Anthropogenic Global Warming

March 19th, 2007
Go to Comments Leave a comment

I don’t buy it. Here’s why.

First, a little about myself. I am 23 years old. I hold a bachelor’s degree (in Asian Studies) and intend to seek a higher degree in time. I am politically and philosophically a conservative. I am not a scientist. I am not qualified to give you authoritative scientific explanations. I am an internet geek, and self-recognized RSS addict. This means that I constantly read up on things, follow trends in the news, and analyze stuff all the time. (Yes, just like my liberal arts education taught me to do.) My sources tend to be conservative in nature, admittedly, but I think that this has to do with one of the problems I see in the current global warming hype. I’ll get to it later. I just want to get this information about me out in the open so you know who I am and what I am and you can rest assured I am not pretending to be something or someone I am not. It also gives you perspective on my perspectives, so that if you think I am incredibly biased, you have the relevant background information with which to categorize me.

Moving right along, I want to take the time to explain why I personally have a really difficult time believing in global warming. (And let me note, when I say global warming, I am referring to the current, trendy, all-over-the-media, first quarter 2007 style man-made global warming. Allow me to mark that, in case the profile changes again.) Science does not come to a consensus about anything. It demonstrates fact through verification, not anecdote, nor hunch, nor story, nor consensus. Science is not subject to a vote. It is or it isn’t true, and it double checks itself constantly. In this way it is self-correcting. Science can also make educated guesses – but guesses are never fact. Not until they have happened, or are thoroughly tested by other scientists. Man-made global warming is different. Man-made global warming is not science.

This is a big entry. Fair warning.

To me, there are obviously some anecdotal bits to consider, as well as more scientifically based bits. Anecdotal bits include things like this: If the dinosaurs died and the world went into an ice age (a few times over, actually), how did the thaw happen without mankind around to put loads of greenhouse gases into the air? Likewise, do you believe with almost certainty that the weatherman will be accurate for the whole week? If not, how on earth do you trust climate predictions for century long extensions into the future? Mars has melting polar ice caps, but we’re not around to cause warming there. What’s up? Normal seasonal changes on Mars? Could be. I dunno. But scientists aren’t certain either. There are many more that have echoed around in my head before I started to think seriously about global warming. In high school, I was taught that global warming is fact. It was in the textbook. Come to think of it, it was in the college textbook too. It’s only been recently that I’ve started turning it over in my head.

I will do my best to delineate some major influences on my disbelief in man-made global warming. First, Professor Brantley from Furman University taught a physics course I took called “Energy.” In it, he spent one part of one class speaking about global warming. I could not have more respect for him, and his opinion makes a lot of sense. In 2005 he said that most of the big theories out there leave out the single biggest factor in global warming – our solar system’s sun. Without the sun, there would be no warming. (Yes, no life either, I’m aware. Just stating an obvious fact for rhetorical reasons.) The sun naturally goes through shifts in its energy output, and these shifts have a huge impact on the global climate here. For him, the question was not whether or not the global climate was heating up. The question was “what is causing it?” Similarly, I am not saying that I disbelieve the warming trend in the very recent period. I just do not think we have enough data to blame the changes on ourselves. I feel like that picture is incomplete.

Michael Crichton, the author of a bunch of great novels, is also a big influence. I took the time to read through some of his speeches, and I must tell you, they are really well put together. Don’t dismiss him because he is a science fiction author. He is very well educated. He graduated from Harvard College with summa cum laude honors, then picked up his MD from Harvard Medical School. He has also taught at Cambridge and MIT. He is not a moron. Far from it, he is a really sound thinker, though I disagree with him on some policy ideas and other issues. However, on global warming, he really caught my attention. If you have some time on your hands, I very highly recommend that you read some of his thoughts on the subject. I’ll try to link to the relevant speeches, but it will take a few paragraphs – please be patient. (By the way, I reproduce a few sentences from the speeches here and I currently do not have express permission to do so. Should I receive an email about this, I’ll gladly take them down. However, I want to note that I emailed the appropriate department responsible for granting express permission almost two weeks ago and have yet to receive a response.)

In his speech entitled Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century, Crichton talks about the fuzzy numbers involved in reporting the Chernobyl accident (with a huge margin of error), the commonplace overdramatic language used in environmental journalism, the Y2K catastrophe that wasn’t, the natural tendency of humans to decarbonize (a thought pitched out there by Jesse Ausubel of the Rockefeller Institute), the circle of “in” and “out” fad threats and treasures (that butter is good and bad for you, and so are electromagnetic fields, etc.), etc. He discusses Yellowstone National Park in a way that I have never come across before – and told a story about it which really struck me. He winds up bringing together these thoughts by talking about complexity – and what it means to information, reality, and our daily lives. He concludes by talking about the emphasis on natural disasters in the media today, and finishes with a really good quote. I highly suggest that you read the rest of the speech – the time is well worth it.

