Noonan: If Global Warming Is Real, Blame The Scientists
Noonan: If Global Warming Is Real, Blame The Scientists
In today’s Wall Street Journal, Peggy Noonan asks why all the top scientists can’t get together and decide if global warming is real:
During the past week’s heat wave–it hit 100 degrees in New York City Monday–I got thinking, again, of how sad and frustrating it is that the world’s greatest scientists cannot gather, discuss the question of global warming, pore over all the data from every angle, study meteorological patterns and temperature histories, and come to a believable conclusion on these questions: Is global warming real or not? If it is real, is it necessarily dangerous?
Actually, Ms. Noonan, that’s already happened. It’s called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which involves thousands of scientists from over 120 countries who develop detailed reports on climate change. Their most recent report (from 2001) was reviewed by more than 1,000 top experts, including so-called “climate skeptics” and representatives from industry. Here’s what they concluded:
There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.
The IPCC predicts that global warming will increase temperatures worldwide between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100 if no action is taken to reduce greenhouse gases. This amount of warming, according to the IPCC, could raise sea levels by as much as three feet. That’s extraordinarily dangerous.
Noonan also laments that, if global warming is real, scientists won’t tell us what we need to do in response. Actually, they’ve done that too. Here’s Noonan’s big finish:
If global warming is real, and if it is new, and if it is caused not by nature and her cycles but man and his rapacity, and if it in fact endangers mankind, scientists will probably one day blame The People for doing nothing.
But I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.
Actually, the blame should go to people like Peggy Noonan who give our leaders the political cover to do nothing in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
The human race is out to make money while the polar caps are melting
July 20th, 2006 at 11:08 amMichael Crichton’s book State of Fear showed that temperature increases are more strongly correlated to urban heat masses, and not global warming, so blame urbanization.
Burning fossil fuels is bad for pollution problems, so there is no need to create a myth of dramatic climate change. This myth drives away more supporters than it recruits.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:11 amMichael Crichton is a science fiction writer. Thousands of scientific experts disagree.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:14 amMichael Crichton’s book State of Fear showed that…
Scientists, fiction writers, same thing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 amIt’s raining here today, and God Dammit, and it’s the weatherman’s fault.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am(NOT!!)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:15 am#2
One non-scientist interjects his opinion (based on what?) and you automatically discredit the consensus of the scientific community?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amReply to #2 (Jason M. Hendler):
Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear showed that temperature increases are more strongly correlated to urban heat masses, and not global warming,
Michael Crichton’s book State of Fear is a work of fiction. Michael Crichton is a fiction writer.
How many times do we have to go over this???
so blame urbanization.
Actually, I think I’ll blame you for trying AGAIN to derail the discussion by equating a work of fiction with the findings of the IPCC.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amThe only debate is really going to be: Will the global warming kill us before the Bush Regime?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:18 amPeggy Noonan deserves the points of a thousand lightsticks up her ass.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amAh, so it’s the scientists’ fault for not coming up with a “believeable” conclusion. They were right, but she didn’t believe them. Therefore it’s their fault and not hers.
If only scientists had ignored the problem, they would be as blameless as Peggy and her conservative cohorts.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amThe best defense of their policies these wingnuts can come up with is based on a work of fiction. Unbelievable.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amIf Noonan would talk to some scientists other than her fellow WSJ Op-ed writer Richard Lindzen, she would see that scientists have come to a conclusion.
See this post on Desmogblog: “Lindzen Keeps It Complicated — And The Wall Street Journal Laps It Up!”:
http://www.desmogblog.com/ lindzen-keeps-it-complicated-and-the-wall-street-journal-laps-it-up
July 20th, 2006 at 11:19 amInteresting - if she had simply redirected whatever effort was required to writing this piece of garbage into researching the status of the global warming debate within the scientific community, she might actually have addressed the concerns she conveys in this weak piece of journalism.
A journalist using her forum to lament the lack of awareness on an issue - ironic?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amNow THAT’s funny…Using Michael Crichton as an example of a Scientist is like using L. Ron Hubbard as someone who speaks the word of god…..Guess that South Park re-run is still on my brain…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amIndeed.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:20 amthe blood of dead lebanese children is much more tart than that of iraqi children.
now, what were you saying? global what? whatever…
kisses,
ann
July 20th, 2006 at 11:22 amPeggy Noonan is another example of a person, many of whom are on the right, who do not understand the meaning of responsibility. The world is one big monopoly game to them….it isn’t real. They feel that if they’ve scored in twisting the perception of an event or idea, they’ve won. They’ve won nothing of course. Reality trumps perception every time. The biggest thing I’ve learned about what has happened in our country is that people are lost. They have lost a basic sense of right and wrong, responsibility, and what makes a country great. They haven’t a clue. It’s all up for grabs and the Roves and Frat boys ( I won’t dignify the Frat boy by giving IT a name ) have had a field day for 5 years. Are we ready yet to cut to reality and quit giving people like Noonan, Coulter, O Reilly, Limbaugh the respect they don’t deserve?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:23 amReply to #9 (Jay Randal):
Good question….on the one hand, global warming is here to stay, and will be causing worldwide famine and disease within 100 years or so. It doesn’t matter if we stop greenhouse gas production today…the damage is already done.
On the other hand, Bush and his fundie cronies are doing their best to solve the problem of global warming by kick-starting the Apocaplyse, so Jesus can show up and make everything better…his timetable looks to be measurable in months, if not weeks.
Will we survive an attempt by the fundamentalist world leaders to initiate Armegeddon long enough to see the horrors of global warming?
