Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Global Warming - the oceans aren’t cooperating
Posted by: McQ on Thursday, March 20, 2008

In fact, they've shown a slight cooling in the last 4 or 5 years:
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.

This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.

"There has been a very slight cooling, but not anything really significant," Willis says. So the buildup of heat on Earth may be on a brief hiatus. "Global warming doesn't mean every year will be warmer than the last. And it may be that we are in a period of less rapid warming."
One of the more interesting aspects of this is that sea levels have risen about half an inch over the years. That's previously been believed to be because the oceans were warming and, as they warm the water expands. Now scientists are theorizing that the rise may be because of ice melting in Antarctica and from the Greenland glacier.

But what doesn't seem to be happening is warming oceans. So where is all this heat going?
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it's probably going back out into space. The Earth has a number of natural thermostats, including clouds, which can either trap heat and turn up the temperature, or reflect sunlight and help cool the planet.

That can't be directly measured at the moment, however.

"Unfortunately, we don't have adequate tracking of clouds to determine exactly what role they've been playing during this period," Trenberth says.
Wait ... so we don't know for sure where the heat is going (but speculate it may be going out into space) and don't have enough data on how clouds work or any way to measure this phenomenon, but we're still able to say the earth is warming?
It's also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says. Or it's possible that scientists need to correct for some other feature of the planet they don't know about. It's an exciting time, though, with all this new data about global sea temperature, sea level and other features of climate.
Since when does heated water sink?

But it's "exciting" alright - governments are getting ready to spend us into oblivion and science isn't even sure how all of this works or if what they say is happening is happening.

But there is all that consensus to fall back on isn't there?
___________

Linked by ecomyths and The Discerning Texan - Thanks!
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Now, to be fair, a liquid gets colder as ice melts in it...

But at the same time, since water expands when it freezes, melting ice would at best keep ocean levels at a constant level, if not cause the to DROP.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
damn oceans, are those things still around!
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Now, to be fair, a liquid gets colder as ice melts in it...
Except we’re talking a uniform temp over those years. IOW, the cold melt should be offset by the extremely high temps of the years noted and the claim has been we’re heating up much faster than such events could cool us down.

I think the answer is in the clouds, something we apparently know very little about, but you’d think would be key to much of this theorizing.
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://www.QandO.net
Well, as they say, "it’s close enough for government work."

Now doesn’t that explain a lot...
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Kevin Trenberth at the National Center for Atmospheric Research says it’s probably going back out into space.

So now we’re heating up our solar system or the universe. I believe the earth goes through cycles we aren’t aware of because we weren’t here during them. It’s a planet which takes care of itself. Think about it. Iceage for one. These climate changes will happen cyclically and will correct themselves to support life no matter what we research or try to do to stop it.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
It’s nice to see the policies of the Bush Administration are working.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
This article may have an explanation. If the ice is melting that fast, then it is sending colder water into the ocean; remember ice insulates the ocean from the colder atmosphere (and even with global warming, the atmosphere is colder than the water). One would expect a cooler ocean from melting ice as that insulation decreases.

There is another article (how disrupting oceans due to ice melt could yield far colder weather in Europe and the NE US, which seems this year to be happening), and this article. I know you tend to ignore the articles that report on global warming to find only those skeptical, and the trumpet those as if the others don’t exist. But that’s not taking into account all the information out there. This trend seems to best explain this.

Do web searches on global warming and climate change, and you can find a lot of data. Most are convinced there is a problem, and it could be worse and moving faster than we anticipated. But if you dig deep enough, as you do, you can find skeptics or data that can be interpreted differently. But this data actually can be seen as supporting the idea that ice melting is decreasing the insulation of ocean water.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
But it’s "exciting" alright - governments are getting ready to spend us into oblivion and science isn’t even sure how all of this works or if what they say is happening is happening.

This being said, I believe an intelligent person would then conclude that infact, should all of these theories and some supported reseach be correct, that, there is nothing we can possibly do to stop it.

it could be worse and moving faster than we anticipated.