Violent, disruptive, chaotic activity is a constant feature of our globe. Is this the end of the world? No: this is the world. It’s time we knew it.
- Michael Crichton (Fear, Complexity, & Environmental Management in the 21st Century)

In a speech that Crichton made to the U.S. Congress in September of 2005, creatively called Testimony of Michael Crichton before the United States Senate, he discussed the politicization of scientific research. I personally think that this topic has a HUGE amount to do with the current debate over anthropogenic global warming, and I really feel that trying to understand how politics and science have overlapped since Margaret Thatcher’s campaign to stop reliance on coal and other sources of power in favor of nuclear energy is of great importance. Crichton urges the government to seek independent verification of results, to try and alleviate the flood of conflicting interests and build some professional scientific rigor into the system. (He does this in more than one speech, obviously. You’ll catch onto his favorite memes quickly if you do enough reading. Check out Science Policy in the 21st Century too, if you feel like it, but after the testimony.) Go read it when you have some time to kill.

Another speech by Crichton, called Our Environmental Future, talks about the fever pitch of the global cooling crowd and the population explosion crowd in the 1970s. He talks about the infamous Drake equation, of problematic sentences and proclamations in the press, and presents some wonderful evidence in the form of graphs and explanations of the available data. I found it really accessible and easy to understand, so it might be interesting to some of you who might have questions. He makes one statement about consensus science that really resonates with me.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
- Michael Crichton (Our Environmental Future)”

Some of you may be aware that there is an analogy floating about, which compares the global warming crowd to religious fundamentalists. World leaders, online pundits, local newspapers, and others have picked up on the analogy. I am fairly sure that the first one to launch it was, again, Michael Crichton. He did so in his speech Environmentalism as Religion. It is an interesting theory, and would explain the hype in spite of proof. (I am not beating up on religious people. I am religious. But I understand that there is a huge difference between matters of faith and matters of scientific fact.)

Closely related to this speech is one of the top read speeches available, Crichton’s Aliens Cause Global Warming. That sounds ridiculous, and it should. But the speech makes a lot of sense. (No, it does not actually argue the title as a thesis. Sheesh, people.) Instead, it looks at the progression of SETI, the theory of Nuclear Winter, the similarity of the Drake equation and the Nuclear Winter suppositions, Carl Sagan and Paul Ehrlich’s influence on society as pop-scientists, the pellagra epidemic, the EPA and second hand smoke as a class A carcinogen, the inability to predict the future (of anything), and the concept of scientists as heretics. It is a really good piece, as are all the others I have listed. I hope this isn’t seen as an intimidating amount of homework – but the thing is, in order to make a decision for yourself, you really do need to do some digging.

What, then, can we say were the lessons of Nuclear Winter? I believe the lesson was that with a catchy name, a strong policy position and an aggressive media campaign, nobody will dare to criticize the science, and in short order, a terminally weak thesis will be established as fact. After that, any criticism becomes beside the point. The war is already over without a shot being fired.
-Michael Crichton (Aliens Cause Global Warming)
***
This is not the way science is done, it is the way products are sold.
- Michael Crichton (Aliens Cause Global Warming)

If you’re still skeptical of Crichton and want to make a call for yourself, please check out the video interview that he did with Charlie Rose. (Rose, in my opinion, comes off as looking really uninformed and incredibly superficial in his questions and comments at times…but that’s another story.) Also, try reading some of the critiques of his book State of Fear, which was a fictional presentation of his views on global warming. It’ll help balance things out, I think. You might also want to check out the transcript from an NPR Intelligence Squared debate in which Crichton took part. The motion he argued for won. ;-)

Other factors in my unbelief in anthropogenic global warming include my general dismay with the UN and its Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its serious issues with peer review, and the overall worldwide tendency to fund science that will prove a certain viewpoint. (That is not a good way to approach science. Especially with wads of money. It puts pressure on the scientists to deliver handcrafted results, which is not what science is intended to do.) I also recently got thinking about this topic when a Japanese coworker of mine waltzed in the door carrying Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth, based on the film (note that I did not call it a documentary) of the same name, and sat down to talk about how she agreed with him and liked him very much. I don’t honestly like Al Gore all that much, but I have no reason to dislike him. I just believe that he is quite plainly deceptive about climate change and global warming. When she proceeded to explain that between his film and The Day After Tomorrow, she has learned so much and is very worried about climate change, I suddenly understood that I could not argue her out of her position.