Interesting times, indeed.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:24 amwhat’s the point in trying to get our point across about global warming - we know it, and those that refuse to acknowledge it, or simply don’t care because they are all going to be “saved” by their god and will be leaving soon anyway, let them believe what they want. We can be prepared, they don’t have to be. Let them live in la-la land. If they can’t see the rhythms of their own planet - or see how everything relates to each other, well what can one really do about it? I suppose there is a reason some people have regressed instead of wanting to evolve, though for the life of me I don’t know why.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amPeggy is one of those people who will sue McDonalds cause they didn’t tell her the coffee they just poured into her cup with the steam coming off of it, was hot.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amI just posted a comment to Noonan’s article and I suggest others do the same. We need to stop prliferating this false idea of a debate on this.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:25 amOnce again, I refer to Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between temperature increases and urbanization than any myth of global warming, and you attack him for being a fiction writer. Liberals put far more value on “infallible sources” saying what they want to here, instead of being able to open their ears and hear truth and reason, regardless of the source - that is your ultimate weakness, and why you hold little to no federal power anymore.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:26 amMrs. Noonan here’s a better suggestion. All the great psychologists of the world should get together and study people like YOU. They should study the likes of YOU, Limbaugh, Hannity, O Reilly and every other neo-nut media personality. We need to find out why your loyalty to Bushco supersedes your loyalty to the constitiution, human rights and even the planet itself. There is not a moment to spare. We need those psychologists to figure out how to deprogram you and your type before its too late.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:27 amif it is caused not by nature and her cycles
Nature’s PMS.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:29 amYea Jason. Well I don’t think its just the fact that hes a science fiction writer.
I think it has something to do with the fact that, oh gee, I don’t know, HES NOT A SCIENTIST???
See, you’re making the mistake all repuggy’s make.
You’re confusing Science, with Science Fiction.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:29 amClubber - just like the scientologists - their leader was none other than L. Ron Hubbard, a mediocre science fiction writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:31 amAnd BTW Jason, even if he were a practicing scientist, which he’s NOT, then he would still be just one scientist against THOUSANDS of TOP SCIENTISTS in the field, from over 120 different countries.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:32 amMichael Crichton is a science fiction writer. Thousands of scientific experts disagree.
Comment by Judd — July 20, 2006 @ 11:14 am
It scares me a little that you had to point this out…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:33 am#23
One science fiction writer vs. thousands of expert scientists. Get a clue dude!
t-mac
July 20th, 2006 at 11:33 amwell…
in peggy noonan’s defense, she does have a spectacular rack.
that has to count for something?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:34 amJason– Yes, those charts and graphs look awfully pretty there in that piece of beach reading. But have you ever heard of peer review?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:35 am#22
I just posted a comment to Noonan’s article and I suggest others do the same. We need to stop prliferating this false idea of a debate on this.
Comment by KingdoK — July 20, 2006 @ 11:25 am
Good call - done and done.
#23
Once again, I refer to Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between temperature increases and urbanization than any myth of global warming,
Jason, this data that you speak of has gone through the rigors of peer review of the scientific community?
July 20th, 2006 at 11:35 amI just read Jason’s post about insisting on Michael Crichton, medical school drop-out truned SciFi writer, as a valid source. I cannot believe this person is allowed to drive, vote or purchase a handgun.
My personal defense alert just moved up to orange…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amJason, I refer you to the sound debunking of Chriton’s cherry-picked stats and data. Anyone still have that link handy? We only have to trot it out a dozen times a day…
Let’s talk about something more productive, like how the DaVinci Code overturns a thousand years of Catholic dogma.
Or what insight can Le Carre give us about international espionage?
If you want well-researched, study ancient mythology by reading the Harry Potter series.
If you want a contrarian view, check out what Stephen King has to say about the supernatural.
Now if you’ll excuse me, I have some dinosaur clones running amok in my back yard again. I think I’ll release the super-intelligent apes and watch them duke it out. With any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amThese are the people we LISTEN TO:
UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 amJason: “Once again, I refer to Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs…” What, no pie charts? I gotta have pie charts, Jason. You can’t have a meaningful debate on numbers without a pie chart. MULTIPLE pie charts. In color!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:36 am#26, flacidus worfeus,
You needn’t be a scientist to apply scientific method, reason and analysis to a topic. Crichton first approached his book with the presumption that there was solid evidence of global warming, but after sitting down and reviewing with “scientists” the data he needed to support his novel, he found very shoddy data and analysis from them, with often weak or conflicting results. After pouring through it himself, he could only find a real correlation between urban heat masses and temperature increases, which is discussed in the novel. He went on to expose “gulf stream” environmentalists, who, much like “limosine democrats”, are hypocritical in their support of the environment, when they charter private gulfstream jets to their global warming conferences.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:37 amWith any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus.
Comment by Kermit the Freedom Frog — July 20, 2006 @ 11:36 am
I can’t stop laughing…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:37 amJason, this data that you speak of has gone through the rigors of peer review of the scientific community?
Comment by Lupeyg2 — July 20, 2006 @ 11:35 am
Yes.
And they’re still laughing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:38 amPeer review by real scientists? Around the world? Nobel lauriates? Not by Crichton’s wife and his editor at his potboiler FICTION publishing house? (And did we mention it was fiction?)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:38 am#39: “With any luck a satellite will come crashing down and infect them all with a deadly virus.” - - Speaking of Crichton, that’s pretty much “The Andromeda Strain.”
July 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:40 am42. I remember that movie - I loved that movie….
