« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Where There's a (George) Will There's A Way ... To Deny Global Warming
Looks like Fred Barnes isn't the only high-profile conservative columnist still arguing that climate change doesn't really exist.
Over the weekend, the Washington Post's George Will, got in on the act. And it took us about ten minutes -- longer, it appears, than the Post's editors spent -- to figure out that Will, like Barnes, was essentially making stuff up.
Both of Will's major "data points" fall apart after a moment's scrutiny.
Here's the first:
According to the University of Illinois' Arctic Climate Research Center, global sea ice levels now equal those of 1979.
But within hours of Will's column appearing, the ACRC had posted the following statement on its website:
We do not know where George Will is getting his information, but our data shows that on February 15, 1979, global sea ice area was 16.79 million sq. km and on February 15, 2009, global sea ice area was 15.45 million sq. km. Therefore, global sea ice levels are 1.34 million sq. km less in February 2009 than in February 1979. This decrease in sea ice area is roughly equal to the area of Texas, California, and Oklahoma combined.It is disturbing that the Washington Post would publish such information without first checking the facts.
So, nevermind then.
As for Will's second claim, he writes:
[A]ccording to the World Meteorological Organization, there has been no recorded global warming for more than a decade.
This one is a little more complicated. But only a little.
Will's claim appears to come from a BBC News article from way back in April 2008, whose first version reported:
Global temperatures will drop slightly this year as a result of the cooling effect of the La Nina current in the Pacific, UN meteorologists have said.The World Meteorological Organization's secretary-general, Michel Jarraud, told the BBC it was likely that La Nina would continue into the summer.
This would mean global temperatures have not risen since 1998, prompting some to question climate change theory.
It's true that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, because that year was a particularly hot one. But as anyone with a high-school level grasp of statistics understands, you need to look at data over a broad period to get a realistic assessment of what's going on. In fact, the WMO itself made that very point in an "information note" that confirmed that the organization believes global warming is continuing, and pointed out that the last decade has been the warmest on record.
The WMO wrote:
The long-term upward trend of global warming, mostly driven by greenhouse gas emissions, is continuing. Global temperatures in 2008 are expected to be above the long-term average. The decade from 1998 to 2007 has been the warmest on record, and the global average surface temperature has risen by 0.74C since the beginning of the 20th Century. [...] "For detecting climate change you should not look at any particular year, but instead examine the trends over a sufficiently long period of time. The current trend of temperature globally is very much indicative of warming," World Meteorological Organization Secretary-General, Mr Michel Jarraud said in response to media inquiries on current temperature "anomalies".
Indeed, the BBC soon changed the third paragraph of its report to read:
But this year's temperatures would still be way above the average - and we would soon exceed the record year of 1998 because of global warming induced by greenhouse gases.
That changed prompted climate change deniers to see a nefarious conspiracy to hide the truth. But given that additional information from the WMO, it's pretty clear that the revised version better reflects reality.
Will, of course, doesn't appear to have been interested in any of this. He saw (perhaps via Rush Limbaugh?) a report that appeared to confirm what he believes ... and straight into the Washington Post it went. Neither did Will's editors at the Post seem to care enough about not misinforming their readers to take ten minutes to delve into any of this.
An assistant for Will said the columnist might be able to return TPMmuckraker's call about the column this afternoon. Fred Hiatt, the Post's editorial page editor told TPMmuckraker he'd try to respond to questions about the editing process later today. We'll update this post if we hear back.
Thanks to reader C.P. for the catch.
What really baffles me is how people believe pumping all kinds of gas into the atmosphere that without human activity would not normally occur has no or little effect on the world. Makes you realize why they either do not trust or have limited knowledge of science.
February 16, 2009 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
the argument I hear time and again from global climate change deniers, is that the Earth and its atmosphere is so vast that they can't believe human activity is sufficient to affect it.
The Japanese believed the same thing and ended up in the early 1960s with a horrible ecological disaster caused by dumping mercury into the waters where they fished.
A moment's contemplation of the damage which could be wreaked by a single thermonuclear weapon ought to be enough to convince ignorant people that yes, the daily activities of 6 billion people can affect our environment.
The Earth and its atmosphere does not care where the CO2 comes from. This particular argument by deniers is like saying that if you eat a candy bar and drink a diet Coke, the diet soda cancels out the candy bar's calories.
February 16, 2009 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Debunkers of Science should try getting their findings published in refereed journals. Go ahead - send a paper with your results to Nature or Science. See if you can convince the experts.
Oh, your data are not quite rock-solid ? Your findings are really just opinions ? Your statistics do not hold up to scrutiny ? You are funded by oil, gas and coal companies ? You are a paid shill, turns out ?
Uh huh.
I believe these shills are only fooling the people who want to be fooled ...
February 16, 2009 2:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get a gold star for (correctly) using data as a plural noun. :)
February 17, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Will has been pumping gas into the atmosphere for a number of decades :)
February 16, 2009 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hear, hear.
February 16, 2009 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Inability to distinguish fact from bull shit will continue to be the major cause of global warming for years to come.
February 16, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There goes Will again, dutifully regurgitating U.S. Chamber of Commerce talking points. Can't the Post hire columnists who AREN'T tools? (Cf: William "The Bloody" Kristol, Charles "Mr. Neocon" Krauthammer). I mean, somebody willing to use independent thinking and reasoning rather than being a stenographers for their corporate/rightwing masters? Jeez.
February 16, 2009 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go washington post, going from breaking the watergate scandal to not fact checking articles. How can anybody still believe global warming is a myth with all of the information that is out there about the subject? This is completely baffling to me, ridiculous.
February 16, 2009 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly believe that a Mr. Limbaugh or an Hon. Sen Inhofe believe this idiocy—whether out of ignorance, or stupidity—but the George Wills of this world know better, and purposely pervert data points to create the controversy that most MSM outlets value more than findings of fact.
February 16, 2009 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I got it where I get all my data, dammit.
A regression analysis of Ted William's yearly batting averages.
February 16, 2009 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
that's great, very funny.
February 16, 2009 12:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Has Ted been drug tested lately?
February 16, 2009 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
(With a nod to Duncan Black)
Facts are stupid things, and the Washington Post doesn't want you to be troubled by them.
February 16, 2009 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Joe Romm at Climate Progress tears apart Will point by point here:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/02/15/george-will-global-cooling-warming-debunked/
and James Hrynyshyn at ScienceBlogs' Island of Doubt demonstrates that either Will never actually read one of his sources or is deliberately misstating its conclusions.
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/the_importance_of_actually_rea.php
February 16, 2009 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great work, Zack & TPM! Since we have NO ONE in our govt that works hard to push back against the right-wing misinformation machine, we NEED vigilance like this to correct these bogus claims.
