Hope climate change deniers are right


Recently scientists for the first time recorded a CO2 level of 400 parts per million at Mauna Loa observatory in Hawaii. The last time the level was this high was millions of years before modern humans existed.

Antarctic ice core records show a clear correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures for the last 800,000 years. The ocean is absorbing about half of the CO2 we put into the atmosphere, creating an increasingly stronger solution of carbonic acid.

Compared with oceans in preindustrial times the acidity has increased by 30 percent, with serious consequences for many types of sea life. Glaciers are retreating, sea ice is disappearing and sea levels are rising. Rising temperatures will adversely affect crop production, river levels, drinking water, and health.

The much relied on or much derided “hockey stick” graph (showing CO2 levels and temperatures sharply rising side by side from the start of the industrial revolution) shows me that our release of gazillions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere has increased global temperatures.

I’m not a scientist, but then neither are the strident climate-change deniers gracing these pages. One such person equates the number of books he owns with proof his stand is the correct one.

The Inquisition had hundreds of books with which to bludgeon Galileo on his heliocentric theory. Still, the Earth does in fact revolve around the sun.

Actually, I hope the climate change deniers are correct and the dystopian world many see as the planet’s future will not come to pass. However, a majority of climate scientists believe this is simply wishful thinking and we can’t go on with business as usual.

Norm Osterman

Walla Walla



fatherof5 says...

This is very well written, Mr. Osterman. Here is [a link to a Washington Post article][1] describing a recent Yale "meta" study showing what we already knew, which is that 97% of published scientific articles that take a position argue that human activity is causing our climate to warm.

The point of the study is not so much that 97% of climate scientists are in agreement. Rather, it is that half of Americans believe there is a 50/50 dispute within the scientific community. Yes, there are questions about how bad it might get and what should be done about it, but there is virtually no credible dissention on the primary assertion that global warming is happening and we are the primary cause.

[1]: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/w...

Posted 18 May 2013, 10:52 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

The Yale study noted that some 66% of the climate change studies included in the meta-analysis took no position on AGW. The meta-analyzers assumed those who took no position on AGW did so because they accepted AGW and didn't see any point in asserting a position. That assumption demonstrates a huge bias on the part of the meta-analysts. It could just as easily be concluded that those who took no position did so because they preferred not to arouse controversy about their work by any non-conformity of their AGW views.

Basically, about 33% of the studies reviewed supported AGW, very few openly opposed it, and 65% or so chose not to engage. Your bias is going to decide why those scientists chose not to engage, and what side they might have taken if they felt free to express an opinion without fear of penalty.

Posted 19 May 2013, 4:33 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

PearlY, the article I cited specifically said the 66% of climate related articles that took no position on human impact did so because that wasn't the main focus of their articles.

So the Yale "meta-analyzers" only used studies that DID take a position, one way or the other. Of those studies that did take a position, 97% supported global warming as being caused primarily by man, while just 3% dissented.

That's a pretty overwhelming consensus from the scientific community. Namvet and others can cite the authors of the 3% all they want, but it doesn't change the larger picture.

Posted 23 May 2013, 5:04 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

You can quote all the computer generated scientific studies you would like but I will stick with on the ground studies that are actual in facts compared to what you drum up on a computer. Thank you very much for your concern about what I believe but I spend my own money and get tired of supporting every Tom, Dick & Harry's philosophies.

Posted 23 May 2013, 5:51 p.m. Suggest removal

PearlY says...

fatherof5, the meta-analyzers "used" all of the studies in their meta-analysis. They simply CONCLUDED that those studies that took no position on AGW did so because it was not the main focus of the study. Notably, they didn't screen out those studies which did take a stand on AGW whose main focus was something other than AGW. Had they been screening for "focus" they would have had to do so.

They could have chosen to screen out of their meta-analysis any study that did not take a position on AGW, or any study the main focus of which was something other than the validity of AGW, but they didn't. Instead, they chose a methodology that included those studies and then corrupted it when they relied on the volunteer raters to speculate on the motives of those who didn't take a position.

Look, I have no idea whether the theory of AGW is valid or not, and I'm simply not willing to devote five years of my life to figuring it out, which is probably what it would take (I'm a fast learner). What I DO understand is the motives of Al Gore and his like (notice how nice I am: I didn't say "his ilk"), and also that the scientific community has failed to repudiate him, which scientists with integrity and confident in their science would do. That tells me they are corrupt. I DO understand the corrupt political and economic motives of the United Nations, and I consider the findings that they put forth to be worth less than the bandwidth they eat up.

I also know that scientific truth is not decided by majority vote and have never been impressed by "meta-analyses" that pretend otherwise. Meta-analysis is a gimmicky academic exercise to bamboozle dissertation committees and a substitute for real science, not a contributor to it.

None of that proves that AGW is wrong, it just makes me comfortable being a skeptic about it, especially since I'm already a very low CO2 emitter for reasons of frugality, anyway, and wouldn't change my own lifestyle much even if I did believe in it. (Unlike Al Gore, who certainly LIVES like he doesn't believe in it, whatever he SAYS.)

Unlike you, I didn't drop five kids on the world ;-), so I'm way ahead of you on the conservation path. (Thanks, by the way. I'm counting on one of them or of their kids to take care of me in my nursing home someday. Granted I'll have to pay them, but at least I won't have to change my own diaper.)

Posted 23 May 2013, 8:24 p.m. Suggest removal

fatherof5 says...

Well, here's the abstract of the study, so people can judge for themselves what it says:

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research

Posted 23 May 2013, 10:42 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I have started reading some books written by Ian Rutherford Plimer, who is an Australian geologist. He is alwo a professor emeritus of earth sciences, professor of mining geology and director of miltiple mineral exploration and mining companies. He has published 130 scientific papers, 6 books and edited the Encyclopedia of Geology. Appearing to be a very good read for Global warming or Climate change advocates and put your mind at rest.

Posted 19 May 2013, 2:55 p.m. Suggest removal

blue_streak says...

from the Wikipedia entry on Mr. Plimer:

Volcanoes and CO2 [edit]
Plimer has long argued[29] that volcanic eruptions release more carbon dioxide (CO2) than human activity; in particular that submarine volcanoes[30] emit huge amounts of CO2 and that the influence of the gases from these volcanoes on the Earth's climate is drastically underrepresented in climate models.[31]

The United States Geological Survey has calculated that human emissions of CO2 are about 130 times larger than volcanic emissions, including submarine emissions.[32][33][34] The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) stated that Plimer's claim "has no factual basis."[35]

This was confirmed in a 2011 survey published in the Eos journal of the American Geophysical Union, which found that anthropogenic emissions of CO2 are 135 times larger than those from all volcanoes on Earth.[36]

Enjoy your reading, namvet, just don't take it too seriously.

Posted 22 May 2013, 4:21 p.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

I take everything with a grain of salt but when you use the EPA for a reference you lose me. The EPA is the biggest bumbling agency and follows the whims of money and ideology with no consideration of actual facts that would stand in there way.

Posted 23 May 2013, 6:11 a.m. Suggest removal

Iopine says...

New_guy - after doing some background on your other 2 references I will decline to take your advice on the basis you think that government knows all. I believe that retracted government and allowing private enterprise to thrive is the benefactor for America to prosper and survive.

Posted 23 May 2013, 10:11 a.m. Suggest removal

Log in to comment