This is a big problem. I think that increasingly, the general population is learning more and more about the world through entertainment media, and the vast majority is inaccurate. I was upset that she took a politician’s word about climate change as truth, but when I discovered that she took a natural disaster drama from Hollywood for a “truthy” exploration of the future, I was basically appalled. Science and science fiction are different things. Sure, they draw inspiration from one another on thematic and technological levels, but not on facts of nature. That is usually left to the realm of fantasy. It bothers me that this pop-culturization of science has so many people waxing poetic on big ideas that they don’t know much about. (Don’t get me wrong, it bothers me to an equal degree when people “learn” U.S. war “history” from films like Pearl Harbor, Black Hawk Down, or Saving Private Ryan. It’s the same as trusting Wikipedia as an academic reference on history or politics. I don’t think so.)

Some of you might be thinking, um, but Gore’s film was incredibly accurate. I disagree with you on that point. There are others who would do the same. I believe that the film very skillfully shows data in a way that is interesting and which leads neatly to the preconceived conclusion. I think Al Gore has been but one of many people who have helped to increasingly politicize the science behind global warming. After all, he is a politician, first and foremost. He recently made the claim that the global news media is biased because they present some skeptic viewpoints. He called it “balance as bias.” Really. He did. Here’s the quote.

I believe that is one of the principal reasons why political leaders around the world have not yet taken action. There are many reasons, but one of the principal reasons in my view is more than half of the mainstream media have rejected the scientific consensus implicitly–and I say ‘rejected,’ perhaps it’s the wrong word. They have failed to report that it is the consensus and instead have chosen . . . balance as bias.

I don’t think that any of the editors or reporters responsible for one of these stories saying, ‘It may be real, it may not be real,’ is unethical. But I think they made the wrong choice, and I think the consequences are severe.

I think if it is important to look at the pressures that made it more likely than not that mainstream journalists in the United States would convey a wholly inaccurate conclusion about the most important moral, ethical, spiritual and political issue humankind has ever faced.

Does nothing strike you about that statement – other than the melodrama? Our side is right, and therefore talking about opposing viewpoints is biased? Um…no. Tell me that this is a scientific move, not a political one. He even mentions the involvement of political inclinations toward the end. Similarly, there is something very wrong when U.S. senators (like Senators John Rockefeller and Olympia Snowe) are writing to private companies (in this case, ExxonMobil, the oil company) to demand that they stop funding a campaign that casts doubt on global warming. The letter’s text goes further in explaining that there is political pressure supporting global warming. What kind of science is this? It is political. It is significant for policy change, and for governmental power. The government, in my opinion, should not be telling private corporations what to do with their money. In my opinion, the government doesn’t handle the money it takes via taxes from me particularly well, come to think of it, let alone a private corporation’s money. Politics.

I will briefly mention another problem with politicizing climate research. I mentioned at the beginning about how many of my sources (and opinions) are conservative in nature. Politically speaking, it appears that global warming has become a cause celebre for liberals in America. What I really detest is that due to this politicization, much of the conversation that should be going on is merely partisan flamewarring – and yes, I definitely mean that on both sides of the aisle. I feel that global warming has become a trendy thing to believe in, and that some people, in an attempt to adhere to their group and maintain their belongingness, have chosen sides as a matter of popularity. Please think what you think for a reason. Please. Otherwise we wind up being walking stereotypes that play directly into that hideous concept called Identity Politics. Don’t be the conservative or liberal who hates hippies or oil companies, respectively. Don’t make choices about global warming based on those prejudices, if you have them. Make your own mind up. Nothing ticks me off more than blind adherence to the party line. But I digress.

Another, more recent, influence on me was the BBC’s [EDIT: Channel 4's, pointed out by Suk in the comments.] airing of Martin Durkin’s The Great Global Warming Swindle. It was really worth watching. Others seem to have thought the same. It features some big name scientists who oppose the notion of a crisis in the form of anthropogenic global warming. They give very interesting comments. Here are two that I found particularly memorable.

The analogy I use is – say, my car’s not running very well. So I’m gonna ignore the engine (which is the sun), and I’m gonna ignore the transmission (which is the water vapor), and I’m gonna look at one nut on the right rear wheel (which is the human produced CO2). It’s that…the science is that bad.
- Professor of Climatology Tim Ball, University of Winnipeg

The Arctic has always been expanding and contracting … the press come here all the time and ask us: will you say something about the Greenhouse disaster? And I say: there is none.
- Dr. Shunichi Akasofu, Head of the International Arctic Research Centre

Interestingly enough, many of the scientists in this film follow the same line of thought as we came across before. If you follow the money, you understand that global warming research is inextricably linked with world politics. Again, a crude anecdotal example comes to mind. Why is the blame for global warming being squarely leveled at the United States, Britain, and then the rest of the industrialized nations in that order? If the CO2 output of the U.S. is so bad, why is China not subject to the Kyoto Protocol? (I was not in favor and am still not in favor of the Kyoto Protocol, but I wasn’t in favor of it even when I bought global warming hook, line, and sinker. I cite economic reasons, primarily.) China is set to pass the U.S.A. as the country with the world’s highest CO2 emissions in 2009. America is highly criticized for not joining the protocol (which participating countries have not successfully adopted), while China is exempt. That strikes me as political. I believe that global warming is fundamentally aimed at developed countries, regardless of developing countries’ contributions.