Amazing, it is, that political agendas from WaPo, WSJ, Drudge, WorldDotNet, Fox News, etc. trump the reality that is happening all around us and threatening our livelihood. Amazing.
February 16, 2009 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lying is a dominant trait in the Republican genome--it has been hardwired in this particular strain of human dna for millions of years.
In a broader context, it is believed that human evolution did not occur on one linear path, but rather two parallel paths--one path got creative and invented tools--another path invented lying and Fox news.
February 16, 2009 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'd like to introduce the fact known as phase change into the discussion. In a glass of well-mixed ice water, the temperature will be 0 degrees Centigrade. If some heat is applied, the heat absorbed will be taken up by the system, and (with good mixing), ice will melt (water will change phase from solid to liquid). However, the temperature of the mix WILL NOT CHANGE. All the absorbed heat will contribute to the phase change. Only when all ice is melted will the temperature of the liquid rise on input of heat. Therefore, years of heat input to an ice/water mix as occurs at the poles will result in ice melting, BUT NO TEMPERATURE RISE. This, in addition to the normal variation in temps confuses the picture. Those who say lack of an observable temperature rise proves absence of warming do not understand physics.
However, when all ice is melted, all heat applied will result in temperature rise. This could indicate a coming sudden drastic jump in liquid water temperature. When? Don't know!
Karen
February 16, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, basically you're saying that it is even worse than we think it is, because we'll only know how screwed we are when the ice is gone?
Or...
IF we turn things around, maybe maybe maybe we won't have so far to go to get the water at the poles frozen again.
Please tell me it's the second option! Of course with people like Will and his ilk around, it is unlikely that we can turn things around in time anyway.
Anyway, thanks for that interesting physics lesson! I love physics because it always makes sense!
February 16, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, I believe it is the former.
Taking a big picture view of global warming there are three things that are important:
- The amount of energy coming to the earth (essentially fixed, thanks to the sun)
- The amount of energy leaving the earth (consisting mainly of reflected sunlight and re-emitted radiant heat)
- The amount of energy stored on earth (either in plants or other energy storage systems or as heat)
The amount of energy stored equals the amount entering minus the amount leaving. The planet is reflecting less energy because of the depleted ozone layer and emitting less energy because greenhouse gases are trapping it. As a result, this extra energy is stored as heat resulting in higher temperatures.
What has happened with the large scale release of greenhouse gases is the balance has been shifted. This means that if we as a planet went carbon neutral tomorrow temperatures would continue to rise until the new balance is achieved (in this case a higher temperature so the earth can emit enough energy to balance that captured by greenhouse gases).
The problem is actually greater than this because as temperatures rise, the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere increases. Water vapor is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide and acts as positive reinforcement for global warming (higher temperatures lead to more water vapor which leads to higher temperatures).
At some point increased cloud cover may begin to counter rising temperatures by reflecting more sunlight but I would prefer not to rely on that as a safety net.
Cutting CO2 emissions will not slow down the rate of climate change, but rather slow down the acceleration of climate change. I can't see how we can slow down climate change without going carbon negative (storing a lot of carbon and energy in trees and other plants).
A quick point on Aerocenter's comment (which is right on), the ice at the poles acts as a giant buffer to temperature change by effectively storing cold for the planet. Once this buffer is gone climate change can happen at a much faster rate. However the buffer works in both directions, which means that in order to get the ice reserves back we need to return the earth to the state it was in when they started melting and then wait a really long time. And perhaps it won't be until the next (mini or full) ice age that the polar ice caps are fully restored.
February 16, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sir,
Luckily, water vapor and its tangible presence (clouds) also reflect incoming sunlight and the radiant energy.
Hopefully, the water vapor created by 'boiling' oceans will blanket the atmosphere in 24/7/365/10/10/10/10/10, thick, water-filled cloud cover and - aside from the havoc on weather patterns - help to offset a portion of the energy blasting in from the sun.
Heck, per the week after 9/11 when no jet contrails nucleated man-made clouds over USA, we should fly more jets more often to nucleate more clouds! Oh, but only the electric ones as combustion products spewed at 30K+ feet is NOT GOOD.
Just trying to see the - any - upside...
February 16, 2009 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
You assume the system is at thermal equilibrium across the earth. This is clearly not true (Miami is hotter than Denmark), so your theory is debunked.
February 16, 2009 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The principle does not rely on the system being well mixed. The point is that a great deal of heat is absorbed in the melting of the ice as opposed raising the temperature of the earth. Once there is no more ice to melt, the temperature change of the earth from the same heat input will be much greater.
While the earth is not "well mixed", there is definitely mixing that occurs. If the arctic ice pack completely disappears in the summer then the areas that it cools (New England for example, thanks to the jet stream) will begin experiencing a noticeable rise in summer temperatures.
February 16, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you're forgetting albedo. Ice reflects almost all of the Sun's energy. Liquid water absorbs it. When ice melts in the Arctic, it's not the melting which is the problem, it's the fact that the ice is no longer there reflecting the sun's rays. Things up there heat up pretty quick once the ice is gone.
April 8, 2009 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I am not theorizing. It is a fact that phase change requires energy input, and that the energy input does not result in temperature rise until the phase change is completed.
I agree with this:
"The important point is that a lot of energy is going into melting the polar ice caps rather than raising temperatures."
Karen
February 16, 2009 8:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Will has been writing this same article for 20 years.
It would be interesting for someone with Lexis/Nexis access to go back and see how many times he's used this sentence:
"In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."
I seriously remember reading him writing about that in his Newsweek columns back in the late 80's. And he's been using the same argument ever since.
February 16, 2009 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Going to ProQuest, a database used by many public libraries and thus available for free, a rather sloppy search ( ("Global Cooling") AND AU(George Will) ) comes up with 82 times from 1992- to now.
Narrowing search to Washington post, there are 7 times with the same phrase and time range.
That 82 to 7 gives some indication of how widespread his column is duplicated. ProQuest covers a bit less than 800 papers.
What would be even more telling would be to do a blog search for somewhat longer phrases from his columns and see how often he's cited in the blogosphere.
February 16, 2009 7:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anyone notice that conservatives have 3 main climate change arguments:
1)it's not real
2)yeah it's happening, but it's just part of a natural cycle, not man made at all.
3)yeah it's happening and we're the cause, but isn't it great? Soon we'll have orange groves in North Dakota, how cool is that? (the Greening of Planet Earth"argument)
February 16, 2009 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would any good conservative have looked at only the last 10 years of data from the stock market to make statements regarding the stock market as a whole? I think not. It does show how ideologically driven they are, however.
February 16, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even if Will and the WAPO correct this you can be sure it will be cited hundreds of times by our mainstream conservative media. It's also a safe bet that a large percentage of right-wing talk media listeners don't listen to anyone who will feature corrections of this misinformation.
