T Nation

The Global Warming Myth?


#1

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.


#2

a lot of "global warming", the end is near crap is based on "mother earth" worship, new age stupidity. If you don't jump in the bandwagon you're an outcast.


#3

I thought this was an interesting article on algore's "inconvenient" truth.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/the_truth_is_inconvenient.html

[i]June 07, 2006
Al Gore is a Brave Truth Teller?
By Robert Tracinski

Al Gore is trying to resurrect his environmentalist crusade--and, perhaps, his political career--with a new film that depicts him as a courageous voice in the wilderness, speaking up for "an inconvenient truth" that challenges the entrenched political establishment.

This is, of course, laughable. Everyone knows that the global warming theory is the dogma of the entrenched establishment. We know this because we are relentlessly barraged with global warming hysteria from political leaders, the mainstream media, and the government-scientific complex. We are constantly told that we are in imminent danger of dying from everything as catastrophic as massive flooding or as trivial as runaway poison ivy.

What the general public may not have heard about is the courageous band of researchers who are the ones actually speaking up for science in the face of this global warming juggernaut. Ironically, some of the reporting prompted by Gore's film has allowed some of these scientists to be heard--and we ought to listen.

Let's look at just one scientific issue: Gore's claim that global warming is causing an increase in the frequency and intensity of hurricanes. It's fair to single out this claim, because that is what the filmmakers have done. Posters for An Inconvenient Truth feature an arresting image of the swirling storm-clouds of a hurricane emerging from an industrial smokestack.

But the truth about this claim is very inconvenient for Al Gore and the environmentalists. The Washington Times published an article surveying a number of top hurricane scientists, whom it found to be "divided" on the merits of Gore's claim. Chris Landsea of the National Hurricane Center even doubts that hurricane intensity has increased as much as claimed over the past thirty years, pointing out that scientists couldn't accurately measure hurricane wind speeds until 1984. We don't know how much of the increase in Category 4 and Category 5 hurricanes recorded in recent years is due to an actual increase or whether it is, as he puts it, an "artificial increase," an illusion produced by our improved ability to measure hurricanes.

Meanwhile, Phil Klotzbach, a hurricane forecaster at Colorado State University, points out that increased hurricane activity in the Atlantic has been balanced out by a decrease in the number of tropical storms in the Pacific. "When these two regions are summed together, there has been virtually no increase in Category 4-5 hurricanes."

The May 30 Los Angeles Times carries a profile on Klotzbach's mentor, Colorado State University professor emeritus William M. Gray, who pioneered the science of forecasting hurricane activity. The article notes: "Like many hurricane forecasters, Gray rejects the theory that the recent uptick in storms is due to climate change. He points out that the US had an unusually low number of storms from the 1970s to the end of the century and says the law of averages is simply catching up." At age 76, this distinguished scientist is devoting his retirement to refuting the entire notion that global warming is caused by human activity, an idea he describes as "one of the greatest hoaxes ever." Gray is "not one to just go along with the crowd," Klotzbach concludes.

Now isn't that interesting? It turns out that the man taking an independent stand and refusing to "just go along with the crowd" on global warming is not a lifelong politician rewarded with a fawning documentary and inside-the-beltway adulation--but rather a distinguished scientists who is a global warming skeptic.

So if the splashy movie-poster claim of An Inconvenient Truth turns out to be dubious and hotly contested--very far from an established "truth"--where does that leave Al Gore's status as the brave truth-teller? A fawning New York Times profile on Gore admits that he avoids "making direct causal links that most scientists say are impossible to substantiate" but instead "uses imagery and implication" to make his case. That's about the most tasteful description of the methods of a flim-flam artist I have ever read.

But not to worry, another New York Times article tells us, because two new studies have confirmed the link between global warming and hurricanes. Have you ever noticed this little trick used by global warming scaremongers? They will insistently repeat a claim for five years--then tell you that it is justified by a study released last Tuesday. Maybe so, but how does that justify their making that claim five years before it was "proven"? And as for the new "proof," even the New York Times report admits that "neither the authors nor other climate experts say it is conclusive." The reporter even gives the last word to a skeptic--Stanley Goldenberg of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration--who dismisses the new papers: "There's going to be an endless series of articles from this circle that is embracing this new theology built on very flimsy interpretation."

I guess some of the truth is starting to get a hearing--no matter how inconvenient that might be for Gore and company.
[/i]


#4

Ah, global warming. The problem that must be cured before anyone even proves it is a problem.

The problem with global warming is that it is not a scientific issue, but a political one. Anyone heard of the little ice age? Right before this event it was actually warmer then now, and it was one of the most successful times for our species.

