Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Respond to Gore on Global Warming
ArthurDent writes "For quite a while global warming has been presented in the public forum as a universally accepted scientific reality. However, in the light of Al Gore's new film An Inconvenient Truth many climate experts are stepping forward and pointing out that there is no conclusive evidence to support global warming as a phenomenon, much less any particular cause of it."
I'm sure I'll hear that the plural of anecdote is not data, that it is too expensive to fix, that we should throw up our hands and accept things. Global warming is not happening; and even if it is, we didn't do it; and so what if we did, so what - we should write off Bangladesh, forget the polar bears, and be happy to grow wheat in Canada instead. Sure. But please, read some of these stories.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
Here is a chart of the Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere, going back to 1973.
ftp://140.172.192.211/ccg/figures/co2_mm_obs.png
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccgg/insitu.html
I consider myself a scientific conservative -- I don't want to find out what happens when CO2 hits the 430 ppm mark. Some people say that nothing bad will happen. They could be cataclysmically wrong.
If they have solid scientific evidence to refute the solid scientific evidence in support of global warming, then they should publish it. If they don't, then as scientists they should know better than to spout off without any proof of their claims.
Absolutely. I attended a lecture at the Tyndall centre, Manchester a few weeks ago. In a room full of climate change experts, in the UK centre for climate change research, nobody was even remotely sceptical about the realism of Global Warming.
In fact, the point that shocked me most was that some of them were quite content that it was already too late to mitagate the effects, by a token reduction in our emissions. Argueing that the global strategy should be to prepare for the change that will happen rather than waste money trying to stop it!
My spelling isn't bad, I'm evolving the language
Science Magazine analyzed a total of 928 peer-reviewed scientific papers on global warming between 1993 and 2003. Number that challenged the consensus that global warming is real and caused by human activity: zero. Scientists don't debate whether global warming is occurring, or even that it's caused by humans. Only politicians do.
Here's my take on the counterpoint to Al Gore's claim of global warming... who cares if he's wrong?
If we worked hard as a society to get off the oil and coal crack pipe, would that be a bad thing? The socioeconomic reasons alone are totally worth it. Let's not forget that right now we're at war over the stuff, not to mention spending $50 for a tank of gas. Meanwhile the fatcats at Exxon are crying all the way to the bank, global warming or not.
Think about it, who cares if he's wrong, there's too much good to come out of us pretending that he's right! If you're interested in reading more, I have a longer point about this that I made on my blog last week (click above)
From the article:
r ter
Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change.
What a weaselly way of putting it. Here's what 30 seconds of Googling says about Professor Robert Carter: He's a member of the Institute for Public Affairs, a corporate-funded think tank.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Ca
You see, he isn't working for the coal industry per se. He's working for a think tank that is funded by corporate donors that may or may not include the coal industry. See the difference?
In piling up scientist after scientist while failing to refute Gore's arguments, this article is reminiscent of the Nazi propaganda pamphlet "100 Scientists Against Einstein." Einstein's response still applies: "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
I don't see you complaining when articles from Daily Kos are posted. Why is it so bad to hear both sides of a contreversy?
There is a slight difference between people posting political opinions on an openly political web site, and people who try to pass their political opinions off as science. Further, when they aren't actually anybody's political opinion, but rather paid propaganda as part of a lobbying campaign, the difference is even greater.
If they want to have a blog called "Exxon Outgassing" or something like that, and post their spin there, I have no problem with that. Or if this were a case where someone actually had some research to present, that would be fine. But so far as I can see, this is propaganda, pure and simple, and trying to pass it off as "the other side of a controvery" is dishonest.
--MarkusQ
P.S. The odd thing is, I used to be a HCGW skeptic, until the sheer duplicity of the oil lobby convinced me to look into it more. So in my case, at least, their money backfired on them.
1) Global atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing:
. stm
. stm. html3 .html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460
2) CO2 dissolves in water
3) The oceans are water
4) CO2 dissolves in the oceans
5) When CO2 dissolves in water the PH of the water goes down
6) When the PH of the water goes down, Calcium Carbonate concentrations go down
7) When calcium carbonate levels go down the plankton dies
8) When the plankton dies, so does everything else by starvation
9) Ergo, people who think disproving global warming will let them drive their hummers without killing their own species, and a lot of others with it, are total asswipes.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4803460
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265052_acid31
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/265241_coral0
Someone had to do it.
In 1942 and 1980 the global mean temperature was approximately the same. In every year between those two the mean temperature was lower than those years. Since CO2 output was continuing to increase during this period of nearly four decades, why didn't the global mean temperature increase as well?
The pro-global warming camp never seems to explain this. Indeed the record setting 1969 Atlantic hurricane season happened during this "cool" period. If positive increase in global temperature are associated with more powerful storms, what happened here?
Keep in mind that the onus is on those pushing the new theory to fit these facts into their model. Behind all the media glitz, there are some serious questions being asked with very poor answers being offered. Is this warming bad? How much is natural variation vs. human made? The data really looks like it's a bit of both, but there simply isn't enough data to speak conclusively.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
I'd say it's pretty obvious where they're coming from. Slashdot's really going to hell. This is a sample from just their front page:
"The images are slowly coalescing out of the smoke of the progressive anti-war campfires, the bonfires in New Jersey, where our Constitution and Ann Coulter's latest book are being consumed by the current purveyors of charitable lock-step liberalism, and from the super heated mind of Howard Dean, the showman extraordinaire and carpet gnawing Democratic spokesman deluxe."
"Once again, the gay marriage issue has come before the Senate. And with no surprise, Senators motioned to strike down a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. What a sad state the Senate has become! It should have been a no-brainer to stand up in the defense of marriage! "
'As the price of gasoline and the myriad products that utilize petroleum in their manufacture rises, Americans are going to ask why the Congress has resisted accessing the billions of barrels' worth of oil and natural gas in our offshore continental shelf. "
"It's so darned funny and I am such a naïf. I thought it would take a day or two for the left to begin to down play the death of Zarqawi, one of the premier death dealers on the planet today, and a guy responsible for a litany of murder and mayhem among our troops--OUR TROOPS. You know, the guys everybody pledges to support even though the liberal cognoscenti and the progressive Nomenklatura all hate the war."
"Great rivers of destiny are churning just below the Electoral dam.
It looks like the stage is being set for the next round of heartbreak for the Democrats, their quest for 15 seats in the House and their need to overthrow the Republicans in that charnel house of the Senate, should this, their greatest of all electoral endeavors, not pan out."
The revolution will NOT be televised.
If you'd like to run your own NASA Global Climate Model (GCM) on your own computer, the EdGCM project has ported a GCM to Mac & Windows and wrapped it in a GUI so you can point-and-click your way around. Turn the sun down or add some nitrogen, whatever you want...
Disclaimer: I'm a developer on the project.
Space and Computers.
Technocrat: "We ran a pointer to a global-warming-doubter story this morning. Here's the link. I decided to pull the story after reviewing the author attribution (he's from a paid political PR agency), and the venue's other coverage on this issue. Sorry."
"In 1942 and 1980 the global mean temperature was approximately the same. In every year between those two the mean temperature was lower than those years. Since CO2 output was continuing to increase during this period of nearly four decades, why didn't the global mean temperature increase as well?"
You put your finger right on the problem for the "CO2 is all of it" crowd. From the late '30s to the mid-70's the temperature went down. The CO2 believers have no explanation. The solar cycle people do.
Right now, both camps say we should be hot. We are. In 2020, the CO2 people say we'll be hotter than now, and the solar cycle people say we'll be cooling down. So the argument will be settled then.
Until then, I have to listen to all this noise. sigh.
I don't have the proof in front of me, and frankly, I don't see how it's my responsibility to find it for you. It's in several published papers--if you're in the field you'll know how to find them. The models that are projecting increased temperatures--and pointing a finger at CO2 as an important forcing in that trend--are capable of simulating the temperature trends of the 20th century. In fact one even correctly predicted the affect of an eruption--confirmed by Pinatubo in 1991.
Of course if you were in the field you'd also know that there are many more forcings than just CO2 that affect the global mean temp. You'd also know that a chaotic systems don't respond linearly. You'd probably also know that although there have been cool years and hot years since the beginning of the 20th century, the overall delta to now is clearly positive. And presumably you'd understand that global trends are not local trends, therefore local anecdotes like the 1969 hurricane season do not prove or disprove global mean phenomena.
If you're not in the field, I recommend realclimate.org.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.