This is reason I'd like to see a return of some version of The Fairness Doctrine." Exposure to other opinions is important, but more important is exposure to accurate facts. How do we call this stuff back once it's out there?
February 16, 2009 12:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
He should be fired. There's no place for such a blatant liar on any page of a major newspaper.
A fairness doctrine wouldn't help here. Half-way between the truth and a bald lie is just a more moderate version of the lie. It never achieves truth. And having a "fairness" doctrine in place means that even when those with the truth speak first and loudest, the liars will get their time at the megaphone.
If the Post won't fire him, the honest staff need to walk off the job. We need zero tolerance for liars.
February 16, 2009 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL, I'd settle for a 'Correctness' Doctrine...
February 16, 2009 3:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A problem I see is that some people will have Will's column quoted to them, but will never be exposed to the fact that it's major points have all been debunked. If there were left leaning shows on all the radio networks where one might find this column held up as "evidence" against warming, then those audiences might be exposed to the same info we received here. As it is, many of them will never hear a rebuttal of it.
February 16, 2009 3:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
He is one of those media institutions who escaped the bounds of journalistic accountability long ago.
Will's ego is "too big to fail", if you will.
February 17, 2009 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
I really think someone should start a real estate fund specializing in low-lying beach front property and islands. Let the George Fwill's of the world buy it cheap, if they're so sure the ocean's not rising. Then all these trust fund babies will have to dubious claim to sandbars in what will soon be international waters.
Why does someone with no training in science think he can cherry pick data points, ignore large bodies of evidence and then expect to be taken more seriously than scientists who do this for their day job?
February 16, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the wingnut welfare is plentiful for those who spread disinformation for the reich wing.
February 16, 2009 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
All that would do is ensure huge amounts of tax money going towards progressively higher seawalls around your new development.
We're going to see plenty of that for Malibu and Long Island, we don't need to add more.
February 16, 2009 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
the point of all the global climate change denial is, ultimately, to delay any significant action until it is too late; then they can argue that it's too late and it's not worth bothering with trying to reverse it, let's just keep on burning fossil fuels.
February 16, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Zachary,
Google "Pacific Decadal Oscillation" on .gov and .edu, and you'll have better info for your next article debunking the "colder since 1998" blather.
Cheers....
February 16, 2009 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
In the old days, I thought Will's core competancy was reasonable back ground in history, and then the ability to cherry pick bits of it, in an ingenuine fashion, to support the conservative talking points. He then added a degree of sophistication through obscure, even archaic language to make it all seem like it was boneifide. It was dishonest, but artfully dishonest.
Now, he's just lying through his teeth making things up. I especially liked the way he tried to say that Roosevelt prolonged the Great Depression in the face of economist like Kuttner and Krugman.
He's a stubbed toe away from sounding like Bob Novak.
February 16, 2009 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
aerocenter, what happens when the ice melts is that the reflectivity changes in the visible. Ice is more reflective than water for sunlight. The net is that more energy from the sun is absorbed, and melts more ice.
A secondary assumption you are making is that the ice and water are well mixed, something that is not always the case over wide areas, for example, the water could be above freezing in the Bering Straits, with no ice (summer conditions), while at the North Pole there is still a lot of ice, and the temperature at the surface is colder than that underneath the ice pack.
Thirdly (if anyone is reading, the freezing point of salt water is a lower than the freezing point of fresh water......
February 16, 2009 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a positive feedback from the loss of the reflective ice and this is a problem. I'm not sure how it ranks because the poles receive significantly less energy from the sun than the equator (hence all the ice) but is definitely in the "this is bad" category.
With regards to the system not being well mixed, this simplification makes the situation easier to explain but doesn't affect the validity. The important point is that a lot of energy is going into melting the polar ice caps rather than raising temperatures.
An example with numbers: if you have a block of ice at 0C and put enough energy into it to melt it you will end up with a puddle of water at 0C. If you put that same amount of energy in again you will have a puddle at 80C. The ice caps are masking the perception of the change in energy due to global warming. In other words, we have had a large block of ice at either pole absorbing additional heat and melting. Once that is gone the energy will instead go to further rises in ocean temperatures.
I'm not sure where you are going with your third point, but you are correct that salt water freezes at a lower temperature than fresh water. However, I believe the polar ice caps largely fresh water because as it freezes the salt remains in the liquid water.
February 16, 2009 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, George, divest yourself from fossil fuel and military holdings and get back to us... OK?
February 16, 2009 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
All when it was 117 degrees in Melbourne, on " Black Saturday ". When 2,000 square miles of Australia began to burn in earnest.
February 16, 2009 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Webber said the biggest killer for his grapes had been a summer heatwave and an ongoing drought.
"It's not just fires, there's a lot of shrivelled berries. We've lost 50 percent of our fruit," he told AFP on a tour of his scorched vineyards.
"We have been through three 46 C (115 F) days. The fire's the least of our problems."
http://www.seeddaily.com/reports/Wildfires_last_straw_for_parched_Australian_wineries_999.html
February 16, 2009 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once upon a time in America...
When you were caught in a major publication with such a glaring example of poor journalism (not addressing the issue of whether it was deliberate misinformation or simple incompetence), you made an effort to apologize or atone as soon as possible.
But those days are gone.
February 16, 2009 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is why I appreciate TPM so much; You've got the time and people to keep ideologues like George Will and Fred Barnes from caricaturizing the world in the alternate reality they so want it to fit into. Global warming denial is right up there with shopping as a philosophy for supporting the troops.
February 16, 2009 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given just how vocal the mainstream journalists have been about allowing blogwriters to dare ask questions at a Presidential news conference, we can be sure this will be a tumultuous scandal and raise the hackles of our proud mainstream media journalists. Be prepared for an ear-piercing cry of outrage from David Gregory and John King and Major Garrett probably starting about now...
February 16, 2009 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can look out my office window right this minute and see the filth in the air on the horizon. Frankly, it doesn't really matter whether there is global warming or not. Pollution will eventually kill us anyway, if we don't kill it first.
February 16, 2009 2:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great point!
Next time someone says humans can't POSSIBLY have an effect on the atmosphere, kindly remind of the last time they landed at a major metro airport and as they descended do they remember that visible, brownish layer for the last few thousand feet?
Assume horizon is 40 miles away, so that layer of smog is 3.14*(40*5,000ft)^2 x 2,000 ft x 365 days x 40 years = 3.7 x 10^18 cubic feet of visible smog for THAT metro area.
Then ask them to extrapolate that smog layer of combustion products to all the major metro areas around the world and triple it for China and India, then restate their belief that we can't possible have an effect on the atmosphere...
February 16, 2009 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
George Will is notorious for conflicts of interest. He took $200K from Conrad Black while defending Black against criminal charges, and he gets fat speaker's fees for lecturing industry groups from those industries whose interests he promotes in his columns.
