The post, “Sowell on 'Global Warming Swindle,'” led to a thoughtful and civil discussion on the thread.
I want to make a few comments about “the global warming” debate and encourage further discussion of the type we’ve had.
So here goes ---
I take global climate change seriously but I’m not a fan of many who are offering “solutions.” The article I link to below suggests why.
We should all live “as green as possible.” I try to do my part. But I’m very weary of those who want to lead the “green revolution” such as John Edwards with a 30,000 sq. ft. house; John Kerry with five large houses; and Al Gore with his huge energy burner.
I won't take “green leadership” from such people or “environmental organizations” that cozy with them.
I strongly object to the “consensus science” claim that “the debate is over.”
"Consensus science" is a very dangerous road to go down.
The great scientists were and are almost always those who go against “the consensus.”
Galileo and Copernicus, for example.
There was a time when some physicians and surgeons were driven out of their professions.
The reason?
They went against the prevailing “scientific consensus” and fought for the acceptance of germ theory and the changes in medical practices it demanded.
Now, here’s part of an article by Seth Borenstein, an AP science writer. After Borenstein's article, it’s your turn.
Borenstein begins:
When climate scientist Andrew Weaver considers the idea of tinkering with Earth's air, water or sunlight to fight global warming, he remembers the lessons of a favorite children's book.The rest of Borenstein’s article is here.
In the book, a cheese-loving king's castle is infested with mice. So the king brings in cats to get rid of the mice. Then the castle's overrun with cats, so he brings in dogs to get rid of them, then lions to get rid of the dogs, elephants to get rid of the lions, and finally, mice to get rid of the elephants.
That scenario in "The King, the Mice and the Cheese," by Nancy and Eric Gurney, should give scientists pause before taking extreme measures to mess with Mother Nature, says Weaver of the University of Victoria.
However, in recent months, several scientists are considering doing just that.
They are exploring global warming solutions that sound wholly far-fetched, including giant artificial "trees" that would filter carbon dioxide out of the air, a bizarre "solar shade" created by a trillion flying saucers that lower Earth's temperature, and a scheme that mimics a volcano by spewing light-reflecting sulfates high in the sky.
These are costly projects of last resort — in case Earth's citizens don't cut back fast enough on greenhouse gas emissions and the worst of the climate predictions appear not too far away. Unfortunately, the solutions could cause problems of their own — beyond their exorbitant costs — including making the arid Middle East even drier and polluting the air enough to increase respiratory illnesses.
12 comments:
I am doubtful as to the existence of significant human induced global warming. My doubts arose when the icon of global warming Michael Mann's Hockey Stick Graph eliminated both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age. I thought such an extraordinary claim required extraordinary proof. The subsequent critique of Professor Mann's work by Steve McIntyre exposed just how thin the science is. My opinions were reinforced by the National Academy of Science review of Mr. Mann's work for the Energy and Commerce Congressional Sub-committee
There are plenty of reasons to be good stewards of the earth's resources but a fear of human induced global warming is not one of them.
For those interested in the scientific debate, I would recommend you spend time at www.climateaudit.org Its a little hard to pick up the threads there but the debate is fascinating
Great post, John. I, too, am a huge skeptic of the modern "scientific consensus" of global warming. I wrote part of my doctoral dissertation on acid rain, and we forget the apocalyptic hype that was going on about it more than 25 years ago. The scientists back then were predicting a near-meltdown of the environment, yet nothing happened.
By the way, a number of the global warming hypists were "global cooling" advocates in 1975. Their prescription back then? Stop burning coal for electricity and stop burning oil for automobiles.
In other words, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Bill:
You know that the government passed another round of clean air bills in the 1980s, right? To set up quotas for sulfide emissions from power plants, the same emissions which contribute _to_ acid rain?
It was a nice piece of work, actually - every plant had an emissions quota which declined every year, and plants which exceeded that quota could sell their excess to plants which didn't, at a price which was capped and also declined. Of course, technological advances in scrubbing emissions have sent the price plummeting even below mandated maximums.
Some detail on the whole thing here.
Also, smog, being the other half of "global cooling", has also been targeted for reduction, mostly stemming from the catalytic converter mandate in the 1970s.
So, yes, global cooling will probably never happen because of, uh, government intervention. (Though of course it wasn't aimed specifically at global cooling - smog, lead poisoning, acid rain, among other things.)
And I'm pretty sure there are people looking at significant measures which don't involve artificial volcanos.
Some of 'em are looking at 4000-year-old technology which, as added bonuses, can replenish depleted soil and reduce water pollution from fertilizer runoff.
No, I'm not kidding. This is kinda like the slash-and-burn you may have heard of, except the beneficial effects stick around for millennia instead of months.
I like this kinda stuff. Fluorescent and LED light bulbs, electric cars, fiberglass insulation - it saves _you_ money and may have other beneficial effects as well, in addition to the whole environmentally friendly schtick.
Yet, bizarrely, there's baggage attached to it. It's like if you actually use any of it you're buying into that crazy hype about the planet being doomed.
--GF
It was a nice piece of work, actually - every plant had an emissions quota which declined every year, and plants which exceeded that quota could sell their excess to plants which didn't, at a price which was capped and also declined. Of course, technological advances in scrubbing emissions have sent the price plummeting even below mandated maximums.
Except they screwed it up. If you didn't touch a power plant then it didn't have to comply. If you did ANY work on a power plant you had to bring it completely into compliance with then-current limits.
So what happened? The utilities did exactly what you'd expect. Rather than gradually try to improve the older plants so that they would be better, they didn't modify their oldest and most polluting plants AT ALL and thereby avoided the rule entirely.
Here is one
http://www.hycolake.com/plant.htm
Fluorescent and LED light bulbs, electric cars, fiberglass insulation - it saves _you_ money and may have other beneficial effects as well, in addition to the whole environmentally friendly schtick.
Yet, bizarrely, there's baggage attached to it.
Except for when it doesn't save you money which is most of the time and that IS the baggage that's attached to it so you've kind of contradicted yourself. Except house insulation which everybody now uses because it IS cost effective. As soon as someone builds a better light bulb the free market, which you argue for above, will beat a path to it's door.
So keep on driving your highly-subsidized hybrid and feeling superior to everyone else while you try to tell them what to do. Which is what it's about for most of the global warming crowd.
A. if air pollution is having a measurable effect on the climate, that effect would be to cool the earth, not warm it. Look at the three year climatological cycles following every significant volcanic eruption. The pollution in the air reflected much sunlight back into space and filtered some from particle to particle preventing that heat energy from reaching earth. This has happened without fail. Every time. So if global warming is so dangerous, we all owe a debt of gratitude to anyone polluting the atmosphere and slowing down the heating of earth, if you believe the warming to be harmful.
B. Consensus is not a scientific term. It is a management tool that means we are all too chickenshit to claim a position so we will fart around till we see what everyone else will agree to and we will too. As such, it isn’t even a good management tool.
C. Consensus does not exist in the scientific community as to the cause of global warming. The science does show that we are warmer than we were in recent history,but not as warm as we were in the 13th century. That is provable. Yet there is not consensus either in whether this will be a bad thing. Remember, Greenland used to actually be green and was settled by Danish agriculturists. (farmers for you spittle flecked liberals)
D. Another provable fact is that the Atlantic Ocean at one time was frozen almost completely over as far south as Spain. This was so long ago that scientific discovery established this fact because there is no historical record. Most likely meaning before man was even on earth. Yet the entire globe warmed up without us.
E. No climatological model yet devised has ever been able to verify the past that we know has happened, and that we have recorded, with the exception of one. If with all their consensus these so-called researchers can’t determine what we know happened, how the Hell do we trust them to predict the future? Predicting the past is much easier and they can’t do that. The exception is when the known temperatures of the earth over a period of time are graphed alongside the known strength of the output of our sun. Every drop rise and fall and levelling is mirrored from one graph to the other. Fact, with some variations for catastrophic events such as large volcanic eruptions. Which is also measurable as to its blocking effect of the sun’s rays.
F. These consenters (consensus signatories) are the same people in some cases, and the same institutes, research facilities, etc., in the other cases, that were warning us from 40 to 30 years ago that life as we knew it on earth was going to be irrevocably changed if not eradicated due to the coming ICE AGE. Yeah, when that didn’t happen, they needed another ride or the grant money was going to dry up.
Until A through F can be refuted in their entireties no “man causes global warming hysterical screecher” should be given an audience anywhere. If they are too lazy or too intellectually limited to do the work, don’t try to get me on board with the “everybody does it” crap. That is kindergarten stuff. I’m too old and too intelligent for it. Try it out on the very young or the very limited or the very insecure that need to “belong”.
I have to admit I like the new definition of "consensus" 1. those that agree form a consensus by ignoring those who do not.: By consensus I am the sexiest and most handsome man on earth. A consensus of ONE, but in its new scientific definition, consensus, nonetheless, a consensus of one.
I am also grateful for global warming. Do we really need glaciers as far south as central to southern Illinois. We had them at one time, of course man did not exist then, so how do we blame him for the huge warming of the earth since then? We also had tropical forests in the Pacific Northwest at one time, again before man existed, Gingko National Forest has preserved the petrified remains of one.
I realize I have given examples of much a colder globe and examples of a much warmer globe in my argument against man caused global warming. It is simple, the examples are not contradictory, but rather show natural cycles of climatological change caused for reasons far removed from the puny influence of mankind.
The Global Warming scheme is a political scheme to supply more power to governments and less free will to people. It is the Dialectical Materialism of the modern age.
loco:
My turn!
Can you offer up some figures which prove that CFLs are less efficient over the rated bulb lifetime than incandescents?
Specifically, has the relationship changed since this report in 1999?
--GF
Can you offer up some figures which prove that CFLs are less efficient over the rated bulb lifetime than incandescents?
It's not efficiency that's important. Calculate the payback period. Besides they rarely make their "rated" life for a variety of reasons. On top of that they're inferior for many if not most applications because the quality of light is not as good. Plus they put mercury into the environment. A superior product will not need an incentive of any kind to be adopted in the marketplace.
Great post, John. I keep being reminded of the importation of KUDZU and NUTRIA. We seem to forget that not every idea is a good one and that the law of unintended consequences prevails. Controlling the growth of the global population would be a step in the right direction, too, but God forbid anyone should suggest it.
loco: Define 'superior'.
Because by the definition you use, McDonald's clearly produces superior food products. After all, don't they dominate the marketplace?
--GF
gf, I have some flourescent bulbs in my lamps at home. About half flourescent and half incandescent. Trust me, the flourescents provide inferior lighting. Playing the "define the terms, please" game will not make the light any damn better.
Anon: I must admit I hadn't thought of kudzu and nutria in terms of "do something even if it's wrong" as an answer to the global warming alarmists, but it is a good one when you consider the same ignorance was at work there too.
John - I never thought I would agree with Sowell on anything, but I do on this, If global warming is true, why are we greezing our b$$$ off?
Check out this British documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" to see how we are being taken for a ride by the new religion of "environmentalism"
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4340135300469846467
Post a Comment