Brad Wardell's views about technology, politics, religion, world affairs, and all sorts of politically incorrect topics.
Will Global Warming zealots apologize?
Published on February 15, 2007 By Draginol In Politics

Since 1975, the mean average recorded temperature world wide has increased slightly. Prior to that, it was actually cooling. That is, between 1940 and 1975 the earth was cooling.

Now, it could indeed turn out that the reason temperatures have increased is due to human impact on the environment.  CO2 is a greenhouse gas. And we're putting a lot of it in the air. We've significantly increased the amount in the atmosphere since the beginning of the industrial revolusion. What isn't known, however, is how much effect CO2 has on temperature. Anyone who claims they know is lying. It's an unknown and the various computer models basically take an educated guess as to what affect CO2 has on global temperatures. I.e. it's a "fudge factor". 

If I were a betting man, I would actually bet that CO2 isn't the cause of the increase in temperature. That doesn't mean I'm against reducing emmissions. I favor reasonable efforts to decrease human impact on the environment (though I am cynical enough to think that left-wing European politicians focus on CO2 in order to deflect from the amount of sulfur, soot, and heavy metals that Europe dumps into the air per capita compared to the US, Canada, and elsewhere).  But I am also not in favor of any sort of massive, immediate overhaul to our economy.

Global Warming theory is weak science.  The definition of weak science is whether it relies purely on consensus or not as opposed to scientific method. E=MC^2 is fact. It's been proven. Even evolution, which has its share of critics, works on proven scientific principles and has fossil evidence (don't hijack the discussion in the comments area about evolution).  Global warming, for instance, isn't even a theory. It's a hypothesis. CO2 is a green house gas. We put a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. The temperature since 1975 has increased. Therefore, CO2 is the cause.  That's it.  That is basically the entire argument.  And they say it's the cause because there's a "scientific consensus" around it made by many people who have an economic reason to be in favor of it (just as there are those who have an economic incentive to oppose the CO2 hypothesis).  

If you've watched films like "An inconvenient truth" note how much time is given over to "proving" the temperature has increased (I don't know anyone who's arguing that it hasn't) and how much damage higher temperatuers would do to the Earth.  But how much is actually spent making the case that humans are the cause? Virtually no time. That's because the paragraph above states the entire case. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We create a lot of it. Temperatures have increased. It's sure a good thing there aren't any other..you know..inputs into our system like a massive fusion powered gas fire fall thousands of times larger than the Earth nearby sending terrajoles of energy into our system...but I digress..

So like I said, if I was a betting man, I would bet that CO2 isn't the cause of the slight global increase in temperatures. I think there are other, much more likely, possibilities such as increased solar activity or slight changes in the orbit of the Earth or tilt of the earth. 

I don't claim to be a scientist, but I am pretty good at analysing statistics.  And so, if in say 5, 10 years the mean global temperature starts to dip -- i.e. definitively dip like it was doing pre-1975 -- what will the environmentalist movement do? Given the hysteria over global warming, does anyone think for one moment that the environmentalist movement will say "Oops, we're sorry, we really have no idea what we're talking about."?  Or, would they simply come up with another "man made" reason that over-compensated for global warming? I think we know the answer.

That's one of the reason I can't take environmentalists seriously. They are so often completely shameless in their claims. They take no responsibility when they're wrong. Heck, they rarely acknowledge when they're wrong.  As a result, I'm not inclined to latch onto the latest faith-based chicken little mongering from them.  In the meantime, I'll try to live my life as I always have -- with as little impact on the environment as I can do without compromising my standard of living.  But I'll also oppose attempts by the irresponsible to cripple our economy and way of life.


Comments (Page 4)
on Feb 16, 2007

I'm with you there. We can accept that we produce a hell of a lot of pollution and try to cut down (especially in cities and river systems purely on the basis on public health) but we really don't understand our world enough to go 'solving' global warming or cooling. As with most human interferences with nature we'll almost certainly stuff up, and a global stuff up would be a catastrophe.

I feel the same way.  I certainly support us doing what we can to reduce the impact we have on the environment. Even in my lifetime, the environment has become much better.  When I was a kid, Lake Erie caught on fire.  Now it's a fairly clean lake. The air no longer has the smell of car exhaust and the skies don't have a dingy hue to it. 

A lot of good things have been done for the environment -- things that happened because of businesses and environmentaly conscious consumers.    No one wants to live in a poluted world. 

But I don't think most people are willing to cripple our economy based on a hypothesis that CO2 (the stuff we breath out incidentally) may be destroying the environment when there's little evidence to support that. Because first they have to prove CO2 is the cause, which I don't think they will and then they have to prove that it's a bad thing(tm).  In the 20th century, the temperature went up 0.7 degrees.  But our economy grew at something like 7000%.  I'm not sure most people would consider that a bad trade off.

on Feb 16, 2007
What I can't accept is paying welfare checks to nations that have no industry, just so we can keep right on polluting. If polluting is bad, then we need to stop, not just be blackmailed by nations that don't have enough population or economic success to be major polluters. This system is more like pre-paying punitive damages because of what we THINK will eventually happen to the environment.

Never mind that the vagrants in these nations eat up the product of our polluting industries. The sad part is, you can bet the next Dem President will sign on to it. Joining the Kyoto accord will be one more bullet point in the list of 'pros' to the empty headed, and they'll do it without batting an eye. The Dem majority in Congress won't dare block it.

I hope I'm wrong. Clinton didn't buy into it. I tend to think, though, that the hype is far too loud now.
on Feb 16, 2007
I'm all for the science, and concensus approaches to things are inevitable, if often wrong (happens all the time in medicine), but the notion that mankind is 'responsible' for global warming, as opposed to contributing to it by a microtitch, just doesn't pass the smell test, especially considering where we were 30 years ago.
on Feb 16, 2007
E=MC^2 is fact. [unquote]

didn't you know that the speed of light is not constant
on Feb 16, 2007
E=MC^2 is fact. [unquote]

didn't you know that the speed of light is not constant


Sorry Roy, one has nothing to do with the other. To be fair the formula was accepted then proven then disproven and now is in limbo. The formula only works within a limited range.
on Feb 16, 2007
"30 years of sample data that shows warming...and the Earth is too big of a system to manipulate any kind of reliable experiment. It's a very hard thing to figure out...but the Earth has cooled and warmed and cooled and warmed all by itself. From a nearly tropical Earth all the way around at the time of the dinosaurs, to a freezing tundra during several ice ages. It's hard to really know what's going to happen...I just know that it's really cold outside right now."

Right, and in a point in 3 dimensional space, during a hurricane you notice it's raining and that the raining lasts hours, in a time frame of once every few years or so. Very similar to the global warming thing. It's getting warmer now, but what it to prevent the Earth from ever cooling? Certainly the same forces that have regulated the temperature and conditions on the Earth the last millions and billions of years aren't going to just stop occurring because we history has granted us a chance of making a civilization. Certainly there is little disagreement that human civilization has an effect on the environment, but to what degree is that effect, affecting climate change. That is the real dilemma, as of right now the problem to answering that question is enough scientific data on the subject doesn't exist.

"BP
There is an increasing consensus that climate change is linked to the consumption of carbon based fuels and that action is required now to avoid further increases in carbon emissions as the global demand for energy increases."

Thats an opinion and a propaganda one at that. The oil companies may be looking into alternative fuels but not because they are good for the environment, but because they are good for business. If one company does it and makes it a selling point the others have to as well, or they lose that as an attractive economic selling point. The majority of car drivers don't concern themselves with the environment when they fill their vehicles with gasoline, they concern themselves with the price of the product and where they are going to go because they filled up.

I agree, they may be right, but if and only if you guess lucky, because enough hard data doesn't exist to make them accurate. Nobody 300 years ago could have predicted the world would be seeing increased CO2 emissions caused by mankind because railroads didn't exist, nor the industrial revolution, nor the human population to produce those effects. At present rate and exponential growth, human populations in 300 years could be topping one hundred billion humans or more. Yet Paladins' figures were based largely on solar events, the sun getting larger, and the moon pulling away from the Earth, and this frozen methane layer under the ocean somehow getting to the surface.

This may be a reality or it may not. What also may be a reality is that we figure out ways to fix the problem. I.e. what the recycling movement has done for industry and what it needs to do for packaging.

"I agree. Science doesn't require faith. If global warming turns out to be man made, then I'll support reasonable efforts to do something about it. But shrill, arrogant, bile coming from agenda-driven groups is not compelling to me."

Agree!

"E=MC^2 is fact."
"To be fair the formula was accepted then proven then disproven and now is in limbo. The formula only works within a limited range."

How about

if a=b, then b=a, if a and b are real numbers.

Is that a fact?
on Feb 18, 2007
on Feb 21, 2007
I read you can get global warming from sitting on a dirty toilet seat...
on Feb 22, 2007
That's a myth. In reality global warming is the wrath of God striking down a world full of heathen non-swimmers, you know, like that other time. Stick with me. I've got room left for motivated self-starters capable of rounding up exotic birds, and someone with no sense of smell who is really, really good with a shovel
on Feb 22, 2007
This is my logic on the whole situation; Global Warming is nit just a "worry about places getting hot" its a "worry about extreme weather conditions". It will be hot on month then cold the next. Could this be a natural event?

Well, could this be a natural event?


With the amount of waste we put into the environment plus the fact that more and moree is being put into the atmophere because more nations are becoming industrialized, I think we should worry very much about Global Warming. If we are wrong we have a better environmen and a new way of conducting our economy... If we are right it could be too late to stop when we find out.

So I think the question, "What happens if the Earth starts cooling? Will Global Warming zealots apologize?" should be reversed on those who do not agree with the Global Warming conclusion:

"What happens when we find out Global Warming is true? Will the anti-Global Warming group apologize?" Strangely enough, it really won't matter by then because we will be too worried about other things; from economy to staying alive. The real issue is that being careful with the environment pays off. Lets not find out 20-30 years from now that its true and irreversable and we should have done something about it 20-30 years ago.
on Feb 22, 2007
"What happens when we find out Global Warming is true? Will the anti-Global Warming group apologize?"


What happens when we find out it ISN'T true? Will France and Russia and the rest pay back the billions they made selling pollution credits to the US? If so, where will they get the money, by borrowing it from the US?
on Feb 22, 2007
This is my logic on the whole situation; Global Warming is nit just a "worry about places getting hot" its a "worry about extreme weather conditions". It will be hot on month then cold the next. Could this be a natural event?


We have not had any extreme weather conditions in my lifetime. What I have seen is the simple cycles that the Earth has gone through since the Earth cooled. Allow me to explain what I mean. The Sahara desert used to be a lush grass covered area with lakes and meadows and trees and rivers. By the time of Moses you could walk across the Sahara in a little more than a week. Now the Sahara almost goes from the east coast to the west coast of Africa. Let’s call that global warming. About the same time that it was lush and green in what is now a desert in America there was a salt ocean that went from the Adirondack Mountains in the east to the Sierra Nevada mountain range in the west. Let’s say that global warming evaporated all that water creating the Nevada salt flats the last place the ocean settled before it evaporated the last of the water leaving tons of salt. Let’s call that global warming as well. Would it not be an extreme weather condition that the African continent has dried up and is blowing away? All of that happened before man showed up as the dominant species on this planet. Has anything like the above happened since man has been around?

"What happens when we find out Global Warming is true?


This is your lack of understanding on the subject. Global warming is true and has been proven, it was suspected 40 years ago when the environmentalist were screaming that we were gong to freeze because of pollution and the only way to save the earth would be to stop all industrial growth and cover the ice caps with soot to warm up the planet. Now the exact same experts from 40 years ago say that it is global warming is the threat and we need to stop all industrial growth and protect the ice caps so we don’t have climate change. The dirty little secret is that it has been documented that the earth goes through climate change about every 20k years and they can trace it back for about 5 million years. Again I remind you that man has only been the dominant species since the end of the last ice age 13k years ago.

Lets not find out 20-30 years from now that its true and irreversable and we should have done something about it 20-30 years ago.


Ask yourself these series of questions.
Can man stop a hurricane?
Can man stop a tornado?
Can man do anything to start or stop the weather, good or bad?
The honest answer is no. we as a species do not have the ability to change any of the above and if we can’t control the weather how can we “save” the planet?
on Feb 22, 2007

Precisely. 

People need to be clear: The issue isn't whether the Earth has gotten slightly warmer in the past 20 or so years. Te question is whether humans are the cause of it.

If they are the cause of it, then things should keep getting warmer.

If they are not the cause of it, things may keep getting warmer or they may get cooler.

If things start to cool down again -- as they did from 1940 to 1975 (plenty of CO2 back then being cranked out) then what will the environmentalists do? They've gone so far out on a limb, been so obnoxious and holier-than-thou that will it ever be able to recover any credibility?

on Feb 23, 2007
They've gone so far out on a limb, been so obnoxious and holier-than-thou that will it ever be able to recover any credibility?


I'm sorry I must have missed it. Just when did they HAVE credibility?
on Feb 23, 2007

I'm sorry I must have missed it. Just when did they HAVE credibility?

They have hollywood celebrities behind them! How much more credibility do they need?