy, and I do expect that EVIL EXXON has not bribed and frightened all of those guys into politically correct pabulum.
But let's throw all that good science behind us, shall we?
Let us presume, for the sake of argument, that the Kyoto accords should be followed. Actually, I am not opposed to the spirit of the Kyoto Accords. I like the idea that we can better stewards of our planet. What I am opposed to is the impracticality of implementing such things in the face of the latest National Geographic, as one example, that points out that no matter what the US and the other western nations do, China is not going to follow these accords for the most part, and that India and China alone can offset any Kyoto Accord in a couple of decades by 'many times' what the west will produce.
So, if the US were to 'implement' the true spirit of those Accords, who enforces those nations that are going to use that to our disadvantage? Should we then invade China? Take over India? Enforce our rule over Korea? How about all of those developing nations that cannot afford 'clean' nuclear reactors and expensive solar power for their energy needs? Are we going to allow them to suffer poverty because they cannot afford the changes that these Accords talk about?
The "Carbon Offset" of subduing China far exceeds anything we can do here by building our businesses and feeding our own people by competing with China in a fair and open free market. (That also is problematical, I understand.) My fear is an older one. Carbon is not a great thing. Radioactive fallout is many times worse than that.
Neo, can we at least agree that this global warming question is far more complicated and and sensitive than the lawyers in the "Al Gore" camp have ever made it out to be? Can we agree that these liberals also have a political agenda that abuses science to their own benefit, and the rest of us plebs be damned?
Phelonius
Yeah your not an Ideologue....Not!
Which anti-global warming kool-aid serving web site did you get that info about the NASA correction?
You do know that they are refering to US temp not global temps?
Since this is a global warming discussion I will reiterate since I guess your kool-aid servers didn't mention this.....
Global 2005 was the hottest, all the years from 1990 - present were hotter then 1934...
From NASA (guess you didn' bother to look it up yourself)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.txt
In regards to planetary cooling
Pluto is getting colder (why did you leave that out?). Don't know what thermometer on Mars you're talking about but prior to Pathfinder only Viking had successfully landed on Mars and it ceased operation in the 80s...
Why are you talking about Al Gore and liberals?? Scientists predicted global warming long before you even heard of Al Gore.
Scientists perfectly predicted the global warming due to greenhouse gases over 20 years ago....
Nature 319, 109 - 115 (09 January 1986); doi:10.1038/319109a0
Future global warming from atmospheric trace gases
ROBERT E. DICKINSON & RALPH J. CICERONE
Human activity this century has increased the concentrations of atmospheric trace gases, which in turn has elevated global surface temperatures by blocking the escape of thermal infrared radiation. Natural climate variations are masking this temperature increase, but further additions of trace gases during the next 65 years could double or even quadruple the present effects, causing the global average temperature to rise by at least 1 °C and possibly by more than 5 °C. If the rise continues into the twenty-second century, the global average temperature may reach higher values than have occurred in the past 10 million years.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v319/n6049/abs/319109a0.html
Opps here's some more
Noted oceanographer Roger Revelle’s 1957 predictions that carbon dioxide would build up in the atmosphere and cause noticeable changes by the year 2000 have been borne out by numerous studies, as has Princeton climatologist Suki Manabe’s 1980 prediction that the Earth’s poles would be first to see the effects of global warming.
PS
Aren't you getting tired of having your ideology constantly proven wrong by the facts?
A great, spirited debate, gentleman, and I thank you both for representing both sides of the argument well, with information and wit.
I myself have learned a great deal more about the subject just by listening, while peceiving strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the argument.
Neo, you have a tactic of accusing Phelonius of using illegitimate appeals to authority to nullify some of his points (with the obligatory sneer and ridicule), but that appears to me a projection of your own greatest flaw.
You premise the certainty of your "facts" on the work of "scientists" who seem to have taken on in your mind the infallibility of a pope, and not only do you not question their "factual" findings, but you don't seem to bother to question their methodologies.
You assert:
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year."
How is that measured? Volcanic activity of one scale or another occurs regularly around the world and each incident belches out its own share of CO2. You measure it thusly:
"That (volcanic) production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg.
Of course.
"Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 2.0 X10^13 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.9 X10^15 kg of CO2."
