 Todd DormanTodd Dorman is a columnist for The Gazette. His blog has been bringing smiles to readers' faces since November 2007. |
|
Email the author
Curiosity, our climate and deciding who to believe
Sunday’s column delayed by technical difficulty
It’s tough to know who to believe.
On one hand, you’ve got 138 science faculty and research staff from 27 Iowa colleges and universities.
They signed on to a climate statement released just before Thanksgiving contending that our current drought is consistent with the type of weather we can expect in the wake of climate change. It was a moderate, reasonable statement, which took pains to not directly attribute the drought directly to climate change. It’s still very difficult to tie any particular weather event to a changing climate.
But as global temperatures warm, the authors say extremes like this will be more common. Dry years are dryer. Wet years will be wetter. They want Iowa’s elected leaders to consider the possible consequences of this as they shape public policy.
“What we’re trying to find out is how serious the problem will be,” said Neil Bernstein, professor of biology and chair of the Department of Natural and Applied Sciences at Mount Mercy University. He’s among the lead authors of the statement.
“It’s not a question of whether we have a problem. And it’s not a question of whether humans have caused the problem and are making the problem worse. The question is just how bad it will be for the Earth’s life support system,” Bernstein said.
“Certainly there’s lots of disagreement about particulars. And certainly there’s uncertainty about what’s going to happen in the future, how much we can attribute to certain changes,” said David Courard-Hauri, Chair, Environmental Science and Policy Program, Drake University, another lead author. “But that doesn’t mean there’s a lot of uncertainty about the fundamentals.”
Or you can side with a lawyer from Tampa.
James M. Taylor, a senior fellow at the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, responded to the Iowans‘ statement with an op-ed on these pages this past week. He dubbed them “alarmists,” and cited studies that argue “modest” warming will actually make droughts less likely. The earth is becoming a gardener’s greenhouse where extreme weather events decline and crops flourish. The lawyer from Tampa also criticized the letter-signers’ climate academic credentials.
The Heartland Institute is the think tank that made headlines earlier this year by launching a billboard campaign featuring huge photos of Ted “the Unabomber” Kaczynski, Charles Manson, Fidel Castro and Osama bin Laden, each saying “I still believe in global warming. Do you?” All heck broke loose and the campaign was canceled, although the institute was unrepentant.
The institute doesn’t disclose its donors, but the Washington Post reported last week that it received nearly $750,000 between 1998 and 2006 from Exxon Mobile and $25,000 last year from foundations affiliated with Koch Industries, which invests heavily in oil and energy.
The institute is now teaming up with the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC, to seek repeal of state laws requiring power companies to get some of their energy from renewable sources. Iowa is one of 29 states with such a law, which passed with bipartisan support.
So maybe the Heartland Institute is interested in science. Or maybe it’s a spin factory seeking to turn very thin evidence into hefty public doubt, demonize its critics and hobble promising energy industries, enriching the bottom lines of its corporate benefactors. Tough call.
Again, who do we believe? More importantly, who do our leaders believe?
This is an extremely complex, difficult issue that most politicians would rather avoid than tackle. Journalists, too. All I’m buying today is an inbox and comments section filled with invective.
And all I’m asking from Iowa’s leaders is to be a whole lot more curious, and maybe even a little courageous.
Climate change is real. It’s happening. We don’t know how severe it will be, or the depth of its regional impacts, but we do know that the possibility exists for some very bad outcomes. Science is diligently trying to figure this out, and uncertain doesn’t mean untrue. I’m sitting in a city that broke its flooding record by more than 10 feet in 2008 and is now preparing to cut water usage as a drought refuses to break. That makes me pretty curious about predictions for extreme weather.
Modest warming would be swell. But a new study released by the World Bank says severe warming is now becoming more likely. That’s consistent with a study commissioned by the CIA, which found that climate change is accelerating, with serious national security implications. And that’s consistent with the findings of the International Energy Agency, which says a five-year clock is now ticking on taking action to prevent the most severe effects.
I’m not calling for panic or drastic government action. But these are real and serious risks that should be taken seriously. We should consider constructive, conservative policies that can both lessen the damage and mitigate the impact. Maybe that’s alarmist. And maybe that’s what we owe our kids. Depends on who you believe.
