2009.07.02
Whitlock: Skeptics or traitors
Skeptics or traitors?
Linda Whitlock
Whitlock, a Roanoke Times columnist, is an adjunct English professor who lives in Salem.
I was in the process of writing this column when Gregg Lewis's commentary ("Waking from our collective dream," June 30) sent me scurrying to The New York Times to see if Paul Krugman really had called global warming skepticism treason. Well, sort of. In his June 28 commentary, "Betraying the planet," Krugman said watching the "deniers" arguing against the Waxman-Markey bill was like "watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet."
Read more.
RSS feed 
Scientists do not agree that global warming exists. There is as much evidence pro as there is con. There is more unknown than known.
I am tired of everything being a crisis to make it necessary for fast track action (or else). We have already discovered that the crisis of the economy, which necessitated fast track approval of the stimulus package, was not fixed by the stimulus package and therefore could not have been a crisis (we are still here). Next it is the SC nominee! But, I digress.
On what data do we say global warming exists? Let's see, this planet is supposedly several BILLION years old and we have data for what, 150 years or so? And even the data itself is suspect. Thermometers today are digital and more accurate than those used 100 years ago which were visual mercury jobbies. A person of different height could make a different reading of the same thermometer!
How come all the record highs we seem to experience are breaking records set back in the 1920's? Huh? I thought this came about within the last few years or so. You mean it was hot also in the 20's?
We were told that polar bears were near extinction (Sarah Palin sued and fought their being included as federally protected species) and now find out that the polar bear population is on the rise. How can this be? Does the GW side even know what it is researching?
Much of the land west of the Rocky mountains used to be under the Pacific ocean. That is how the Great Salt Lake got there. So how do we know that what is being experienced (if it is being experienced at all) with rising ocean levels isn't a NATURAL reversion back to the time when the Pacific covered that west? And if it is a NATURAL reversion, how then can man prevent something like that?
No, what we have here is that Global warming has never been proved. It has just been so talked about in such volumes without evidence that now it is in another phase which means that it can be talked about as if it was a fact despite that it has never been fully proven. It is shrewd.
But, follow the money. You will find that most of these GW scientists have a vested stake (or maybe steak) in this. Government grants to resolve the issue. Then all you have to do is little or nothing for a couple decades and you have resolved it and you are a hero and all you did was resolve something that never existed at all. Real shrewd.
Follow the money. Follow the money. Almost all of these think tanks are wanting grants.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 9:58 am
She presents a strawman argument...there's no indication that more environmentally friendly industrial, energy, and construction policies will make the "economy collapse". Also no indication that to go on as we've been doing will make the economy thrive, either.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Strawmen are Whitlock's stock-in-trade.
Her column, and comment 1, suggest an appropriate epitaph for the human race: "They were too stupid to save themselves."
Comment by Painless — July 2, 2009 @ 10:21 am
Bob, I think using the ocean comment with the west coast isn't the way to go. Most likely, as with similar areas like the Atacama, continental lifting and mountain creation caused by plate tectonics lifted what used to be ocean floor up above sea level and it was sitting between two mountain ranges. Over time, the water either drained or evaporated down to what we see today. More likely, a better way to look at this is the evidence of agricultural production on Greenland back about maybe 1000 years ago or so. Grains from there were transported throughout northern Europe, and no real mention of massive flooding has been recorded...yet the ice sheet was a fraction of its current size. To be sure, there were likely a multitude of other factors at play, but if the ice sheet was small enough to allow for grains and other farming to occur in places now covered by ice, yet we lacked the industrial plants of today, then this points to an incredibly complex climate system that has indicated periods of great warmth in recent human history without the devastating side effects we're told will doom humankind today.
Comment by Other John — July 2, 2009 @ 10:22 am
Kristen,
I am not sure I get your point but I am always dubious when one side touts their cause and ignores evidence to the contrary. Any real scientist will tell you that when they come up with a theory that the next step is to go about the many angles and areas where it could be wrong. The GW people seem to just want to cite anything that seems like evidence to support their beliefs and ignore that which does not.
This is not the way to go about establishing scientific "facts". I am most amused by the ozone theory people who say that GW can be measured as a result of the change of the ozone layer from 100-150 years ago. I always say, "Oh really? Were you alive 150 years ago? How does anyone know what the ozone layer was 150 years ago? Were you there?" The point being, that it can't be objectively measured by even an objective scientist and it won't be objectively measured by a GW leaning scientist.