Whoa. You can't assert that statement as "FACT." You can assert the 2.9 X10^15 kg of C02 in the atmosphere as fact (an increase of .7 of an ingredient which makes up a percentile of the soupy atmosphere) but there's no way you can measure the output of anthropogenic C02 with the exactitude you profess, and you know it. That's why you have to resort to the "Precautionary Principle."
But it is from THERE--that ARBITRARY GUESTIMATE-- that you arrive at the figure for volcanic contribution:
"Hence, volcanism produces about 2% of the total CO2 with the other 98% coming from anthropogenic sources."
Do you see what you did? You imperiously dictated the 98% anthropogenic source FIRST to arrive at:
"As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year."
You guys are working the science around a predetermination.
"In summary, we know that the rise in atmospheric CO2 is entirely caused by fossil fuel burning and deforestation..."
"Entirely." You're sure about that, are you? Well, the offsetting by deforestation I can see, but you can't categorize deforestation in the anthropogenic column.
Much of the deforestation--if not most, come to think of it--is caused by very large forest-fires (some caused by humans, sure, but many not, and which themselves--like volcanos-- emit a lot more CO2 into the air than a chainsaw and a flat-bed truck ever could).
"...because many independent observations show that the carbon content has also increased in both the oceans and the land biosphere (after deforestation). If the oceans or land had contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, they would hold less carbon."
Neo, please be so kind as to explain to me how you measure "carbon content in the land" and decide how much of it stayed there and how much of it was cycled into the atmosphere (in a 100 words or less).
While you're at it, please explain to me how they get "gl;obal temperatures" to begin with. It's the old fashioned way, isn't it? Placing thermometers here or there or at at this or that arctic station and getting an average?
I recently heard a story about the readings of a thermometer at a remote locale being compromised because it was too near a heat-emitting electric light. Is that true? And if so, is it possible that your data-gathering scientists can be buffoons (as humans are wont to be) at the same time?
Neo said:
"there is no uncertainty that the land biosphere has taken up a quantity of CO2 that is roughly equivalent to the deforestation."
That's a pretty bold "no uncertainty," Neo, especially in readings that would have to be the most uncertain of all (versus the oceans).
Neo accused:
"You and Phelonius are like destructive interference."
Those are harsh terms to use in a scientific inquiry and debate, Neo. You sound like some kind of climate cop and Phelonius and I are "climate criminals."
"You acknowledge that more CO2 absorbs more energy but deny the CO2 came from humans."
I did NOT deny that humans produce CO2 (both biologically and industrially). I simply have not been convinced that the uptick in atmospheric CO2 concentrations is solely caused by human industry.
"So John what's your 'educated guess' about where all the extra atmospheric CO2 came from?"
A whole bunch of things working in tandem. I would bet that human beings are a factor, but so are trees (or the lack thereof, a dearth not necessarily caused by humans, who are smart and are increasing the size of already-vast tree farms to meet the demand for lumber while conserving pristine wilderness), forest fires, cows (the superabundance thereof, thanks to--ahem--humans, I must concede), volcanos (your equation was faulty) and the sun (your "factual" assertion pertaining to the sun--"no sunspot activity for a long time" etc.--is dubious; let's talk about solar flares, when and how big; answer: relatively recently, pretty big).
"Yeah your not an Ideologue....Not!
Which anti-global warming kool-aid serving web site did you get that info about the NASA correction?"
LOL.... I saw it first on www.fazed.com. Funny site, check it out.
"You do know that they are referring to US temp not global temps?"
Of course I do.
"In regards to planetary cooling
Pluto is getting colder (why did you leave that out?). Don't know what thermometer on Mars you're talking about but prior to Pathfinder only Viking had successfully landed on Mars and it ceased operation in the 80s..."
Well, I did mention about 30 years worth of data from Mars. We have had instruments there long enough to determine that it has been, lately, warming up. I left out Pluto because it is no longer considered a planet _and_ it is basically a ball of ice in a very non-earthlike orbit.
I go to the NASA sites all the time because that stuff fascinates me, most especially the planetary exploration aspects. I go through the GISS stuff from time to time. What is interesting about this particular glitch isn't that it was caused by a Y2K problem, it was the political mileage that our friends at Newsweek, Al Gore, CNN an others made out of 1998 being "the hottest on record." NASA corrected its records. Where is the retraction from the politicians and media outlets?