-u20042.png?1366232523)
For me it’s not a matter of “deciding what to believe” ( this or anything else ) but rather looking at the evidence ( and continuing to look at evidence because the evidence sometime changes with further research ) and coming to a conclusion. (“Belief”, for me, implies taking a position without evidence but rather on faith or ideology.) The evidence for anthropological climate change is overwhelming, a mountain of evidence accumulated in thousands of scientific research papers presented in professional journals World-wide. To my knowledge 100% of professional scientific organizations whos members are involved in relevant research have taken that position and furthermore there are no peer reviewed scientific papers that claim otherwise. If there are, present them. I’m interested in evidence (not belief).
“The evidence for anthropological climate change is overwhelming, a mountain of evidence accumulated in thousands of scientific research papers presented in professional journals World-wide.”
Your mountain is actually a molehill Cedric. Have you examined any of that “evidence”? Your comments about 100% and peer reviews is totally inaccurate. An examination of all the information will tell you that there is a clear conflict in the scientific community:
- climate models have been faked
- evidence has been ignored
- geological data showing everything the greenies claim has happened before
- ice cores are pulled from the Earth as revelations of past climates BUT no one can explain to me where what the climate was in the years that ice melted.
Find me one example of a scientific study from 15 to 20 years ago that actually has predicted what would climates look like year in year out – doesn’t exist because the forecasts are hocus pocus.
There was a program on the pinko network (PBS) back in October about the “climate deniers” that focussed on the Heartland Institute.
(Here’s the website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/climate-of-doub.) Very interesting stuff. They’ve taken a page from big tobacco’s playbook: fund research that throws doubt on the science/scientists and fund primary challenges to politicians who are in favor of enacting changes to combat global warming. The Heartland Institute and its donors (anonymous, of course) are sophisticated and well-funded, and their campaign has been sucessful, which helps explain why the climate change issue was not more prominent in this year’s election.
The line I found interesting is this one. “The earth is becoming a gardener’s greenhouse where extreme weather events decline and crops flourish.” In a greenhouse they have windows on top to open to let out the excess heat. I look in the sky everyday and haven’t found the window to open to let out the excess heat.
Yes it is difficult to know who to believe. I start to buy into man-made global warming until someone ties it to weather “extemes”. When the heat of 2012 is mentioned as such an extreme, I have to balance that with climatologists blaming it on LaNina. LaNina is a massive area of cooler than normal surface water in the Pacific. This past LaNina was the most extreme cooling episode since the 1950′s.
When the drought of 2012 is called “extreme”, I think of tree ring experts telling about a 28 year Midwest drought in the 12th century. That’s extreme!
When another climatologist calculated the increase of “extreme” events in the last twenty years, I think of the scientists who took ice cores in Anartica and concluded that current weather is calm compared to the past 30,000 years.
Even here in Cedar Rapids where it flooded 10 feet higher than the last peak flood, we need to remember that a 100 year flood plain based on a blink in time is irresponseable and not proof of “extreme”.
If my post was taken in any way to imply that I claim recent weather extremes are related to climate change that was not intended. If there is any conclusive evidence of that I’m not aware of it — can’t say more. One thing that is a matter basic physics, storms are heat engines. The warmer the atmosphere and the oceans the more energy there is available. I know there is concern that if the arctic becomes ice-free in the summer the increased absorption of the Sun’s heat will alter the flow of the jet stream thereby altering weather patterns.
Here is a link to information on Arctic Sea ice:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Both Arctic sea ice and Antarctic land and sea ice:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html
I have been reading books by environmental scientist, Bill McKibbin and James Hansen (NASA) and they have been warning us about the changes that are happening now for years. If you look at statistics over the last 3 decades the average temperatures have risen and the storms, floods, droughts have increased in intensity. The amount of carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere is alarming and increasing as China becomes more like the US in their ability to buy cars and need more oil products. Pictures of the ice caps from NASA are proof enough for me that the earth is warming. As those white ice sheets melt and turn to darker water it absorbs more heat and continues to warm more and faster. All that extra water vapor evaporating into the atmosphere along with the warmer ocean temperatures causes the storms to be more extreme. I’m not a scientist, but I believe these experts in their field have no reason to be lying to us – like the fossil fuel industry does! They are the culprits of most of the carbon in our atmosphere and they continue to get govt subsidies when they are the wealthiest companies ever, in the world! We need to be subsidizing wind and solar energy companies.
