An Inconvenient Truth

[bobover3 (imported)]

We're headed toward environmental catastrophe, and we've got to act now ... except that scientists say there's been no global warming for ten years, and that there won't be any for at least 10-20 years. What's a fashionable person to do?

Cooling Down the Cassandras

By George F. Will

Thursday, October 1, 2009

"Plateau in Temperatures Adds Difficulty to Task of Reaching a Solution"

-- New York Times, Sept. 23

In this headline on a New York Times story about the difficulties confronting people alarmed about global warming, note the word "plateau." It dismisses the unpleasant -- to some people -- fact that global warming is maddeningly (to the same people) slow to vindicate their apocalyptic warnings about it.

The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." That was in the Times's first paragraph.

In the fifth paragraph, a "few years" became "the next decade or so," according to Mojib Latif, a German "prize-winning climate and ocean scientist" who campaigns constantly to promote policies combating global warming. Actually, Latif has said he anticipates "maybe even two" decades in which temperatures cool. But stay with the Times's "decade or so." By asserting that the absence of significant warming since 1998 is a mere "plateau," not warming's apogee, the Times assures readers who are alarmed about climate change that the paper knows the future and that warming will continue: Do not despair, bad news will resume.

The Times reported that "scientists" -- all of them? -- say the 11 years of temperature stability has "no bearing," none, on long-term warming. Some scientists say "cool stretches are inevitable." Others say there may be growth of Arctic sea ice, but the growth will be "temporary." According to the Times, however, "scientists" say that "trying to communicate such scientific nuances to the public -- and to policymakers -- can be frustrating."

The Times says "a short-term trend gives ammunition to skeptics of climate change." Actually, what makes skeptics skeptical is the accumulating evidence that theories predicting catastrophe from man-made climate change are impervious to evidence. The theories are unfalsifiable, at least in the "short run." And the "short run" is defined as however many decades must pass until the evidence begins to fit the hypotheses.

The Post recently reported the theory of a University of Virginia professor emeritus who thinks that, many millennia ago, primitive agriculture -- burning forests, creating methane-emitting rice paddies, etc. -- produced enough greenhouse gases to warm the planet at least a degree. The theory is interesting. Even more interesting is the reaction to it by people such as the Columbia University professor who says it makes him "really upset" because it might encourage opponents of legislation combating global warming.

Warnings about cataclysmic warming increase in stridency as evidence of warming becomes more elusive. A recent report from the United Nations Environment Program predicts an enormous 6.3 degrees Fahrenheit increase by the end of the century even if nations fulfill their most ambitious pledges concerning reduction of carbon emissions. The U.S. goal is an 80 percent reduction by 2050. But Steven Hayward of the American Enterprise Institute says that would require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to the 1910 level. On a per capita basis, it would mean emissions approximately equal to those in 1875.

That will not happen. So, we are doomed. So, why try?

America needs a national commission appointed to assess the evidence about climate change. Alarmists will fight this because the first casualty would be the carefully cultivated and media-reinforced myth of consensus -- the bald assertion that no reputable scientist doubts the gravity of the crisis, doubts being conclusive evidence of disreputable motives or intellectual qualifications. The president, however, could support such a commission because he is sure "there's finally widespread recognition of the urgency of the challenge before us." So he announced last week at the U.N. climate change summit, where he said the threat is so "serious" and "urgent" that unless all nations act "boldly, swiftly and together" -- "time . . . is running out" -- we risk "irreversible catastrophe." Prince Charles agrees. In March, seven months ago, he said humanity had 100 months -- until July 2017 -- to prevent "catastrophic climate change and the unimaginable horrors that this would bring." Evidently humanity will prevent this.

Charles Moore of the Spectator notes that in July, the prince said that by 2050 the planet will be imperiled by the existence of 9 billion people, a large portion of them consuming as much as Western people now do. Environmental Cassandras must be careful with their predictions lest they commit what climate alarmists consider the unpardonable faux pas of denying that the world is coming to an end.

[nullorchis (imported)]

With every problem comes opportunity. We can either be like Chicken Little, or not.

The first thing to settle on is: "Do we REALLY have a problem?" Some people say no.