That is why I mention the Al Gore camp and the liberal Dems. Have you been reading my arguments all this time and still do not get the thrust of it? Politics is the problem. Rather than talk about how to be better stewards of the planet, those guys are trying to scare people into voting for them so that they, and the federal government, can once again grow and take more of our liberties. You ignored my questions about the political problems with the Kyoto Accords. Those are real problems that won't go away even if everyone in the US drives a government mandated electric/ethanol hybrid unicycle to work tomorrow.
And...thank you Republicus. Sometimes I think I come in here and write too much when it is, after all, your blog site.
Call me John, James. And not all. You provide a lot of muscle. Flex it all you want.
btw, Neo asked you "why you left out Pluto's cooling?"
Is he kidding?
Heh....well I kinda hope so. Neo does not strike me as being unintelligent by any means, and that is one reason that the debate has been a lot of fun. It was a strange question, though, in regards to planetary modeling.
In fairness, I guess, I am SUCH a geek when it comes to astronomy and science. It is possible that Neo is not as big a geek as I am when it comes to reading planetary science. In that case it is surely a forgivable question.
Hey, sorry I haven't been around much to reply to some comments. I finally got a chance to come back and read a few things and catch up.
I have been enjoying this debate.
James, I just wanted to add my two cents to a comment of yours. This is not just about global warming. This is about giving up our freedoms for a theory. It is becoming politically incorrect to disagree with the global warmists agenda.
I think there are far bigger problems in this world than the temperature swing a few degrees.
Lets address drugs and crime. Global warming is a LOT of hype. Drug abuse is real and is FAR more dangerous and destructive than even the worst estimates on the global warming front.
Well, I will get off my soapbox. Somethings just don't matter.
Kellty said: "This is about giving up our freedoms for a theory. It is becoming politically incorrect to disagree with the global warmists agenda."
You'll note that Neo convicted James and I as being "destructive interference."
Knowing how the hive works, I'll bet that descriptive is making the rounds in much the same way "head in the sand" and "climate criminals" did.
Neo's intelligent, but it seems he's a follower, a devotee of some High Priesthood of "Science" that does much of his thinking for him on this subject.
Kelly,
Politics is all about power, and humans will use whatever topics they can use in order to convince people of the necessary use of power. Neo, for example, skipped right by the political questions of what to do about nations that will laugh in the face of the Kyoto agreements, because, in the Chinese saying, 'it is not convenient.' The problem is, if the leftist global warming agenda is actually right, then it would make sense to oppose those that would not conform by serious actions.
War leaves a huge "carbon footprint", however. Radical economic sanctions against China and India would make us lose one valuable ally (India) and China would also turn to our enemies in the middle east and elsewhere to continue business as usual. We, in the meantime, would mostly just suffer as a result of such sanctions.
This is why you never hear the Al Gore camp talk about such things. In that aspect they are, at least, correct.
This makes me wonder. If global warming is exactly as simple as it is portrayed in "An Inconvenient Truth," then sanctions and war against other nations that defy saving our collective necks would be logical.
Thusly, Gore's neck is caught in a vise. His camp is all against war, right? Every time that Bush has been aggressive, there has been a backlash from the far left. I am not talking about Iraq. I am talking about Taiwan. I am talking about Korea. I am talking about Iran. Maybe violence is ok if a Democrat does it, but not a Republican? We should not worry about terrorism, but maybe we should conquer China because they are going to have more cars and coal burning plants than we are going to even be able to do?
You do not even hear that.
So I wonder. It is clear that the US alone can not offset the global warming even if we were to walk to work tomorrow. Are not the efforts from the AL Gore camp and the others that are paying for his future presidency, then, an internal power grab? If they throw enough real science and a lot of pseudo-science in the face of the American voter, he will then sell his heritage for a bowl of pottage?
I hope not.
The rights and prosperity that this nation has, has nothing to do with our carbon footprints, or how many carbon-offsets we can get our rich people to buy. We have those rights because we can compete, and that in more ways than one. The law of nature has been Darwinism. There is a political Darwinism as well. We have told those that would dominate us "NO," and we won. We have told those that would rape our businesses "NO," and we have won.
Now we are fighting more than one ideological battle and we are telling them "NO." We must win. We are fighting the Islamist that wishes to make us all Muslim. We are fighting the socialists that tell us that we MUST be like Europe and Canada and Australia and China.