“I have been reading books by environmental scientist, Bill McKibbin and James Hansen (NASA) and they have been warning us about the changes that are happening now for years. If you look at statistics over the last 3 decades the average temperatures have risen and the storms, floods, droughts have increased in intensity.”
Well Becky the Earth is billions of years old. Ice has covered the Earth more than once and melted. Hansen has no proof that 30 years of data represents anything than normal Earth history. If you go to the Goddard site an read the studies they are filled with contradictions and unsupported opinions not science. Their climate models ignore clouds, volcanic activity and understate the level of solar insolation and sun spot cycles because they don’t fit their opinions.
“The amount of carbon we are releasing into the atmosphere is alarming and increasing as China becomes more like the US in their ability to buy cars and need more oil products.”
Totally bogus. Volcanic activity is the largest contributor to carbon dioxide and water vapor from clouds is the largest and natural global warming gas.
“Pictures of the ice caps from NASA are proof enough for me that the earth is warming. As those white ice sheets melt and turn to darker water it absorbs more heat and continues to warm more and faster. All that extra water vapor evaporating into the atmosphere along with the warmer ocean temperatures causes the storms to be more extreme.”
All of that is perfectly normal – its all happened many times before. There is no sicentific evidence that it isn’t normal just conjecture and political opinions.
Expand your base and read some of the people who disagree with Hansen. Read the material with and open mind and you will find that Hansen has created a theory called a “forcing” function that has zero evidence and proof behind it.
“Volcanic activity is the largest contributor to carbon dioxide. . . ” False — volcanic activity ( except for a super volcano which we are fortunate we have none at present ) is a minor contributor. Water vapor is indeed the major heat trapping gas in the atmosphere ( Not just in clouds — clouds are simply where the air is cool enough to make the invisible water vapor visible in the form of tiny droplets ).
Volcanoes: http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html
and http://volcano.oregonstate.edu/education/gases/man.html
The planet is millions of years old. Humans have occupied it for somewhere in the neighborhood of 5,000 years. We have kept weather records for around 100 years. Earth has been far warmer than it is now, and it’s been far colder than it is now. CO2 levels have also been considerably higher than they are now. Yet, many claim that it is a fact (which it is not) that the weather patterns over the past 50 years are a cause of global warming, and the warming is caused by human activity.
If it’s too cold – Global warming
If it’s too hot – Global warming
If it’s too wet – Global warming
If it’s too dry – Global warming
If it’s just right – You can’t judge climate by one year.
Brad, you stopped to soon. The alarmists never tell about what benefits could occur from global warming or climate change or weather extreme. Sure, some aspects are negative but others are not.
Crop yields are increasing around the world.
We are told when a plant or animal species is in decline but what about those on the increase? Don’t hold your breath in between that news!
When glaciers melt, trees take their place.
More people die from cold exposure than heat exposure.
Is there no longer such a thing as a “cup half full”? Or am I just too optomistic for my own good?
In my 60 years of experience in the same area, the water has never been cleaner, there have never been more song birds (and many other animals such as deer and coyotes) than now. We’re not experiencing as many 100 degree days as before and pictures my Dad took decades ago show Indian Creek flooded way worse in the 30′s and 40′s than recently. Oops, there I go again talking positive. Shame on me!
Some facts you should all consider:
- Examine a serious study of hurricanes. You will find that all of the dangerous storms the alarmists talk about are no different than what has happened many times before. There is nothing unique here – simply compare your age and man’s knowledge of climate history to the Earth’s age which is in the billions.
- Ask the climate modelers to show you how their simulations compare with the geological history from the last ten thousand years. Not one of the models come even close to predicting what has actually happened.
- Ask the climate modelers to show you how they model volcanoes. We know from ancient history that volcanic activity has affected the climate. Not one climate model can predict the next Krakatoa or Vesuvious.
- Ask the climate modelers to show you a statistical regression of their results against actual weather patterns – they all fail miserably.