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 amWell, if we’re gonna use science fictional writers as experts, I’d rather refer to Ray Bradbury than Michael Crichton. Bradbury is a much better writer in my opinion…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 am#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you AREN’T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:41 amJust another reason to believe that Idiots R US. Only a moron could put a fiction writer on the same level as the entire scientific community, but there seem to be millions of morons in the US that believe the fiction writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:42 am#45, unbelievable,
Frank Herbert, is, to me, the most thorough sci-fi writer - weaving economics, politics, religion, etc., into a seamless story.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:43 am#43
#37, badmoodman,
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:40 am
So the guy citing a piece of fiction is also the one determining who is and is not qualified to have an opinion on science?
Sounds like par for the course in Bushworld to me.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 amyou AREN’T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:41 am
So now we’re qualifying the ability to have an opinion? The thought police would be proud of you Jason.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 amYou would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that, so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
OK, so next time you need surgery. We’ll get you A GUY WHO WRITES FICTION ABOUT SURGERY, not a real doctor. He can use basic reason. So he can figure out what to do with his scalpel.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:44 am51. I transcribe medical reports - I’LL DO IT!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amHaving an opinion, and writing a silly paper thats supposed to disprove the entire global scientific community are just slightly different Einstein.
But thanks for playing.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 am#47, just plain mad,
I am holding up Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs, which show much, much stronger correlation between urbanization and temperature increase, not Michael Crichton himself, although, if you ever saw an interview of him, you would be very impressed.
Please don’t stop droning on and on about global warming, because you drive away more people than you attract.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amyea… al franken’s ditto-head, childhood friend, mark, comes on the show to comment on limpball’s lies, and he keeps telling al that he needs to have michael crichten on the show…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:46 amlike, WHY? how did this happen that ANYone would a science fiction author’s work before … oh… l. ron hubbard’ scientology… uh huh…
Once again - UNION OF CONCERNED SCIENTISTS
July 20th, 2006 at 11:47 amJason,
Stop reading science fiction… Try some non-fiction. It’s all about living in the world that exists rather than the one you wish existed.
People are making fun of you. We aren’t serious about pie charts and satellites. You really should stop. I’m telling you that because I am starting to feel sorry for your naivete. And because you are a danger to our planet.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:48 amPlease don’t stop droning on and on about global warming…
This is a thread about global warming. There are other threads if you’re bored. There’s no shortage of absurd news these days…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amI am holding up Michael Crichton’s data, analysis and graphs
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:46 am
Yea, with one hand I’d wager.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amOK, so next time you need surgery. We’ll get you A GUY WHO WRITES FICTION ABOUT SURGERY, not a real doctor…
Comment by JJ — July 20, 2006 @ 11:44 am
I transcribe medical reports - I’LL DO IT!
Comment by madashell — July 20, 2006 @ 11:46 am
good one, guys!
July 20th, 2006 at 11:49 amWe don’t care about changing your mind, Jason.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:50 amYou seem to have it all figured out, in you little sci-fi wonderland.
Thanks for the “enlightenment”, idiot.
Reply to #46 (Jason):
Regression analyses aren’t conveyed through pie charts, but you would have to be a scientist / engineer to understand that,
I think that badmoonman was being sarcastic in his request for pie charts. Sorry that escaped you.
so by your own reasoning, you AREN’T even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.
Misleading. Badmoonman isn’t trying to advance his own opinion on the matter, he’s relying upon the conclusion of thousands of experts in the field that have reached a positive consensus on the matter (as opposed to you relying upon the conclusions of a single science fiction author, whose ‘conclusions’ run completely contrary to the consensus).
(and they have the nerve to call us ‘moonbats’…Sheesh.)
July 20th, 2006 at 11:50 amAnyone with an internet connection can go right to the IPCC report and see how carefully they state the strengths and weaknesses of our knowledge about climate change, and how honestly reasoned their conclusions are. Peggy Noonan and anyone else who continues to try to muddy the waters on this issue should be mocked or shunned at every opportunity. The biggest uncertainties are that they may be understating how quickly and drastically our climate will change. “The rapid forcing of a non-linear system has a high prospect of producing surprises,†(p. 78).
In a report about west Siberian bogs that have begun to melt Fred Pearce of New Scientist magazine points out that they contain “some 70 billion tonnes of methane†and that if the bogs dry the methane will oxidize, but if they remain wet, “as is the case in western Siberia today, then the methane will be released straight into the atmosphere.†Methane is 20 times stronger than CO2 as a green house gas.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amMy money for a good Sci-fi read is Ian M. Banks, or Peter F. Hamilton.
Jason one thing stuck out on one of your previous posts. you say
Liberals put far more value on “infallible sources†saying what they want to here, instead of being able to open their ears and hear truth and reason, regardless of the source
basically accusing everyone of only listening to sources that say what we want to hear, yet by ignoring the evidence presented by the peer reviews, in favor of Chricton’s book you are doing the same thing. For the record, I do believe that Urban sprawl does contribute to climate. Fewer trees and more concrete is not a good move. However, I also tend to think that the 100’s of millions vehicles, and millions of factories spewing pollution into the air, are also responsible.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:51 amJason,
Who built those cities that you claim are contributing to Global warming? Yes, humans… That makes it OUR fault even in your context.
I live next to a major city that has been charged with making its own weather. It gets hot and produces thunderstorms. Except that, we are having a drought due to the excessive CO2 that is an even bigger catalyst in effecting the global weather. Therefore Global Warming trumps localized city contributions…
July 20th, 2006 at 11:52 amHey…Noonan posted some “readers replies”. Slanted much????? Does she call herself a journalist.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:54 am#51, JJ,
Comparing climatologists to practicing surgeons is hysterical, which goes back to my argument about how liberals seek “infallible” sources, who support the religion of liberalism. If a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside. Meanwhile, you guys are squeeking out tenths of a degree variations over decades and screaming like chicken little.
