“Global Warming” or “Climate Change”?
April 5th, 2007 | by Curious Texan |Back on December 3 of last year, I stuck my neck out. In a post entitled, “False Prophecy?” I made the following prediction:
If the term “climate change” continues its ascendency to the exlusion of “global warming,” we can assume that the “experts” are hedging their bets.
Never in my wildest dreams did I think that barely four months later, our local “expert” on the subject would be advocating for this very same change in terminology (albeit for very different reasons). Here’s his latest post:
http://panhandletruthsquad.blogspot.com/2007/04/its-also-getting-cold-in-herre.html
As you consider Spacedark’s arguments, pay very close attention to two things: 1) the condescending attitude (”And, once again, we’ll have to patiently try to explain science to the willfully misunderstanding.”); and 2) the totally one-sided method for explaining that science. Check out the first “fact” listed in the site he links to:
FACT: There is no debate among scientists about the basic facts of global warming.
Well, I guess that settles it.
Except for one very ”inconvenient truth”: Science is not governed by consensus, but rather by evidence. In the 1910’s and 1920’s, the consensus among scientists was in favor of eugenics, but you’d be hard pressed to find a serious scientist today that would adhere to that position. (For an interesting comparison between these two movements, see this 1995 article by Richard S. Lindzen, Professor of Meteorology at MIT.)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/180_Eugenics.pdf
Spacedark’s “fact sheet” appears to be somewhat dated, because it goes on to say that “[s]cientists have considered and ruled out other, natural explanations such as sunlight, volcanic eruptions and cosmic rays. (IPCC 2001).” In 2001, the IPCC obviously couldn’t have ”ruled out” the findings of Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark (published in November 2006) showing how the complex relationship between cosmic rays and cloud formation affects atmospheric temperature. Once again, more pesky evidence.
Do I believe that climate change is happening? Absolutely. That’s what climate does. Do I believe, as Spacedark’s friend from Greenpeace predicted, that “adding energy to the system wouldn’t just make it get hotter and hotter. Instead, it would get wilder and weirder” ? I suppose that’s plausible.
But both of these questions miss the larger issue: What’s causing the climate to change? How is energy being added to the system?
Far from being “willfully misunderstanding,” I’m trying hard to understand all sides of a very complex issue, not just quoting from a single catechism of global warming dogma. If you’re new to this site, you might want to read my earlier posts on global warming:
http://www.ivorydome.us/category/global-warming/
All I ask is that you consider the evidence with an open mind.
When the evidence for “global warming” appears to be changing (and I personally think a few snowstorms in April don’t prove anything), the answer is not to simply call it something else, alter the prediction to fit the new evidence, and continue to stubbornly blame it on the same human activity that’s increasing rather than decreasing.
Some day, we may look back on this debate with as much nostalgia as the epicircles of the geocentric universe theory.
16 Responses to ““Global Warming” or “Climate Change”?”
By Curious Texan on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
Here’s another post on global warming by Bodacious:
http://www.ivorydome.us/2006/05/25/multiple-choice/
By Bodacious on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark must have been paid off by the Bush administration or is in the pocket of large corporations.
Funny how they are complaining that it is snowing in April when just 2 years ago it snowed in May.
Personally I think the reason the left is so hell bent on blaming “climatge change” on humans is so they can make the gullible feel guilty and make them more susceptable to accepting the left’s controls. I say that because if you look at SD’s post notice how anyone who disagrees with him is “willfully misunderstanding.” Then you have others wanting meterologists stripped of their credentials if they don’t agree with them. Then, as I joked above, if a scientist doesn’t agree they are in the pocket of the Bush adminstration or corporations. So we have opponents demonized and extreme fear mongering to get people to change their ways.
Like I said before, I think a lot of good can come from awareness, man made or not, and I do like learning about what I can do to better the environment and whatnot. However, there is a thin line between making people aware and forcing them into submission for a leftists agenda.
I think the funniest thing about this whole debate is that no matter what happens with the weather it is global warming’s fault. Hurricanes in 2005, global warming did it. No big hurricanes, or any that caused to much damage for that matter, in 2006, global warming did it. Snow in april, global warming. Close to 80 in april, global warming.
No wait, the funniest thing is those carbon credits. Talk about the biggest scam ever. I ought to sell carbon credits. heh.
By Curious Texan on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
Funny how they are complaining that it is snowing in April when just 2 years ago it snowed in May.
Funny you should mention that, Bo. Here’s a contemporaneous PTS post on that very topic. Be sure and read the comments - they’re choice:
http://panhandletruthsquad.blogspot.com/2005/05/spring-in-panhandle.html
The more things change, the more they stay the same! I guess global cooling still wasn’t enough of a problem for Spacedark back in 2005 to suggest changing the name, though.
One more change since 2005: Nobody over at PTS has been urging me to join the Democratic Party lately. That was “B.B.C.” (Before Bodacious and Celtictexan). My politics haven’t changed much since then; I guess it must be guilt by association.
By Curious Texan on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
Personally I think the reason the left is so hell bent on blaming “climate change” on humans is so they can make the gullible feel guilty and make them more susceptable to accepting the left’s controls.
Ah, there’s the rub. If you haven’t read Dr. Lindzen’s article yet, I highly recommend it. Social engineering and the nexus between science, advocacy, and politics is nothing new.
As you read the article, bear in mind that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a staunch supporter of eugenics. Her rationale for birth control and abortion was to eliminate the feeblemindedness of the inferior races. And as Dr. Lindzen points out, eugenics was the scientific consensus in the first couple of decades of the last century.
Today, global warming advocates are engaged in a different type of social engineering. By exempting developing countries like China and Japan from the economic strait jacket of Kyoto, the purpose is the level the political playing field (”From each according to his wealth, to each according to his needs.”). It didn’t work under Communism last century, and it won’t work now.
By Curious Texan on Apr 6, 2007 | Reply
No wait, the funniest thing is those carbon credits. Talk about the biggest scam ever. I ought to sell carbon credits. heh.
That’s my favorite, too. Using the religious analogy (which fits very nicely), it’s like the church’s selling of indulgences to get into heaven quicker. Atonement from hypocrisy, as it were. Except in Al Gore’s case, it’s all about buying the indulgences from yourself!
Like I said before, I think a lot of good can come from awareness, man made or not, and I do like learning about what I can do to better the environment and whatnot.
I agree. But the difference between us and the holier-than-thou global warmists is that we don’t wear it on our sleeves and beat our chests. We just do what we can. Not out of fear, but out of a sense of responsibility and thrift.
Not to brag, but to make a point: I recently bought a car that does about 30 mpg in the city (I haven’t taken it out on the highway yet, except to and from downtown). I commute about 15 miles round trip (Monday through Friday), two or three times a week to church on Wednesdays and Sundays, an occasional summer trip to the opera in Santa Fe, (haven’t been in a couple of years) and that’s about it. If I want to go to Barnes and Noble from my home near the southern edge of Sleepy Hollow, I almost always walk. We turn out lights when we’re not in the room and keep the thermostat at about 78 degrees in the summer, in the sixties in the winter (lots of sweaters and sweatshirts). We don’t have any flourescent light bulbs (yet), but I’ll match my carbon footprint against anyone’s (with the possible exception of Ed Begley, Jr.).
I wonder how many carbon credits you have to buy to assuage your guilt for commuting “about an hour one way,” Monday through Friday, nine months out of the year?
Not judgin’, just askin’.
By Curious Texan on Apr 7, 2007 | Reply
Here’s a funny juxtaposition on this topic from Power Line:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017275.php
By celtictexan on Apr 7, 2007 | Reply
It’s funny that you mention eugenics in your post on climatic changes. In honesty it would be hard for me to deny the impact of the immense human population of the big blue marble. If not on global warming then certainly on a million other things such as the impending global extinction of who knows how many living things other than humans and their animal food sources.
It will probably be of no surprise to you to know that I am well aware of the fact that there are many credible scientist that support eugenics for the same reasons of old, and feel the need for it, to be even more important today.
Their ability to communicate such ideas suffer from the same issues as any other politically incorrect ideas. To say anything along those lines would result in the immediate screams of bigot, racist, etc, and likely end in the loss of their jobs, credibility, ad nauseum.
But fact is, the earth can’t take the exponentially expanding human population much longer. If the earth and all it’s bio-diversity is to be saved, then the human population must be dramatically reduced. Eugenics provides the perfect way to both reduce and improve the human condition. Eugenics is nothing more than evolution sped up. The human population is going to be reduced of that we can all be assured. The question is how? Will it be through war, starvation and pestilence? Or will it be through controlled and humanitarian reductions.
Yeah, I know it will be through war and the worst. If we don’t take care of the problem Mother Nature will. But I can wish. http://www.eugenics.net/
By Curious Texan on Apr 8, 2007 | Reply
Celtictexan,
I found your post very thought provoking; so were the articles posted at eugenics.net (although so far I’ve only skimmed a few of them). There’s a whole lot there to ponder, so I won’t attempt an in-depth analysis. That being said, let me at least sketch out a few major themes. My ramblings are more stream-of-consciousness than a well-thought out argument, so bear with me.
Why has eugenics fallen into disfavor? It would seem that the eugenics is a little too reminiscent of the concept of a Master Race, and we all know how that ended up 62 years ago. I may be painting with too broad a brush, but the stigma is there nonetheless.
Are eugenicists as misguided as global warmists in their assumption we can engineer our way to a better environment? One of the articles at eugenics.net cites the practice of eugenics in China. I’ll admit that overpopulation was (and perhaps still is) an enormous problem in China. But the one-child policy has led to incredible distortions in Chinese demographics. Because of the cultural preference for males, there are far too many young men seeking far too few marriageable young women. By trying to solve one problem, they have only created new ones. Is it possible that overpopulation, like “climate change,” might be something to be adapted to, rather than be engineered out of existence? Is it even possible to engineer away either without creating new problems?
Is the whole concept of “quality of life” oversold? Are the lives of the disabled any less valuable because they’re not “normal” (whatever that means)? I’ve gained immeasurably from the courage and spirit of the disabled in ways that can’t be measured economically. Far from being a drain, these special people have lifted me up, even though others view them as a burden on society.
The interrelationship between evolution, eugenics, and the “right to choose” is one that might leave advocates in each group uncomfortable. This is really a half-baked thought at the moment. Its nucleus is in the fact that Planned Parenthood (an icon of the feminist movement) has its roots in eugenics (through Margaret Sanger). Yet I doubt that you (as an advocate for eugenics) would be comfortable with the likes of NOW and NARAL, and vice versa. Again, it’s a half-baked idea that needs more reflection.
I guess the bottom line to all this is that most people think of science as a pure, honest, objective and apolitical endeavor. But history shows that science has interacted (and continues to interact) with advocacy, politics, political correctness and religion in ways that are anything but objective.
P.S. Happy Easter!
By celtictexan on Apr 8, 2007 | Reply
Well that’s some pretty good ramblings and I in truth would have to agree with most of what you said, which is why at the end of my post I noted that the earth will be the one most likely to deal with overpopulation.
I’ll try to answer some of what you said though.
First Eugenics never was in favor. Many people understand what could be but not enough to have ever been of practical use except perhaps as you noted Nazi Germany. But that lasted for far to short a time to have had any real impact. In truth a master race was the public goal. But I think in the back rooms a desire to ensure replacements for a decimated Military might have been at least a partial goal.
I suppose technology could stop the damage that the earth is suffering under the tremendous numbers of humans. But that would only work if the human population could at least be held constant. Technology can never catch up. Technological reduction of the amount of pollution, is offset by an increasing population dumping “more” of “less” into the environment for a total overall gain.
As far as China I couldn’t myself call that eugenics. That was simply population reduction. With Nazi Germany’s attempts at eugenics, the population was being grown. China as far as I know is still simply trying to reduce the population. They have corrected the original error of allowing people to abort the single child allowed if it was female.
As far as quality of life issues of the disabled are concerned certainly I would agree that in most cases their lives are of equal value. Who doesn’t get inspired watching Forest Gump? On the other hand, and realistically, who among the disabled would have chosen their life if they had been given a choice? I’ve gained from the stuggles of the last advantaged also. But I often question if my gains are legitimate.
I was forced at one time in the Navy to work for a 6 month period on the Navy Crisis Hot Line in Norfolk Va. I would leave there every day thinking how lucky I was compared to so many others, how my life could be so much worse. Because of the nature of the job we had to sit in group conseling each week. We were constantly warned not to feel that way. To give equal credance to our own troubles. But there was no way. I love Forest Gump but wouldn’t want to be him.
And your right science through eugenics, or any other discipline will never solve all such issues, but you and I both remember all the kids in braces from polio back in the 50 and early 60’s. Would you want to go back to that? Eugenics just as vaccinations really could solve many more such issues.
Science is pure. Laws of physics, space, time, the laws of God are immutable. But you are very right. Politics, and especially, these days, political correctness will at times distort or hide the truth of science/God.
Religion on the other hand, and this is definitely a subject for a whole “nother” discussion, probably has helped pure science way more than the occasional radical ever hurt it.
I broke down being so bored on this snowed in weekend, and went to PTS following you post and expressed my opinion on this subject, and a few other things over there. I feel like I have stepped in a really big pile barefooted. It’s good to come here and read and have reasoned debate with you and Bo.
By Curious Texan on Apr 9, 2007 | Reply
Correction: In comment 4, I stated that developing countries like China and Japan are exempt from Kyoto. Obviously, Japan is not a developing country; I meant Indai.
Here’s a very understandable article about Henrik Svensmark’s research:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml
I’ve got much more to say, especially about celtictexan’s latest comment, but no time to say it. I’ll try to post my comments during lunch today (work load permitting, of course).
By Curious Texan on Apr 9, 2007 | Reply
Celtictexan,
I read your latest comments both here and over at PTS, and offer the following observations:
Eugenics was never in favor.
Please take a closer look at the Lindzen article I linked to in my original post, starting at page 6.
It’s good to come here and read and have reasoned debate with you and Bo.
I can’t speak for Bo, but if you were to call us morons and imply that we engage in fallatio and child molestation, I doubt if I’d engage you in reasoned debate either.
It’s doubtful at this point that anyone at PTS would take either you, me, or Bo seriously, but to begin your comments with argumentum ad hominem guarantees that they won’t. I don’t get the point. Were you trying to set up a self-fulfilling prophecy (piss them off at the get-go and they’ll show everyone how closed minded they are)?
The irony of it all is that by stating that population control is the only way to affect climate change, in essence you seem to be agreeing with them that global warming is caused by human activity. Am I missing something here? Do you think it’s primarily anthropogenic or primarily cyclical?
Another irony is that in the past, overpopulation has been framed in the same kind of doomsday rhetoric as global warming. As I mentioned in an earlier post, Paul Ehrlich, in the preface of his book “The Population Bomb” (1968) predicted the following:
“In the 1970s the world will undergo famines - hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now.”
But is wasn’t (and isn’t) too late. People starved to death in the ’70’s, and that’s tragic, but in nowhere near the numbers that Ehrlich predicted. We adapted, just as we’ll adapt to global warming, global cooling, global unpredictability, climate change or any other label you want to put on it.
By Curious Texan on Apr 9, 2007 | Reply
Just a few closing observations:
What ever happened to the 6 to 8 inches of snow that was predicted for this weekend (or was it 4 to 7)? If science can’t even get it right over a 24- to 48-hour period, how can we believe predictions for the year 2035? I suppose that Spacedark would say that it’s the very unpredictability that proves that global warming (oops, I mean climate change) is happening.
If adding energy to the system increases weather extrremes, does the fact that we dodged the blizzard indicate that there’s less energy added to the system after all? Where’s the great consensus in the scientific community on all this? Or the evidence?
If we’re to believe Spacedark, “climate change” (f/k/a global warming) answers all the questions we might have. Which reminds me of something my sister-in-law’s philosophy professor once told her: “A statement that answers all questions actually answers no questions.”
By celtictexan on Apr 9, 2007 | Reply
Well as far as PTS is concerned, I had no illusions going in, of reasoned debate. I tried that for a long time at one point. There is no reasoned debate with a liberal. Liberalism is all about emotion. So yeah, I went in with the express intention of pissing them off. Looks like I did a good job of it. My point of reasoned debate here would better be described as a place where I can clean off that bare foot I referred to in my post.
I read from page 6 on and again, I still would have to say that support outside the scientific community was slight. Take into consideration what a real eugenics program would be. It would require near total control of, or willing participation in, the reproduction process of all people of a nation. Not just who might or might not be allowed to enter a country. Nor would isolated instances of sterilization in mental institutions count. Of course both of those things would be a part of a eugenics program. Nothing like that has happened.
Even in Germany only a small portion of the population was actually involved. The unfortunate fact is that the breeding of slaves prior to emancipation is the best example of eugenics I know of. The specifics involved in those breeding programs plague black communities till this day. With todays ability to look at each persons entire genetic make up and our increasing understanding of the purpose of each gene, eugenics could be easily and effectively applied. It could even be done in ethical, moral ways, much like the way many dating services use sike profiles. But again this is just debate. I don’t think it will ever really happen.
People starved to death in the ’70’s, and that’s tragic, but in nowhere near the numbers
You know I would just be guessing, but I would have to argue this also. It is impossible to say just how many have died from pure starvation since 1968. I would bet millions, and if you add in deaths from malnutrition it would not surprise me to see numbers near 100 million. I’m not sure if you military career took you to any third world countries, but I have.
I use to see children on the streets in the Philippines with blondish hair and big runny sores on their legs. Hundreds of kids like that. I was told the hair color was from lack of certain nutrients. I was told the sores were just mosquito bite that would heal quickly on us, but because of their weakened immune systems they were easily infected on these kids. I’ve seen kids there try to snatch food from my hand and then fall down and be unable to get up for a bit because of the physical effort involved in trying to get my food.
I’m sure you’ve heard about the orphans of Rio Brazil and the police death squads the frequently eradicate them. We are aware of tremendous starvation in places like N. Korea, again no numbers. These things have happened all through history I know. But today they seem to be increasing both in frequency and in numbers.
There are answers but all very difficult.
As far as human impact on all things environmental, including global warming, yeah there is no doubt in my mind at all. Get on google earth and take a look at China. See the huge plumes of who knows what spewing into the air. Look at studies of the Med. It is nothing but a sewer.
As far as normal cycles of temperature changes changes both long and short, both minor and extreme only fools would deny it, as is evidenced by PTS. When you can walk around a place like Amarillo and pick up fossilized palm trees and a host of other swamp dwelling lifeforms, and also find fossils of cold weather lifeforms then the answer is as obvious as the emotional lunacy at PTS. Only many hundreds if not thousands of years of record keeping are going to be able to say for sure. But one statement I can make right now that does answer all questions is this, “No one knows for sure right now.”
We adapted, just as we’ll adapt to global warming, global cooling, global unpredictability, climate change or any other label you want to put on it.
We’ve adapted up till the early 1900’s. Modern medicines have dramatically increased the human population. I just don’t think the earth can take much more. The only way enough food is being produced now is through huge amounts of chemical fertilizer being put on fields. Seeds have undergone their own version of eugenics and now produce more and are more resistant to disease and even insect infestation. One hiccup in either the chemical production or the genetically altered food stuffs and we could see starvation on a scale that would dwarf any that has come before.It kills me how the libs are so focused on global warming when the human impact in other ecological things are much more destructive.
Any way my only point has been to try to get people to see reality here. No amount of blaming waltzing with Gore and blaming Bush or the US or any other thing outside of the number of humans on this planet is going to solve any of the ecological disasters that are looming. That’s just MHO.
I did find one very good post at PTS in my short rant there. Blogarillo isn’t sophisticated enough to realize he actually posted a politically correct anti semitic (Jewish) cartoon. But that aside, it still was a good post. It being good is the reason I suppose that no one there had even commented on it till I did.
Watch Money as Debt.
http://www.itulip.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1139
By Bodacious on Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
Celtic, I don’t take kindly to you going over there and cussing up a storm. I won’t discourage you from doing that but I frown upon it. When you lower yourself to Clint’s level you lose all credibility.
As far as the discussion, it is amusing that when you reveal to them your opinion about “climate change” and agree with them that it is caused by man that all they can do is stand back and ask, “So you agree that man causes global warming?!?!?” Then cut straight to jokes. That is amusing because they are close mindinded enough to be surprised that we here at ivory dome can have differnt opinions than one another. Even though you agree with them they shun you because you align with us.
By celtictexan on Apr 11, 2007 | Reply
I think you know me well enough to know that I’m as reasoned and reasonable as the any. But go to your last comment and it’s easy to see why I went in there cussing.
No matter what I say no matter how much I agree with them on certain issues, it’s not 100%, so I’m scum. Going into PTS is kind of like going into Iraq. I/we shouldn’t have went in to start with. But I/we did so it’s best to go in with both barrels blazing.
Weakness would only generate more scorn. I remember once you made a comment about reading “Liberalism is a mental disorder”. PTS is a living billboard for the book. In all my expeariances V/T and R/T I’ve never met a more radical illogical bunch of hate freaks in my life. They are more like the Klan, than the Klan is. Only its themselves they hate, their own culture, their own country. Face it they deserve all that I said and more.
As far as the climate change thing I didn’t exactly agree as in 100% I just feel that so many people in the world has to be having an effect. But I know that it’s also part of a natural process. We all know that even Mars is warming right now. I don’t think our two rovers are responsible, they probably do.
Anyway it’s not my intention to anger or disappoint any one here. But face it they are traitorous scum. Their goal is destruction of western values. They don’t deserve respect of anykind.