This old earth changes in a heartbeat. Mt. St Helens erupted and changed everything around it drastically for years to come. That's how fast it can happen. Ever been to Yellowstone National Park? I have. They have a place there called the Grand Canyon of Yellowstone. Only they figure it was formed in a month and not the millions of years that it took to form The Grand Canyon (which was also under the Pacific ocean at one time). And, talk about a place that changes daily, Yellowstone is it.
We don't have enough money for Health Care, highway infrastructure, national defense, or a ton of other government programs that are currently running in the red. We, for sure, don't have the money to spend on something that hasn't been proven to exist, is definitely not a crisis, or something that we don't even know if we have to power to affect even if we poured billions (that we don't have) into it.
I don't need a crystal ball to figure out what we need to be doing on this issue.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 10:31 am
OJ,
I hear you and that thought has occurred to me. But, that water had to go somewhere when the Rockies rose up and pushed the west cost shoreline out. They also figure that the evidence for the settlement of America by natives is under the ocean as that part of Alaska they may have traveled is now under water but wasn't when traveled. Again, rising oceans part of something new or something old?
Both sides on this are guilty of ignoring information to prove their cause. Except that Global warming does have to be proven to exist whereas it is not possible to disprove something that does not exists. You can't very well prove something that never happened.
Thanks for the thoughts though.
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 10:38 am
I am not convinced on the whole global warming theory so BobH, I can agree with you on the respect. Even if GW is not real though I just don't get what would be the harm in attempting to be more environmentally friendly...people seem to think it will break the bank...but really, are we not breaking it already with our current forms of nonrenewable and harmful energy? It seems obvious to me that things as plentiful and free as wind and solor would be much more cost effective.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 10:39 am
We've been "going on as we've been doing" for 233 years with great success. That's a pretty good indication of what works. The fact is, almost nothing in this unwieldy world demands immediate action. Knee-jerk action in world or national affairs is almost always misguided. I can't think of a single instance in which a hurried response was the right one. Clearly the bailouts and stimulus plans were both expensive and incorrect. What we need instead are thoughtful studied well-planned solutions by thoughtful intelligent people. If climate change 1) exists, 2)is harmful and 3) can be remedied by humans, wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the type of conclusive evidence we have that links smoking and lung cancer before we spend billions? Maybe it's just the engineer in me.
Comment by The Professor — July 2, 2009 @ 10:42 am
I'm sorry Bob...I thought my point was fairly clear.
Whitlock's position that addressing global warming will make the economy "disintegrate" is ludicrous.
Happy to clarify!
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 10:44 am
If climate change 1) exists, 2)is harmful and 3) can be remedied by humans, wouldn't it be prudent to wait for the type of conclusive evidence we have that links smoking and lung cancer before we spend billions? Maybe it's just the engineer in me.
Comment by The Professor — July 2, 2009 @ 10:42 am
I guess I'm just unclear on what exactly we have to lose by cleaning up our act and diminishing our environmental impact in general.
As for the stimulus and bailouts being "incorrect" ( far less "clearly")...I'd say there's lots more indication of the existence of global warming than there is yet that the stimulus was a mistake.
As for how we've been doing it "successfully" for all these years...I'm not sure what supports that claim.
http://www.infoplease.com/ce6/sci/A0856526.html - air pollution
http://www.buzzle.com/articles/facts-about-water-pollution.html - water pollution
These are just two sources...there are literally thousands available detailing our impact on our environment and how we are in turn impacted.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 10:50 am
Global warming is a fairy tale. This has been one of the coolest summers I can remember. I's hard to get people worked up about global warming when the high is supposed to top at 75. This is nothing but a ruse designed to control people's behavior. When winter comes along, the environuts quit talking about global warming and start talking about global climate change.
This is simply liberals forcing their beliefs on others.
Comment by Henry — July 2, 2009 @ 10:53 am
"A top Republican senator has ordered an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency's alleged suppression of a report that questioned the science behind global warming.
The 98-page report, co-authored by EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back on the prospect of regulating gases like carbon dioxide as a way to reduce global warming. Carlin's report argued that the information the EPA was using was out of date, and that even as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased, global temperatures have declined. "
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/06/29/gop-senator-calls-inquiry-supressed-climate-change-report/
Comment by Henry — July 2, 2009 @ 10:56 am
But, how do you address something that doesn't exists? Oh well. I see where you are coming from. I thought the gist of her article was whether or not dissension about GW rose to the level of treason (as implied by the source she cites).
I have read articles with better clarity and position than hers for sure.