The great ice sheets covering north america subsided 10’s of thousands of years ago - was that due to burning fossil fuels? That was a far more dramatic climate change than what you’ve claimed to determine, but man had NOTHING to do with it - it is psuedo-science to claim man has caused significant climate change.
Again, let me help you - just say that burning fossil fuels causes pollution, and you we hold your followers. If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:54 amHere is a link to a paper done by James Hansen from Columbia Universitys Earth Institute and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies.
Its a short but good read.
The paper is entitled - “Michael Crichton’s “Scientific Methodâ€
Now I realize this guy is just a scientist, not a knowledgeable medical school dropout who makes up stories for a living, but it might shed some light.
July 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amIf a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument
Crichton is not a scientist - just thought I would point that out to those who don’t know this (ahem, Jason).
July 20th, 2006 at 11:57 amPeggy Noonan — So respected for her opinion she is a contributing editor to The Wall Street Journal and Time Mag. and is a paid talking head on TV. And she doesn’t even have to pay attention. She just has attention showered upon her.
The statements she made clearly show she is being overpaid.
(btw, like Ms. Noonan, Jason and his random musings on amateur science have gotten way too much attention)
July 20th, 2006 at 12:01 pmIf a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Ok, if it’s so simple, cite some science, published in peer reviewed journals, that says that climate change isn’t a problem.
If you think atmospheric CO2 content and temperature don’t correlate, you know nothing about the science and you’re just talking out of your posterior:
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ wg1/ fig2-22.htm
If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
I don’t care about followers. I just want people to stop distorting the truth and talking out of their butts. If it’s a Republican who leads us to face the problem, so be it.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmAll of those urban centers scattered all over the deep waters of the seven seas are causing the water temperatures to rise and thus foster cyclones, monsoons and hurricanes of unprecedented fury. Sounds logical to me - not.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmthis is about the zillionth thread about global warming on this site…HELLO…there is a lot of stuff going on out there, folks, and some conservative bimbo writing another anti-scientific screed on the subject is nothing NEW or NEWSWORTHY, now is it????????
and, if someone tells me barack obama is driving a car today, i shall vomit.
israel is killing lebanese civilians with george bush’s bomba
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmit is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside.
Hey duncehead - it is called ASPHALT - the radiation from the sun makes ASPHALT hotter.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:02 pmHas Jason M. Hendler only read the one book on Global Warming? Just because something appears in print does NOT mean that it is the whole truth. This was a common belief in the Dark Ages when books had to be written and copied by hand, and it was generally held that no one would go to that much effort to promugate a lie, but in this modern and degenerate age, this belief is notably false.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#67
Hey…Noonan posted some “readers repliesâ€. Slanted much????? Does she call herself a journalist.
Comment by Lupeyg2
Definately not the response that I wrote her. But then again I wasn’t expecting it to be there. Even though it was written in a nice tone.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:03 pm#66, unbelievable and #65, krazny,
Oh, you are starting to open your eyes, that’s good.
NO ONE would argue that man is impacting his environment through urbanization, pollution and land cultivation (farming / lumber). A vast majority of people are with you on that argument, and that we should try to reduce our impact on the environment.
You LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment. You also LOSE supporters when you don’t provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. To simply say stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating the land, you again LOSE people.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pmJason: “…so by your own reasoning, you are even qualified to have an opinion on the matter.” - - Jason, you are humorless and write incoherent thoughts. But thanks for playing along…now what do we have as a parting gift for Jason?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:04 pmReply to #67 (Lupeyg2):
Hey…Noonan posted some “readers repliesâ€. Slanted much?????
Yup…I was going to post a scathing critique, but then I read the boilerplate on the ’submit comment’ applet:
Two things:
1) ‘We don’t post all responses’ - Translation: ‘We reserve the right to cherry-pick the responses we like.’
2) ‘we reserve the right to edit for length and clarity.’ - Given Peggy’s breathtaking ignorance of the facts of the issue, I doubt she or her cronies at the WSJ have the necessary qualifications to edit me for ‘clarity’.
Given all this, why bother?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pmPeggy Noonan must have been watching the House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing yesterday about the the “hockey stick” shaped temperature reconstructions for the past 1000 years of global climate. The Wall Street Journal’s recent editorial on the hockey stick took quite a hit. The scientists not only denounced the editorial for the way they distorted the issue but also pointed out that the study the Journal was criticising actually would indicate that warming was less sensitive to carbon dioxide concentrations than studies that use a different statistical analysis. These other studies (that presumably the Journal would endorse?) indicate warming is more sensitive to carbon dioxide and could lead to greater warming. Is this Noonan editorial an attempt at a retraction of their previous editorial?
The global warming deniers took a big hit yesterday. Many of them have been hanging their hat on discrediting the hockey stick reconstruction believing it would discredit the whole scientific basis for global warming. One scientist called the hockey stick an “icon” for the deniers. What was clear at the hearing was that though a particular analysis could be argued with it doesn’t change the conclusion that the latter part of the twentieth century warming is unprecendented over the last 1000 years. Furthermore, the scientists pointed out that temperature reconstruction is only one component of the scientific basis for concluding that climate change is real and that human acitivity is contributing to this change.
Yesterday was a bad day for the deniers.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pmglobal warming solutions
July 20th, 2006 at 12:05 pm#77
Even though it was written in a nice tone.
Perhaps mine wasn’t as diplomatic…. yeah that’s gotta be it. She wouldn’t just post replies that agree with her would she?… naaaa.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:06 pmGreat idea, Peggy! And after that, maybe all the scientists can agree on whether or not there is a God, and if so, then whose God is the real God… and would she really approve of all the killing and wars over religion and resources.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:07 pmComparing climatologists to practicing surgeons is hysterical,
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:54 am
And your relying on a science fiction writer is not?
Maybe you are the kind to pick up a book by Jules Vernes and lecture others on how travelling to the center of the Earth is perfectly feasible.
…which goes back to my argument about how liberals seek “infallible†sources, who support the religion of liberalism.
This is rich from someone who holds the work of a science fiction writer to be the most authoritative (infallible) source of information.
Nobody -except for you- has mentioned infallble sources. Again, there is concensus in the scientific community that global warming is partially man-made.
If a scientist agrees with you, then he is credible, but if a scientist does not agree with you, he is not - simple as that.
Crichton is not a climate scientist, and has no qualifications in the field.
Crichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside.
Ditto.
Plus you just agreed that global warming is man-made.
That was a far more dramatic climate change than what you’ve claimed to determine, but man had NOTHING to do with it
You just contradicted your previous statement about how cities are hotter than the country side.
- it is psuedo-science to claim man has caused significant climate change.
And the work of a fiction writer is not even science.
If you keep overreaching with global warming, your followers will leave you.
Can I borrow your crystal ball?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:08 pmRe Noonan’a statement:
“I think The People will have a greater claim to blame the scientists, for refusing to be honest, for operating in cliques and holding to ideologies. For failing to be trustworthy.”
…
Instead of scientists, it fits BushCo and the Wall Street Editorial board to a tee.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:09 pmAnother reality check on Crichton’s “science”
July 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment.
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
You mean like you lose credibility when you publically taut a discredited science fiction writer as an expert who knows more than all the worlds scientists put together?
Is that what you mean?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:10 pmTo #54 Jason M. Hendler
I read Micheal Critchton’s book Jurassic Park and now I know FOR A FACT that dinosaurs still roam the earth, they are just on an island somewhere near New Zealand or something.
There was lots of words in the book and stuff, and there wasn’t any pictures, so that means it was true!
July 20th, 2006 at 12:12 pmnow what do we have as a parting gift for Jason?
Comment by Badmoodman — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
We can start with some school vouchers.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE homosexuals impact on society.
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:04 pm
not to go out on a tangent or anything…stay on topic
Ok. Jason. Please. Get. Help. Read. Books. Preferably. Non-fiction.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmCoral reefs are disappearing, the polar bears are disappearing, frogs and other amphibians are well on their way to extinction by some type of fungus that is 100% lethal, the oceans are rising, the weather devastatingly extreme and destructive, the ice caps melting at an unprecedented rate, siberia melting and releasing gas that will only contribute to warming even more…I could go on, but I think its indisputably clear. So what’s the argument, really?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:13 pmCrichton is the only one who presents an argument that anyone who travels between suburban and urban areas can confirm - it is much hotter in the city than in the neighboring countryside. Meanwhile, you guys are squeeking out tenths of a degree variations over decades and screaming like chicken little.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 11:54 am
But it has nothing ado with the concentration of CO2 in high human density environments? And, the thents of degree variations is a median, taking in account all the globe. But now, you’re admitting that local variations do count.
Well, answer this: if the global concentration of CO2 in the whole world increases, what makes you think that the temperatures in the cities will not grow over, say 200 degrees locally, making them unlivable, and causing HUGE LOSINGS TO THE ECONOMY?
My conclusion is that you can’t even interpret what you post or cite.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:14 pmI believe what’s causing global warming is the remote island in the pacific where they are cloning dinosaurs. I bet that’s the reason why.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:15 pmSo what’s the argument, really?
Comment by madashell — July 20, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
Well for one thing, thanks to Jason, we know the science fiction writers of the world disagree with those findings.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:16 pmWell, ok, maybe just one.
But he really really means it.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#88, flacidus worfeus,
Michael Crichton presents data, analysis and graphs revealing a strong correlation to urban heat mass and temperature increase, which anyone who travels between an urban and sub-urban area can confirm. Yes, urbanizaton is man made, but global warming theories are about CO2 levels, not urban heat masses, which is why I maintain the distinction between the two. If you don’t understand the root causes (other than man himself), then you can never prescribe a solution.
I am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pm#94
July 20th, 2006 at 12:17 pmI believe thats its those huys on the comet that are….no wait thats a different fiction writer. I keep mixing all these strange ideas that I must follow without question. I must need adjustment to my programming.
Michael Crichton presents data, analysis and graphs…
He also has a groovy cover on that page turner. And it’s laminated so it doesn’t get damaged at the beach.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pmJason, here’s the deal.
A huge proportion of scientists active in the field think there is a coorelation between human activity and the current increase in atmospheric CO2 levels and it’s effect on increased heat trapping on this planet.
A very, very small number of scientists active in the field have stated there are no links. Those scientists haven’t submitted anything to a peer review periodical to back up their statements. Coincidentally, those scientists all seem to be on the payroll of oil & energy production companies.
The issue is, do we, knowing that we may be harming our planets ability to offer a sustainable environment for us to live in, do nothing at all as those few oil/energy company scientists say, or do we actually modify our behaviour so as to mitigate our effects on climate change?
We know it will cost more to change our behaviour. Is our planet worth it for us and our decendants? Most of us say it is.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:19 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality
Comment by Jason M. Handler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
And you’re doing an excellent job of it too.
You’ve moved us far from your myths and much closer to reality.
BTW, got any more science fiction writers ridiculous papers to help move us closer to reality?
If not how about a romance novelist?
