Global Warming Only Luke Warm?
March 14th, 2007 by Grant in: Commentary, GeneralI’ve never been crazy about all the “global warming” hype that’s been running rampant over the last couple years.
While I don’t dispute the fact that the Earth, or at the very least the United States, is getting warmer, I think it’s still highly arguable that the root cause is mankind and the scale of the problem is related to his extravagant carbon lifestyle.
The underlying problem I have is the numerous claims that scientists have come to a “consensus” that the world is getting warmer, and humans are without a doubt responsible for the demise of life as we know it.
Call me an engineer, but if you know scientists (and I know a few) you understand that there is no such thing as a “consensus” among scientists. If you think you’ve come to a consensus, you haven’t talked to enough scientists.
Additionally, there are groups of scientists that argue that, while yes the world is getting warmer, it is all part of a well documented 1,500 year climate cycle. Seemingly though, those that are countering the rather public (and political) claims that we’re doomed unless we reduce our “carbon footprint” are being threatened with their lives, not to mention their research funds! Of course, we wouldn’t hear about those views on the nightly news, would we?
Al Gore will tell you that there are no political incentives to the work he’s done on global warming research, as well as his “Inconvenient Truth” movie.
BULL HONKEY! There is political incentive to just about everything (and everyone) that has any working relationship with Washington DC.
I digress.
It seems our short term memory is getting the best of us (again). It was just over 30 years ago that scientists were warning us of how if we didn’t do something, our climate was going to freeze over and we’d be thrown into another ice age!
Remember this article in NewsWeek?
Now we’ve got global warming debates in Washington being canceled due to blizzard warnings.
We’ve got global warming expeditions being cut short due to frostbite and that the two expeditioners “…were experiencing temperatures that weren’t expected with global warming… But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability.”
A two month global warming expedition cut short only seven days in due to extreme cold… whoda’ thunk it! Anyone else see the irony in this?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for making efforts to reduce emissions and cut back on oil consumption, if only for the health issues that have come up within the last 20 years in places like Denver, Phoenix, and LA due to smog. Not to mention the ability to curtail our dependency on foreign oil.
To claim that man has such a significant influence on the climate, after thousands of years of history claim otherwise, is absurd. And to claim there are no political pretenses in this whole one-sided debate is laughable…
Dear Al Gore,
It’s a new month and your $1,300 electric bill is due on your mansion. Please send our foundation $500 and we’ll see to it that your carbon footprint is carefully filled in and and your tracks covered…
Leave comments
Subscribe to Comments
Loading ...
March 15th, 2007 at 8:13 am
Grant-
As you know I am of the firm opinion that there is clear evidence that humanity’s waste products are a significant contributor to global warming. That being said, it is fine to have your position, many do. What I am happy to see in your post is support for doing everything possible to reduce emissions and to find an alternative to the internal combustion engine. Think about it, the IC engine is 120 years old, and is functionally and fundamentally operatingon the same mechanical processes today that it did over 100 years ago. Compare that to practically any other signficant technology in use today and the answer is clear.
Regardless of who is at cause and what cycle we may or may not be on and what one thinks of Al Gore, it is critical we do all we can to reduce carbon emissions and our reliance on the internal combustion engine. As you know I wrote about the scientific evidence: http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/02/06/yup-point-the-finger-at-us/ .
Finally, Global Warming has become a moral issue that we can unite around, unlike all the morally divisive issues amplified by the Bush white house and others. Anything that can unite Americans and global citizens is a good thing.
David
March 15th, 2007 at 7:03 pm
David, thanks for your comments.
I agree that development of alternative propulsive technology is long overdue. If for no other reason than to increase propulsive efficiency and reduce the cost of motor travel. Additionally, I feel that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil to put ourselves in a more favorable position diplomatically in foreign relations.
With regards to global warming: I agree fully that green house gasses and CO-base emissions are bad for the environment in which we live. However, one must remember that we aren’t creating anything that doesn’t already exist in our environment, we’re just upsetting the balance. By how much, no one really knows.
To state that man has a direct influence on global warming, you MUST be able to quantify the details before that statement will hold any weight.
Take your own statement: “…there is clear evidence that humanity’s waste products are a significant contributor to global warming.”
To say that there is “clear evidence”, you must be able to quantify what “significant” means. So what do you mean by “significant”?
Does humanity contribute 5% to global warming, 10%, 50%? No one really knows, and this is where the science gets lost in the rhetoric.
Additionally, for every scientific group that says we contribute “significantly” to global warming, there are other groups, like I’ve referenced in my post that state otherwise. Based on the bias of the media, the group that fits that bias gets their position heard loud and clear.