The Washington Post ombudsman needs to investigate whether Will has conflicts of interests with the energy industry. Contact ombudsman@washpost.com .
Be polite.
February 16, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Remember the George Will column a couple years ago where he made up a quote by Sen. Webb?
The DC bubble, including the Post (and likely Will himself), believes Will is a principled, serious-minded conservative thinker, and needs no fact-checking. He's not...he's Limbaugh with a dictionary. Ever notice how he'll use some arcane word on This Week and in his column one week, and never again? Ya think he opens up his dictionary each week to find one so he can keep his faux-intellectual act going?
February 16, 2009 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm told by a friend, who writes regularly for Science Times, says that there are No Fact Checkers at the New York Times.
Specifically, he said,
Newspaper copy editors check spelling, grammar, and clarity. The only fact-checking they do is checking the spelling of names and the affiliations of people. Magazines like Discover or the New Yorker keep stables of fact-checkers to catch these things."
February 16, 2009 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I certainly agree that we should have clean air and water. Pollution is not good.
However, like it or not, the climate change theory, at least to me is crazy. Dont we have a change every so often naturally. Tell me didnt we have an ice age scare in the 70's? Gore started this 10 years ago and by now if it were true, wouldnt we be dead by now. I cannot stand this. It is a money grabbing idea.
Do we actually think we are strong enough to change the earth. Remember God and Mother Nature.???
February 16, 2009 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
BUT WHAT IF IT'S RIGHT? And if not, what harm will it do to use cleaner energy, improve mileage standards, put catalytic converters on lawn mowers, use CFLs, redevelop the railways? All of these things have very significant benefits apart from curbing global warming. Think of how much we spend on our military just to protect fossil fuel supplies. Imagine how much less fuel we'd waste in if long-distance freight were shipped by rail, and if our cars had a smaller footprint. What we're doing is just plain stupid, regardless of whether you believe in global warming.
February 16, 2009 3:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
The classic response - what is the harm. Of spending trillions on a myth, money that is not available to solve real problems. Lets spend 10 trillion to combat Zombies, what would that hurt? No one wants to have their brains eaten, right? We can cure cancer later after the zombie menace is dealt with.
February 16, 2009 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Do we actually think we are strong enough to change the earth."
The simple answer is YES.
Changes may be small, the earth's atmosphere is large, but it is limited in size. It can only hold so much pollutants, so much warmth. If you have ever flown in an airplane, you may have noticed that the air close to (within 5,000 feet of) the ground is dirty from smog and pollutants. If you live in Los Angeles, you may have noticed temperature inversions where the air has become so polluted that people die from breathing it. This is all due to the actions of mankind.
While the earth's atmosphere is large, there is a limited (large, but limited) amount of pollution it is capable of containing.
To say that the earth's atmosphere is to large for mankind to have any effect on it is like limiting your counting and numerical comprehension to 1-2-3-many.
As for the God angle, God made mankind the steward of the earth. We have not been a very good steward. It is unrealistic to depend on God to rescue mankind from its folly.
February 16, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
We took a similar approach to the oceans "it's so big what effect can we have?". We dumped our garbage in the ocean thinking that everything would just wash away. Now the mercury levels in fish have risen to the point where there is a very real human health danger.
People have built structures large enough to be visible from space, hunted species to extinction, turned deserts into farmland and farmland into deserts, completely reshaped the ecology of entire regions and yes, changed the temperature of the planet. The only thing we seem to be incapable of doing is undoing the changes we've made. (Except maybe tearing down the great wall.)
February 16, 2009 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
We didn't have an ice age scare in the 70s. Not one that was based on solid science, anyway -- it was a hypothesis that the popular press ran away with, but it never had any significant support among scientists.
The opposite is true of global warming, and it's not something that Al Gore just cooked up on his own 10 years ago. Scientists have been studying the greenhouse effect and cycles of climate change and the effects of industrial pollution on them for much longer than that. It's just that its in the last 10-15 years that the publicity about the severity of the problem has increased.
February 17, 2009 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ice age scare in the 70's?
No.
Gore started this 10 years ago?
No.
... if it were true wouldn't we be dead by now?
Wow. No.
You cannot stand this.
I'm having trouble stomaching your completely curable willful ignorance.
This is a money-grabbing idea.
I disagree. Imagine if the horse-carriage wheel and buggy-whip manufacturers had been able to mount the kind of pseudo-scientific and political challenges to the people developing early automobiles that have been brought to bear against climate change activists - it would have been WWII before the Model A was brought to market.
Technologies that can replace fossil fuels for energy supply have the potential to also replace the revenues and jobs now provided by oil, gas, and coal. Those interests would prefer we not bother, regardless of the non-economic consequences. At least, not until they can corner the market on those too.
February 17, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this all politics????
February 16, 2009 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Politics, or survival? Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Bet on survival, and either way you stand a chance of winning. Bet on politics, and if you're wrong, you die.
February 16, 2009 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEANETTE:
It is mostly politics and economics. The oil and gas companies want global warming debunked so can they continue to make their enormous profits. The politicians want to keep getting their campaign contributions (bribes) from these companies so they jump on the anti-global warming bandwagon.
February 16, 2009 3:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops. Hit "submit" when I meant to hit "preview".
I'm told by a friend, who writes regularly for Science Times, says that there are No Fact Checkers at the New York Times.
Specifically, he said,
"Newspaper copy editors check spelling, grammar, and clarity. The only fact-checking they do is checking the spelling of names and the affiliations of people. Magazines like Discover or the New Yorker keep stables of fact-checkers to catch these things."
An example he gives is that the New York Times has given creationists like Michael Behe op-ed space without fact-checking the content of their pieces.
Do we know for sure that there are fact checkers at WaPo?
February 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I dont know about where you live, but where we live - it has never been colder, never We dont even have anymore little birds, they probably all froze to death, as a matter of fact, we cannot even plant a garden anymore because it gets so cold, nothing has a chance to even complete the growing cycle, to produce.
This has been happening for many years here. I would like a little bit of that global warming that is supposed to have been here years ago.
February 16, 2009 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Describe where you live in order to allow your comments to be verified.
Central Ohio where I live has precisely the opposite climate shift: We have become at least a whole "USDA hardiness zone" warmer during my adult lifetime. FYI, hardiness zones express the average lowest temperature of winter.
February 16, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
And we in New England are in the midst of our early February warm spell - the week or two where the daytime temps get up into the high-30s and 40s, and melt most of the snow at low altitudes.
We've gotten used to it over the last 20 years, but it's a recent phenomenon - when I was a kid, and when my parents and grand-parents were kids, it didn't happen.
And we got very heavy snow this year, as well.
A strange juxtaposition, almost as if things are changing ...
February 17, 2009 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you think you don't have any more little birds because they all froze, then I am beginning to understand why you can't wrap your brain around this concept of Climate Change.
Do you get out much? Do you have to kick the frozen carcasses of little birds out of the way when you do?
February 17, 2009 10:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Posted by JEANETTE
Renaye, does your face change when the new personality comes out, or do you just use different makeup?
The wonderful thing about moron trolls is that they cannot upgrade their product, so no amount of identity *theft will avail.
*Impersonating a sentient being...
February 16, 2009 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.fair.org/extra/0309/will.html
George Will, heh heh heh, a pompous ass.
February 16, 2009 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, try and say a point that you do not agree on is at best nuts. Are you on the Think Progress blog? You all sound like that.
I am out of here, too.
George - keep up the good work.
February 16, 2009 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
WE LOVE GEORGE WILL, YES
Dont listen to these bitter people, perhaps they are unaware of the truth.
What does it hurt? You ask? Well increasing your taxes, unless you are rich, for a lie - just a lie!!!! I can find just as many scientists that would agree with me. You choose which one you like better, and I will pick which one I like better.
February 16, 2009 3:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEANETTE wrote: "However, like it or not, the climate change theory, at least to me is crazy."
I neither "like" nor "dislike" the fact that you are ignorant about the science of climate change.
JEANETTE wrote: "Gore started this 10 years ago ..."
That's false. The physical basis of global warming -- the so-called "greenhouse effect" of carbon dioxide -- was discovered and was well understood over 100 years ago. There is nothing new or controversial about it. And scientists have understood that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels would cause the Earth to warm for well over 50 years. President Lyndon Johnson even spoke about this issue to Congress in the 1960s. You simply don't know what you are talking about.
JEANETTE wrote: "try and say a point that you do not agree on is at best nuts."
When you post comments that display your complete and utter ignorance of the science of climate change, while you simultaneously accuse climate scientists who have studied the issue diligently for decades of "political" motives and "money grabbing", you make yourself look like an arrogant idiot, and you are liable to get a harsh response.
February 16, 2009 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEANETTE wrote: "I can find just as many scientists that would agree with me."
As a matter of fact, no, you can't.
But of course you have already said that you believe scientists are all liars, and the only people you believe are telling the truth about climate change are the fossil fuel industry's paid propagandists like George Will and Rush Limbaugh.
So why should you care whether those lying scientists agree with you or not? You and Rush know the truth, no matter what those "liberal" scientists say.
February 16, 2009 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wonder why are newspapers going under? Is it just barely possible the fact celebrity trumps accuracy has anything to do with it.
The reason no editor stepped in is because George is famous, and that is all that really matters.
February 16, 2009 4:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
For FIFTY YEARS scientists have known about global warming. This exerpt is from the well known educational documentary "Unchained Goddess" produced by Frank Capra for Bell Labs for their television program "The Bell Telephone Hour."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
February 16, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
JEANETTE wrote: "I can find just as many scientists that would agree with me."
Well in Dec. 17,000 of them met in San Fran. at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union .
And no one that agrees with you gave one single paper, or report, or, even a blurb.
February 16, 2009 4:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Too many people in America get their physics lessons from A.M. radio.
February 16, 2009 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Something I have heard mentioned but never addressed is this. Volcanoes put out more green house gasses and polution into our atmosphere then mankind has since going industrial. Might be true or not, I don't know. But I would like to know.
February 16, 2009 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someone -
Large eruptions, of the kind that move climate in the way you point to, lower the mean temperatures.
The last one we all got see, was The 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. It lowered temps. While volcanoes produce huge amounts of CO2, they also pump out much larger amounts of sulphur dioxide, and ash. Both of which shield the surface of the earth, and act to cool things. If we want to get into events that can and have produced enough CO2 to raise temps. Look to the Deccan Traps in India, or the Siberian Traps.
These were volcanic events on a scale none of us ever wants to visit.
February 16, 2009 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, clouds are not the only tangible presence of water vapor (in fact many aren't water vapor at all but ice crystals). Looking at the recent trends of global temperatures and global brightening indicates that cloud cover is decreasing as water vapor is increasing. So one does not necessarily lead to the other.
It is difficult to predict the impact of clouds on global warming. One problem is the insulating effect that clouds can provide. Clear nights tend to be much cooler than cloudy ones and areas with regular winter cloud cover (Pacific northwest, UK) tend to be much warmer than those that don't (the mid-west, deserts) though there are other factors at play.
A significant factor in the insulating effect is due to the reflection of infrared light (how the earth radiates heat into space) back to earth. While clouds do reflect some sunlight, the energy from the sun is at different wavelengths than the energy that leaves the earth (which is how greenhouse gases can trap heat). If clouds are better at reflecting the earth's energy than the sun's then clouds would actually act as a further trap for heat. This scenario would be catastrophic for food production, the combined decrease in crop yields from global warming and heavier cloud cover would be a very difficult obstacle to overcome.
While increased cloud cover could provide negative feedback to rising temperatures (higher temperatures leads to more reflection from clouds leads to stable temperatures) I wouldn't bank on it. It is an interesting theory but the opposite less hopeful theory is equally plausible (at least from where I'm sitting). Unless we have evidence that points to cloud cover being the end of global warming we may as well rely on Smurfs to straighten everything out for us. (Which isn't to say that my smurf traps aren't baited.)
February 16, 2009 4:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What bait are you using in your Smurf Traps ?
Nice post on water vapor. We set our all time record for rain in 24 hours here just last Sept. 11. And I'm a thousand miles from the ocean. It's the extreme rain events, and the mega fires I've been counting.
February 16, 2009 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bacon. They go crazy for the stuff.
February 16, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Major news outlets like WaPo should prohibit their staff columnists from writing about any technical subject for which they have no professional expertise, unless it is first vetted by qualified professionals.
It is a widespread problem among opinion journalists: they have no expertise in anything other than writing 6-paragraph opinions. George Will knows absolutely zero about climate change, greenhouse gases, or any relevant scientific field.
Why, then, does the Post publish his opinions on these subjects? Why would anyone seek or care about Will's opinions on subjects about which he is utterly ignorant?
Answer: they wouldn't, except that Will's fact-check-free column occupies a prominent spot on the Post's newspaper and website.
It's not journalism --it's political propaganda, plain and simple.
February 16, 2009 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
From an earlier comment
Taking a big picture view of global warming there are three things that are important:
- The amount of energy coming to the earth (essentially fixed, thanks to the sun)
- The amount of energy leaving the earth (consisting mainly of reflected sunlight and re-emitted radiant heat)
- The amount of energy stored on earth (either in plants or other energy storage systems or as heat)
- The amount of energy coming to the earth (essentially fixed, thanks to the sun)
Actually, not true. Solar output varies and depending on who you ask is responsible for some or all of the observed warming recently. Currently, there are fewer sunspots, which usually corresponds to a lower solar output and would explain why things seem to be colder recently. You can google something like solar output for more information. Perhaps someone here can post a link to a scientific journal article on this subject.