I don’t see the point of trying to stop something from happening, which was started, how many years ago, and is now snowballing out of control, if this is infact the case. Imagine all of the restrictions coming down the pike with that effort....and we think we have laws now. Just wait!
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
“I think the question you’re asking is who’s behind the scare,” Monckton said. “There’s been a long history of scares recently and scientific frauds of various kinds. It began, I suppose, with the eugenics movement in the 1930s which led to Hitler. It followed on with the Lysenko movement in Russia under Stalin. It went on with the great leap back under Chairman Mao which led again to tens of millions of deaths. The point you’re making is that this kills people if you get the science wrong.”
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
how disrupting oceans due to ice melt could yield far colder weather in Europe and the NE US, which seems this year to be happening
Bing! theory blown, statement untrue - Europe is just finishing one of it’s warmest winters on record.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
looker,

"Forget it, he’s rolling."

Don’t disturb Erbie with facts; he’s got his narrative and he’s sticking to it, by God!
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Am I the only one who reads QandO’s comments but imagines Erb’s comments spoken the same way adults spoke in Charlie Brown cartoons?

"Wah wahwah wah, wah wahwah wahwah."
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Watch it scotch, he might be inbetween classes and have to comment.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
Europe is just finishing one of it’s warmest winters on record.
Bingo! Global warming theory #3457 states that might happen under the right circumstances.

Reading all this research, skeptical or not, and all the competing theories, leads me to conclude there really isn’t as much SCIENTIFIC consensus as some describe. There is certainly POLITICAL consensus, but that is a far different beast, and not one that I trust.

I wouldn’t think you would have dozens of theories if there was that much SCIENTIFIC consensus.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Bingo! That’s game.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
Oh what the H*ll...Come on Erb, I’m sure you have more to throw in on this puppy eh....
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
Darn, first it was TCE and now it’s CFL’s.

This environmental movement can’t get anything straight.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
They finally got to me.

First it was MTBE and now it’s CFL’s.

This environmental movement can’t get anything straight.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Neo,

Nothing better with the CFL’s. Think Mercury. I say we leave things as they are and quit all this nonsense already. Seriously Light bulbs? {sigh} I heard about this a couple months ago and it’s all hooey. I could write on and on about all of this but I won’t. Just another pain in the arse if you ask me.
 
Written By: Cindy
URL: http://
If the ice is melting that fast, then it is sending colder water into the ocean
Sure, but the effect would depend on the volume of cold water added from melted ice and the temperature differential between the ice and the water in the area where the ice melted.
remember ice insulates the ocean from the colder atmosphere (and even with global warming, the atmosphere is colder than the water). One would expect a cooler ocean from melting ice as that insulation decreases.
The ice would insulate the water directly under the ice but most of the ocean is not covered by ice. Also, the atmosphere isn’t vertically uniform in temperature and the lower troposphere isn’t uniformly colder than the oceans
 
Written By: meh
URL: http://
Bingo! Global warming theory #3457 states that might happen under the right circumstances.
That’s the theory that says anytime anything happens it’s a result of Global Warming in the environment.

Because Global Warming is going to cause unexpected things to happen, and any time we have normal weather, that is to say, weather the way it was BEFORE global warming, it is actually unexpected and ’abnormal’ itself.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Wouldn’t the ice also make the water colder, with or without melting ?
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Since when does heated water sink?
Actually fresh water’s density is maximum at around 4 Celsius - for salt water the maximum density is similarly not at the freezing point. Hence heated water which was less than this maximum density would in fact sink. However, except near the poles, the water near the ocean surface is warmer than 4 degrees and asymptotes monotonically to ~4 degrees as you get deeper into the ocean and so I don’t see where the water is that, when warmed, would sink.
It’s also possible that some of the heat has gone even deeper into the ocean, he says.
That statement could still be true. It is possible because it is only necessary for the temperature to monotonically decrease (since as stated above the temperatures are, for most of the earth, above 4 C) and hence the temperature as a function of depth can vary - and not necessarily in a uniform (with depth) way.

Now would I say this is likely - hell no. I think this ocean temperature data is one more nail (to go with the professor who found that the current general equations assumed an infinitely thick atmosphere) in the global warming coffin.
 
Written By: metis314
URL: http://
It’s funny how no matter what the data show, AGW supporters find some way to spin it as further proof that AGW is not only real, but so obviously real as to make any skeptics analogous to Holocaust deniers. They’re like religionists who insist that God answers all prayers - then define "answer" broadly enough to include every conceivable outcome.
 