Recently, some scientists (not featured in that BBC [EDIT: Channel 4] piece) have started to come forward and say their piece if they don’t fully agree with the popular notion of anthropogenic global warming. Others remain timid to do so. Why? Well, it seems that people who disagree with global warming have their titles revoked or become the recipients of death threats. I suppose that would make me timid, too. I wish they’d come out sooner, louder, and persuasively, though. There is already legislation that directly impacts the everyday lives of citizens in England. It’s suspected that this will begin to happen in America as well. (As with most things, provided that this is not decided by the Federal Government, but by the State Governments via popular vote, rather than by an activist judge who decides it should be law, then I’m ok with it. I just pray that people are educated about it before they vote.)

One thing that really bothers me about the environmental movement, of which the global warming alarmism is but a single piece, is that it winds up causing major damage to developing nations. For instance, the organic pesticide DDT was banned in African countries after it was banned in the U.S. in 1972, for fear that it was a carcinogen. This fear stemmed from environmentalist books like Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring. Guess what? It isn’t a carcinogen. How many Africans didn’t need to die from insect-born diseases? Loads. I’m just saying that politically motivated environmentalism in developed nations winds up hurting third world countries a lot. Africa is being told that it must use expensive, luxurious ecofriendly technology (like solar panels and wind power) instead of using its own coal and oil. In short, sometimes things like the global warming movement can seriously impair developing countries’ ability to develop. (Why Africa and not China?) Let the work on the new power sources be done in America and other wealthy nations where we can afford to take that kind of hit. You know? Look, I’ve digressed again.

Some people have decided that the easiest way to assuage their guilt and help to fix global warming is to purchase carbon credits, or offsets. You can calculate your personal carbon impact on sites (including the site for An Inconvenient Truth) now, and head over to companies to purchase offsets, so that no change in your current lifestyle is required. This is called the “carbon neutral” lifestyle, nursed to its current state by Al Gore and friends. The practice of buying and selling carbon credits has existed among businesses for a long time, but with the introduction of public offsets, the proponents of global warming have created a sweet little business. It’s not without its critics, though. Some, like George Monbiot – who is an activist in favor of cutting carbon emissions, are comparing it to the sale of indulgences by the medieval church.

To bring this back to Japan, I thought I’d offer some interesting recent news bits. The blog Rising Sun of Nihon posted a series of related stories. First about the global warming fanfare in Tokyo, then about the sadness over the latest snowfall, and then again when it became apparent that the forecast for the cherry trees blossoming was off. Turns out that Japan has to wonder in the face of the weather too. Just like the rest of the world.

I’m more than willing to talk about this subject (obviously, haha), especially since it’s been lodged in my head for a while. Feel free to comment and tell me what you think, about whether or not you believe in anthropogenic global warming, and how you gauge the urgency surrounding it – as an issue or non-issue. I’d love to get a conversation going. Thanks for taking the time to read this. I hope it got you thinking. I hope I made sense.

The short version: I don’t believe in anthropogenic global warming, but I think it’s only smart to do what we can to take care of the environment.

  • Facebook
  • email
  • Technorati
  • Digg
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Google Bookmarks

Deas Customary Drivel, Politics, Unsolicited Commentary

Hit JapanSoc.com today for the best social news about Japan!
Loading...
  • I'm surprised that you dug through my archives to comment on this post. Must be important to you. Unfortunately, your counterpoint is slightly flawed. The consensus agrees with Einstein at present, but when he first pitched his theory of special relativity, I assure you that it was not the consensus. Insult me as a person if that makes you feel that your point is stronger. But I don't think that personal attacks prove your point. I suppose if you want to take an ultra-literal hard line then you can say that all science is consensus because we can never prove anything true - based on the idea that the next test's result is unknown - and therefore everyone merely agrees upon conjecture. If that's your stance, so be it, but my position remains the same. Anyway, thanks for the comment. Cheers.
  • Chris mankey
    There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.
    - Michael Crichton (Our Environmental Future)”

