I have not formulated an opinion on the whole Global Warming controversy. I'm not convinced that "it's the real thing (Al Gore)" and I'm not convinced that it's the next "killer bee's are coming (remember in the '70's?)." However, this is one of the best letters to the editor that I have seen in a long time. From today's Star Tribune:
Global Warming - Flawed Science
It's a bit puzzling that Tuesday's fire-and-brimstone editorial ("Global warming: It's here, it will get worse"), replete with detailed predictions for the expected effects from global warming years and decades from now, is based to a great extent on the same science and technology that we have seen to be at times incapable of accurately predicting local conditions just hours into the future.
MYRON PAPIZ, ST. LOUIS PARK
Good night,
Jeff
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
16 comments:
Global warming... last I checked, it's April 12th and when I look out my window there's snow on the ground.
The Pantless Wonder
Jeff,
Like you, I'm not convinced about the reality of global warming, but I need to comment...
that's a cute letter to the Strib, but what the letter writer doesn't seem to realize is that weather is an entirely different thing from climate.
The science and technology used to predict the nightly weather has nothing in common whatsoever with the science and technology used to predict long term climate.
Interesting that the title to the letter is "Flawed science", since I wonder if he has any idea what science is.
Neil K
Neil K above stole some of my thunder but he is absolutely correct, different science all together.
While I agree that some global warming proponents have probably overstated or put too much of a doomsday spin on their case, I can't say that I'm not convinced global warming is upon us.
The fact is that too many reputable climatologists are in agreement about global warming. A combination of over-reaching on the scientists' part and a deliberate muddying of the issue by oil companies and politicians are the reason reasonable folks like you and Neil K remain to be convinced.
Hey, Freealonzo, don't drink the coolaid, Man. The main disciples of the global warming scam have a similar financial interest as your '...oil companies and politicians....' That is why they rely so heavily on faulty scientific data and bully dissenters. By the way when does that '10 years to go' clock start ticking? 18 years ago when that acclaimed climatologist, Ted Dansen, issued the first ten year warning? Sure Al Gore invented the internet and all but I am skeptical of his credentials as a climatalogist.
Hey Anonymous,
I'm not going to get into a global warming argument, as people more knowledgeable then me do a much better job,
However, your arguments touches on something that really bugs the heck out of me....For what it's worth, Al Gore never claimed to have invented the internet. See this for a rebuttal.
His actual quote is still somewhat lame, but it's not like he claimed he was up late at night hacking away "building" the internet, as people who dislike him like to paint it.
Vint Cerf, who is a founding father of the internet, has made it a point to give Gore credit. Here's a quote from him: "Al Gore was the first political leader to recognize the importance of the Internet and to promote and support its development." I won't link to a source for it, but it'd be easy to find.
So, your first attempt to discredit Gore fails, and as for your second attemp, Gore never claims to be a climatologist. He's merely presenting evidence that he believes leads to a certain conclusion, and is attempting to bring it to the public's consciousness. Nowhere does he claim to be climatologist.
With knowledge and logic like that, I would find it hard to take any of your arguments seriously.
I can't believe I just spend 15 minutes of my life typing that up.
Neil K
Anon - right up front I said that I thought that global warming proponents have overstated their case and made too much of the doomsday scenarios. What else do you want from me?
Plus I second what Neil K said.
That took you 15 minutes?
Gore discredits himself when he says idiotic things like, "During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet." Reasonable people know better.
You are right-he did not say he invented the internet-but he is misleading us at best.
Hmmm-misleading.
Have you considered Al Gore might have a financial interest in having you believe his 'certain conclusions?' Couldn't be-could it?
That took you 15 minutes?
Yes, it did. I type slow.
You are right-he did not say he invented the internet
Yet people still use this as a way to discredit him, since that way they don't have to think very hard.
Have you considered Al Gore might have a financial interest in having you believe his 'certain conclusions?'
He quite certainly has a financial interest. Never said he didn't. Though I'm sure he's quite comfortable financially even without an Inconvenient Truth and his speaking out for that cause. If he'd never made that movie, or taken this as his cause, he'd still have a ton more money than me.
However, I don't think that many of the thousands of scientists whose work he's presented have as much a financial interest. I doubt they're doing it to make sure Al and his family stay rich.
There are legitimate holes in the the idea that mankind has caused global climate change...It'd be nice to see people address them, rather than just say, "Oh, there's that guy who invented the internet, he must be full of BS again."
Neil K
Wow. I just got home and decided to check The Comments. I guess the whole Global Warming thing is a hot-button issue, and my neighbor Sherry hasn't even weighed in yet! I never said this blog wasn't going to be controversial!
I can truthfully say that (remarkably) I don't have a firm position on this issue. I don't discount that all of the crap humans put in the air, water, etc., is having a detrimental effect on the atmosphere. Whether or not it will melp the polar ice caps and drown us all next Tuesday is another matter.
But, as always, thanks for reading and commenting everyone!
Jeff
Hey remember in the 70s when freon propellant was eating a hole in the ozone? That was an actual problem which was solved by sensible policy. I hate policy, but that made sense. I remember reading an essay in thr late 1980s analyzing how much CO2 a single space shuttle launch produced and how many years it would take an insanely large forest to convert CO2 back to O2. This is not new. I'm amazed it's taken so long for anyone in power to talk about global warming, but it makes perfect sense because no deep pocket funded lobbyists complain about it. Our problem is that we have way too many obstinate, ignorant and complete morons in our country who somehow feel like they know what they're talking about when they dispute our impact on the atmosphere.
couple things on global warming. I am not going to waste my time cutting and pasting articles that support what I believe. does not matter, as I won't change anyones mind. so I will leave you two points to ponder. way back in 1977, in grade school, we were given copies of a time magazine article to read and discuss the coming ice age. secondly, someone please explain to me where all the cars and factories were when the last ice age ended. that's right, there were none. kinda means that the weather/climate is cyclical, right? I mean, which one is it? cyclical or man made?
Tony8489, I won't try to change your mind, since it's made up already, but keep in mind that just because the scientific consensus may have claimed one thing almost 30 years ago doesn't mean that it can't adjust over time to account for new data. It's how science works.
As to your second point, I'm not sure where you got the idea that climate change had to be either cyclical or man made rather than both. Interesting.
Neil K
anonymous: please help me out on your last point. I thought that climate change/weather change has been going on since time began. maybe I am not understanding you. if we are warmer now than we were say 100 years ago, and 100 years ago we were colder, etc, that means the weather patterns shift and change, making them cyclical, right?
There is no evidence, for instance, that extreme weather events are increasing in any systematic way, according to scientists at the U.S. National Hurricane Center, the World Meteorological Organization and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (which released the second part of this year’s report earlier this month). Indeed, meteorological theory holds that, outside the tropics, weather in a warming world should be less variable, which might be a good thing.
In many other respects, the ill effects of warming are overblown. Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.
Many of the most alarming studies rely on long-range predictions using inherently untrustworthy climate models, similar to those that cannot accurately forecast the weather a week from now. Interpretations of these studies rarely consider that the impact of carbon on temperature goes down—not up—the more carbon accumulates in the atmosphere. Even if emissions were the sole cause of the recent temperature rise—a dubious proposition—future increases wouldn’t be as steep as the climb in emissions.
Indeed, one overlooked mystery is why temperatures are not already higher. Various models predict that a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere will raise the world’s average temperature by as little as 1.5 degrees Celsius or as much as 4.5 degrees. The important thing about doubled CO2 (or any other greenhouse gas) is its “forcing”—its contribution to warming. At present, the greenhouse forcing is already about three-quarters of what one would get from a doubling of CO2. But average temperatures rose only about 0.6 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era, and the change hasn’t been uniform—warming has largely occurred during the periods from 1919 to 1940 and from 1976 to 1998, with cooling in between. Researchers have been unable to explain this discrepancy.
Tony8489,
You asked: please help me out on your last point.
Well, you had ended your previous post with the question "I mean, which one is it? cyclical or man made?" which would seem to indicate your feeling that when people claim that climate change is man made, they are contradicting past evidence that climate is cyclic. My point was that there is no such contradiction, and there's no reason why climate change couldn't be cyclic in the past, and man-made today. Those two causes are independent of each other, and from your questions I wasn't sure you understood that.
Also, I have no idea about the relevance or correctness of the data from your last post, as it's past my bedtime and I can't concentrate at this late an hour, but at least it's the first opinion that's skeptical of global warming on this thread that hasn't been something along the lines of "Al Gore claims he invented the internet, so he's an idiot, so why should we believe him now" or "Back in the '70s they said we were going to have an ice age...and know they change their tune, what a bunch of nutcases." So that's a step forward.
I'd love to carry on for a while, but I need my sleep.
Neil K
thanks for the clarification, anonymous
Post a Comment