Written By: Xrlq
URL: http://xrlq.com/
There is certainly POLITICAL consensus, but that is a far different beast, and not one that I trust.
The funny thing is, I’m actually with you in skepticism of government regulation as a response to this. But I’m not on board with this idea that somehow the global warming deniers are on firmer ground than the vast majority of scientists who are convinced something serious is happening, even if they aren’t sure exactly how it will play itself out. Their message is: this could be so devastating that we have to take it seriously, NOT that there is any certainty about what will happen. I hope things are wrong, I have children and I don’t want them living in a world devastated by the impact of global warming. But it’s getting pretty silly when any post that suggests global warming might be true gets responded to with nothing but ridicule by 70% of the responders. It’s like you have your faith, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
vast majority of scientists who are convinced
prove that the vast majority of scientists are convinced
 
Written By: meh
URL: http://
But it’s getting pretty silly when any post that suggests global warming might be true gets responded to with nothing but ridicule by 70% of the responders. It’s like you have your faith, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
As opposed to those of us daring to be heretical enough to suggest we’re not causing it? Assuming ’it’ is actually happening.

No, it’s like any time we present evidence that GW may be a crock of crap, we hear about this ’vast majority of scientists’, which, honestly, doesn’t exist anywhere but in the liturgical text of the Holy Church Of Anthropogenic Global Warming.

But that’s not stopping the government and companies pressured by enviro groups from ’doing something!’ to save your children from living in a world devestated by global warming.

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gee, do you think you invoked enough fear emotion appeal and appeal to authority in one paragraph?

I want your kids to grow up in a strong enconomy unwracked by bullsh!t legislative and enviro-whacko efforts intending to stop a non-existent crisis.
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Oy! I can’t believe Erbie, of all people could write:
It’s like you have your faith, and anyone who disagrees is a heretic.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
As opposed to those of us daring to be heretical enough to suggest we’re not causing it? Assuming ’it’ is actually happening.
It certainly is possible humans aren’t causing it, and that should be investigated. But there’s a lot of evidence to suggest we are. Put it this way: if you want to justifiably say that people should be open minded to the possibility that we are not causing it, you have to also say that people need to be open minded to the evidence suggesting we are.

It is ironic that you try to claim the scientists who believe that we are causing global warming are somehow in a "church," while you seem to think the deniers are behaving any differently. How about this: it’s possible humans are not causing global warming, and we don’t know the consequences or scope of global warming. Most scientists believe it is a problem, and believe humans are at least a partial cause. Some question that. Even if humans are a cause, it’s not clear what kind of response we should take, we need to think of the consequences of our actions, as well as the consequences of not acting. There is a lot of uncertainty.

Because, frankly, I see some "deniers" really cherry picking evidence and ignoring vast amounts of stories and evidence the other way, as if they were simply trying to defend a position, rather than really understand what’s going on. I’m sure many who are convinced global warming is real do the same thing. If you’re going to model your denial on the behavior of those who don’t allow the questioning of global warming, you’re behaving no better than the people you criticize.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the vast majority of scientists who are convinced something serious is happening, even if they aren’t sure exactly how it will play itself out.
They think "something" is going to happen, but they aren’t certain what is going to happen, or how it is happening. And we should bet the farm on their hunch?
it’s possible humans are not causing global warming, and we don’t know the consequences or scope of global warming. Most scientists believe it is a problem, and believe humans are at least a partial cause. Some question that. Even if humans are a cause, it’s not clear what kind of response we should take, we need to think of the consequences of our actions, as well as the consequences of not acting. There is a lot of uncertainty.
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt, are not what I expect from SCIENTIFIC consensus.

Like I said, the more "they" research, the more it seems they don’t understand, and have to revise earlier ASSUMPTIONS. Computer models that miss factors that effect the climate is one big glaring problem I have with the whole theory. They ignore certain things because they don’t know how it effects the climate (even though we know it does effect the climate, like clouds.)

Put me in the skeptic camp, as I’ve never denied the possibility I might be wrong. I’ve even said, we should do "something" for basic economic and environmental reasons. I’m a proponent of less pollution, more energy efficiency, and energy source diversity.
 
Written By: Keith_Indy
URL: http://asecondhandconjecture.com
Keith, your position sounds reasonable.

Science first of all always has some doubt, that’s what define science. Second, a consensus can recognize real uncertainty. There is a consensus on use of the standard model in particle physics. It works. They are convinced they have a descriptive ability to look at subatomic physics. Yet they will also admit that these aren’t really particles in the sense of tiny bits of material (they’re more like ripples in fields, and at the quantum level they don’t have set existence, only probable existence), and they don’t really understand their nature or why they have mass.