We disagree on the issue but as always I respect your position and am interested in what you have to say about it.
If nothing else pops up to post about today, I hope everyone has a great (hopefully extended) holiday weekend. I think most of us still believe this is a great country and there are alot of other places we can think of that we would not want to be.
Peace,
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 11:00 am
thanks henry not to mention that antartica is gaining ice..not melting...
Comment by pammala — July 2, 2009 @ 11:00 am
How about it Bob, do you need a crystal ball to see smog?
Can an engineer spell S-M-O-G?
I do not know about Global warming, but I know the difference between a breath of fresh air and a breath of smog.
If we could take a poll right now, which we can't, there would probably be a lot of people who wish they had not waited on conclusive evidence linking smoking and lung cancer.
Comment by allen bunch — July 2, 2009 @ 11:03 am
BTW,
We can find all the internet stuff you want out there that supports your side.
http://www.junkscience.com/fox/milloy111204.html
Again, the burden of proof is on the GW side and it has not been proved to a great number of people. There is reasonable doubt here.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 11:04 am
BobH I have no idea if global warming exists ( and I'm not going down that traitor road anyway). My position has never changed. Global warming or not, we have only to gain and nothing to lose by trying to diminish and ameliorate our environmental impact. To pretend that the detritus of a world population of 6 billion isn't going to have an impact on the environment is fanciful thinking.
Will anyone drop dead if I throw a soda can out the window? No. Would I be absolutely idiotic to insist on my "personal freedom" to do so? Yes.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:09 am
Kristen, loved your buzzle.com site which you purported gives us the 'facts' on water pollution. BTW, on the same site, i also found a story about what happens when a queen bee meets a vampire, what a witch's destiny is, and how a vampire seduces someone.
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:14 am
Henry...As for this being "one of the coolest summers you can remember"...
http://www.weatherzine.net/blog/2009/06/22/record-heat-wave-for-southeast-florida-fathers-day/ (record heat 2009)
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/weather/stories/Summer-Heatwave-Arrives-in-Bay-Area.html (record heat 2009)
http://www.news8austin.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=244578 (record heat in...2009)
These are just a few. So much for the "coolest summer you can remember".
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:15 am
Buzzle.com is comprised of a dynamic network of authors and content contributors who we proudly refer to as our Intelligent Life on the Web. As subject experts, our authors and content contributors create an informative, yet comfortable place for finding information about everything from animals to tourism.
Everything from A to T obviously...
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:16 am
Kristen,
I can agree with your post #17 and do not see you as a traitor for sure!
Bob
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 11:19 am
Mark, glad you liked it! Keep looking on it and you'll find the "creationism" bit.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 11:20 am
What if I were ordered, by the police authority of the government, to give up some personal freedom on the basis of unproven science to further some political agenda.
Comment by wayne p. — July 2, 2009 @ 11:22 am
In adding to my post #20 though, I do not think it is the US position that it has fix the problems caused by the 6 Billion inhabitants you mention when it has only 300 million or so.
Also I would say that one event (like a Mt. St Helens) seems to have more effect than the 6 billion do, depending on which scientist you want to cite.
Peace
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 11:23 am
What's wrong with applying a little common sense logic to the GW issue. I'm not a scientist, never have perported to be one and really don't have a desire to become one...but try this on for size:
Fact 1: The population of the world is greater now than it was 150 years ago and probably a lot greater than it was a 1 million years ago.
Fact 2: The world as we know it today is consuming energy at greater levels than it was 150 years ago. One of the bi-products of energy consumption is heat.
Fact 3: There are more automobiles on the roads of the world today than there were 150 years ago. Automobiles produce many chemical compounds as exhaust...heat and carbon monoxide being just two of them.
Fact 4: People die when they are locked in enclosed spaces with carbon monoxide (thats why we're told not to start cars in closed garages, I guess).
Fact 5: We have more homes today than we did 150 years ago. The energy it took to build those homes and to make the goods necessary to furnish those homes is greater now than it was 150 years ago. Again, a bi-product of energy consumption is heat.
Now with those facts in place (and I think it's safe to say they are facts), is it not a reasonable conclusion to say that the added heat produced as a result of the increased population usage of energy in the forms of automobiles, homes, work etc etc etc could in fact be having an adverse effect on the Earth?
It really doesn't seem to be too much of a stretch to me and certainly, anything we can do to clean up smoggy air so that you can see the Blue Ridge Mountains clearly on a beautiful fall day would be a good thing...wouldn't it?