When climate models start showing that the theory’s actually can predict something I don’t believe a word of manmade climate change. What’s important is to realize that we should be good stewards of the planet without the necessity of trying to scare the hell out of people with fantasy, fiction and Pied Piper baloney.
I’d say the success of modern humans to populate is rather unique for the history of the Earth. Hmm, I wonder if that has any affect on climate change.
Don’t bother with models, they are the least reliable information we have on the subject.
Oops, that eliminated three-fourths of your beilefs. Kudos for your nod to being good stewards of the planet. We don’t have to scare people, we just need to be more responsible stewards.
Lots of time attempting to impeach those that offer a countervailing opinion on, on ……….what? Global warming? No, not exactly that would mean that the planet is warming, but now the planet hasn’t warmed for the last 10 to 12 years, so marketing demands new terminology. Climate change? Welllll, that too is a most tenuous claim to ‘sell’,those with no science education and application. Because even that portion of the population knows that glaciers used to roam the midwest in large herds like buffaloes. So even low information dabblers in the subject understand that the word climate is defined in large part by the concept of “change”.
So what is being discussed here is ACGCC, Anthropological, Catastrophic,Global, Climate, Change
Thats a mouthful. In essence it means man is responsible for the catastrophic results that are “predicted” to take place.
So while it is easy to question the motives of Exxon, and Mobile, and THE EVIL KOCH BROTHERS. Some how it never occurs to deep thinkers like newspaper columnist that the proponets of ACGCH have been regularly exposed as indigenous with their conclusions and found to cherry pick data (the Mann hockey stick graph). The fact is research scientist only eat when they have grants to conduct research .ACGCH is the perfect scam to research because results cannot be verified for decades. The e mails to and from the the University of East Anglia show exactly what was being done behind the scenes to keep the ACGCH meme alive to keep the research cash cow alive and giving milk.
Professional scientific organizations that take a contrary position to Anthropological World climate change presented: Zero
Contemporary peer reviewed scientific papers taking a contrary view presented: Zero
” ” ” ” ” claiming natural forces driving climate change presented: Zero
Contemporary peer reviewed scientific papers showing global cooling trend presented: Zero
Total of credible evidence presented that contradicts current scientific consensus: Zero
Total number of claims made without supporting evidence presented by the climate change denial industry: No idea but a lot — searching using some appropriate terms: Millions of hits.
‘Claiming natural forces drive climate change…….’ Really? What caused climate change before man? The followup question. Why is man not part of nature?
Besides the tiresome yammering on about ‘peer review’ please give one peer reviewed piece that proves the carbon cylcle is warming the planet. Not one scientist is silly enough to make such a statement. The fact is, not a single computer model as succesfully predicted temperture rises. Every one as failed. Not one experiment has been fasioned to support the theory of
Anthropological, Catastrophic,Global, Climate, Change. in your terms ZERO
BTW heres your peer reviewed proof. Not that it will affect your closed mind.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/04/a-peer-reviewed-admission-that-global-surface-temperatures-did-not-rise-dr-david-whitehouse-on-the-pnas-paper-kaufmann-et-al-2011/
“It is good news that the authors recognise that there has been no global temperature increase since 1998. Even after the standstill appears time and again in peer-reviewed scientific studies, many commentators still deny its reality. We live in the warmest decade since thermometer records began about 150 years ago, but it hasn’t gotten any warmer for at least a decade.”
Regarding the claim that not a single computer model. . .” Where did you get that information — your source? Regarding the “experiment statement”: How could one conduct an experiment on a planetary scale? Regarding the “tiresome yammering” about peer-reviewed proof, that’s what scientists do, submit their research for peer review. That’s how scientists get recognition and their work checked. Peer review is critical — if the peer review is positive it establishes a respective degree of credibility. Without such review it’s just claims.
In regard to your linked article if one brings up the paper the title is “Reconciling anthropogenic climate change with observed temperatures 98-2008″ and the first sentences of the summary clearly say ” The findings that the recent hiatus in warming is driven by natural factors DOES NOT CONTRADICT the hypothesis: Most of the increase in global average temperature since the mid 20th century is very likely due to the observed anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions.” ( “Hiatus” means gap or pause and “anthropogenic” means human-driven. ) The authors give an explanation of the reason for the pause for the years 98-2008. (Note that we have almost 4 more years of data since 2008.) The paper does not deny anthropogenic climate change in any manner.
Cedric you seem to be flailing. I stated a simple fact that the temperature had not risen for ten to twelve years. In you far reaching understanding of the science and the depth of your research. The very things you base the certainty of catastrophic man made climate change, you are admittedly unaware of the simple fact that temperatures have not risen. Not risen in the face of settled science and numerous computer models that never showed any hint of a” HIatus”
So the question is who has a closed mind and is unwilling to consider new, previously unknown information that becomes available to them?
And your vaunted ‘peer review’? only works if those involved poses a modicum of morality and honesty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/feb/02/hacked-climate-emails-flaws-peer-review
There are numerous factors that cause climate change and you could EASILY find them by doing a little research. In the extremely long time period there is continental drift, in the much shorter periods there are precession of the Earth’s orbit and precession of the Earth’s poles (it gets a bit complicated) , and in the even shorter periods there are volcanic eruptions (excepting Super Volcanoes which can erupt for a very long time), the monumental Mt. Tambora eruption in relatively recent times (1815) for example , and comet/meteor strikes. None of these are in play at the present. If there’s natural explanation provide it and document it. ( Search “global warming not human caused” or something similar and you’ll probably get million of hits with some claims most likely with no science behind them. )
Well, Todd, you predicted the responses you would get, didn’t you? And, you were spot on. You can’t win with people who just don’t want to be convinced that they could be wrong. And, unfortunately, once they publicly declare their “belief” (and that’s what it amounts to, a mere belief in something), you have no hope of changing their minds, even in the face of overwhelming evidence, when presented is just disregarded as somehow made up and to be distructed. So, we are left with this problem of never being able to have an honest discussion of facts because no one is willing to admit that the “facts” of their belief could be wrong. Contributing to this problem is the instant interactive media, and I’m one of the participants, I suppose, in creating perpetuating the problem. I suppose we have to hope that people will begin to not just question the reliability of opposing beliefs, but also the reliability of their own beliefs and how they formed them. I don’t see that happening soon. So, the climate change advocates and skeptics are not likely to engage in any truly meaningful quest to discover objective truth. It’s easier just to dismiss any opinion that isn’t consistent with one’s committed belief. Sorry state of afairs, isn’t it?
Failure to: “. . . admit that “facts” of their belief could be wrong.” No surprise there. To closed minds incontrovertible evidence/facts are irrelevant.
It is truly sad that due to the willful ignorance of the denialists and their gullible acceptence of the spin fueled by the greed of the energy industry, rather than recognizing the overwhelming scientific evidence supporting anthropomorphic climate change will be the cause of an enormous price in human pain in suffering to be paid by our children and grandchildren in the centuries to come, due to our selfish lack of action on the problem. It’s truly disgusting that the right has politicized such a universally acknowledged problem that will affect all of humankind for centuries to come.
The UN’s Laurens Bouwer, an IPCC lead author, in a study published in the Journal of the American Meteorological Society in January 2011 states: Analyses show that, although economic losses from weather-related hazards have increased, anthropogenic climate change so far did not have a significant impact on losses from natural disasters. The observed loss increase is caused primarily by increasing exposure and value of capital at risk….Studies that project future losses may give a better indication of the potential impact of climate change on disaster losses and needs for adaptation than the analysis of historical losses. See http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2010BAMS3092.1
In other words, Bouwer says that we should look at the predictions of climate scientists and climate models instead of actual data for the effects of climate change.
Peer reviewed studies in the Journal of Coastal Research published in November 2010 and May 2011, and based on tide gauge measurements from the United States and Australia, both concluded that there has been a slight deceleration in sea level rise over the past 60 years.
Hurricane Sandy barely reached hurricane strength before making landfall. In fact, there hasn’t been a category 3 or higher hurricane make landfall in the US since hurricane Rita, which followed hurricane Katrina, in 2005. That is the longest stretch without a major hurricane making landfall in the US since before the civil war. As Roger Pielke Jr said, “If this is the new normal, wait till we get back to the old normal”.
Climate scientists acknowledge the existence of the Medieval Warm Period, but claim that it was confined to Greenland and Western Europe even though it lasted for two to three centuries. Now they want to claim that two consecutive hot summers in the Eastern two thirds of the US is proof of manmade global warming.
I don’t see anything in your post that in any way clearly gives significant evidence contradicting global warming. A question on your last sentence: Where have climate scientists “. . . want(ed) to claim that two consecutive hot summers . . . proof of man-made global warming” ? Where is it published ?
I wasn’t attempting to provide evidence that contradicts global warming. You have used the old trick used by many other alarmists of eliding global warming and anthropogenic global warming. There is absolutely no proof that the global warming of the last thirty years is due to CO2 in spite of all the billions of dollars spent searching for a proof; although I would acknowledge that some warming may be manmade in the sense that it’s due to land use changes and/or urban heat island effect.
The recent heat wave and drought are not at all unprecedented when compared to the dust bowl days of the 1930’s. The Russian Navy was routinely navigating the Northeast Passage during the 1930’s before there were satellites to tell them it was navigable, and the nuclear sub USS Skate surfaced at the North Pole under thin ice in 1954.
“. . . no proof . . . global warming of the last 30 years is due to CO2 . . .” Conclusive proof, perhaps not. However, the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere can be measured and it has increased and global temperatures have increased. CO2 and methane have a molecular structure that causes them to absorb infrared radiation the radiates from the Earth into space. Satellites can measure the dip in radiation at the spectral absorption lines of CO2 and CH4. The “chemistry” adds-up — makes sense. Without some other explanation for the temperature rise you’re left with the greenhouse effect until some other explanation comes along. ( Some claim the heat came first and then the CO2. Again, what else caused the heat, and where else did the CO2 come from if not from the billions of tons of carbon removed from the Earth’s crust ? )
” . . . (Heat) compared to the dust bowl days of the the 30′s.” What were the global temperatures in the 30′s ? ( The continental US only comprises less than 3% of the Earth’s surface. )
“Some claim the heat came first and then the CO2.”
Actually the NOAA claims that. It was derived mainly from analysis of ice cores, and it is not even in dispute among climate scientists. See http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html
There are billions of tones of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. As ocean waters heat up they release CO2; when they cool they absorb CO2. The lag time between temperature rise and CO2 rise is typically 200 to 800 years; consistent with ocean current time scales.
You raised the issue of CO2 dissolved in the oceans. Here are two articles on ocean acidification.
http://www.co2science.org/data/acidification/results.php
and
http://centerforoceansolutions.org/climate/impacts/ocean-acidification/ (Note that you can view the reference from which this article was derived by clicking on “view references” at the bottom of the page.)
from Cedric’s post
” to claim that two consecutive hot summers . . . proof of man-made global warming” ? Where is it published ?”
Cedric, just because you refuse to do even a cursory search to look for information does not mean the iformation is not there.
“The relentless, weather-gone-crazy type of heat that has blistered the United States, Canada and other parts of the world in recent years is so rare it can’t be anything but man-made global warming, according to a new statistical analysis from a top American scientist”
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/08/04/climate-change-real-scientist.html
Thanks for the link but it’s to a news story not to a scientific site that presents Dr. Hansen’s research. If he has published his research and it’s positively reviewed and bolstered by further work by other researchers then that will add credibility to the hypothesis that recent hot summers here, and in other parts of the World, are further evidence of climate change.
Cedric you keep moving the goal post. You implied that no scientists are claiming the last 2 years heat and drought are linked to climate change. Yes there are hundred of scientists making the link, this is just one. But you are unaware, because you choose to be uninformed.
It does bring up the entire hypothesis of ACGCC…….and something it lacks. A faslifiability metric. In laymans term, a definable metric that proves the hypothesis false. This something hard sciences require to seriously consider a hypothesis. ACGCC lacks falsifiability. This is what allows the alarmist like yourself to keep changing the standards. A refusal to define falsifiabllity.
“. . . moving the goalpost.” Specifically how is that ? “You implied . . . ” Where did I imply anything ? I asked about the scientists that claimed ” . . . two consecutive summers . . . ” and you provided a link to one. (Via a news article, not a scientific news source or publication). Where is information on the ” . . . hundred(s) of scientists making the link. . . “? I’m choosing to be informed — that’s why I’m asking.
PS Oh yes, point out the “alarmist” rhetoric I’ve used. Be specific.
You’re right Cedric, there are no peer reviewed studies claiming that hurricane Sandy and the recent US draught are the result of global warming. It’s just that the news media and alarmists like Al Gore, James Hansen and U of I professor Jerry Schnoor have to hype every abnormal weather event as evidence of global warming because that’s all they have.
From Professor Schnoor’s recent column: “Is there a congruent connection between the ravages of Hurricane Sandy and the U.S. drought of 2012? How can we reconcile the “weird weather” that we are seeing across the planet?” http://thegazette.com/2012/11/22/we-must-adapt-as-planet-warms/.
On the other hand, James Taylor’s column has cited some peer reviewed studies claiming that draughts have become less frequent and less severe since the earth has warmed. http://thegazette.com/2012/11/29/global-warming-not-causing-iowa-drought/
“Or you can side with a lawyer from Tampa.”
Huh, it was my impression that LIBs like Dorman LOVE lawyers. I learn something new everyday. Oh wait this lawyer doesn’t agree with his world view, so off with his head.
I’m not sure what 138 faculty here in IA have to do with GW, but I will guarantee you they get $$$$ for researching it. In other words voting with their pocketbooks. Here’s a letter from 125 scientists (from around the world), who don’t believe in GW either. Ignore 4B years of weather and look at 200 years, that’s a good sample.
http://tinyurl.com/bbqnwca
Huh, it was my impression that John Abernathy has a brain. I learn something new everyday. Too bad John doesn’t.
Oh bless your heart Bob. What exactly did I write that made you think I didn’t have anything in my brainpan? I realize you high and mighty LIBs have 3.5 times the brain capacity as us common folk, but I’d still like to know what you’re basing that upon. Or am I treading on thin ice questioning your opinion? You have me so nervous just asking these questions is making me tremble with fear.
” . . . it was my impression . . . ” That was a personal ad hominem attack, Bob — against the rules and doesn’t add anything to the discussion. (Not to imply that all comments here add to it.)
I clicked on your link and found it be an open letter but could find nothing in regard to who, or what organization, did the work to obtain the signatures. I clicked on signers names that provided links and of the links that worked and were in English I only found 1 or 2 that appeared to have the credentials and working in fields that might qualify them as “climate scientists” or similar. I found a couple that appeared to have links to the fossil fuel industry. I might be an interesting exercise for someone to “google” to attempt find information of every signer listed — not something I would choose to do even if I felt I had the time. All that being said, considering all the people World-wide involved in doing research that would apply to climate I would think 125 would likely be well under 1%.
“I would choose to do even if I felt I had the time.”
You’ve already wasted some of your day doing that, what’s another hour or two?
” considering all the people World-wide involved in doing research that would apply to climate ”
Do you really think the 138 people from IA who signed whatever Dorman is referencing are “climate scientists”?
Actually it is not a tough call. Lets see, an issue of science… and who do we believe – scientists, or a lawyer for a political think tank.
What I’d like to see, are journalists to stop doing back-twists to placate conservative idiots and their ridiculous beliefs.
Well Bob, here’s a link where individuals have signed refuting GW. Of these signers over 9K have their PHD. Even IA has 200 signers out distancing poor Dormans letter.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
“Globally over the past 30 years, there is clear statistical evidence that extreme high temperatures are occurring disproportionately more than extreme low temperatures.”
Okay, just from their first “point”. I hate to tell them, but for the past 13-16 years there’s been no warming. So, I’ll stop wasting my time on this bit of rubbish.
http://tinyurl.com/a7vfnkj
Sometimes I think the best thing climate change deniers can do for their cause is to shut up.
The last sensible thing I heard coming from conservatives on this issue was from John McCain in 2008. He said he couldn’t deny the fact of climate change, he didn’t know what caused it, but he believed that efforts to control the amount of greenhouse gases that we pump iinto the atmosphere would result, without doubt, in cleaner water, cleaner air, and a generally healthier and more habitable earth.
What’s not to like. Even if we can’t control or stop the changes that only a fool would deny, we’ll at least go down still able to drink the water and breathe the air. That’s a plus