- The amount of energy leaving the earth (consisting mainly of reflected sunlight and re-emitted radiant heat)
This is what has me most intrigued. It seems to me, we should be able to change the reflectivity of the earth. Big rooftop mirrors comes to mind. Instead of convincing idiot conservatives to stop driving, which you will NEVER do, can we not do something to just send much of the sun's energy back into space? If everyone who cares about the planet did something to increase the reflectivity of their house or land, could this possibly make a difference?
Also, I've read a lot about the effect of soot and other dark pollutants on snow. I've read that soot contributes up to 1/3 of global warming by making snow melt faster. It seems it would be easier to get people worldwide to burn cleaner than to stop burning altogether. We've improved things already in the US. The air is cleaner today than 30 years ago. If we can just the rest of the world to go along then perhaps we can slow the warming to the point that the tipping point of runaway global warming isn't reached. I think these ideas have a good chance of suceeding since they don't require a huge change to the way people live.
February 16, 2009 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may have oversimplified variations in the intensity of sunlight. However, I am unaware of anything that we can do to change this (let's not discuss it further lest Eric Cantor decide the solution to climate change is big rockets to push the earth farther away from the sun).
With regards to making your roof shiny, it's important to look at both the cost and the benefit of things we do. As an example - word on the street (I think I read it on wikipedia) is that the solar electric panels manufactured in the 90s required greater energy input from manufacturing than they were expected to generate in their lifetime. I suspect that the production and transport of mirrors will have a far greater impact on the environment than the reflection of sunlight will offset.
If you would like to do something in your home to help offset the effects of a western lifestyle, start with conservation (low flow shower head, turn down heat, turn off the AC, don't drive faster than 55 mph, shift your diet to focus on local foods with limited meat and dairy). Next up would be additions to your life like a solar hot water heater, planting trees, replacing your lawn with gardens, using a composting toilet (the Humanure Handbook is available for free online and has great details on why and how to use one). Finally, use your life to demonstrate to others that moving towards sustainability doesn't have to mean extreme sacrifices.
I'm sorry to shoot down your idea, but unfortunately I don't believe there is a simple "aha" type solution. If we are serious about reducing the impact we have on the planet we will have to make significant changes in lifestyle.
February 16, 2009 9:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've added my blog voice to the chorus of "George Will is a liar" criticism.
http://hinessight.blogs.com/hinessight/2009/02/george-will-lies-about-global-warming.html
In a few seconds of Googling I found obvious evidence against the myth that the scientific consensus in the 1970s was that global cooling is occurring. Why couldn't Will have done the same?
February 16, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Someday a news outlet will have this part of their mission statement: "We want our subscribers to be the best informed readers on the planet."
Instead, the Washington Post trades credibility for access.
But exclusives don't garner the traction that they used to. Methinks that there is an opportunity for an enterprising billionaire.
February 16, 2009 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What an amazing example of groupthink. Why is this pseudoscience a left/right issue ? Other than the fact that leftists use GW as an excuse to further their anti-western/anti-business agenda. CO2 is NOT a pollutant. The levels of CO2 are not noticable higher now than they ever have been. Idiots like Hansen claim levels increased from 350ppm to 385 ppm in the last few decades, but he ignores the fact that levels were much higher in the past. The pre-industrial levels claimed come from cherry picking the data for the lowest values. It really should be very simple. (1) Solar output is not constant, (2) climate changes, like ice ages, happen. (3) CO2 levels are not dramatically higher, (4) CO2 is only a trace component of the atmosphere (5) it is necessary for life (6) ALL the CO2 stored in fossil fuels was once in the atmosphere, before it was extracted by plants, and the earth was just fine then (7) there is no way to really measure the alleged effects - there is no historical record to prove this theory, and the 'worst case' scenario of a 1.5 degree change per century hardly indicates a crisis. and most importantly (8) it is not any hotter, and this theory was brought to us by the same people that predicted an ice age by the year 2000 back in the 70's, and they are no more credible now. Use your brains and stop believing this junk.
February 16, 2009 5:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
A shining example Physics lessons from A.M. radio.
February 16, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, as an actual engineer, I bet I know more physics than you, and I have real live physicist friends (with real PhDs), unlike you who probably failed high school science class.
February 16, 2009 5:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a physician, it is my professional opinion, that, you sir, are suffering from Obama Derangement Syndrome.
February 16, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
A physician that diagnosis patients without seeing them? What carribean island school did you graduate from? (Actually this has nothing to do with Obama, since the idiot McCain believed it also)
February 16, 2009 6:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
(1) Can you show evidence that the recent increases in observed temperature are a result of solar variations?
(2) Some forest fires have natural causes, that doesn't mean that human behavior never start any.
(3) Current CO2 levels are 25% higher than in 1960 and 35% higher than in 1830. How is this not significant?
(4) What does CO2 being a trace component have to do with anything? Would you eat a brownie with trace levels of cyanide? It's not the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere that's important but the fact that there is significantly more now then there was.
(5) What does CO2 being necessary for life have to do with anything? Water is necessary for life but try explaining that to someone who just drowned.
(6) Reverting the planet to the conditions it existed in millions of years ago will quickly kill off a great many creatures that are adapted to the more recent environment. People evolved from water dwelling creatures. Try going back.
(7) There most certainly are ways to measure the effects of climate change. I think what you meant was that no evidence would sway you. And 1.5C isn't the "worst case scenario". Current models put the average temperature rise of the 21st century between 1.1C and 6.4C. These are predictions so things may not be that bad or they may be far worse. Current projections put the decline of crop yields at 10% per degree C, a 6.4C jump will cut crop yields in half. That sounds like a problem to me.
(8) By what criteria do you figure it isn't any hotter? Point me to peer reviewed journal articles indicating some level of consensus about global cooling in the 70s.
You say you are an engineer, great. You should have the ability to provide a strong scientific basis for your arguments.
You say you have friends with physics PhDs, great. Tell them you don't believe in global warming and post their responses.
You say that the historical CO2 data was cherry picked to show the lowest levels, great. Give me a date in the past 400,000 years when CO2 levels are higher than they currently are.
If you struggle with these things, scroll up to the top of the page and read the article. It's about a guy who wrote on climate change but twisted the science to give the impression that there was scientific support for his position when there, in fact, is not.
February 16, 2009 9:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Give HIM a call.
The current Post Ombudsman is Deborah Howell . You can reach her by e-mail at ombudsman@washpost.com or by phone at 202-334-7582.