Why do they say no? Who do we believe, the naysayers who seem to not have a lot of convincing statistical evidence but base their opinion on gut feeling or religion or some other basis, or should we believe the scientists who have collected mountains of data........which could be mis-interpreted. Just because all the lemmings are running towards the cliff doesn't mean we have to join in. Science has been wrong before.

The church has been wrong before. Why? Because each is comprised of people and people make mistakes.

On the other hand we could say, maybe there is a problem, and just in case the problem is real and true, if we could do anything to solve the problem, what would that be? Is such a solution beyond our capability, knowledge, technical ability?

Will it be the end of the Earth or the end of humanity? Doubtful. Humans adapt quicker than just about anything else on Earth (except maybe viruses). Rising oceans open up construction opportunities to build dykes and move entire cities further inland. Warmer temperatures mean improved farming and living opportunities in northern regions.

The Southwest US could see yet another exodus of people due to heat and drought, similar to but on a grander scale than when the native indians left the same territory hundreds of years earlier. Where will they move to? Wherever it is will enjoy increased growth and prosperity.

Calamity is balanced by solutions and opportunity. People recover from earthquakes, tornadoes, hurricanes. Some sadly die, but the species prospers. The only thing we have to fear, is fear itself and running around saying the sky is falling and not finding out why or not doing anything about it.

[jemagirl (imported)]

Gee, I didn't know George F. Will was a climate scientist.

[bobover3 (imported)]

Will is only reporting what the climate scientists are saying. The people who are absolutely sure of a looming apocalypse are mostly political activists and trend followers. There is no "consensus" among scientists. Let me remind all that there was a "consensus" among scientists in the early 1970s that global cooling was the threat. That and the "population bomb" - the idea that a growing population would lead to famine, plague, and riots. In 1972, Senator George McGovern forced the NIH to accept a high carbohydrate diet as ideal for health because he "knew" this based on a "consensus." How many people did he kill?

We love alarms and emergencies. They energize us, and make life seem simple. Fighting to survive, we enjoy a sense of purpose. Politicians of all stripes love emergencies because it gives them a reason to "lead" us, and justifies their seizure of maximum power, and because they can act boldly without being second guessed. Emergencies free people from doubt. Usually, a war is the emergency. Today's elite doesn't like war, and wars no longer involve the whole nation. "Global warming" to the rescue!

The facts don't support the existence of global warming. We can only hope the enthusiasts and the opportunists (there's tons of money to be made in "green" technologies - most of them demonstrably ineffective) don't do too much harm before people start to notice the "emergency" was manufactured.

[Dave (imported)]

Wow, quoting George Will and the AEI, two of the biggest global warming deniers in existence.

What a wonderfully credible article you posted. "It doesn't exist because the weather happened yesterday"

"It doesn't exist because I said so."

"It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist."

"God did it . Just the same whay he gave you incurable disease."

"That moon up there, is green cheese."

"That dinosaur skeleton over there once fed the cavemen."

I must be the stupidest person in the world to write this.

[Riverwind (imported)]

Wow, quoting George Will and the AEI, two of the biggest global warming deniers in existence.

What a wonderfully credible article you posted. "It doesn't exist because the weather happened yesterday"

"It doesn't exist because I said so."

"It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist."

"God did it . Just the same whay he gave you incurable disease."

"That moon up there, is green cheese."

"That dinosaur skeleton over there once fed the cavemen."

I must be the stupidest person in the world to write this.

No Dave, I agree with you. Some you can respond to others you just gotta laugh, shake your head and walk away, its not worth the response.

River

[bobover3 (imported)]

Where's your evidence, other than the non-existant "consensus"? What of the fact that temperatures haven't risen for a decade, and scientists say they won't for perhaps decades more?

You and Riverwind may walk off arm-in-arm laughing, but don't forget to wear warm clothes.

[gareth19 (imported)]

Wow, quoting George Will and the AEI, two of the biggest global warming deniers in existence.

What a wonderfully credible article you posted. "It doesn't exist because the weather happened yesterday"

"It doesn't exist because I said so."

"It doesn't exist because it doesn't exist."

"God did it . Just the same whay he gave you incurable disease."

"That moon up there, is green cheese."

"That dinosaur skeleton over there once fed the cavemen."

I must be the stupidest person in the world to write this.

This is of course standard conservative argumentation.

Stage one: DENY THE PROBLEM "There is no such thing as global warming; no scientist at Bob Jones University and Bait Shop endorses it." "Cigarettes are not linked to lung cancer." "The bridge has not been washed out."

Stage two: DENY THE SOLUTION "We don't need to address global warming because the cold heart of the true Christian Brotherhood will neutralize any extra heat" "There are so many other causes of lung cancer that very few lives will be saved by banning tobacco sales." "If people just drive fast enough over the river, they can make it across without any expensive old bridge."

Stage three: CRITICIZE THE SOLUTION "Reducing greenhouse gasses will give an unfair business advantage to foreign competition." "If we ban tobacco sales, far too many Pakistani liquor store owners will lose revenue and be forced into pimping blue-eyed, blonde high school cheerleaders and ruin the sexual fantasies of every red-blooded American male" "If we build a new bridge, there won't be enough wood left over to make toothpicks and dental hygiene will suffer."

Stage four: CRITICIZE THE COST: "Not buying and burning excess petroleum will cost Standard Oil and other divine emissaries of our True God Mammon profits, the true key to salvation." "It is far too expensive for the government to prohibit tobacco, so lets continue to pay for all of the lung cancer deaths each year." "Why should the government promote trade through the building of bridges which might lead to taxes and spending money on everyone rather than the deserving few."

Stage five: CRITICIZE THE IDEA: "It is unAmerican to expect the public to behave responsibly; irresponsible, short-sighted, selfish behavior is the birthright of all Americans." "I smoke because I like it and no pointy-headed bureaucrat has the right to deny me my Mammon-given pleasure to foul the air within 15 yards." "Bridges resemble walls and only those slanty-eyed Chinks and Comminists build walls (except to keep wet-backs out), so building the bridge will lead to creeping socialism"

Stage six: AMNESIA: "Oh we have always supported the reduction of greenhouse gasses. Conservatives always favor conservation of nature, as soon as we stop bulldozing it." "C. Everett Coop was Reagan's surgeon general and we've always recognized the dangers of tobacco (unless used in moderation)." "Why, we wanted to build a bridge from the very beginning; we just insisted that it be a real bridge."

[sag111 (imported)]

If you all only knew what was heading our way you wouldent dream of worring about global warming.

[Kortpeel (imported)]

The "difficulty" -- the "intricate challenge," the Times says -- is "building momentum" for carbon reduction "when global temperatures have been relatively stable for a decade and may even drop in the next few years." That was in the Times's first paragraph.

All the debate about climate change is beginning to irritate me. Scientists say this, scientists say that, but nobody really knows where the climate is going.

Especially when they come up with the ‘plateau’ idea to explain away fairly convincing evidence that the world actually is cooling.

I have come to the conclusion that climatology is no more a science than economics or astrology. And the practitioners of all three activities are deluded at best and charlatans at worst.

Calling it ‘the greenhouse effect’ is a big con but people are inclined to believe it because everyone has got into a hot, closed car that has been standing in the sun. You burn your butt on the seat and the steering wheel is too hot to touch.

However, even if an atmospheric greenhouse effect does exist, and remember that the Earth’s atmosphere is rather more open than any greenhouse, then all that will happen is that any increase in temperature will be accompanied by increased radiation of heat energy into space during the night. The system is self stabilising.

Some activists have made the point that melting snowfields and glaciers will make the warming effect self aggravating because the absence of white snow will reduce the amount of energy reflected back into space. But on the other hand snow has a low coefficient of emissivity compared with rock and soil so the absence of snow will permit greater heat loss by radiation.

For our species to progress we need an abundant supply of cheap, clean energy on a much greater scale than anything in history so far. I refer you to Nikolai Kardeshev’s type 1 civilisation and point out that we are currently a type 0 civilisation (Google it).

I submit that playing with windmills and the like is a futile waste of time as far as our energy requirements are concerned. The amount of energy that such systems can provide is negligible in terms of our real need. Nuclear fission has a proven track record, at the relatively small cost of a spent fuel storage problem, and ultimately nuclear fusion will give us energy in the quantities we need to become a type 1 civilisation.

We have no alternative but to go nuclear.

But meanwhile afforestation of the deserts is not a bad idea in any case.

Kortpeel