In the meantime, those that live in those countries are clamoring to come to this country in record numbers. Why?
Because the average person of the planet, just as we, recognize the value of the liberties and way of life that we have fought so hard to preserve.
I suppose, that from the viewpoints of those that wish to see us buckle under the pressures and become just like the EU, that I am an idealist. I have been in the EU, so that is fine by me. Those that wish to see us strip ourselves of economic might for the good of some aetherial Utopia will oppose my ideals. I am fine with that. Those that wish us to live under the Islamic Law will oppose my ideas. I am fine with that.
Those that do so, however, must expect my opposition. The Gore camp has been exposed for what they are: an effete, arrogant group of political misfits that deserve our scorn for believing that the American voter is stupid enough to throw away everything that we have bled for through the last two centuries.
All, for a bowl of pottage.
As usual, that was very reasonable, James, a force which, apparently, compels lefties of various stripes to silently skulk away, muttering obscenities under their breath.
Except for one thing left dangling to me:
I've heard others make a similar argument referencing the exemption of China's and India's cooperation with Kyoto thereby justifying our own withdrawal from the protocols.
I know you referenced that to clarify the bad faith of Blame-America-Firster like Gore but what seems--to me--somewhat tragic in that argument is that if--as you supposed for the sake of argument--Dr. Gore & Co. (e.g Neo's collective of "scientists") prognoses and prescriptions are correct for our fevered, baby planet, then to say "Well, if China and India aren't going to play, then I don't think we should, either," does nothing to address the very real problem (as supposed) and indeed can only make it worse.
It's like three people marooned on a desert island and they have to address the dearth of water and decide who's going to climb the mountain and try to bring it down. The leader (us) says: Let's climb as a team and bring that much more down with us. The other two say that they're too busy fishing, or building huts, or think it's out of their hands, anyway, and count on Nature to bring rain in due time.
So does the leader then just throw his hands up and think, "Why should I do all the work? I'm staying, too," or does he do the responsible thing and go it alone?
I think that I may not have been very clear on my intent.
The focus of my argument was directed toward global warmists. Why are they putting so much effort into this debate when there are far more devastating problems facing us.
I completely agree with you, James, in that this is about power. It is about control and we need to fight that.
I just wish we could exert our energies to far more important matters.
Well, John I think what you are saying is extremely important, and is a question that makes this a very serious problem.
I think it is good to live in a clean environment and to look for ways to improve our living conditions along with the living conditions or birds, mammals, trees, et al. So, let's look at the Kyoto Accords as they are and assume that they must be implemented worldwide.
Secondly, lets attach the importance of these changes as being absolutely necessary for the survival of mankind.
That means that there is the very necessary condition of forcing nations that would otherwise negate our efforts to clean up the planet of CO2 to cooperate.
That can only mean economic sanctions or, worse, armed conflict.
That is why this movement has to be examined very carefully and it simply MUST have the firmest of firm scientific data. There are more ramifications than simply getting Americans to radically hand over business decisions and regulations to a gigantic federal government. If it really does mean the end of our world as we know it, then we are forced to truly become the World Police Force and start the business of telling EVERYONE on the planet how to live.
Kelly,
You have a good point as well. The thing about drugs is that it is a plague of mankind since the first ape-man fell into a puddle of fermented vegetable matter.
In Saudi Arabia they will kill you if they find you drinking a bed-time toddy, but still people succumb to the temptation. Strict laws do not seem to be as effective as helping people with addictive habits get by them and live well. It is my belief, therefore, that less federal regulation on various drugs and less taxation would help local communities and charitable organizations develop and run such centers. Ultimately, the decision to use a drug or not is based on personal responsibility.
What kinds of cars are available on the market are only partly the choice of the consumer. If people keep choosing to drive gasoline engines and fly using jets, then the market will keep supplying those things until it
A. just cannot do so any longer
B. the consumer cannot afford them
C. the government mandates what products are acceptable.
For example, we do that with food and bridges. We have laws that require meat products to conform to certain standards because a lot of people died from bad meats. Those laws raise the price of meats, but we live with that because we like the idea of not being killed by a hamburger. Even then it is not a perfect solution, as folks still die from bad meat, just as they die occasionally on a bridge that collapses even though they are also supposed to conform to certain standards.
The Gore camp wishes to control what cars we drive and how businesses operate by resorting to government regulations. They are, in fact, correct, if the goal is to radically conform our CO2 emissions
to the Kyoto Accords.
That is why I do not see those issues as being equal in terms of federal controls. Drug addicts need local intervention put in place by caring communities to help with their personal choices. We have learned that federal law enforcement only has an ancillary effect on the drug trade. Global controls on CO2 require not just "a" government to cooperate, but essentially ALL of them.
So the question boils down to this: Is global warming really under the control of humans or not? It follows, then, that the next question is if it is so, then how do we regulate all of that? The Gore camp answers the first question as "yes" and the second question as "put us in power." THAT is why they focus on that issue almost to the exclusion of everything else. If they can scare enough people into believing that regulating CO2 emissions as being as important as food laws, drug laws, more important than the threat of terrorism, etc., then that will be the issue that gets them into a position of enormous influence and power.
As I suggested to John, it implies a US led global domination that will make George Bush look like an amateur.
Question to John:
Do you read this the same that I do?
Namely: that is there an implication that the strong rhetoric of the global warming alarmists also means that they desire to control far more than just what cars we drive? Or, do you think that is way over the top?
Question to John:
Do you read this the same that I do?
Namely: that is there an implication that the strong rhetoric of the global warming alarmists also means that they desire to control far more than just what cars we drive? Or, do you think that is way over the top?
oops....sorry
I see the logic. If they were truly concerned over industrial emissions *per se* and alleged catastrophic consequences they wouldn't be so fixated on American capitalism while acquiescent--or even dismissive--of CO2 belching nations like China and India (who are far filthier pollution-wise).
I hear you, Kelly. Quite frankly, I fail to see much harm (after considering-- or imagining, as it were-- incremental but chain-reacting consequences to an increase in the global temperature mean of a couple of degrees over the next few decades. Life will aadapt as it always has, and last time I checked, warm weather is much more conducive to life than cool weather (except when it comes to skinny polar bears piggy-backing on ice-floes, and if that's the scariest, real-life image the Global Grillers can come up with--outside of Hollywood, disaster-movie concoctions and Al Gore's speculative fear-mongering--I really don't think they can make a case to our democracy and convince it to voluntarily restructure on a macroeconomic scale.
Damn democracy. I'll fix you...
I must admit, however, that Neo's determined educative efforts have not been wasted, inasmuch as I concede that increased CO2 levels in the atmosphere--however incremental-- necessarily trap heat (to one degree or another, no pun intended).
Al Gore makes a poor Jor El, however. Since they're obviously trying to appeal to emotion (with stranded polar bears and Leonardo Dicaprio pulling heart-strings), perhaps if Brando were still alive and they used him as the frontman, he could make a more compelling--though a bit eerie--case.
As it is now, Al Gore has zero emotional appeal for me.
As for the science, although Neo is on top of his game and supplied a clearer picture for me (and I thank him), that clarity also shed light on the fallacies of the science, which has far more holes than the ozone ever could.
I have this tendency to reason things out to their logical ends. I do not think that Neo is a bad person, stupid or otherwise just posting to be a contrarian. I know that he believes what he believes, and I, like you, see the necessary ends to maintaining a control over our appetites. Neo has brought some of that to the fore.
I am not convinced that all of the science has been examined. Not all of my appeals to higher authority were unsubstantiated. I understand the CO2 problem, but I also understand that no one has a good explanation of the ice ages or why, 65 million years ago, there were no polar ice caps THEN.
What IS the best temperature for planet earth? We may have some ideas, but the planet and local solar system may have other ideas.
I, too, am for a clean evironment. I like being able to breathe the air.
And ya, the arguments for the cause of global warming have some merits. BUT...since there are holes in the science of climate it doesn't make sense to jump on the 'CO2 is the cause' wagon which sparks legislation and political pressure which limits our choices.
We could be putting all our energies into limiting CO2 from humans and still get global warming. Where would that leave us? We would be left with very tight controls that do nothing to alleviate the 'problem'.
I guess the same can be said for putting drug users in jail. Does it solve the problem? By itself, NO!!!
With both issues I think it comes down to being realistic and looking at the bigger picture.
It's hard to look at the bigger picture when its right in front of your face.
Post a Comment
<< Home