You're confusing weather and climate, UtahBlueDevil.It is known
that CO2 absorbs certain wavelengths of IR leaving the surface and re-emits the
energy at a different wavelength, thus slowing the rate at which energy is
dissipated into space. All other things being equal, increases in atmospheric
CO2 ought to have some measurable effect on global temperature. But all other
things are not equal, and nobody has yet established any statistical correlation
between increasing atmospheric CO2 and global temperature. Any effects of
increasing CO2 seem to be lost in the noise. There are other mechanisms that
control the climate and render the CO2 effect irrelevant.
But pops..... we have see examples of human affect on climate. We saw its
impact during the great dust bowl, and how our farming practices were causing
the loss of top soil. We saw it in the peak us of Coal in the 1700 and 1800s -
where cities and their local environments were dramatically impacted by
particulate matter in the air. The concept that man can impact local climates
isn't in dispute... what is in dispute is at what level. I don't
think there is a conclusive answer there.
The problem is that nobody has shown that human-caused global warming is
anything more than an assertion backed up only by computer models. Why should
skeptics have the obligation to prove false an assertion that has never been
shown to be credible using real-world data? Isn't that putting the cart
before the horse?
So people that think global warming is a hoax will never admit to being wrong
than? Even if they are wrong.
To "LDS Liberal" you realize that Limbaugh was referring to the
hypothetical manmade Climate Change, and not climate change as a whole. In his
first quote, he was technically correct. We have not had any significant
warming in 16 years.So again, where is the denial? So far all you
have done is take quotes out of context. Is that the best you can do?Science doesn't know what excactly is going on outside of the natural
climate change that is due to many factors that they still don't
I'll tell you why we have global warming. It's due to natural causes.
Look at the temperature records. The earth started warming about 150 years ago,
and it was a good thing. It got us out of the Little Ice Age. It isn't
clear if we've reached the peak yet - it's still significantly cooler
than during the Medieval Optimum, when Greenland was farmed and there were
vineyards in England. I'll never be able to figure out why anyone would
want to cool the earth. That would be a disaster.Are there competent
climate scientists who disagree with the premise that humans are causing the
warming, and that the warming will be catastrophic? Absolutely. You'll just
never hear about them in the mainstream media. For example, if you're
looking for the best temperature record around, check out the work of Dr. John
Christy and Dr. Roy Spencer at UAH. They use satellites to perform comprehensive
measurements of the entire globe, as opposed to the datasets that measure
temperatures only above land and usually near urban areas - that's never
going to result in very good data.
Mountainman.... in the study you reported.... what was the value that the
professor placed on a human life in his calculations..... I would be really
interested in the math behind the quoted numbers. Are those Chinese or Indian
lives, or American lives, because I highly doubt the compensation would be the
same foe either.I would not begin to claim I am an expert on why we
have global warming right now..... but I am surprised there are those who
challenge the science that the event is taking place. Regardless of why, we all
will bear the cost one way or another of its effectsl. For a long
time, coal and wood were the carbon sources of energy de jour.... that has
changed to petro sources. The change from coal to oil, led to a quantum
improvement in quality of life. Why would anyone be against the US being the
leader in the next transition to what ever the next future fuel is. Europe fell behind early last century because they refused to change - lets
not repeat that same mistake.
@ Mountanman 7:25 a.m. Jan. 6, 2013So, the left uses climate change
like the right uses terrorism. Whats your point?Alot of the climate
change is cyclical but one would be nuts to think man is somewhat culpable in
the process.If the leftist media were intent on scaring the general
public then wouldn't they have had a conniption about the Kyoto protocols
elapsing and not being renewed?
Redshirt,Now please tell me YOU are kidding.Setting off
nuclear devices to try to control climate seems like the merger of two very bad
What is hilarious is every few days someone flies a kite on Climate Change,
within hours all the same people post all the same comments. It is like trench
warfare neither side is listening they are just throwing another bomb into no
mans land.Seriously folks look at the history of the threads. We
need to seriously do some research not just reporting second hand comments from
newspapers and radio stations which are pushing their agenda.The
second largest media group is controlled by Rupert Murdoch and he changed
nationality so he could increase his corporation. News Corp owns Fox, WSJ, etc
in the USA plus English, Australian and Asian newspapers. Murdoch faces police
and government investigations into bribery and corruption by the British
government and FBI investigations in the US. So he is a trusted source I
don’t think so!Do some hard research.
@RedShirtUSS Enterprise, UTTo "LDS Liberal" name a scientist
or radio host that has said that climate change is fake. ===========
Rush Limbaugh declared, "There is no global warming going
on," Limbaugh: Global Warming "Is A Hoax ... I Get Blue In
The Face Repeating This Over And Over Again." On his radio show, Rush
Limbaugh said.LIMBAUGH: How did I know global warming is a hoax?