If there were no political under tones to global warming, it would be a lot easier to “unite” globally on the issue. As it stands now, it’s just a Democratic issue backed by environmentalist groups in an effort to make the Bush administration look like fools (as though they need help!). Effectively, the Bush administration (and everyone else for that matter) has to play along or be labeled “anti-environmental”.
I feel that if it were anyone outside Washington as the figure head behind global warming it would be much easier to support the “movement”.
What if it were Jerry Seinfeld instead of Al Gore?
We could probably garner much more support for the cause, don’t you think?
March 15th, 2007 at 8:29 pm
I have to agree with Grant. There is no concensis on this unless you believe everything you hear on the media.
However, David does have a goood point in that a radically new engine would be nice. Hydrogen perhaps?
March 17th, 2007 at 5:48 am
Grant-
It is not just people wanting to embarass Bush. Please read: http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2006/02/11/praise-the-lord-not-petroleum/
and
http://www.evolutionshift.com/blog/2007/03/13/evangelical-environmentalism/
As for your comments about scientists, please read the post that I linked to in my first comment above.
We seem to be agreed that there is global warming, the only difference is that I fully see man as being part of the cause. Why do nothing just because you might not like one of the more prominent messengers?
David
March 17th, 2007 at 9:32 am
By in large, David, there are two separate issues at hand. “Global Warming” and freeing our dependence on petroleum. The Global Warming myth (and yes I call it a myth because I’m still not a believer) just happens to tie conveniently into the more tangible issue of dependence on foreign oil.
I have read your post you link to in the first comment, and you lead your second paragraph with the following:
“This leading group of climate scientists concluded for the first time that global warming is “unequivocal” and went further to say that human activity, what we do every day, is ‘very likely’ the main factor in the rise of global temperatures since 1950.”
There is nothing solid in that statement, and quite frankly, it is so wishy-washy that I question whether actual scientists would make that statement (I understand you’re paraphrasing, of course).
To the “scientific” projections that the oceans will rise ‘x’ number of inches over some time frame, I still refer you back to the “scientific” projections that we were upon another ice age in 1975.
I still question the political motive behind this “science”.
A good scientist will let the data truly drive the results.
Many scientists today will let the desired results drive the data.
While I suppose we’ll have to agree to disagree on the “Global Warming” issue, I know we both agree that our dependence on oil must come to an end.
-Grant
P.S. I’ll go in and make your links in your comments true clickable hyperlinks.
March 18th, 2007 at 10:04 am
I question the validity of all this “science”. I suspect we’ll have to live with this “global warming” movement until after the ‘08 election. It will be interesting to see if Gore runs for president, as it may indicate this global warming stint is just to get the environmental special interest groups on his side for a presidential run. He’d never admit that of course.
Will be interesting to see if all this just “disappears” in ‘09. Of course, if the rebulicans maintain the exucutive branch, we may have to live with this “science” for a long time…
March 18th, 2007 at 10:05 am
I like you’re statement;
“A good scientist will let the data truly drive the results. Many scientists today will let the desired results drive the data.”
How true this is!
March 18th, 2007 at 8:31 pm
I tend to lean towards grants point of view, but i did read davids posts and he makes a few good points too.
I do take issue thoguh with davids notion “why do nothing just because you don’t like the messenger”. Problem is that despite what people believe, there will be some deep economic fallout if and recourse if the messengers theory is flawed. Good blog grant, and thanks for the links to evolution shift. doug
March 18th, 2007 at 8:42 pm
Simon, you could be right. We may have to deal with all of this until the political landscape cools down, if it ever does.
Trina it’s funny, it seems to only be the scientists that are in on the dirty little secret. It’s too bad that the scientific community is allowing their own to bedazzle the general population with magic numbers without any substantiation. It’s even more astounding that the media doesn’t seem to populate the airwaves with any “counter science”…
Doug, you should read David’s posts, as they are very well written and thought out. He’s got some good posts on technology and how it influences the future. We may disagree on some aspects of global warming, but I am still a big fan of his work.
Thanks for contributing!
-Grant
March 18th, 2007 at 9:52 pm
There are few things where I wish I was wrong more than on global warming. I just don’t want my grand children TO learn that all existing polar bears are in zoos or that the fish they are eating are man made or that the incidence of skin cancer is off the charts or that you used to be able to see the feet of the statue of liberty or…… and then go, whoops, wish we had done something.
I don’t think this is a democratic or a republican issue, it is an issue of accepting or doubting global warming and man’s part in it all. The few republicans I know believe that global warming is an issue and that Bush isn’t a republican, he’s an idiot.
But back to the present, thanks for fixing the links Grant, and more importantly GO JAYHAWKS!!!
March 29th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Humans might be causing global warming. however, the coal plants in china and india are to blame.
and the people who drive SUVs!
leave the rest of us alone