Comment by Will — July 2, 2009 @ 11:38 am
Kristen do you also have a clip/or address of the 'creationism' bit? I mean i know you probably are stunned that there could possibly be someone in this country that hasnt seen that before as well LOL
Just kidding, we love your sources *cough*
Comment by Marked Man (mark) — July 2, 2009 @ 11:51 am
Will,
Human beings have not been around for a million years. Best guess right now is like 10-15,000 years, maybe 40,000 depending on which scientist you choose and what you want to call human (Cro Magnon man was not human like us and neither was Neanderthal).
Everyone who ate carrots in the year 1840 is dead. That has about as much correlation as anthing you have in 1-5 above. You aren't linking the effect to the cause in any of those. You are just saying one exists because the other exists.
Before we spend trillions or even billions on this, we need more than that.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 12:10 pm
Will..with all those facts, why have life expectantcies increased..could it be heat dissipates and wind/ocean currents refresh the atmosphere at a rate far above the rate we "pollute"? Could it be God..er uhhh NATURE "has us covered"? Am I saying trash Mother Earth?? NEGATIVE! AM I saying man made global warming is hogwash? AFFIRMATIVE!
Comment by BUD — July 2, 2009 @ 12:20 pm
"I have no idea if global warming exists ( and I'm not going down that traitor road anyway). My position has never changed. Global warming or not, we have only to gain and nothing to lose by trying to diminish and ameliorate our environmental impact."
What we "have to lose" are billions of dollars in a distressed economy. If you're talking about turning off the lights and recycling cans, that's one thing. Massive spending without conclusive evidence of GW, that it's a problem, or that man can cure it, is irresponsible.
Comment by The Professor — July 2, 2009 @ 12:35 pm
BobH...
Exactly what I am saying. Each one of those (even with the million year analogy) is true. There are more people today than there were 150 years ago.
The person that ate carrots 150 years ago didn't have the same devices at his/her disposal then as we do now. And incidentally, there are more people eating carrots today than there were 150 years ago. The fact that people are living longer, at least to me, serves to support the fact that we have more people creating and consuming energy which produces heat.
And Bud...perhaps life expectancies have increased because of advances in health care and the fact that people aren't living in animal skin tents but are living in houses (that by the way, consume energy to produce which creates heat as a bi-product.
Simply saying GW is hogwash seems to be pretty narrow-minded. I think by simply looking at a few glaring facts, it's not such a huge leap to conclude that perhaps we (the population of the earth) need to be more mindful of the environment and the energy produced/consumed.
It's possible that the Earth can clean up our mess...but I don't think it's wrong to see if we can help her along a little.
I can remember as a child being able to see the Peaks of Otter very clearly from the front porch of my parents house on any given day. I also recall that as a teenager and into my early 20's, the view had become considerably more hazy and it wasn't until a heavy storm front moved through that the mountains could be viewed clearly (albeit for only about 2 or 3 days).
Is that a problem? I think so.
Comment by Will — July 2, 2009 @ 12:37 pm
BUD and BobH, your certainty is impressive in this context. However, much like my Liberal rants tend to discredit me with many on here, your actual credentials for convincing us leave some serious room for doubt.
I cannot argue the "science" because like many other citizens I am confused by the whole argument. Like Will, I try to break it down into things I can see and comprehend and I do not think it takes a masters degree in any science to realize that we are damaging the planet daily and that any steps to mitigate that damage, even if only we do it, is worth the possible benefit. Since much of science and research is still unproven, we cannot have the concrete answers we would like, but the indicators, the "canary in the coal mine" research should not be overlooked, discounted or ignored because people do not like the politics of the messenger or the cost of the changes. Those are cop outs on a planet our grand children will need to survive. There is grave danger in ignoring and procrastinating if the science is right and there is no real downside if they are wrong. Pulling facts out of context and citing unrelated weather patterns does not diminish the danger we could be facing, it only proves the lack of actual understanding on the issue.
There are many things in this world I do not like, I do not believe and I do not support, but I have to learn to live with them. I am not big on massive conspiracies, even when money AND politics are involved. The Scientists and learned people who know more than me all over the planet in virtually every industrialized nation that have a similar opinion/interpretation on the research so far, makes it harder to ignore than many want to acknowledge.
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 12:52 pm
So let's say that we aren't damaging the environment. Do you really not see the benefits of renewable energy sources...i.e. we won't run out of it and costs less in the long run. Collapse the economy? I don't think so. I think what will cause us to collapse is failure to move to these methods.
Comment by HCS — July 2, 2009 @ 1:06 pm
HOLY SHEEPSKIN BATMAN!!!!!!!..i didn't know we needed to be "credentialed" in what we discussed here..boy is it gonna get quiet!!
Comment by BUD — July 2, 2009 @ 1:07 pm
When it keeps being brought up by people who have an agenda and they are given a forum by the press and never asked to really prove it, it doesn't mean you have to give it acknowledgment either.
I mean, 65% of the country did not want the revolutionaty war or independence from the crown. That didn't mean independence wasn't right to go ahead and do (timely post, eh?).
My father went through the depression and didn't even know there was one. They livved in the mountains and didn't get a paper and raised and killed what they ate. They didn't have anything before it started and had the same after it was over, never knowing it had actually occurred for the most part. Does that mean it didn't occur?
Don't understimate the power of this planet to recusitate itself. Which has happened time and time again. From the inpact of comets, earthquakes, and you name it. Don't overestimate our ability by thinking that we have the power to blow it up. We don't. Life has started over, seemingly from scratch, several times in the history of this planet. We are not God.
Comment by BobH — July 2, 2009 @ 1:19 pm
Bud, life expectancies have increased for a variety of reasons - the development of antibiotics being among them. They haven't increased because our planet is so clean.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
Once again.... the argument "its hard to argue for global warming when its as cool as it is outside" is used, and once again, in the context of global warming is completely misplaced.
Global warming is the trend of warming over long periods of time, not over the past couple years, couple months, or couple days.
That's akin to going to the desert on a rare day when a storm passes through and proclaiming there's no drought.
Come on. let's get real. Temperature changes on the planet are cyclical. There's going to be warm periods and cold periods on the macro and micro level. But even still, one doesn't have to rely on that to understand the physics of how carbon dioxide traps heat in the earth's atmosphere.
I do not believe it's all doom and gloom, but I certainly think we can do better for the environment to prevent overheating. I am no scientist in the field, but I know enough to trust in those that are, and those that don't have political agendas when it comes to issues that affect 100% of the people on the planet. I challenge everyone else to find legitimate sources on this topic and not just stick with your gut and listen to political rhetoric and talking points. But nonetheless, don't go outside, and enjoy the cool day and say "HA! Global Warming! What a bunch of hogwarsh and hootenanny" Because that attitude is just plain silly.
Comment by scott — July 2, 2009 @ 1:28 pm
"What we "have to lose" are billions of dollars in a distressed economy."
You're, like Whitlock, assuming that measures taken to address global warming would necessarily cause (more) distress to the economy. I'm not sure where that assumption comes from.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
And frankly, Professor, I'd have to see a better reason to let so-called "corporate America" pollute unchecked, at will, than just to boost their bottom line.
We have lots of interests, the market being just one small one.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 1:32 pm
"The GW people" and their deniers, unless they are actual climate scientists, have exactly the same amount of credibility: none whatsoever. So " EPA analyst Alan Carlin, pushed back", did he? And the fact that he's an economist with no training whatsoever in climate science doesn't bother you or fox news says more about your lack of intellectual integrity than anything I could. Every major organization of actual climate scientists endorses the propositions that "climate change 1) exists, 2)is harmful and 3) can be remedied by humans..." Readers here may be confused, but actual climate scientists are not.
The reference to smoking and lung cancer is particularly apt, though perhaps not in the way the author intended. The science was pretty conclusive long before the government acted, with the usual suspects (the tobacco companies) in full denial mode even though they had the data in hand. That anyone would expect the oil and gas indutries to behave differently reflects a degree of naivete that is almost touching.
The poverty of knowledge regarding this discussion is almost perfectly captured by this pithy statement: "Global warming is a fairy tale. This has been one of the coolest summers I can remember." The extrapolation of one's personal experience to generalize regarding global climactic data is breathtaking, if more than somewhat depressing if it was sincerely proffered as argument.
Finally, the argument that "We don't have enough money" to fight climate change has prompted me to change my epitaph for the human race: "They were too cheap to save themselves."
Comment by Painless — July 2, 2009 @ 2:15 pm
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/02/opinion/02kristof.html?em
This is a sort of funny/informative piece on why global warming gets such a yawn from so many people. It also touches on evolution.
Comment by Kristen — July 2, 2009 @ 2:40 pm
Well said, Painless.
In case any of you people ever decide to pull your heads out of your wishful thinking and actually look up the science on global warming, here are some good places to start:
http://www.roanoke.com/editorials/commentary/wb/163683
http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2009/01/global_warming_the_blog_epic_0_2.php
http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2XdO7x/web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2009/roulette-1-enlarged.html/topic:Environment
And, you can find plenty more on iTunes U. Reliable science, produced by accredited universities.
Comment by Ed H — July 2, 2009 @ 2:57 pm
Thank you Painless, that was great!
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 2, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
Happy to oblige. I appreciate you too.
Comment by Painless — July 2, 2009 @ 3:31 pm
Kristen...in the house bill regarding cap and trade that passed recently,
there are provisions for job loss(unemployment benes). So even those thinking this is a great idea are planning for negative impact on the economy.
Comment by BUD — July 2, 2009 @ 4:50 pm
I don't mind the government issuing warnings that don't cost me any money. But when their dire warnings are accompanied by a giant tax, as cap-and-trade would be, then I have to question motives just as we rightly questioned the tobacco companies' motives. It's highly important and patriotic to question our government, whether it be in wars we disagree with or expensive legislation we disagree with. The scientists I trust are those who have nothing to gain financially when putting forth a particular finding, and who are interested in the truth, only.
Comment by The Professor — July 2, 2009 @ 11:37 pm
You seem to be under the misapprehension that "the government" is behind the intellectual construct that is global warming. It is, in fact, the scientists "who have nothing to gain financially when putting forth a particular finding" that have propounded the concept for decades.
Comment by painless — July 3, 2009 @ 9:05 am
they are govt scientists....not all scientists agree..why wont gore debate it with anyone..because it isnt as dire as he wishes it was...
Comment by pammala — July 3, 2009 @ 11:00 am
And which "govt scientists" would those be?
And no, there is no such thing as unanimity in the scientific community, but name me one climate science organization, public or private, that refutes the construct of anthropogenic climate change, then let's talk, shall we?
Comment by painless — July 3, 2009 @ 11:46 am
GW and its predicted consequences are totally based on computer modeling. It is widely known and acknowledged that the models are incomplete, and probably contain many errors in assumptions concerning effects and interactions of climatological variables. Also, models can be intentionally tweaked to bias the output of the models. So, we, as a nation, want to bet our entire economy on the results of flawed models?
Comment by Fletch — July 3, 2009 @ 12:21 pm
The Professor, your agreement to a painless solution is big of you, but you cannot seriously believe that during the Bush/Cheney years that it was viewed as "...highly important and patriotic to question our government" Is there such a thing as a scientist with NOTHING to gain? Would you name some please?
pammala, are you saying that ALL scientist who agree with the Climate Change projections, all over the world are government scientists? Wow, there's your global peace right there. All those governments and their paid scientists in agreement. THAT is impressive. Al Gore has put himself out there as a spokesperson, but there are many people who can and will and do debate the same position. Who is it you want him (instead of a scientist) to debate with?
Comment by Sandi Saunders — July 3, 2009 @ 12:36 pm
painless...might those be the same gov't scientists promoting global cooling in the 70s? The same folks who in the 60s said we be out of oil at the end of the century?
Comment by BUD — July 3, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
"not all scientists agree.."
All scientists will never agree on anything. Every scientist looks at the evidence and makes up his own mind. That is why, when every scientist who is competent in a particular field has examined an issue in that field, and virtually every one of them has come to the same conclusion about it, we laymen can trust their consensus.
"why wont gore debate it with anyone."
Why all this harping on Al Gore? Do you think that's a magic word that will make global warming disappear?
The debate was done in the last century, by the scientists who knew what they were talking about. If you missed that, you've got a lot of catching up to do. The scientists are through debating WHETHER the globe is warming; they've moved on to discussing ways to cope with it.
Comment by Ed H — July 3, 2009 @ 1:40 pm
BUD,
I think you need to get a good dictionary, and find out what the word "scientist" means.
Who, exactly, did you hear "promoting global cooling in the 70s"?
Comment by Ed H — July 3, 2009 @ 1:50 pm
ED... I used the term scientist as referring to meteorologists, climatologists,...even 1 biochemist..these were people from various universities and groups like NOAA-National Oceanic Atmospheric Admin. who back in the 60s and 70s saw the earth cooling from the late 30s. Both Time and Newsweek ran articles in 74 and 75.
And I would disagree with your sentence about scientists are through debating whether the earth is warming. Data from the last decade indicates temps are falling and that a decrease in solar activity is the probable reason. Some think the cooling trend could last through the first half of the 21st century.
Comment by BUD — July 3, 2009 @ 5:03 pm