‘Cause of who’s behind pushing it. Liberals. They lie.Limbaugh: “Anything To Do With … Climate Change Is Now An Official
Scam.” On August 30, Limbaugh: The Science “Is
Fraudulent And Is A Hoax.” On November 10Limbaugh: Global
Warming “Is A Religion …There Is No Evidence.” May 17Limbaugh: God Would Not Create Humans “In Such A Way That We Would
Destroy … Our Own Planet And Environment.” From the February 2 I could go on, and on, and on, and on RedShirt.But I'm
limited to 200 words.BTW - Enjoy Rush Libaugh's ridiculous
show.Don't forget -- In Rush's little Neighborhood of make
believe, tobacco doesn't cause cancer either.Despite what
Science has been saying for 75 years.
To "Twin Lights" he was kidding. You don't need to destroy a
volcano to cool the earth with nuclear bombs. See "Small Nuclear War Could
Reverse Global Warming for Years" in the National Georgraphic.
Liberal Today,Please tell me that you are kidding.
Large volcanic eruptions cause global cooling. Perhaps we can kill 2 birds with
one stone. Let's take some of those extra nukes we no longer need, drill
really deep and drop them in, hit the button, and create our on climate control
To "LDS Liberal" name a scientist or radio host that has said that
climate change is fake. After reading that you probably about to spout off a
bunch of names, all of which have only said something about man-made climage
change. The problem with you is that you don't bother to understand what
people are saying.The fact is that the climate models are wrong, and
even the leading climatologists admit that they don't have a good model of
the earth's climate. If we don't have a good model of the climate,
why are we trusting the results of the model? Would you fly on an airplane that
its design modeled incorrectly?When you have articles like "New
NASA Data Blow Gaping Hole In Global Warming Alarmism" at Forbes and
"Global warming stopped 16 years ago, reveals Met Office report quietly
released... and here is the chart to prove it" in the UK Daily Mail showing
that the climate models are wrong, why would you continue to trust bad
mathematical models?Why don't you care when the climate
scientists are caught lying? "World Atlas ice loss claim exaggerated:
higvDietrich, IDSo people that think global warming is a fact will
never admit to being wrong than? Even if they are wrong.9:27 p.m.
Jan. 6, 2013============I'm still waiting for those
who voted for GW Bush TWICE to admit that.
Ah yes -- AM radio.These are the same jokers - who to this very day
- tell their EIB listeners that tobacco doesn't cause cancer.The one thing I learned in college was to trust and believe a college
professor -- ANY college professor, over a college drop out political radio hack
for reliable facts and data about science.Do yourselves a favor --
Turn off the radio, and go to school.
So people that think global warming is a fact will never admit to being wrong
than? Even if they are wrong.
Sensible Scientist writes, "global temperatures have not increased since
1998. That is an undisputed fact, not related to the survey of articles
cited."That's not an undisputed fact; far from it.
Particularly when you include ocean temperatures in the mix, it's clear
that Earth's climate has been warming consistently since 1998. Even if you
just consider atmospheric data, when you account for unusual events like El
Nino/Southern Oscillation, volcanic eruptions and solar flares, you're left
with a warming trend from 1998 to the present.
With all due respect, Emajor, scientists in fact have argued that winter would
no longer be as cold as it "once was". Record low high temperatures,
anyone? Dr. Viner of East Anglia's CRU famously stated in 2000 that within
a few years it wouldn't snow, and that our children wouldn't know what
snow is. The IPCC said there would be 50 million climate refugees by the year
2005. The most likely climate refugees any time soon would be from China due to
the record cold they're experiencing.And we're all still
anxiously awaiting that one paper that will definitively link human CO2
emissions to global climate changes. Science does not revolve around consensus -
that would be politics. Science is about real data, not computer models.
higv,It's winter, higv. Winter. Winter is colder than summer.
Scientists aren't arguing that winter will no longer be colder than summer.
I'm going to say this as respectfully as I can. It is people
with your rudimentary understanding of science combined with your stubbornness
and resistance to information which challenges your world view who have made
scientific progress more difficult throughout the centuries. Your frame of mind
would have argued that the sun revolved around the earth in Galileo's time.
People sharing these traits are still trying to keep Evolution out of school
text books. Twin Lights & I have tried to present a rational
framework from which you could express skepticism of policies related to climate
change, but you aren't budging. Every comment just keeps getting more
irrational and illogical.
@ higv: Yes, because we all know "global climate change" only refers to
temperatures in Idaho and Utah.
These past few days it hasn't been that warm. Going outside I wish it
would get warmer as that weather is more pleasent. I would travel the Sahara
before I traveled the Antartic.
Mountanman,Yours is the only logical point I can brook from the
Anti-Climate Change crowd.Those who argue it is not happening
because of this or that issue ignore the fact that climate scientists have every
single fact they mention plus thousands of others.Those who argue
that scientists are willfully ignoring evidence (lying) are buying into a vast
global conspiracy that is so large and complex as to be beyond reason.But your point about the economic tradeoffs is cogent – that is, what
are the benefits of fighting climate change vs. not doing so? And, if we do
choose to fight, to what level should we do so?Note that I
don’t believe it is futile to fight climate change. Nor that it is
necessarily uneconomic to do so, but it is something that bears significant
analysis.Note that there are studies that show we should respond to
So a geologist disagrees with climatologist data. That's great.