:D
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pmGee Jason, thanks for completely misinterpreting my post. I was pointing out the ridiculousness of your previous statement. You say that liberals will only accept a writings from those who back up their beliefs. Actually this is called partisanship, and you are as guilty as anyone.
I am unsure what the whole followers argument has to do with the thread. A red herring to throw us off track? You admit that global warming is human caused in one breath, then say it isn’t, then attack people for still driving cars. Please try to find some consistency. I have believed for a long time that reducing emission from factories, changing our fuel source from oil to something friendlier, and changing our electrical generation techniques are good ideas.
I don’t know why the right wants to turn this into a political issue. This is an issue that is confronting humanity as a whole, and needs to be dealt with. Unless you want the world to end up like china, on of the most polluted places on the planet.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pm#97 I am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Then why do a step backwards, moving from scientific consensus to science fiction?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:20 pmHey any of you guys got any graphs? I got graphs. One shows that there is a correlation between stupidity and people who believe people with graphs from science fiction writers. See I just drew it up myself.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmWell said, Kindness. Thank you.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:21 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Correction: You are trying to move people from what yo think is a myth into the realm of science fiction.
One more time, Crichton is a science fiction writer with no qualifications in the field of climate science. His good “reason and analysis” notwithstanding.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pmIf you don’t understand the root causes (other than man himself), then you can never prescribe a solution.
Yeah, climate scientists don’t study root causes. AS LONG AS YOU IGNORE EVERYTHING THEY’VE DONE FOR THE PREVIOUS TWO DECADES:
http://www.heatisonline.org/ contentserver/ objecthandlers/ index.cfm?id=3458&method=full
July 20th, 2006 at 12:22 pmI got graphs. One shows that there is a correlation between stupidity and people who believe people with graphs from science fiction writers.
Comment by dlet — July 20, 2006 @ 12:21 pm
Hey I think I’ve seen that one.
Isn’t that the one with that shows a normal human male that gradually turns into a picture of Bozo?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:25 pmWhy it is so easy for Jason et al. to believe fiction, best said by Mark Twain:
Why shouldn’t truth be stranger than fiction? Fiction, after all, has to make sense.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:26 pmMark Twain (1835-1910)
#93, Evil Spaniard,
I agree that pollution is a bad thing. Burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is not a long term healthy thing for this planet. NO ONE argues that. I keep telling you that you LOSE your support when you start claiming:
1) climate change - mulitple ice ages, plate tectonics driving continental drift, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions have been changing climate as far back as we can extract data, so to state that man is CAUSING climate change is laughable
2) extinctions - many species continually go extinct, long before man arrived on the scene, and there were multiple mass extinctions throughout history, so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
Do you see now how I am trying to help you? You are on solid ground to state that man is impacting the environment, and you should provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. Unfortunately, you over-reach, trying to induce hysteria to get people to just plain stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating land, and the combination of hysteria and no feasible solution turns off ALL your would-be supporters.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmAs a side note, i think other sci-fi writers are far more close to the reality of today’s world than Crichton. Starship Troopers (the book), from Heinlein, is almost exactly modern day USA.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:27 pmReply to #110 (Jason):
so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
And with that, you’ve just lost whatever scraps of credibility you had left.
Log off before you hurt yourself.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:31 pmJason– Man has CAUSED a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. If you deny that, then all you’re displaying is your lack of knowledge of basic organic chemistry (what products you get when you burn octane).
Then you have to look at this graph showing the historic correlation of CO2 and temperature:
http://www.grida.no/ climate/ ipcc_tar/ wg1/ fig2-22.htm
July 20th, 2006 at 12:33 pm#111, Evil Spaniard,
Although a little juvenile and simplistic, Fred Saberhagen’s Berserker novels are interesting as well, but I still prefer Frank Herbert …
July 20th, 2006 at 12:35 pm#111
July 20th, 2006 at 12:36 pmI soley believe everything in The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy myself. They talked some crazy stuff about how time travel worked, how the improbability drive worked and stuff but it must be true, a science fiction writer wrote it.
Spaindard having read Starship Troopers I disagree. Most of the current admin has never served in the military, and that was one of the requirements for full citizenship.
Jason,
Many, many, many people have tried to offer feasible solutions, only to be turned away. Please come to Los Angeles sometime, right now would be good. spend a day or two in the San Fernando Valley, or really almost anywhere in So-Cal, and then tell me we are not having an impact on environment. As for the argument about extinction of species, Man has been directly responsible for at least two that I can name of the top of my head. The Dodo bird, and the Stellar Seacow. We have also come close on many others, Bison, Killer whales, Spotted Owl, etc.
to continue to say humanity does not have an impact on environment is sad and shortsighted.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pmI am trying to move you from myth to reality, so that you can begin prescribing a feasible solution.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:17 pm
Actually, you are trying to take us from reality to myth.
And I’m not ‘catching on’ to your way of thinking. I’m simply saying that cities are making their situations even worse in addition to Global Warming caused by CO2 in the environment. After all, Atlanta is only responsiblefor screwing with the weather over metro-Atlanta. It has no impact on less urban areas like Augusta or Albany, which are also experiencing warming trends…
Go learn about the planet Venus. It’s where we are heading. Venus has volcanoes at its source and we have tail pipes and chimney stacks at ours…
July 20th, 2006 at 12:37 pmWell Judd is at it again. Not being honest. Several articles have come out the last couple of months challenging the lie that the majority of scientists are on the same page as the ICPP. On the contrary, many who work in the field have a differnet opinion. Here is an article out CanadaFreePress. Take the time to read the points being made. Then state which parts are incorrect.
Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.”
But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of “climate change skeptics” who disagree with the “vast majority of scientists” Gore cites?
No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. “Climate experts” is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore’s “majority of scientists” think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.
Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. “While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change,” explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. “They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies.”
This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn’t make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.
So we have a smaller fraction.
But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. “These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios,” asserts Ball. “Since modelers concede computer outputs are not “predictions” but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts.”
We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.
Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:
Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, “There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth’s temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.” Patterson asked the committee, “On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century’s modest warming?”
Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and “hundreds of other studies” reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth’s temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.
Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore’s dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. “The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier,” says Winterhalter. “In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form.”
Dr. Wibj–rn KarlÈn, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.”
But KarlÈn clarifies that the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, “their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect,” KarlÈn concludes.
The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.
Gore tells us in the film, “Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap.” This is misleading, according to Ball: “The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology.”
KarlÈn explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. “For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years,” says KarlÈn
Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, “There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001.”
Concerning Gore’s beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, “Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance.”
Gore’s point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records,” he says. “The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual.”
Carter does not pull his punches about Gore’s activism, “The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science.”
In April sixty of the world’s leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what’s at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:38 pmAnd with that, you’ve just lost whatever scraps of credibility you had left.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 20, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Scraps? He had scraps?
This to me further proves he’s been reading too much science fiction.
So much for the “reason and analysis” he seems to be so proud of.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:38 pm#112, Trip,
Man has an impact, but you overreach stating that man is the cause of all extinctions, when species have been rising and falling throughout history. I am trying to get you back to a point where the general public will heed your concerns, but they won’t if you point at a cigarette smoker and acuse him of causing the extinction of some rare species of frog half a world away.
#113, JJ,
Yes, I agree we have increased CO2 levels, which cannot be a good thing, but you overstate it’s current impact, and you don’t offer a feasible alternative, so you lose support for your concern.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pmOn a side note, I was never a huge fan of the Saberhagen Beserker novels. I do like C.S. Friedmen, and the other Authors I mentioned earlier.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:39 pm[…] It’s always hard, when members of the Right attack scientists and science, if they’r ignorant or deceptive. Peggy Noonan provides a perfect example. Ignorant? Deceptive? Both? Hard to tell. […]
July 20th, 2006 at 12:40 pmYou LOSE supporters when you OVERSTATE man’s impact on the environment. You also LOSE supporters when you don’t provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. To simply say stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating the land, you again LOSE people.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
No, you lose when you tell people that we have to chose between SUVs and a liveable environment. We lose to people who tell them they can guzzle gas like there’s no tomorrow, and we lose to people who say we don’t have to worry about the consequences of our actions. That’s why we have a gas guzzling culture, a quagmire in Iraq, and a back-breaking national debt.
And folks like Peggy are ready to blame those who tried to warn us in the first place.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:41 pmDo you see now how I am trying to help you?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
No. Considering most people on this planet agree with us and the Scientists, it is actually you who needs the help.
Michael Crichton is a science FICTION writer.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:42 pmYes, I agree we have increased CO2 levels, which cannot be a good thing, but you overstate it’s current impact, and you don’t offer a feasible alternative, so you lose support for your concern.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
If CO2 levels have no correlation to global warming, how could it be a bad thing? Can you explain?
And feasible alternatives have been offered, but they were rejected because people didn’t want to pay $1.50 for gas ten years ago. Smart choice there buddy?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pmLog off before you hurt yourself.
Comment by TripMaster Monkey — July 20, 2006 @ 12:31 pm
Which he actually has a much higher chance of doing than being attacked by a teroorist…
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#110
I agree that pollution is a bad thing. Burning oil, coal, natural gas, etc. is not a long term healthy thing for this planet. NO ONE argues that. I keep telling you that ou LOSE your support when you start claiming:
You’ve LOST YOUR SUPPORT ALREADY. Realize it. Using a paid sci-fi writer to produce non-sense charts against a stablished fact doesn’t support your cause.
1) climate change - mulitple ice ages, plate tectonics driving continental drift, asteroid impacts and volcanic eruptions have been changing climate as far back as we can extract data, so to state that man is CAUSING climate change is laughable
Why? Human population, and specially industry has increased exponentially in two hundred years. Exponentially means that five hundred years ago, the whole population of the world was in the hundred of milions, not in the thousands of milions of people. Not aknowledging an impact in nature is lame. Probably, the city where you live doesn’t even existed two hundred years ago.
And, if I can remember it to you, the changes in nature that you cite, HAVE PRODUCED mass extinctions. Do you want to bet on human extinction? I don’t.
2) extinctions - many species continually go extinct, long before man arrived on the scene, and there were multiple mass extinctions throughout history, so to state that man is CAUSING extinctions in general is laughable
Your arguments are RETHORIC (meaning that they have NO value beyond your twisted mind and lying mouth). Extinctions rate has accelerated to an enormous number of species each year since the man has “discovered” the world.
Do you see now how I am trying to help you? You are on solid ground to state that man is impacting the environment, and you should provide feasible solutions to man’s current behaviour. Unfortunately, you over-reach, trying to induce hysteria to get people to just plain stop urbanizing, polluting and cultivating land, and the combination of hysteria and no feasible solution turns off ALL your would-be supporters.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:27 pm
If you feel yourself hysterical, go ahead. But the problem is accelerating and your focus in “we’ll do anything when we will see clearly the ultimate effects of Global Warming” is simply suicide. Acting now is how we can fight against it. And “feasible solutions”?. You and the ones like you are embroiling the whole argument to stop any attempt to enact feasible solutions.
Jason, hide from reality all you want, but reality would find you, sooner or later.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:43 pm#116, Krazny,
An alternative is only feasible if you get the Chinese and Indians to do it too, otherwise, our economy can’t compete with theirs, if they can burn oil, coal and natural gas, and we only get to use solar.
#117, unbelievalbe,
When you going to Venus? Take plenty of pics, okay?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:44 pmReply to #120 (Jason):
Man has an impact, but you overreach stating that man is the cause of all extinctions, when species have been rising and falling throughout history.
Jason, I’m having trouble finding the post where I claimed that man was ‘the cause of all extinctions’. Could you be a mensch and point it out to me?
(In the future, you might try to refrain from distorting my position. I spend my free time correcting Seixon’s distortions, and brother, you’re no Seixon.)
July 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmJason,
July 20th, 2006 at 12:45 pmYou really gotta stop and sit and think for awhile. Read what people have wrote and stop contradicting yourself. I don’t think people here have the time to correct every mistake you write. And I’m not just talking about your stance on global warming. You are confusing things you wrote yourself.
Crichton also wrote a book called ‘Prey’ - all about how nanotechnology will give rise to a swarm of biotech-microelectronic hybrids that devour all organic matter in their path, threatening the very existence of life on Earth. Personally, I’m terrified - this is a far greater threat then global warming, which Michael Crichton, our modern-day da Vinci, has shown to be irrelevant and overhyped - but I’m going to write my Senator and Representative and demand that they hold hearings on this new nanotechnology threat, and I’m going to insist they have Crighton testify. I suggest everyone do likewise. By the way, I have some coastal property in Florida I’m looking to sell - any buyers out there? It’ll be a great long-term investment - and never mind that the insurance companies won’t cover it - they’re all crazy.
If you really wanted to reduce atmospheric CO2 you’d have to stop burning >70% of all coal and oil; you’d have to stop deforestation and plant a lot of long-lived trees, and you’d have to spend many billions developing renewable alternative energy systems. But then who would the Saudis (and everyone else) sell their oil too? Poor Saudis! Don’t you feel their pain? Do you want them to have to give up their vacation homes in Morroco and Switzerland and go back to riding camels? What’s that? Why don’t they use their oil wealth to power their entire country with solar photovoltaics, while they still can? Beats me.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:48 pmWhen you going to Venus? Take plenty of pics, okay?
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:44 pm
You can’t got to Venus, it’s atmosphere is so heavy from all that CO2 that it would crush you, notto mention the surface temperatures that are hot enough to melt led. Much like we’re initiating here by cranking up the temperature on Global Warming. It was never supposed to get this warm here…
You have been reading WAY too much SciFi if you didn’t know that….
July 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pmProfessor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: “Gore’s circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention.â€
Well, that’s all it takes to convince me! Let’s all buy Hummers!
July 20th, 2006 at 12:50 pmBoth China, and Indias economies are heavily dependant upon the US economy. I think we can get them to play ball so to speak. I have also seen things about how heavily polluted the country of China is becoming, they are starting to rethink what they want to do.
PLus it’s a silly argument. It is sorta like saying well, my 2 your old brother craps in the yard, so I will too.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:51 pmOkay, one more time ….
To move a society, you need a motivator and a feasible direction to go ….
To state that man is impacting the environment in unhealthy ways is sufficient to motivate a society. To have Al Gore go red faced and bug-eyed is counter productive, causing people to laugh and no longer be motivated to change their behaviour. Motivation is not really the problem here.
Currently, no one has provided a feasible solution to man’s current behaviour. The most feasilbe clean energy solutions: nuclear and hydro-electric have been undermined by democrats for decades, because anything nuclear is badmouthed and hydro-electric dams are blocked by people who don’t want to displace a few field mice or make salmon swim a little harder. Wind and solar are investment heavy relative to the energy produced.
Again, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
July 20th, 2006 at 12:55 pmJason,
Still haven’t pointed me to that post, buddy…
July 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pmAnyone have any idea why the Israeli, and lebonese governments cannot work together to remove hezbollah? I have been trying to figure this out, and can’t come up with an answer. Is the lebonese government unwilling to work with isreal?
July 20th, 2006 at 12:56 pmAbout Starship Troopers. Well, really, in this administration there exists a lot of chickenhawks that never served. But the jingoism almost equal in both this administration and the ST novel is frankly scary. Footnote: I ever saw ST as a very fascist novel. I don’t know if Heinlein was being sarcastic, but boy…
July 20th, 2006 at 12:59 pmJason– Man has CAUSED a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Comment by JJ — July 20, 2006 @ 12:33 pm
Hell, Jason the gasbag has caused by himself a 30% increase in the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere just by running his mouth.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:00 pmAgain, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler — July 20, 2006 @ 12:55 pm
Do I detect a change in gear here?
This is no longer a “there is nothing we can do about it, Crichton says so” but “they do it so we should too” kind of argument.
Gotta love those moving goal posts…
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmReply to #138 (Krazny):
Is the lebonese government unwilling to work with isreal?
No…Israel is unwilling to work with the Lebanese government.
It’s not in Israel’s interests to remove Hezbollah, because they provide a convenient excuse for their murder of Lebanese civilians.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pmAgain, as long as competing economies burn oil, coal and natural gas, so will we.
Comment by Jason M. Hendler
Why do you hate American ingenuity? Why do you think America is made up of a bunch of followers? We should be leading in alternative energy sources. Maybe even creating new technologies….ya know….use that great American spirit in a positive sense. But where is this leadership? You accuse Gore of hurting the discussion? Last time I checked he isn’t in the White House. Like the saying goes “the fish starts to stink from the head”.
July 20th, 2006 at 1:01 pm