Well of course its Political.....we knew that the first time we saw Al Gore
refer to himself as a scientist~Global Warming is as big a Joke as
Global Cooling was in the 1970's....its all about redistributing the wealth!
Follow the money....
There is an imaginary debate.After all, you can't *prove* the moon
isn't made of cheese. Have you ever touched the moon, yourself? Do you really
believe all those greedy scientists who tell you the moon is made of rock?
Follow the money.
Uh, no duh it's ideological. All this time and not a shred of evidence that
greenhouse gases are the "culprit" of natural ebbing and flowing of
our environmental climes? What is ridiculous is that I'm sure everyone on earth
is on board with a cleaner planet - that we all have a responsibility to avoid
polluting this place. I'm sure we all want cleaner cars, cleaner factories, etc,
etc (except maybe industry leaders who have to pay for cleaner technology) -
that's just common sense. But to perpetrate a bogus notion that evil man is
greedily killing this planet with gluttonous consumption of fossil fuels is
disingenuous at the least.
Ever want an interesting read, google the CO2 output of a volcanic eruption. A
single eruption dwarfs the amount of CO2 ever put out by man and his
machines.On the bright side, this global warming farce has shown
that liberals - who are so eager and quick to accuse the religious right of
being idiot sheep - are just as sheepish...Baaa
What twaddle.Ms. Oreskes, do you really expect us to believe that
renowned non-partisan scientists like Freeman Dyson of Princeton's Institute for
Advanced Study (arguably the world's foremost mathematical physicist) are in the
pay of a shadowy cabal similar to the hired "scientists" who shilled
for tobacco companies? Your absurd claim is all too typical of the
repulsive ad hominem attack tactics commonly employed by AGW zealots.Tell us, Ms. Oreskes, what do you think of "scientists" who mix data
sources in a deliberate attempt to "hide the decline" of global
temperatures? What of those who secretly conspire to prevent publication of
papers that oppose the AGW hypothesis? What of those who secretly admitted among
themselves that they couldn't understand why there has been no statistically
significant increase in global temperatures since the mid-1990s and those who
urged each other to evade the Freedom of Information Act by destroying E-mails
and other documents (Climategate)?If you want to do something
useful, Ms. Oreskes, why don't you insist that the climate science community
clean up its act and conduct itself according to the long-standing standards of
conduct that prevail in other scientific disciplines?
@TruthThe majority of scientific journal articles on the matter in
the 70s said global warming. There was never any global cooling consensus. Also
Al Gore is a scientist, he really doesn't matter at all when it comes to what is
going on with regards to science.@DubbledubNo evidence?
Warming temperatures, rapid Arctic sea ice loss (February 2011 is lowest on
record). Clear scientific evidence that the greenhouse effect is real and that
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Observations that show the rate of CO2 concentration in
the atmosphere is higher than it's been (by far) in hundreds of thousands of
years and it's not even close (going from 280ppm to 380ppm in the past century
but never being above 300ppm the previous 600k years).
Here we go again. Every time there is a global warming article in the paper,
armchair scientists creep out of the woodwork to tell us how it is or is not
happening. Folks who can't tell the difference between global climate and the
weather in their backyard. Folks who think that watching the news gives them as
much knowledge on the matter as years of research experience.If you
don't want carbon caps or other economic restrictions, just say so. That's a
perfectly valid position. But don't debate the science if you are clueless.
The older we get the more we become accustomed to the fact that "fads"
come and "fads" go. It seems like yesterday that my kids were coming
home with their "Weekly Reader" warning of the coming "Ice
Age." It's interesting that the global warming proponents consider it to be
"Weather" when things are going contrary to their predictions.
Otherwise it is "Climate."
Absent in any 'discussions' of Global warming is the ability to seperate an
input - increased mean annual temperature (fact) from the closed system that is
the earth and its atmosphere. Temperature change is but one factor in climatic
system, and to say that it operates without cause from, or effect to, the system
is simplistic. And I doubt that the discussion here will be no different;
ideology is driven by perception, real science is systemic and based on facts.
"Global warming debate driven by ideology, not science, author Naomi
Oreskes says"Yes, so true.And if you want to see
the extremities of ideology over science, just take a listen to folks like Ms.
Oreskes. To most of the "global warming" zealots (think Al Gore and
his ilk), actual SCIENCE is a virtual unknown.They dwell in an
imaginary world where "consensus" trumps actual data and theory is
more important than empirical evidence.The convictions so adamantly
shouted by extremists like DeChristopher have NOTHING to do with science.It is a shame that such a sham has been allowed to claim scientific
credibility for so long.Incidentally, this is not to say that every
prediction that is screeched from the environmental pulpits may not actually
come to pass. What this IS to say is that calling their predictions
"scientific" is a mockery of real science and a farce.
A history professor professing to discard scientific evidence of global warming
is like a philosophy professor attempting to deny the medical profession's
belief that smoking cigarettes leads to cancer.
Interesting comments here. The way the Deseret News wrote the title made it seem
that scientists who believe that global warming is caused by humans are
ideologically motivated. The REALITY is that Naomi Oreskes is arguing the EXACT
The nature and quality of the comments by those who would argue against the
existence of global warming is what convinces me it is real. For example,
runwasatch claims the output of CO2 from volcanoes dwarfs that of humans. And
yet, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased at a steady rate for at
least the past 50 years. Have volcanic emissions increased steadily over that
time? Why wasn't there a spike after Mt. Pinatubo blew in the early 1990s? If
that's the best argument against climate change, then I think the theory is
stochra: Nobody is arguing against climate change. Climate change is
inevitable and cyclicle. We will have warming and we will have cooling. CO2 is
not the only factor in that and CO2 levels are not simply man-caused. If they
are not only caused by man, then they can not be controlled by man anymore than
we can control a volcanic eruption. That is the point.
Mc - What I'm saying is that CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been directly
measured since the 1950s. The measurement is very easy, and there has been a
steady increase in those levels every year since the measurements were started.
If the primary factor was volcanic emissions, then where is the increase in
those emissions to explain the rise of CO2? And especially, a huge volcano such
as Pinatubo would have caused a spike in CO2 levels. It didn't happen. So
while humans aren't responsible for the baseline levels of CO2 (about 270-280
ppm), our emissions and our deforestation are the only explanation that makes
sense for the increase to the current 390 ppm.
Article: "[Oreskes] said free market fundamentalists see such regulation
as harmful to free enterprise..."Any genuine free market
fundamentalist would see the current system as market failure and would be
clamoring for market-oriented regulatory mechanisms to capture the true costs of
economic decisions. As it stands now, some costs of energy use are
externalized, i.e. the costs are borne by someone other than the consumer. The
consumer gets a subsidy (or grant or transfer) on the backs of others not
involved in the market transaction. Adam Smith's Invisible Hand cannot function
properly if the market does not send accurate price signals to consumers.
Ironically, free-market conservatives often deride market-based policies such as
pollution credits and cap-and-trade that aim to internalize externalities and
allow consumers to make free, rational economic choices. They apparently prefer
to receive subsidies from a distorted market.
To "stochra | 8:29 a.m." actually, CO2 levels have been measured for
over 100 years. Prior to the 1950's, the measurements were taken chemically.
The interesting thing is that the chemical measurements show large
variations.You should also read about how CO2 is only a significant
greenhouse gas when the humidity levels are very low, so CO2 only plays much of
a roll in deserts, and around the poles. Even there, its roll is not great.
The comparison of medical science regarding tobacco and global warming
"science" is disingenious. Studies involving tobacco are
able to draw on a large population of individuals who have used the product and
compare them to populations that have not. Because large populations exist,
statistics can be applied to conclusively link an individuals use of tobacco to
higher risk for a variety of diseases with a high level of confidence.With global warming however the sample size is one: the earth. Statistically
it would be bad practice to conclusively link the global rise in temperatures
with man-made greenhouse gases when your historical and physical sample size is
To be fair, the author should point out politics-driven policy on the other
side: those who favor pervasive government control and power favor measures to
address global warming.Bias is never just on one side!
Re: StochraAssume our emissions and deforestation truly "are
the only explanation that makes sense" for CO2 increases. How do you
account for historical CO2 ppm increases from 200 to 280 ppm 300000, 200000, and
100000 years ago when we were not engaged in these activities?Also,
what confidence do we have that CO2 levels do not decrease in the ice cores over
To Jash - When talking about longer time scales, there certainly are other
processes that affect CO2 levels. And I don't have any expertise to talk about
the reliability of ice cores.What I do know is that it is very easy
to measure CO2 levels in the air - just look at the amount of absorption of
certain frequencies of infrared light. And those measurements have shown that
CO2 levels have increased about 25% since the late 1950s at a very steady rate.
The only hypothesis I've heard other than human activity to explain
the recent increase is volcanoes. That's just silly, and it is arguments like
this that convince me that those who dispute global warming have no case. Why
would volcanic activity lead to a steady increase in CO2, as opposed to wild
fluctuations from years when there is lots of volcanic activity compared to
years where it is minimal? And why wouldn't an enormous volcano such as
Pinatubo (which made St. Helens seem like a backyard barbeque) not show up as a
big spike on the CO2 record?
Re: Stochra1) While ice core records seem to indicate a strong
correlation between CO2 and temperature, changes in CO2 lag behind changes in
temperature by an average of 800 years.2) Ice core data has been
shown to be more of a low frequency moving-average measurement of CO2 levels.
(Van Hoof et al., 2005) In other words, large swings in CO2 levels would not
have been captured in this record.3)Plant stomata data show much
greater variability of atmospheric CO2 over the last 1,000 years than the ice
cores.Needless to say, the ice core records have their flaws. 50
years from now, it will be interesting to see how modern analytical records of
today compare to ice core records correlating with today.I do not
debate that global temperatures and CO2 levels are increasing. I do debate the
two theories most commonly implied with this data: 1) That man is forcing
increases in CO2 levels and 2) That increasing CO2 levels force the global
temperature to increase. Presently, these two theories are speculative at best.
Like standardized testing, global warming is a tool used to create a need for
spending and regulations.