I'll ask my foot doctor about heart disease next time I see her.You realize it's oil companies that hire geologists right?
Environmentalists are hypocrites Don't want to change there lifestyle want
us to change ours. They are not interested in compromise but in control that
gives them empowerment. That is were global warming occurs.
Those who choose to stick their heads in the sand and pretend it's not
getting warmer will probably wake up only when their tail feathers ignite.
Oh great! The scientists, who make a living studying global warming, don't
question it whether global warming exists, except for 24 of them. The 24 for
have looked at their thermometer data and have a conscience. The rest are afraid
there won't be jobs for climate change scientists if they admit it is a
What the letter writer fails to mention is that global temperatures have not
increased since 1998. That is an undisputed fact, not related to the survey of
articles cited.It's amazing that some will use anything to
claim global warming EXCEPT a thermometer.
A refreshingly wise letter. Somewhat of a rarity around here.
If we accept the science there will be an implied expectation that we do
something about it. That's what we really want to avoid. It's easy to
Looking back to what worked in the past---"The problem in the
1980s was that American power plants were sending up vast clouds of sulfur
dioxide, which was falling back to earth in the form of acid rain, damaging
lakes, forests and buildings across eastern Canada and the United States. The
squabble about how to fix this problem had dragged on for years." HW Bush decided to address the problems of acid rain. Cap and Trade became
the mechanism as part of the Clean Air Act. "Almost 20 years
since the signing of the Clean Air Act of 1990, the cap-and-trade system
continues to let polluters figure out the least expensive way to reduce their
acid rain emissions. As a result, the law costs utilities just $3 billion
annually, not $25 billion, according to a recent study in the Journal of
Environmental Management; by cutting acid rain in half, it also generates an
estimated $122 billion a year in benefits from avoided death and illness,
healthier lakes and forests, and improved visibility on the Eastern Seaboard.
(Better relations with Canada? Priceless.")(Smithsonian, "The
Political History of Cap and Trade")Too bad Republicans have
There you go, mountanman, now you're getting closer. You don't think
the benefits will outweigh the costs. That's a valid concern and should be
part of the discussion. But you don't know anything about the science, so
you shouldn't weigh in on that part. Conservatives
shouldn't be afraid to say "the body of evidence strongly suggests that
anthropogenic carbon emissions are driving the observed changes in global
temperatures. But it will harm the economy too much to rectify this. I
don't believe the benefits outweigh the economic costs". That is at
least an honest argument.
higv,Thank you for providing the perfect example of what I was talking
about in my first post.
Trial lawyers have a term "juke box witness" .You put in your nickle and
the expert (read scientists) will sing any tune you want. It is true.
It's utterly amazing that so many journalists and others inundate us
regularly with scare stories demanding that the United States take fierce
anti-warming action while scarcely ever pausing to mention the possible futility
of it all — or the costThose costs will get us if we don't
fight back, and those saying so aren't just radio hosts of the kind that
make leftists urge censorship. They are people like William Nordhaus, a Yale
economist. He has calculated what would happen in the long haul if the world
were to implement an anti-warming plan like Al Gore's and has some numbers
to share: Costs would outweigh benefits by $21 trillion. Another
scientist's view is Patrick Michaels who was at the University of Virginia
for 30 years. His study convinces him nothing disastrous lies around yonder
bend. Another is Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
He believes gloomy computer simulations are bogus, that the climate changes we
are seeing could be more natural than man-made and, like Michaels, that no
intolerable warming lays ahead.
Science is a reinforcer rather than enforcer and the majority are not always
right. Global warming is a way to control peoples lives like the overpopulation
fanatics were and are. We can't control the climate and it is pretty cold
right now were i am at. Why let it control us?
"Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work together for
solutions"Because most people that question climate change
science do so out of fear of the policy implications. Never since the Theory of
Evolution have so many people uneducated in the scientific method suddenly taken
an armchair interest in a science topic. And for the same reason: it challenges
their belief system and could result in public policy they don't like.If climate change skeptics do no want draconian federal carbon emission
limits, it would be wiser for them to make the economic argument rather than
question a body of scientific evidence they have neither read nor fully
understand. Accepting human-caused global warming while believing carbon limits
would be too damaging to the economy is a valid viewpoint.
Great letter.Climate science is complex, but not so complex that
conclusions can't be drawn with a high degree of certainty about the
significant role that human activities play in climate change. If
honesty matters to you then you have to acknowledge the overwhelming scientific
evidence that global warming is real, significant, and caused by us.We should be debating what we're going to do about it and how, instead of
wasting precious time on willfully ignorant denialists.
"We need to emphasize that science isn't about wishes or opinions;
it's about hard evidence. Why not accept it, reject disinformation and work
together for solutions?"Because the lemmings who drink Rush,
Sean, and Fox daily would then have to admit that they were wrong. And if they
were wrong on Global Warming then they're worried that they might have to
admit that they have been wrong about other things as well... such as... WMDs in
Iraq, socialized medicine, Evolution, unions, tax cuts, guns, marriage, and
supply side economics.