    Really? So the fact that reproducible results in science in produce scientific consensus isn't relevant? How does that work again? Does that mean Einstein was wrong because the consensus is that Einstein is right. Which of course comes not from mere consensus but the fact that relativity makes test able and reproducible predictions about nature. Just like the current “consensus” about global warming. Woe to our universities if you are a good example of what they produce!
  • Thanks for the comment, Badge. :-) I learned some valuable lessons upon making this post. 1) You're going to get all kinds of colorful comments when you post about something that is on peoples' minds. 2) Lack of evidence in either direction doesn't seem to stem the tide of polemics. What gives? 3) The politics of association seem to rule the roost when it comes to politicized science. This last one is a bit dangerous to me, because it circumvents the arguments being made by any slightly controversial person. My references to Crichton were just about universally scorned in the responses that I've gotten. People don't like him, and are therefore prone to dismiss his thoughts on just about anything in the nonfiction world. I am willing to bet that I'm still the only one who has read through all of his speeches. Too time consuming for people who aren't interested. (Oh yeah, Michael, I've not read Rising Sun, but I tend to be pretty darn harsh towards anything which misrepresents Japan-America relations. But I'm far more qualified to talk about that than I am about anthropogenic global warming. I think pseudo-research is the norm for Crichton's novels, though. They're fiction, not truth. I dunno. Expecting an author of fiction to accurately portray something like Japan-America relations is a bit, um, high-hoped. His speeches you might find to be slightly different. But that's another story.) I guess my problem is that I want people to address the issues, not the personas throwing them out there. I tried to talk about my misgivings with Al Gore's pseudoscience, not about Al Gore. You know? Just because I am not a huge fan of Gore doesn't mean that the man is wrong about things. So it's far more profitable to talk about the things he says and ideas he espouses than it is to engage in the classic guilt by association antics. Anyhoo, I think I'm done posting about global warming for a long, long time. My basic notion was confirmed - I am in the very small minority on this issue. Thanks again for the comments.
  • Badger
    I think it's important to note here that Deas did not say, "Global Warming is false, and here's why." What he said instead was, "I don't buy it, and here's why." In other words, he does not *believe* that Global Warming is more than a myth, unveiled to the public in a period of high political tension. He openly admits that he is not from a scientific mindset ("liberal arts" education, anyone?) and clearly states that, based on the evidence which *HE* has encountered, he does not buy into it - which is what any responsible "civilian scientist" could, and should, say.

    Personally, I've read evidence from both sides, and I do believe that Global Warming is a real problem, and will continue to spawn additional environmental concerns. However, I also continue to believe (largely due to the random 10-minute "interlude" during "An Inconvenient Truth," in which Mr. Gore indirectly comments - or perhaps "vents" - on his legal loss in the 2004 Presidential Election) that the recent attention to the current environmental crisis is largely politically motivated.

    [Let me put this out there, while I'm thinking about it ... I often vote along Democratic lines, while considering myself a political Moderate. However, I find it hard to buy into the praise heaped upon Mr. Gore as a "prophet" during the recent Democrat-controlled Congressional Hearing. The man does know what he's talking about, as this is indeed an issue that he has studied since high school! But, still ... COME ON. Democrats patting Democrats on the back is no more a "consensus" or an admission of the seriousness of a given issue than Republicans saluting Republicans. If, say, a Republican Senator respectfully commented on Mr. Gore's personal crusade against Global Warming - a la John McCain's recent expression of support for Gore's cause - then I could take that a bit more seriously. After all, crossing party lines often suggests that an issue, political or otherwise, is serious enough to bring divergent thinkers together, no?]

    One last comment: How in the world does anyone expect their side of the argument to be taken seriously when they take less than a minute to expose upon their own viewpoint before launching into blatant name-calling? This is not the fourth grade, folks. This is a discussion between adults - or, at the very least, between people with a vested interest in this particular topic - which can be handled responsibly and with some degree of patience. Making faces, pointing fingers, and spouting labels makes you sound like some uneducated moron at a zoo exhibit, rather than someone who feels compelled to make a legitimate point.

    [Yeah, I said "moron," but the context of its usage doesn't make me a hypocrite. Jackass.]

    On a closing note ... I'm sorry, Deas, but I haven't been able to take Michael Crichton seriously as a "scientifically valid source" since he wrote "Rising Sun" and convinced his readers that the Japanese hated America and had no business ethics, then backed it up with biased cultural pseudo-research. However, I know you personally, and I know that you're far too intelligent to read one man's take on this issue before arriving at a conclusion. (This is why I'm glad you cited a few other sources ... but still, have you read anything else that backs up your view? It would be good to see listed here. Not that I need to see it, myself, but it might help the argument a bit. The same goes for the other "side" as well.)
  • Suk, thanks very much for your comments. I value your opinion highly. If I get some time, I'll go back through the original entry itself and insert your corrections. I get my British Channels confused quite a bit, which is pretty unforgiveable. We have junk channels in the states as well. I was aware of the past projects by Durkin, but had never seen them for myself and was unaware of the influences there. I suppose I made the error to assume that the misrepresentation was lower due to the interview-style commentary by the scientists themselves. I guess the final meaning always gets put together in the editing room, though. Good points. Also, your links, and the information on Carl Wunsch were really interesting, and I am glad you contributed that. Thanks.