In terms of global warming, the evidence is that the earth is warming, this is alongside a massive build up of green house gases in the atmosphere, and as anyone who has studied the planet Venus knows, gases can hold in heat. Most models suggest that this build up, which I think everyone agrees is in part human produced, connect it to global warming. The consensus also recognizes that this is not absolute proof and there is a lot we don’t know. There is no consensus that this is at all certain, or that we won’t find surprising new data. There is a consensus that if the current view is correct, we’ll face huge problems soon, and it’s prudent to do something about it. That’s it. It’s a reasonable view to have. And it can be very reasonable to question that view. Reasonable people recognize the other side might be right, and don’t demonize one side or the other. My criticism of many of the ’deniers’ here is they are acting just like they accuse the ’believers’ of acting — very dogmatically.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"(and even with global warming, the atmosphere is colder than the water)."

Then all those surfers are in hot water.

Heh.


"Hence heated water which was less than this maximum density would in fact sink"

No, the denser material sinks, which is why surface water is warmer than deep water. Salinity also affects density.


http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water/density.html&edu=high



 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://
and it’s prudent to do something about it.
What? What are they going to do about the problem we’re not sure exits, or at a minimum the problem we’re not sure we’re causing.

If we aren’t causing it, we probably can’t fix it.

For a ’science’ that is recommending drastic economic change they damn well better have it NAILED, beyond any of your shadowy "maybe maybenot, better safe than sorry" doubts before they start suggesting and making costly fixes.

Every time I hear this ’better safe than sorry’ argument I keep thinking of people flocking to Wal-Mart to buy flashlights, food, water, and 50 gallon trash cans to store stuff in in the months preceding January 2000.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
For a ’science’ that is recommending drastic economic change they damn well better have it NAILED, beyond any of your shadowy "maybe maybenot, better safe than sorry" doubts before they start suggesting and making costly fixes.
That’s your opinion. Most scientists I know disagree. And, last I checked, none of us are in a position to demand others simply adhere to our own opinion.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
the vast majority of scientists who are convinced something serious is happening
Aren’t these scientist under the tow of grants that get handed out better if their results show that more money is needed for research ?

If it’s not the energy companies, it’s the government grants that corrupt them.

I suggest retired or very wealth scientists.

And please don’t count Al Gore among them.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
One of those deniers:

June 21, 2007
R. Timothy Patterson professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University in an article in the Financial Post
"The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3 C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thousand-year-long ‘Younger Dryas’ cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6 C in a decade — 100 times faster than the past century’s.”
Patterson explained that an extensive scientific project he conducted for his government regarding the health of the Canadian fishing industry yielded results that concerned not just the condition of the native fishery, but how solar activity regulates climate.
The research that involved taking core samples of mud at the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords used sophisticated technology that enabled him and his team to collect more than 5,000 years’ worth of mud. "Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons,” he explained.
Briefly, the research showed "a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called proxies ),” a find, he wrote, that is not unique since hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia’s Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators.
Among his conclusions:
• "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.”
• In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental Researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
• "Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today, and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry, and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.”
• "In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it our star’s protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the earth’s atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet."
• "Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the little ice age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada
 
Written By: AMR
URL: http://
Erb,

You are familiar with a thing called cause and effect right? So, if we start trying to "effect" without being the "cause," wouldn’t that be worse (and lead to more unpredictable outcomes) than if we waited until we were sure we are the "cause" before trying to "effect" change?

Also, isn’t it serious hubris to believe that humans, who have been around for hundreds of thousands of years, are suddenly imperiling the earth? Why would you trust the very people who "have the solution" (or, more importantly, a financial stake in the "solution") to a problem that may or may not exist?

Do you remember the global cooling scare from the 70s (that we never hear about anymore)? Do you remember the hole in the ozone layer from the 80s-90s (that we also never hear about any more)? Acid rain? Wouldn’t those issues alone cause you to maintain skepticism about "settled science" or "scientific consensus"? Hell, even fluorescent lighting is more dangerous from an environmental perspective than regular lightbulbs but that doesn’t the environmental movement from pushing the bastards, does it?