The little ice age coincided with the beginning of the dark ages. Greenland was actually green. (And no it was not named Greenland to fool people into going there and not going to Iceland.)

Science would need to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it is happening. Then prove whether or not it is manmade. Then figure out if it is bad or not.

And even then we would need to figure out whether we should actually take action, and if the "cure" is better then the "disease".

Here is some really good information:

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/

And the benefits of the Kyoto Protocol?:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm


#5

Bottom line on this issue:

Whenever somebody wants to manipulate people on account of fear, it is a bad thing.

Al Gore is a power-hungry douchebag, and I thank metaphorical God that he had the 2004 election stolen from him.


#6

Screw the planet!

Kill of all the animal species.

Pollute like mofo's.

Burn all the gas, oil and coal as fast as possible.

Chemicals and manmade substances are always healthier than natural items.

Germs and viruses don't exist.

Public sewers are a scam.

Global warming is an absolute myth.

Look, claiming that there are a lot of unknowns and that there are many unproven theories does not mean that it is a complete myth.

I know a lot of people would like it to be a myth.

Hell, I'd like it better it if it was simply a myth...


#7

Dude, let's drink a beer then. This past winter is the coldest one I've ever been through in Tallahassee. I froze my damn ass off... I was begging for some global warming!


#8

Beer is good... now that I can agree on!!!


#9

I don't disagree with the idea that the world may be warming.

I do disagree with the notion that it is the U.S.'s fault.

The amount of crap belched into the air from a single volcanic erpuption dwarfs anything that the U.S. (or the entire human race for that matter) can do to the atmosphere in 3 centuries.

People gripe about politicizing religion. I think this is a perfect example of politicizing science. And neither is a good thing,


#10

That's why I plan on learning how to do those Hawaiian "appease the volcano" dances. Because I care about the environment. All these assholes who buy hybrid cars and demand us to join the Kyoto protocol are missing the point entirely.

If y'all greenpeace dickcheeses really want to help, then buy a grass skirt and some shell necklaces. Download "Kamanawanalaya" from iTunes, and shake yer booty.


#11

In the 1800's there was a rather large volcanic explosion. (You may have heard of it.) This was soon followed by the famous "year without a summer".

It could happen again.

Vroom:

Nobody is advocating pollution, or the destruction of the planet. Just trying to put an end to fraud and bullshit.

Did you check out my second link? It lists that the Kyoto Protocol (at the time I was there) has cost the world $196,889,890,000,000 and has resulted in reducing global warming by 0.002041822 degrees Celsius by 2050.

My first link has these quotes:

[i]The total warming since measurements have been attempted is thought to be about 0.6 degrees Centigrade. At least half of the estimated temperature increment occurred before 1950, prior to significant change in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Assuming the unlikely case that all the natural drivers of planetary temperature change ceased to operate at the time of measured atmospheric change then a 30% increment in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused about one-third of one degree temperature increment since and thus provides empirical support for less than one degree increment due to a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

The temperature effect of atmospheric carbon dioxide is logarithmic, not exponential. [/i]

It also mentions that the 0.6 degrees Centigrade increase is actually within the standard deviation for temperature fluctuation.

It also states that humans are having an effect on global temperature and climate. (Didn?t expect that did you?)

We need to deal with facts and reality, not political propaganda pushed by ignorant people with some agenda. It is the difference between supporting animal rights and supporting PETA. (A crazy terrorist supporting organization.)

I am confused as to how disagreeing with the common ideas of global warming means the support of pollution.


#12

Mage,

There are a lot of links with a lot of information. As to which link and which numbers are right, that is something that neither of us will know.

What I am surprised at is that people think that those concerned about global warming or the environment (it all gets lumped together) are somehow evil people with some political purpose.

PETA is a different animal, let's leave them out of it.

Now, are there groups out there with wild ideas and theories and ridiculous claims and calls for action? Yes. Does that mean the underlying issues are ridiculous? No, it has no bearing on it whatsoever.

If you read carefully you'll see that I haven't made any claims either. I do however support the idea that we have to be careful about our "footprint" on the planet. It is possible that we could fuck things up in a big way and end up regretting it.

In any case, I would suggest that dollar cost is not a good determinant as to whether fighting global warming is a good thing to do. I don't care how much is "spent" on reducing emissions, if it is in fact something that needs to be done. However, I would caution that numbers can be manipulated by assumptions... to support either side.

These expenses, assuming everyone is cleaning up, should be proportional to the amount of cleaning up that a country might need to perform.


#13

You forgot to add Algore to your list of politically motivated Global Warmers.

I think it is a stupid idea to think we can throw money at saving the earth. It has withstood way way more punishment than humans will ever throw at it. The Earth may stop spinning someday, but it won't be because of the internal combustion engine, or learning to make paper from trees.

As for our footprint - that is impossible. we have just as much water, land and air as we have had for the entirety of our existence. We have yet to scratch the surface of the natural resources on this planet, and you are concerned about our footprint?

I'm going to go outside, start a fire, run my pickup's engine, and spray hairspray into the air in honor of my footprint.


#14

LOL!

Very good post RJ. I've stated in the past that I think it is vain of humanity to think we could damage the planet to such a degree that it would not sustain a quality of life. The earth has been changing, evolving, adapting, and overcoming for much longer than we've been around. Much longer too I'm sure.

Environmentalist wackos are just so silly.


#15

The problem is that you won't get most scientists to agree that it is a problem based on a few data points--in fact there is little research that can even conclude there is a problem. However, this doesn't mean I think we should just keep up with our current behaviors until we can get climatology experts to tell us what's what.

I think one thing we can agree on and should at least consider is that humans have had a huge impact on the environment since the birth of industrialization. When you consider how little impact humas had before that time and you then consider the fact that populations are not getting any smaller it becomes clear that eventually we are going to have to face the fact that it will be our mess to clean up--sooner is better than later.


#16

You are both idiots.

Fuck it, there are billions of humans on the planet, and to assume we can do no harm, no matter how hard we try, is just plain stupidity.

Welcome to moronity. I am sure it is a familiar home for you both...


#17

vroom: if we set off all of our atomic bombs at the same time, it is only a matter of years until Mother Nature comes back.

We cannot kill this planet. To think otherwise is arrogance and naivete. The "harm" we cause is a matter of your point of view. Some people see the minor pollution of a small creek behind a shopping mall as an inexcuseable breach and violation of the environment directly caused by human beings. Some people say that this very same thing is no big deal.

Example: Should we not plow down a small forest to make room for new apartment buildings?

Is this an effect on our environment? Yes. Is it harm? That depends upon your point of view. This is all relative.

One thing I can promise you: if that apartment building is abandoned for some reason, life and the weather will reclaim that space, and you will find it overgrown and home to all sorts of animals and plants in short order. :slight_smile:


#18

Define harm before you start with the name calling.

There are trillions of termites. They do untold amounts of "damage" to the earth each day. Where is your outrage at them?

You are the true idiot here.

I don't think you have more than even a passing fancy of an idea about what you think you know you are talking about.

And it shows in your emo-like posting.


#19

Hey Vroom.

The reason I brought up PETA is because they are a perfect example of what I am talking about. I support animal rights, and in fact I do not eat veal. Animals should be treated humanely, not just as products. Yet PETA takes the issue and goes overboard with it.

Environmentalism is in the same boat, and in some ways environmental groups are more successful then PETA at spreading extremism in this issue.

You are worried about lumping caring about the environment with extremism, yet the opposite is true too. Disagreeing with something supposedly environmental means you want to trash the planet, burn down the forests, and blacken the skies.

Seriously what was your rant about destroying the planet earlier? Sounded to me like you were saying if you do not agree with this position, that is what you want to do. In effect you are saying we do not care about the environment at all.

Now again, is there actually global warming going on? This must be proven, not just suggested. According to junkscience.org, which does have a real scientific argument here, the global temperature has increased by 0.6 degrees celcius, which is less then the standard diviation. People are spending trillions on a problem they have not even proven to exist yet.

Next they need to prove that humans have caused this, and that this is not just a natural cycle. Is it environmentally sound to prevent a natural warming trend?

Next we need to figure out if a warmer planet is actually a bad thing or not. One of our species most successful times was during the warm period prior to the little ice age, and it was warmer then, then it is now. And the world has been much, much hotter then it is now.

Now you are mentioning your "footprint". Are you referring to your carbon footprint, or your ecological footprint? You do know that by using the (faulty) math connected to the ecological footprint that the total population of Earth uses 20% more of the available Earth then is available.

Carbon footprint? Go here:
http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/offset_calc.htm

I realize you have no problem spending a trillion dollars to prevent a theoretical 1% of 1degree raise in temperature because it is obviously other peoples money and jobs at stake.

You want to have a big impact on the carbon footprint? Support Nu-Q-ler power plants. No CO2 emissions, and safer then ever, not to mention the positive boost to economies instead of the drain.


#20

Well, if you want to get metaphysical and not be concerned for the health and wellbeing of living things on the planet, such as humans, then sure, we can't "harm" the planet.

However, when we release toxins that accumulate in the food chain, ending up on our own dinner plates, I'd call that harm... to ourselves, if not the planet.

I suppose that makes it better... since we aren't actually "damaging the planet".

Cool. I'll quit worrying about it then.