My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[InfiniteNow]

Originally Posted by SciAm Article

This quantity includes enough to supply all the electricity consumed by 344 million plug-in hybrid vehicles, which would displace their gasoline counterparts, key to reducing dependence on foreign oil and to mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. Some three million new domestic jobs—notably in manufacturing solar components—would be created, which is several times the number of U.S. jobs that would be lost in the then dwindling fossil-fuel industries.

The huge reduction in imported oil would lower trade balance payments by $300 billion a year, assuming a crude oil price of $60 a barrel (average prices were higher in 2007).

Originally Posted by InfiniteNow

Since the price per barrel of crude oil hit $114 last week, and all indicators suggest prices will continue on their climb, this will save more than just the environment, but a metric assload of money as well.

Well, today a barrel of sweet crude hit $120. This means that we've already doubled the conservative estimate of the article. This suggests to me that we can already lower trade balance payments by $600 billion per year. It's time to get this done, people.

[Little Bang]

We have 600 million years of data that shows a direct relationship between temperature rise and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[freeztar]

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

But the biggest bombshell here is this one: no matter what we do, global warming will not be reversed. It will go on for centuries, according to this report. The sea levels will continue to rise as polar ice caps melt. So I guess if Al Gore wins his Nobel Peace Prize, we'll still experience global warming. So much for riding to work everyday in your hybrid car...it's not doing a thing. The situation is futile, according to this report.

But really, it makes sense that the global warming crowd would come to this conclusion. After all, global warming is a religion. The anti-capitalist enviro-nazis don't ever want the problem to be solved. After all, if global warming were to be solved tomorrow, what would they blame the United States for? They'd have to find some other reason.

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems.

[Essay]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

"no matter what we do, ...the situation is futile...."

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems.

Take hope!
This reasoning is the last hurdle in the "belief/acceptance" scale.
[1.real? 2.serious? 3.certain? 4.responsible? 5.fixable?]

#5.) People will not really acknowledge a problem if they don't believe it is fixable.

Now, if we define fixable as restoration within our lifetime, then no, it's not completely fixable.

But if we can get the myopically inclined to view success as restoration within our grandchildren's time, then maybe there is still a shot.
But deferring certainty is not a strong suit in those so inclined.
There are some quicker alternatives, but it requires more global cooperation (and I think that is also a nono).

[REASON]

Originally Posted by freeztar

So, without being immediately labeled a liberal anti-capitalist democrat (or an enviro-nazi), I see no way of constructing a letter to appeal to this attitude. Debating science with this political advocate is seemingly, and practically, fruitless it seems.

The only way you will be able to win over boring Boortz will be to out bid his lobbyists.

This situation is very similar to what is happening with evolution and ID. The goal of the conservative radio "entertainers" with regard to climate change is to control belief. Their daily unsubstantiated assassinations of climate science has been fairly successful in this endeavor. They have managed to frame the issue as a political one, for which their people had better be on the "right" side.

These media hacks speak in simple, understandable terms that the average person can understand, while information contained in the IPCC report, for example, is way over most people's heads. They can't make sense of it. But they can surely relate to the emotional appeals made by sharp tongued debators with phone call kill switches like Boortz and his ilk.

Again, people of science are going to have to find better ways of communicating climate change information to counter these daily diatribes, and recognize the importance of garnering belief if we are to get people on board with changing their behavior, and our country on track toward clean, renewable, energy independence.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by REASON

These media hacks speak in simple, understandable terms that the average person can understand, while information contained in the IPCC report, for example, is way over most people's heads.

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate.

The Wall Street Journal published on 4/18 (in the editorial section- sorry no link) a credible view that 1) questions the nature of the recurring revisions to the same source data and 2) wonders about the real impact of a 0.5 degree increase in temperature (since we have been well above that before).

These are not "media hack" positions. Nor are they simplistic. It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate.

The Wall Street Journal published on 4/18 (in the editorial section- sorry no link) a credible view...

A "credible view" in the editorial section of a newspaper?
Was this contributor a climate scientist? I doubt it.

...that 1) questions the nature of the recurring revisions to the same source data

You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the IPCC?

and 2) wonders about the real impact of a 0.5 degree increase in temperature (since we have been well above that before).

This is one of the most common denialist arguments. The irony is that asking this question removes the denial.
Yes, the Earth has been both colder and warmer in the past. The point that people continually miss is that it's the *rate* of temperature increase that is alarming. All arrows point to anthropogenic emissions as the reason for this rapid increase.

It's also important to remember that when we talk about a 0.5 degree increase, it is a *global average*. The artic may stay cool while the tropics heat up several degrees, or vice versa.

These are not "media hack" positions.

Well, they're certainly not scientific positions.

Nor are they simplistic.

I'll have to disagree with you there.

It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

I agree.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

I am really disappointed when we air discussion in this fashion. There are legitimate discussion points on the "other side" of this debate...

...These are not "media hack" positions. Nor are they simplistic. It does not improve our discourse to characterize those who disagree as unintelligent.

Originally Posted by freeztar

I looked up some Boortz links and this one is...er...pertinent?

boortz.com: Nealz Nuze February 02, 2007

So are Neal Boortz's comments above an example of the "legitimate discussion points" you are referring to? Are they not simplistic? Do they not appeal to an emotional political response? Are they directed toward the intelligence of the listener?


Has his message, which parallels virtually every other conservative talk show "entertainer's" opinion on climate change, been effective in casting doubt upon legitimate climate science? Considering the higher percentage of Americans who reject climate science compared to other advanced nations I would say yes.


It is not me who is attacking the intelligence of the general population. I am pointing out an obvious tactic used by media hacks for the manipulation of public sentiment regarding climate science. I think it is important to remain realistic about the motivations of these unscientific "entertainers" by identifying them for what they are on this issue.....shills for the energy establishment.

If it is your desire to improve the level of the discourse on this subject than you should not be "disappointed" by my criticism of the type of discourse coming from the denialists, for which Neal Boortz has exemplified so well in his comments above.

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by freeztar

A "credible view" in the editorial section of a newspaper?
Was this contributor a climate scientist? I doubt it.

We are doing it again. He really can't be a climate scientist because he published in the WSJ. The article in the WSJ Op Ed was written by Patrick Michaels, professor of Environmental sciences at U o Virginia. Richard Lindzen (MIT) has also published in the WSJ.

Originally Posted by FT

You'll have to be more specific. Are you talking about the IPCC?

Yes. You will have to read the article if you want to critique it.

This is one of the most common denialist arguments.

And this tactic is one of the more common with the alarmists. Any argument in opposition is labeled "denialist". It is a handy way to avoid the opposing argument's fact basis.

Originally Posted by FT

Yes, the Earth has been both colder and warmer in the past. The point that people continually miss is that it's the *rate* of temperature increase that is alarming.

Only to some. No one has demonstrated that rate itself is a risk.

It's also important to remember that when we talk about a 0.5 degree increase, it is a *global average*. The artic may stay cool while the tropics heat up several degrees, or vice versa.

You mean like it is now?

[Essay]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

We are doing it again. He really can't be a climate scientist because he published in the WSJ. how does that follow?

On May 16, 2004, The Washington Post published an opinion piece in its Sunday "Outlook" section about The Day After Tomorrow -- the upcoming Hollywood film depicting a nightmare scenario in which global warming causes severe and sudden weather to ravage North America -- by Patrick J. Michaels, a staunch critic of global climate change theory....
Patrick J. Michaels is senior researcher in environmental studies at the Cato Institute; research professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia; author of two books on global warming, The Satanic Gases and Sound and Fury: The Science and Politics of Global Warming; and editor of World Climate Report, a biweekly newsletter on climate studies funded in large part by the coal industry. According to a 1998 article by Institute for Public Accuracy executive director Norman Solomon, the Cato Institute has received financial support from energy companies -- including Chevron Companies, Exxon Company, Shell Oil Company, and Tenneco Gas, as well as the American Petroleum Institute, Amoco Foundation, and Atlantic Richfield Foundation.

Media Matters - Pat Michaels: scientist, energy industry lackey, Washington Post contributor

...speaking of "doing it again...."
Just once it'd be nice to see someone deny climate change who wasn't already "on board" at Cato, Heartland, or Heritage... regardless of where they publish their work.

At least we know he's qualified to be a movie critic.

ohhhh; too sarcastic? Sorry....

William Gray is a climatologist who publishes in newspapers, etc.
Why not look into some of his work for evidence that things are overblown?