    To SSS - don't call me a pompous ass with a gift for expelling hot air in large volumes in a long comment when all you want to do is call me a pompous ass with a gift for expelling hot air in large volumes. Just jump to the chase. Also - if I don't believe in global warming because someone told me not to, why do you believe in it? And since when is it a dishonest thing to cite one's influences (however credible or ridiculous they may be)? Cheers.

    To "Michael Crichton" - you seem to have missed the point that I am not a scientist. I made that clear at the beginning. I'm just a young guy turning it over in my head. And my reliance on Michael Crichton's speeches was quite true - it's not a misrepresentation to say that he influenced me greatly. That doesn't mean that I am asking you to accept what he says as gospel truth because he's (in my opinion, and probably not yours) a smart man. It means I found his philosophy and his views about the politicization of science to be rather interesting. You might say I identified with them. No harm there. Just being honest. You can dislike him if you wish, but don't just throw his arguments out the window because you think he's not a person with enough credentials. Instead, do battle with his ideas. Also - this was not intended to be a persuasive essay. It was merely my attempt to put into words how I arrived at where I am. I assume that my thoughts are still shifting in the subject. I'm open to hearing other people's ideas.

    Both Suk and "Michael Crichton" have pointed out that I have relied rather heavily on pop-culture pseudo-science myself in my post. In retrospect, that's true. I guess I need to think about that. But I suppose that just takes me back to the issue that got me stirred up in the first place. I am really angry about the hysteria over anthropogenic global warming - and how people on either side wind up being cheerleaders in a popularity contest. I don't want to be one of them.

    It's interesting the kind of comments you get when you post your musings on something so touchy. Ha ha. :-)
  • Suk
    Hey, scanned your blog. Interesting topic, as I read it, quite a proportion of your article was closely related to the information shown on the Ch4(not BBC!, it makes a BIG difference in the quality of programming) The Great Global Warming Swindle. Even when I watched it my eyes rolled quite a few times at its outrageous editing and distortion of the truth, although I will admit it did raise a few points(well re-raise, I didnt actually see anything new in the programme just the agglomeration of numerous conspiraries I have read about in recent years)
    I recommend reading these http://news.independent.co.uk/...
    and this critique
    http://www.jri.org.uk/index.ph...
    http://www.realclimate.org/ind...

    Although it is important to be skeptical about common belief, it it also important to be skeptical of the skeptics. This programme was shocking. Just look at the producers past work

    http://www.gmwatch.org/profile...

    Heres the british MPs quote on the show
    http://www.davidmiliband.defra...

    Infact quite alot of the information was edited, a prime example was;

    Carl Wunsch controversy

    Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was "completely misrepresented" in the film and had been "totally misled" when he agreed to be interviewed.[9][3] He called the film "grossly distorted" and "as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[10] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[10], and to have lodged a complaint with OFCOM, the UK broadcast regulator. [11] Filmmaker Durkin responded, "Carl Wunsch was most certainly not 'duped' into appearing in the film, as is perfectly clear from our correspondence with him. Nor are his comments taken out of context. His interview, as used in the programme, perfectly accurately represents what he said."[10]

    In a letter written by Wunsch on March 15, 2007, he said that he believed in climate change and thought it "almost certainly has a major human-induced component". He goes on to say that he had thought he was contributing to a programme which sought to counterbalance "over-dramatisation and unwarranted extrapolation of scientific facts". He raised objections as to how his interview material was used:

    "In the part of The Great Climate Change Swindle where I am describing the fact that the ocean tends to expel carbon dioxide where it is warm, and to absorb it where it is cold, my intent was to explain that warming the ocean could be dangerous - because it is such a gigantic reservoir of carbon. By its placement in the film, it appears that I am saying that since carbon dioxide exists in the ocean in such large quantities, human influence must not be very important—diametrically opposite to the point I was making—which is that global warming is both real and threatening."[3]

    Anyhows enough of that. The show was pretty poor, typical channel 4 "documentary". Balances with the shoddy ways of Al Gores piece.

    Ok I go, have fun in Korea

    Suk
  • Michael Crichton
    Haha, just read the post above. Well although I don`t agree with the closing statement, I have to agree the piece really lacked any kind of substance. At the start you briefly mention other factors which may have led to global warming such as what you have learnt from the Physics module you took. What I find interesting is that you put this across as though the scientists haven`t studied this.
    There is infact several well documented theroeis on changing climate based upon Milankovic Cycles, solar changes, orbital changes, vegetation variations, albedo fluctuation, super volacoes etc etc. They aren't new, and they can explain how CO2 levels have changed before man. I don`t know how you can use this as an opening;
    "To me, there are obviously some anecdotal bits to consider, as well as more scientifically based bits. Anecdotal bits include things like this: If the dinosaurs died and the world went into an ice age (a few times over, actually), how did the thaw happen without mankind around to put loads of greenhouse gases into the air? Likewise, do you believe with almost certainty that the weatherman will be accurate for the whole week? If not, how on earth do you trust climate predictions for century long extensions into the future? Mars has melting polar ice caps, but we’re not around to cause warming there. What’s up? Normal seasonal changes on Mars? Could be. I dunno. But scientists aren’t certain either"
    My god....sceintist have studied this for numberous decades and there is so many theories around. A quick search on google, or even Wikipedia(which i know isnt a proper academic source but a helluva alot better then just random thoughts in your head) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C... acts a summary of the main points surrounding climate change BEFORE man. This is basic stuff learnt in high school geography.....I think scientists dedicating there lifes towards studies in climate change understand it.
    I have a lesson now, but if you wanted to dispute the science(lets not get into the political side as that is another can of worms and makes the subject far too complicated) then you could have mentioned numerous articles, scientific studies(not Critchton for gods sake! dont even try and justify that haha) which have looked into the holes in the climate change deate. Some interesting articles from a quick search on BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/sci...
    or even http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/646...
    The last being a something which is true, majority of peoples opinions are based loosely on films and the media.....but the basis of your entire piece seems to also be loosely based upon random scraps read on the internet. I recommend you get some proper scientific journals.(although honeslty, when you get science involved it may get a bit too complicated with the PROPER science jargon) Please see http://scholar.google.com/scho... as a starter. But reading proper journals rather then summations on the internet is the only way to go if you want to argue with any kind of substance and not alot of tripe.
    Ill try and write a proper response when I get time
    laters
  • SSS
    I'd like to start by saying that you have a real gift when it comes to expelling hot air in large volumes. You wrote a self-admitted BIG entry which seems to fail in addressing its initial thesis. You wrote that you "don't buy it [anthropogenic global warming]" and "Here's why" before going on to explain at great lengths that it is a politically charged issue. Well, I happen to agree with that point, and I think you found a very safe topic to blog about because not many people will disagree with that topic. However you never really got around to arguing your main idea, and never did state why you "don't buy it". Instead we are left to infer that the reason you disagree is because the current popular trend is to believe in this phenomenon as explicit fact. So you're a skeptic, congrats. To support your opinion you quote and reference extensively from a famous writer/producer with his own history of political activism and make the claim that we should all listen to him because he is an intelligent man. There are many intelligent men out there on both sides of just about every argument, hell there were extremely intelligent men arguing that the world was flat, but to form your own opinions about climatology, radiology, geology, and other scientific fields from a man with a Bachelor of Arts (even if it was with honors) and a medical degree with focuses in Biology who went on to become a famous maker of fiction seems a bit absurd. No, degrees and qualifications do not automatically escalate the value of a man's opinions, but they certainly help out. Any intelligent man is free to create opinions about any matter, but for others to parrot these opinions as supporting arguments without presentation of facts seems to fly in the face of those principles of science which you are so valiantly trying to preserve. Your only other source to support your (non-existent) claims is an entertainment medium (which you had just finished deriding) from which you chose two impressive quotes from men who actually ARE qualified to be referenced. The main problem with that is that if we dig a little deeper (which you recommend doing yourself, but seem loathe to do if it doesn't involve a convenient RSS feed) we find that neither of these men actually refute the fact that greenhouse gases released by humanity are increasing global temperatures, but instead disagree about the extent. So again you seem to be lacking any sort of factual evidence, or even reliable hearsay, to support your explicit claim of "I don't buy it", and your implicit goal of convincing others through the forum of this post would have been just as well served by announcing your love for Michael Crichton, your love for navigating news feeds, and your love for your own opinions.

    The short version: You don't believe in anthropogenic global warming because the sources you read told you not to and you're a pompous ass.
  • As you can see above, I've written a follow-up as a post on my own blog. Something I mentioned that is of direct relevance to you is the dirty air in Seoul. I hope the wind doesn't blow down from China during your visit!
  • Now that was a comment I could sink my teeth into. Thanks for your take. Sorry for the delay, but apparently your comment triggered the spam filter. Anyway, I'm off to Korea today. Thanks again for the input.

    I will say one thing: RobC, without knowing you or your background or credentials ( :-) ), I completely agree with you about the problem of arguing global warming's existence by pointing at a given side and naming corrupt scientists and officials. Doesn't prove anything about whether or not global warming is a threat or man-made. What bothers me is that the science is being hindered by all of the politics and corruption. (I suppose that's very much the same as many other problems, though.) I simply posit that the current anthropogenic global warming hysteria is much more of a political animal than a scientific one. And, it seems in the end, you've reached a similar conclusion to the one that I did. Given the present information, global warming doesn't appear to be the literal end of our civilization by a long shot. On the other hand, it makes every bit of sense to start working on better ways to take care of the environment now. I wonder sometimes if global warming to the media consumers out there isn't just the new fad version of the last decade's natural disaster films. Anyway, I hope we approach this thing with our brains engaged.
  • You've covered an awful lot of territory. I won't try to answer everything, but I'd like to focus more on the science and less on the politics. Actually, the science is clear. Unfortunately, a group of people who all seem to have the same political bent are spreading misinformation.

    Let's start with politics. You praised the Swindle film. Didn't you notice that the conspiracy part was just stated, and not supported? How do you or I or anyone know what Mrs. Thatcher wanted to do? Who says all the governments are bribing scientists to lie? How do we know that? Who says poor people in Africa have to use solar panels? Who has the power to make them? Kyoto expressly exempts developing countries from fossil-fuel limits. Why are we arguing the truth or falsity of global warming in terms of who's for it and who's against it and aren't those other people awful?

    More important, the film lied about the causes of global warming and about the arguments. As you so capably explained, greenhouse gases couldn't have raised temperatures before, since there weren't enough. So, plainly, it had to be solar activity. I haven't encountered a scientist who challenges that. So the film is lying about the other side's views.

    But it gets worse. The plot of solar activity they show is not solar activity at all. It is a heroic, and invalid, manipulation of solar-cycle length data. Did you notice that the narrator didn't tell you where the plot came from? What really happened was that solar activity peaked in 1980 and has gone down since 1990. Meanwhile, CO2 concentration is higher now than ever before; for more that 400,000 years it was always less than 300 ppm and now it's over 383. Most disturbing, it's headed upward with no end in sight.

    It's clear enough that greenhouse gases cause global warming: that is an inescapable fact of physics. Every year, artificial CO2 is being emitted equal to 1% of the total in the atmosphere, and the concentration is rising at the rate of about 1/2% per year.

    I think the confusion comes from making the subject both too simple and too complicated. People argue that there can only be one influence on temperature. It has to be solar activity and therefore it can't be greenhouse gases. Who made that rule? The record shows that three factors have influenced global temperature: solar activity, pollution, and greenhouse gases. At this point, with CO2 concentration being abnormally high and going higher, it is the dominant factor, more influential than solar activity or pollution.

    But we also make it too complicated. Instead of looking at the data, we argue about which side has dirtier conspirators and which scientists are more corrupt. We choose up sides, not because of the facts, but because of the consequences if one side or the other wins the debate.

    The actual information is clear and easy to find. I've assembled data from the most reliable sources I could find on a web page called Global Warming: A Guide for the Perplexed. If you take a look at it you'll see it's really not complicated. References are given for everything there so you don't have to accept it blindly.

    I want to make one last point. Absent new information, we can say that global warming won't be catastrophic (I explain this in the web page). Nonetheless, it can cause major damage. The cost of converting away from fossil fuels will be much less, plus there are other advantages to converting: environmental, economic, and national-security. But it's important to get going on this because 2 billion Asians are building their economies as fast as they can and--who knows--maybe other underdeveloped countries will get their acts together. This is the right time to start making the transition.
  • Hey Clay - thanks for your input. I think maybe I sensed some frustration at the length of this sucker. :-) I'd have made it shorter, but I wanted to explain how I got where I am about what I think. Not just present it. Hope it wasn't mind-numbing. I think you vastly, vastly overestimate humankind's impact on the carbon emissions of the planet as a whole. The 0.3% of the atmosphere that is made of carbon dioxide is small. Humans contribute 3.255% of the total carbon dioxide output, supposedly. Even if that's true, we're talking about a total of 0.009765% total human-caused carbon dioxide out there. (I'm not mathematically inclined, so feel free to spear my errors, guys. Won't hurt my feelings. But I think I did that correctly.) I just have trouble believing that this means it's our fault. I also like to think for myself, but I do so by analyzing what others say. I don't have the numbers and whatnot in my head at my disposal already, so I go to others for that information. I am just trying to learn who is and who isn't trustworthy. And just so you know, I'm not worked up about global dimming either. Maybe I'm just not a catastrophist. It all seems so reactionary. I don't know. My guess is that the earth will warm and it will also enter new ice ages, as it has for a long time. It's natural. It's not special. That's my thought. Ha ha. :-)
  • I wish your last line was your first.
    Here's the way I look at it, as a tribal radical: Venus is proof that the greenhouse effect happens to a planet with an unlucky atmosphere. The one factor we, as humans, can control in the equation is greenhouse gasses that we emit.
    Maybe there are a lot of politics involved , but I like to hedge my bets when it comes to this issue.
    I haven't seen Gore's film nor do I plan to because I like to think for myself.
    Oh, and a new problem is on the horizon. Global dimming. I think this planet may actually be on it's way to a new ice-age if that keeps up.
blog comments powered by Disqus