« previous | MUCK HOME | next »
Thank You Sir, May I Have Another? Will Distorts Global Warming Data Again
We kind of figured George Will would leave the issue of global warming well enough alone after what happened the last time he tried to tackle it.
Guess we were wrong. Today, Will waded back into the mire, with a Washington Post column about the folly of requiring flourescent lightbulbs as an energy saver. In setting up his argument, Will wrote:
Reducing carbon emissions supposedly will reverse warming, which is allegedly occurring even though, according to statistics published by the World Meteorological Organization, there has not been a warmer year on record than 1998.
As The New Republic's Jonathan Chait puts it, Will here shows his "unbelievable ignorance about global warming."
Writes Chait:
First of all, nobody says that reducing carbon emissions will "reverse" global warming. The point is merely to slow the process. This is pretty fundamental.
But the next part of Will's sentence is the key. Every serious person understands that 1998 was an outlier, because of El Nino, which raised temperatures. The fact that no year since then has been as hot does not in any way rebut the widespread consensus that the globe is warming.
Will can pretend not to understand this, but you'd think the Washington Post would be ashamed to keep printing this stuff.
Josh
Zachary
Shame? The Washington Post editorial page. People in the news department must pinch their noses every time they walk past editorial.
April 2, 2009 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am tempted to give the Washington Post factchecker a pass on this one. When Will hands me a column on "Dim Bulbs", even I might assume, his lifetime of firsthand experience being a dim bulb, would make him an expert and so not fact check as carefully.
April 2, 2009 7:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
If George Will had grown up using fluorescent bulbs and the government started mandating incandescent bulbs, he'd be against that.
But I guess that's the dictionary definition of 'conservatism' - everything is better the way it is, and it's not worthwhile to reassess and improve things because that is very, very scary.
April 2, 2009 7:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly right. George Will is a conservative like my Dad. He doesn't see a reason to change anything.
April 3, 2009 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
George Will is a complete buffoon. He's scientifically illiterate. From the standpoint of basic understanding of science, this is like publishing some one that can't form a grammatical sentence. His writing on climate change does not rise above the level of the typical freeper comment spammer. The "warming stopped in 98" canard is a favored ad nauseum of such types; it's obviously fallacious and they repeat it just to annoy. In this regard, the typical freeper is probably smarter than Will, as Will seems to actually believe he has a point. Some one needs to be fired for embarrassing WaPo so severely.
April 2, 2009 7:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
The trouble with academics and commentators is that they are often more concerned with whether their ideas are interesting than whether they are true. (need citation)
George will (no pun intened) stop at nothing to remain relevant. What a shame. I used to have alot of repsect for him. But then again, I used to vote Republican too. Once!
April 2, 2009 7:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
used to have
He got lots of milage from dissing Palin (how low we set the bar...), but at heart he is a hall-of-fame asshole
April 2, 2009 8:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Does George Will reveal who gives him speech fees and how much he is paid? That information for this year and the last two owuld be quite interesting I suspect. This has all the signs of an orchestrated effort-note the Judd Gregg attack this week.
April 2, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.At 368 parts per million CO2 is a minor constituent of earth's atmosphere-- less than 4/100ths of 1% of all gases present. Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
CO2 is odorless, colorless, and tasteless. Plants absorb CO2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant, and all life-- plants and animals alike-- benefit from more of it. All life on earth is carbon-based and CO2 is an essential ingredient. When plant-growers want to stimulate plant growth, they introduce more carbon dioxide.
CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide.
If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have a negligible effect on global climate!
April 2, 2009 8:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.
Here we go with another denier who thinks he can play scientist by quoting from web sites. If that argument were really true, then it would appear in a scientific journal. (Hint: do you know what a carbon sink is?)
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
691 peer reviewed scientific journals support global warming. Essentially none refute it. Do you have any science on your side?
April 2, 2009 11:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Approximately 90 billion tons (of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere) come from biologic activity in earth's oceans"
and:
"CO2 that goes into the atmosphere does not stay there but is continually recycled by terrestrial plant life and earth's oceans-- the great retirement home for most terrestrial carbon dioxide."
I wish the deniers would make up their minds as to whether the oceans supply CO2 to the atmosphere or take it out of the atmosphere to recycle it.
You can't have it both ways unless you are mathematically illiterate.
April 3, 2009 9:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Causes of Global Climate Change
Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.
"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Major Causes of Global Temperature Shifts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) Astronomical Causes
11 year and 206 year cycles: Cycles of solar variability ( sunspot activity )
21,000 year cycle: Earth's combined tilt and elliptical orbit around the Sun ( precession of the equinoxes )
41,000 year cycle: Cycle of the +/- 1.5° wobble in Earth's orbit ( tilt )
100,000 year cycle: Variations in the shape of Earth's elliptical orbit ( cycle of eccentricity )
(2) Atmospheric Causes
Heat retention: Due to atmospheric gases, mostly gaseous water vapor (not droplets), also carbon dioxide, methane, and a few other miscellaneous gases-- the "greenhouse effect"
Solar reflectivity: Due to white clouds, volcanic dust, polar ice caps
(3) Tectonic Causes
Landmass distribution: Shifting continents (continental drift) causing changes in circulatory patterns of ocean currents. It seems that whenever there is a large land mass at one of the Earth's poles, either the north pole or south pole, there are ice ages.
Undersea ridge activity: "Sea floor spreading" (associated with continental drift) causing variations in ocean displacement.
The truth shall set ye free.
April 2, 2009 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
>>Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.
Groan! No, no and no! Here, try looking at what the real science says:
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686
April 2, 2009 11:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cycles of 21,000 or 41,000 or 100,000 - can't possibly be scientific, 'cause Great God Almighty only tinkered around about 6,000 years ago.
April 3, 2009 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to former geologic times, earth's current atmosphere is CO2- impoverished.
When humans didn't exist, for instance.
April 2, 2009 9:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Reference, Persona Non ? I'm sure it is something taken directly from http://www.realclimate.org/ ...
April 2, 2009 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Without providing references I seem to remember charts showing that the level of CO2 has risen above any point in the last 500,000 years, except when there were catastropic events such as huge volcanic outpourings. Most alarming was that the chart showed a direct coorelation between the drastic increase in CO2 and current temperature increases. I'll provide a referece if non grata will do the same.
April 2, 2009 10:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Haw haw haw!
I love that George Will
is considered a "Conservative Intellectual".
As if there could possibly be such a thing.
What a lazy, pompous, pimped out blowhard.
April 3, 2009 7:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
We welcome serious debate about global warming and what to do about it. Global warming denial is not serious debate. Of course CO2 levels have varied due to natural causes. Planets collide too, on occasion. Ocean liners hit icebergs. The problem, dear italicist, is these big changes tend to wipe out large numbers of humans. Even were the CO2 rise purely natural, we should be scrambling to reverse it, so that a lot of people don't die various premature deaths and so that the remaining higher life forms that have survived us so far don't die off too. Thankfully the main signals in the changes we're seeing are in fact anthropogenic and can be traced back to their causes. We may be able to save the planet in some semblance of its current magnificence simply be restraining ourselves and being smarter.
Consider seeing a shrink to help you figure out why you find the identification of human responsibility for negative impacts on the environment so threatening. Are you afraid you'll lose some freedom to act unethically? That's very understandable, but try to be bigger than that. We need your abilities in the coming struggle to save ourselves!
April 3, 2009 8:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's likely too big a word, too big a concept, for the deniers.
April 3, 2009 10:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have an experiment I'd like Will to run that I hope will clarify it for him. First, set yourself on fire. Then jump in a cold shower until you've cooled off. Then, slowly turn up the heat. You will notice you are now getting warmer. Your average temperature is still lower then it was when you were on fire. But you are getting warmer. If you need help with this, I'm sure many people in the scientific community would help you with this experiment.
April 3, 2009 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not ignorance -- it's another clear case of Will-ful blindness.
April 3, 2009 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
His issue on mercury in bulbs is legit, but he fails to mention LED or plasma light bulbs. Gee, big surprise that the first technology may not be the one we stick with. Few of us are writing/reading this on a UNIVAC or own a 1980's era lunch box sized portable phone.
April 3, 2009 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Even the mercury question is kinda dicey. Sure, it's an environmental hazard, but one that's easy to mitigate by recycling. And there are plenty of other mercury sources out there if one wants to be outraged. Indeed, since coal has a detectable mercury content, coal-fired power plants can release hundreds of tons of mercury into the air every year just in the course of normal operation.
April 3, 2009 10:02 AM | Reply | Permalink