Couldn’t you understand that those of us skeptical to (but also open to the idea of) anthropogenic global warming are just sick of politicized "scientific" scare mongering?

I don’t know why I’m bothering to ask these questions. They’re not going to amount to anything. You’ve got your professional detachment and superiority to maintain.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
You keep saying "most scientists". I gather that’s your defensive mantra these days.

This isn’t like gravity, we all acknowledge there’s gravity, it’s not ’consensus’ that it exists. They can prove it.
Their ’opinion’ is precisely what they are foisting off on us.
Yet the UN and Congress are both starting to propose legislation that will cost REAL people REAL money to ’fix’ ’something’, based on opinions,not hard, proven science.

You want to discuss it, study it, theorize about it, fine, have at it. But when you start proposing costly legislation you d@mn well ought to understand what you’re legislating.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I gather that’s your defensive mantra these days.
You’re the one sounding defensive. I think you’re just upset that so many scientists are sounding the alarm, and politically you don’t want to believe them. Too bad for you. Oh, and science is never "proven," it’s always contingent. And what gets done by government is based on political competition and choices, and sometimes your opinion will lose the political fight. No need to get so upset about it, I don’t think expensive regulation is the answer either.

Oh, and "scotch," there was no consensus on global climate change at all in the seventies, and the ozone hole was fixed because of government action, especially the Montreal protocol and the regulations that were implemented.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Oh, the ozone hole is fixed, eh, Erbie?

Be sure to check out the summary section.
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
Your Montreal protocols seem not to be helping, dude...
 
Written By: A fine scotch
URL: http://
wow, demonstrably wrong, twice in one day.

 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
I know how some people feel about WIKI so

here’s the source info -
 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
The ozone hole did seem to close for awhile. But then, if it’s still a problem, then you can’t really point to it as something people were worried about without cause. Face it, you really can’t deny the point I made above:
How about this: it’s possible humans are not causing global warming, and we don’t know the consequences or scope of global warming. Most scientists believe it is a problem, and believe humans are at least a partial cause. Some question that. Even if humans are a cause, it’s not clear what kind of response we should take, we need to think of the consequences of our actions, as well as the consequences of not acting. There is a lot of uncertainty.

Because, frankly, I see some "deniers" really cherry picking evidence and ignoring vast amounts of stories and evidence the other way, as if they were simply trying to defend a position, rather than really understand what’s going on. I’m sure many who are convinced global warming is real do the same thing. If you’re going to model your denial on the behavior of those who don’t allow the questioning of global warming, you’re behaving no better than the people you criticize.
You can claim you demand more certainty than exists if you are to support particular attempts at solutions, but that’s a political rather than scientific issue.

 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Point being, we regulated the hell out of it, and it looks like nothing improved.

Living in Maine, you probably don’t worry much about the conversion of a central air conditioning system from Freon over to the latest greatest alternative.

There are lots of people, who spent lots and lots of money, their own money, to deal with the result of the Freon ban. I’ll wager the same people in a flurry about global warming are the same ones who were in a flurry about the ozone hole, and the net effect will be the same.
Lots of money spent, no change in problem.

And now CO2 is a harmful substance? Can be regulated by the EPA? Oh Katy! Bar the door!
You wonder at the skepticism, you chalk it up to ’politics’, I see what you write, you don’t mind a whit that the government is ’doing something’ about Global Warming - for the children, of course.


 
Written By: looker
URL: http://
Looker, you obviously don’t read my posts. I don’t agree with government regulation to deal with global warming because I’m concerned about unintended consequences. I prefer a voluntaristic approach, based on incentives. In that sense, I’m far closer to you in terms of the POLITICS than I am to Al Gore and others. Yet, I find the "denier" approach to often be knee jerk and built on cherry picking studies to take seriously, while ignoring most evidence out there. Why can’t one say "you know, this could be a huge problem, it might devastate the world, we should take it seriously...but let’s not simply look to a regulatory solution?" I have not been arguing for the regulations that so many support as a response, I’ve only been arguing that it’s wrong headed to respond to all this by simply trying to deny there’s a problem. Not only does that ignore a lot of evidence, but it ends up creating this kind of argument: if one thinks there is a problem, one has no choice but to support regulation. I’m arguing one can think there is a problem, but that doesn’t mean you should support regulation. You should be welcoming that argument. Instead, since it recognizes there could be a problem, you ridicule it.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider