Last month, I wrote about the phenomenon among some in the scientific community to strip anthropogenic global warming heretics of their professional titles (see http://www.ivorydome.us/2007/01/20/global-warming-dogma-and-heresy/). Now there’s a similar move to divest Oregon’s State Climatologist of his honorific for similar acts of heresy:
http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html
This is happening at the same time that Dr. Timothy Ball, Canadian climiatologist, is joining the voices of scientists who are seriously questioning the “inconvenient truth” espoused by Oscar nominee Al Gore:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Another interesting explanation of global warming is the book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years” by Dennis T. Avery and S. Fred Singer:
Dr. Singer has been excoriated by the Kyoto supporters for having been on the payroll of “big oil” (Is there such a thing as “small oil”?) and the tobacco industry. But what about the others (James Spann, George Taylor, Timothy Ball, et al.)? According to Al Gore, they’re being bought off by the Bush Administration:
http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/blogs/politicalticker/2007/02/gore-says-bush-administration-paying.html
Any evidence for this, Mr. Gore?
Those who believe that global warming is caused primarily by natural (rather than human) activity are providing historical and scientific evidence to support their case. Those who continue to believe that the problem is anthropogenic are attacking the messengers, not the evidence.
Fear mongering about global warming must be a huge industry. I am inclined to categorize the followers of this thought as part of some sort of fanatic religeon. It’s scary.
C’mon Bo every one has to make a living even down and out politicial nobody.
There are anti-corporate, anti-technology, and anti-West aspects that drive what I’ll call the “Inconvenient Truth” crowd (i.e. adherents to anthropogenic global warming). All of these aspects create their own religious fervor.
I found the reviews of Avery and Singer’s book at the amazon.com link (see above) to be particularly enlightening. The vast majority of the comments were positive, and most of the negative ones were the kind of knee-jerk, ad hominem reactions that one would expect from the Left. It was obvious that most of the negative commenters hadn’t read the book. Even the more thoughtful negative comments were easily countered by people who had more than a passing understanding of the subject.
My stepdaughter told me that the professor in one of her art courses showed “An Inconvenient Truth” during class. I told her she should tell him that his class is an appropriate venue for such a film, since it obviously isn’t science.
Unlike the evolution-intelligent design debate, which will never be resolved because origins can’t be replicated, the dire predictions of the “Inconvenient Truth” crowd will either come to pass or not. As it all unfolds, the key is to watch the rhetoric. If it becomes more apparent that CO2 isn’t frying the earth, the term “global warming” will give way to “climate change” (this is already happening), and eventually the term “global cooling” will be resurrected from the dustbin of the 1970’s.
In 1969, when Neil Armstrong walked on the moon and pictures of an obviously round earth were sent back, membership in the Flat Earth Society plummeted. But there were still a few die-hards that insisted that it was all just an optical illusion. The causes of global warming will never be that obvious, but if CO2 levels continue to rise while natural climate cycles take global temperatures downward, be ready for a new explanation as to why corporations, technology and the West are to blame.
“C’mon Bo every one has to make a living even down and out politicial nobody.”
Oh I know. And I don’t blame them for using captitalism to further their agenda. They have a right to. Though we sit here and make jokes about all of the fanciful rhetoric these fanatics use I think there will be some good come out of it. Stuff such as cleaner cars and more consciencous us of goods in our day to day lives, better energy consumption and what not. Where their rhetoric crosses the line is when you could be criminally punished for watering your yard to much of business is negatively stifled by overcompensating laws. The thing is, I think, with the way these fanatics are presenting their argument there is a fear that they will go overboard. One day it banning smoking outside, next you have trans fats banned, after that you can’t walk across the street with your ipod, next you can’t water your lawn with out a permit and you can only flush 3 times a day.
“My stepdaughter told me that the professor in one of her art courses showed “An Inconvenient Truth” during class. I told her she should tell him that his class is an appropriate venue for such a film, since it obviously isn’t science.”
I about died laughing when I read that.
Add Israeli astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shariv to the growing list of “deniers.” I wonder if the Bush Administration is paying him off in U.S. dollars or Israeli shekels:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0
This article is particularly interesting, because it includes links to a ten-part series on the denier movement. I don’t have the time to read the linked articles at the moment, but I’ll try to make the time this weekend.
I agree with Bo that cleaning up the environment and energy conversation is a good thing. But using junk science to justify an anti-capitalist, anti-technology and anti-West agenda is not.
For those on the Left who want to decrease the planet’s CO2 level, I offer this advice: Hold your breath!
–There are anti-corporate, anti-technology, and anti-West aspects that drive what I’ll call the “Inconvenient Truth” crowd (i.e. adherents to anthropogenic global warming).–
I don’t know about the anti-corp or anti-tech but there is a definet anti-west going on and Bo says it in the his post.
–Oh I know. And I don’t blame them for using captitalism to further their agenda. They have a right to–
It’s run away capitalism that is causing so much of all the problems. Nothing is sacred making a buck is all that counts.
Global warming is just like the asbestos and black mold scams. Just another way for lawyers and capitalist to make more money.
I think I said before but again, the only real solution to polution, be it global warming, or any number of other problems is a reduction in the human population. No one will touch that. So the bandaids will fly.
I noticed on the news tonight that New York is expearianing record snowfall. More proof positive of global warming.
Back in 1998, over 17,000 scientists signed a petition urging that we not sign the Kyoto Accord:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060515064839/http://sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html
So tell us, Mr. Gore: Did the as yet nonexistent Bush Administration pay these scientists off, too?
(Please note that this press release is no longer posted at sepp.org. I had to get it from a archive.org snapshot taken in May 2006. I wonder why they took it down.)
Another question for the “Inconvenient Truth” crowd: Why is eastern Antarctica getting colder?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece
And a question for Al Gore: Are Edward Wegman, Richard Tol, Christopher Landsea, Duncan Wingham, Richard Lindzen, Henrik Svensmark, Nigel Weiss, William Feldman, and Nir Shariv all on the take from the Bush Administration? Was Frans Nieuwstadt (now deceased)?
Here’s another list of global warming skeptics (some mentioned before – some new):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_skeptic
All on the take, Mr. Gore?
One thing I just realized after re-reading this thing in regards to “some in the scientific community to strip anthropogenic global warming heretics of their professional titles.”
Would it be fair to say that in this situation we have proponents of and ideal wanting to remove the authority and credentials of those that disagree with them? Aren’t similar things going on in Venezuala and Iran? Didn’t a similar thing happen in Germany back in the 1930s?
This is a deadly serious game that’s being played out among scientists and politicians. Unfortunately, truth is not the overriding factor.
Non-scientist types like Al Gore have staked their political (and cinematic) careers on the anthropogenic position. This is the basis of his “over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous it is.” If it turns out that we’re only partially to blame for global warming, Gore’s message isn’t nearly as powerful.
For scientists, the stakes are even higher. The life blood of the scientific community is reserach funding. There’s a whole army of scientists that have based their careers on proving that global warming is caused by human activity. The greater the correlation between the two, the greater the fear factor, and the ultimately the greater the motivation to fund research to stop it. If global warming is beyond our control, it would be like trying to convince people to fund research on gravity.
A great example of this is the Danish atmospheric scientist Henrik Svensmark. Ten years ago, he theorized that there’s a relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation that correlates to global warming. Because it’s not a very sexy theory, it took him until 2005 to get enough funding to prove his theory. And prove it he did, with a research paper published last November.
For those scientists whose livelihood depends on perpetuating the anthropogenic position, this could be a death knell to their funding. No wonder they want to silence, or at least marginalize, scientists like Svensmark.
Just the other day, I thought of the Prayer of Serenity and how it applies to this debate. “Lord, grant me the serenity to accept what I cannot change, courage to change what I can, and wisdom to know the difference.” I suspect global warming is caused by both natural and man-made factors. Knowing the proportions is the wisdom we need to react properly. But that will never happen if one side is shut out of the debate.