February 16, 2009 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Get ready for the Heartland Institute "conference' next month in New York. Definitely will contribute some major hot air to global warming. already has...
February 16, 2009 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Their " Director of Science " is an engineer. Jay Lehr a convicted felon. Seems he was swindling the EPA on ground water studies.
Message from Jay Lehr
To: All Ground Water Professionals
Everywhere
From: Jay H. Lehr, Ph.D.
Re: Summary of the activities that led to my imprisonment by the federal government and my firing
by the National Water Well Association.
In 1988, the U.S. EPA began an investigation of a $170,000 add-on contract to NWWA’s initial U.S. EPA
contract to develop the Drastic mapping system to delineate ground water vulnerability...
http://www.dailykos.com/comments/2008/12/23/11302/549/143#c143
February 16, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Answer this question. Why is this alleged science issue a left right issue? Is there a liberal or conservative view of quantum mechanics? or thermodynamics? NO. That should be proof enough that there is more here than science, there is a political agenda. Global Warming is used as a club to advance leftist causes, It is not science it is politics.
February 16, 2009 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment below. As someone else noted, you get your science from AM radio. Your talking points have been debunked a zillion times, and the fact that you don't even know this shows you are too intellectually lazy to try to understand things.
February 16, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Climate change is a left / right issue because there is significant financial gain at risk. The divide is political, not scientific. The scientific community is largely in consensus that a) the temperature of our planet is on average increasing and b) this change is due to human behavior. However, the changes that these conclusions dictate are in direct opposition to the financial basis of much of our economy (oil industry, electric industry, transportation industry, agricultural industry) and these financial interests fund politicians, pundits and news outlets which synthesize an opposing side out of myths, misinterpreted data and statements out of context.
I would liken the issue to the one of FDR causing the great depression. There are those politicians and pundits who will firmly state that FDR caused the great depression. And no manner of economists and historians pointing to the fact that the great depression began more than 3 years before he took office will dissuade them.
Scientists are frequently wrong. And on a rare occasion an entire scientific community aligns in consensus behind a theory which is later shown to be wrong. However, in order to debunk a theory you need to either show evidence which makes the existing theory highly unlikely or you need to present an alternative theory which explains all relevant observations better than the existing theory. You cannot ignore all data except for the very few that support your "theory" and say the entire scientific community means something they emphatically state they don't mean. Well, you can but that makes you a jackass, not a scientist. Or a reporter.
I answered your question, what do I win?
February 16, 2009 10:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is laughable to see some of the examples of GW cited. My favorites are the glaciers shown calving into the sea and the melting of the Antartic ice shelves. Point 1, advancing glaciers calve into the sea, melting glaciers retreat. Point 2, ice in the ocean can do only one thing - melt. It can not remain stable or increase in size. So the ice shelf started melting the moment it entered the water.
February 16, 2009 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
way to go clever bull dog what a bunch of left wing idiots there is on this blog.They dont even deserve to hear your comments they are all gore guppies lol!lol!lol!
February 16, 2009 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lets let all these goobers pay speacial taxes. and drive thier battery cars.And when it doesnt stop global scaring--sorry . warming then what?
and all these wind mills. Does anybody on hear
no what positive ions are and how they are produced.
February 16, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a republican who believes the world is warming, i suggest that we hunt down the guilty s.o.*'s responsible and water board their a**'s off. But then, we would all have to accept personal responsibility for our actions which would go against the grain of most liberals I know.Mean time, I'll continue to drink water from the Savannah River after Interstate paper gets through with it, and the radio active plant in N.Augusta,Sc uses it to cool their stuff. Tastes like you know what, I hope I dont glow in the dark. Drinking this water and breathing the chemical tainted air, probably wont matter if Im standing in two feet of water.
February 16, 2009 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Washington Post is on it. A columnist making up stuff. They' ll get back to us pronto about allowing bloggers to ask questions that only trained careful responsible professionals are capable of.
February 16, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
what no comments. I guess they are googling ions.
lol lol lol lol lol
February 16, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Aw comeon, aren't some of you who are blasting Will believe in creationism? Earth was flat, earth was the center of the universe, earth is 5,000 years old and now was created by a bearded man. A backward religion teaching backward ideas. A woman has to be a virgin to be considered pure? Bad people go to hell and the good, no make that loyal subjects go to heaven? Really? what a novel idea!
February 16, 2009 7:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ill bet that in the near future they are going to dicover that all the people that live around windmill farms are getting sick for some unknown reason.Ill bet they will have flu like symptoms.
any body wanna take that bet!
February 16, 2009 7:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a smug little echo chamber. Enjoy your new religion, because that's exactly what AGW theory is. Don't be surprised if most of us don't want to convert to your faith when the true costs of this farce become apparent.
February 16, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Um, I guess the dumbest of the dumb have decided to join the discussion and claim that global warming isn't real and isn't man made.
But global warming, or climate change, is a fact.
See:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2009/02/the_importance_of_actually_rea.php
In other words, the people who people who believe in global warming: 928. The other side: 0
When you denier can actually get a paper peer reviewed and published, let me know. Otherwise, you are just wasting everyone's time.
February 16, 2009 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
No. It isn't a fact, and no number of flawed, biased studies or computer models will make it so.
Nor does juvenile name-calling, but that was expected.
February 16, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The studies are not flawed or biased, unless you believe is also flawed and biased to say that objects fall to earth at a rate of 32 feet per second squared.
Yes, science has a liberal bias, doesn't it?
I repeat my claim: when you have a single peer reviewed piece of science that stands up for your side, let me know.
February 16, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
I geuss you were around when the world warmed up and left the great lakes.what a gore guppie you truley are.The world will warm or freeze and there will be nothing you can do about it.oh Im sorry you will be able to write about it.Oh my god you will be able to save us all with your pen
February 16, 2009 7:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>I geuss you were around when the world warmed up and left the great lakes.
That's a nice rant. No let me repeat my challenge: where is the science that backs up your side?
Again: our side: 928. Your side: 0.
February 16, 2009 7:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
quote: "I repeat my claim: when you have a single peer reviewed piece of science that stands up for your side, let me know."
Likewise.
February 16, 2009 7:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you not read? I posted the link to a real scientific survey.
Again: our side 928: your side: 0.
February 16, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
lol lol lol lol mabey it was all the dinosour sh---t that caused the last global warming.
February 16, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
What a waste of time! Is this how people in the faith based community argue--they simply ignore science and links to science and put their fingers in their ears?
This may be news to you, but typing "lol" multiple times does not constitute and argument.
February 16, 2009 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. If science contradicts what they BELIEVE, then science can't possibly be right. Q.E.D.
Well, see, that appears to be the only thing that "jeffrey" actually knows how to spell.
February 17, 2009 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, I would post up links if I thought you had any interest in honestly considering evidence to the alternative.
But I've been down this road too many times. One simply cannot argue successfully with faith-based ideologies.
February 16, 2009 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Seriously, I would post up links if I thought you had any interest in honestly considering evidence to the alternative.
Seriously, you don't have any, and you are bluffing. Who do you think you are fooling? Remember, I am not asking for another stupid denial article. Those are easy to write and numerous. I am asking for the real thing, real science: a peer reviewed article. They don't exist for your side. Sorry.
>>But I've been down this road too many times. One simply cannot argue successfully with faith-based ideologies.
Faith based ideologies does not mean what you think it does. It certainly does not mean quoting science.
February 16, 2009 7:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
all the evidence your peers are feeding you is paid for with grants from mine and your tax dollars why wouldnt you want to keep the scam going for a few more decades and and a few more grants.dumba s
February 16, 2009 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>all the evidence your peers are feeding you is paid for with grants from mine and your tax dollars
Keep making things up.
Again, where is the science that supports your denialism? It doesn't exist!
February 16, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find it very troubling at how much nonsense people will believe today. This scare tactic has gone on for far too long and has made too many people too much money. With even a little research on your own any logical person could come to the conclusion that it is fear mongering at best, and a flat out lie at the worst. I agree that we need to do a better job of taking care of the planet, as a hunter I care for the outdoors and hope it is well maintained, but to think that we are all going to die in 10, 50, or 100 years is ignorant and shows a lack of comprehension of the planet we live on.
In 5 minutes of research you will find that the earth was 3 degrees Celsius warmer 1000 years ago than it is today and we still had adequate polar caps, and the polar bears and seals and penguins all we doing fine if not flourishing. And most notably, the human race was not eradicated.
The climate is in constant change and yes we can have a small effect on the climate, but the wonderful thing about this planet is that it will find a balance no matter what we do to it short of nuclear warfare.
It is important to challenge the tactics of the people pushing this global warming scare. Notably the fact that brush in California and other areas of the country is no longer taken care of or burned in a controlled manner but left to grow until it creates a hazardous situation. The brush will inevitably catch fire due to natural causes, only now when it does it creates disaster as seen by the recent fires that have destroyed hundreds of expensive homes. Also important to note is the huge amounts of gases that are released during the fires. But I suppose it is acceptable to blame George W. for that at well.
In the end, we should make a better attempt to take care of the planet, but not because we will die if we don't,(like the Global warming fear mongers want you to believe) do it because of all the natural beauty this planet gives us.
February 16, 2009 7:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
well said on that note I will go home and find high ground before all these left wing idiots wash up to my house.
This world has been through this many of times before any of you were here get over it and good night!
February 16, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png
Here's a link showing that the temperature 1000 years ago was about 1/2 a degree C cooler than it is now. Where is yours showing that it was 3 degrees warmer?
February 16, 2009 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
what about common sense. this doesnt have any thing to do with faith based anything
February 16, 2009 7:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>The climate is in constant change and yes we can have a small effect on the climate, but the wonderful thing about this planet is that it will find a balance no matter what we do to it short of nuclear warfare.
It is important to challenge the tactics of the people pushing this global warming scare.
Oh please! Are you even following the debate when you post nonsense like that? I posted a link that proves what you say is outright silly. Where is the science that backs up your absurd claim?
It doesn't exist!
Global warming is real and man made. We had better do something about it or we will really be in trouble.
February 16, 2009 7:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
talk about dumbest you keep drinking the coolaid fella
February 16, 2009 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>talk about dumbest you keep drinking the coolaid fella
This may come as a surprise to you, but that isn't an argument. And if I am drinking the "coolaid" so are the best scientists in the world, and who should I believe, the best science or some right wing blowhard who posts comments?
February 16, 2009 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are just perpetuating the problem with fear tactics. Every scientist and person who has looked at a history book knows that the climate is constantly changing, but climate change and global warming are not one in the same.
Science is perpetually evolving and learning new things, it is all a theory at this point, and theory that claims if nothing is done we will destroy the earth and all be dead but that theory is unsupported. You point to links that show indicators that Global Warming is real, I can point to different links that say it is not. All it comes down to is picking and choosing the data that supports your claim. Scientists do not know the answer, they can give you an educated guess but they do not know the answer, what happens is they publish findings and people take the information they want and publish it in a way to push an agenda. Don't buy it, it is all BS. BS that is making millions of people rich off your fear and ignorance.
February 16, 2009 8:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Science is perpetually evolving and learning new things, it is all a theory at this point, and theory that claims if nothing is done we will destroy the earth and all be dead but that theory is unsupported.
No. You apparently are so intellectually incurious that you aren't even trying to learn. The theory is supported as much as the theory that things fall to earth at 9.8 meters a second. If you are so skeptical of science, then go and drink some contaminated water, and don't see a doctor when you get sick. It is convenient to express skepticism of science when it suits your agenda, but it is also intellectually dishonest.
February 16, 2009 8:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or is it like the theory of how the earth is flat? The sun is burning out? and countless others that have been debunked? Where are these rising sea levels?
If you want fact look at the parts of Greenland where the ice has receded, do you have any idea what they have found? I will tell you, they have found evidence that the earth had to have been substantially warmer not more than 1000 years ago to support the farming they found evidence of. You people continue to point to science, well I can do the same. What is found is that the climate changes constantly, but there is a difference between causation and correlation, the left-wing has gotten a hold of research findings and said how can we make money off this? That is fine if you want to give them your money out of fear, or because they say that we are to blame, but the end result is that Global warming will not be confirmed unless a catastrophe happens that dooms us all, but then again those catastrophes have happened to this planet in the past, were we to blame then? Get over it, fight the good fight if you want to, I recommend we clean up the planet, but it will not stave off the fictional global warming epidemic.
February 16, 2009 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Or is it like the theory of how the earth is flat? The sun is burning out? and countless others that have been debunked? Where are these rising sea levels?
Oh yes, the earth is flat. I remember scientist remember scientists really lining up behind that theory. Seriously, what the f** are you talking about?
>>If you want fact look at the parts of Greenland where the ice has receded, do you have any idea what they have found? I will tell you, they have found evidence that the earth had to have been substantially warmer not more than 1000 years ago to support the farming they found evidence of. You people continue to point to science, well I can do the same.
No, you can't do the same. You can't find any peer reviewed articles that contradict global warming. Oh yes, you can find rumors and facts out of context that *appear* to make an argument, but they don't, and real climatologists laugh at them.
Again, find some peer reviewed science that backs up your ridiculous claims. I provided a link, remember?
Just like a basketball game is decided on the court, a scientific argument is decided by facts and evidence, reviewed by other scientists. It is not decided by hacks who make bad arguments.
Our side has 928 peer reviewed articles to back up its claim. Your side has 0.
February 16, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink