I have been something of an agnostic on climate change. The politicization of the issue has become so pronounced that it is impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue with either side. Every piece of evidence that emerges for or against global warming and its anthropogenic nature is dismissed or embraced, depending on one’s point of view.
Currently, those who believe the human race is doomed unless we do something about carbon emissions are in the ascendancy, largely as a result of a clever media campaign and a demonization of global warming detractors. But reading science publications – even those geared toward a general audience – reveals a still lively debate among scientists on many, many issues that those who seek to politicize the issue have already declared settled. How much is industrial activity to blame? Just how fast is the phenomena occurring? How bad will it get? Is there anything we can do about it?
Based purely on scientific evidence, there is no doubt that the world is getting warmer – something that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. There is compelling evidence that human industrial activity over the last 100 years is, in fact, having an effect on temperature although there are still some responsible skeptics who attempt to make a case otherwise. I personally find their evidence less and less convincing as the years go by.
How much carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses are actually making their way to a level in our atmosphere where they would raise temperatures? No one knows. Models trying to predict those levels of carbon dioxide in the upper atmosphere have not been very good. This is not because the phenomena is not occurring but rather because of a lack of raw data that would improve our modeling and allow us to glimpse the future.
Even if the climate is changing, is there anything we can do about it? No one is sure. Lowering emissions may indeed slow down or even eliminate excess global warming. Then again, it may not have any effect at all.
And here is where politics insinuates itself into the debate to the detriment of science as well as the debate itself. Scientists argue whether the Greenland glaciers are growing or shrinking, whether the Antarctic ice cap is melting, whether the cyclical nature of sunspots are to blame for the increase in temperature, even whether polar bears are at risk of becoming extinct or not. But it is politicians and advocates who argue about climate change “solutions” and charge their opponents with being mindless fanatics or anti-science zealots depending on whose ox is being gored.
Where does that leave rational, thoughtful science enthusiasts like you and me who may not have the technical acumen to judge the efficacy of scientific arguments but who try and follow the debate anyway?
On the outside looking in, I’m afraid. Not committing to either camp in this debate means that we are ignored, even ridiculed for not seeing “the truth” of global warming – as if it were some kind of religion that demanded obeisance to a set of beliefs rather than a hard eyed look at the evidence. Recognizing the danger of climate change while trying to maintain a certain skepticism about evidence coming from both sides is enough to drive those of us who respect the scientific method to distraction. But we can certainly examine the political climate in which the debate takes place.
And here is where you will find the most bizarre collection of anti-globalists, anti-capitalists, “sustainable growth” nuts, and population control fanatics allying themselves with Third World kleptocrats in order to soak the west with “carbon offsets” and other gimmicks without reducing emissions by one single molecule. This was the now defunct Kyoto agreement, the first attempt by this motley coalition to radically alter western industrialized civilization.
At least on the other side of the political coin with the most organized efforts to debunk global warming there is the rationality of promoting an anti-warming agenda based largely on economic interests. Lost profits may not be a very noble reason to oppose efforts to reduce emissions but at least it has logic so sorely lacking on the other side.
This then is the political atmosphere in which charge and counter charge is hurled back and forth, with the global warming cadres spewing nonsense about comparing skeptics with “Nazis” while the skeptics accuse climate change advocates of being Luddites.
To say that most conservatives fall into the latter category is a given. Their natural enemies are found in the NGO’s, the non-profits, and the UN offshoots who seek to undermine capitalism and free markets while strangling economic growth – all in a good cause, of course. And the fact that they want to carry out these draconian measures while much of the scientific debate still rages causes most conservatives to blanch when any proposals to fight climate change are proposed.
I believe this to be a shortsighted and wrongheaded approach to the political problems of climate change. There is something to be said for the global warming advocate’s argument that we simply can’t afford not to do anything. Simply ignoring the problem as Republican Presidential candidates are doing is not only bad politics, it’s bad science as well. As Tigerhawk points out, we risk much by not engaging in the debate over what to do about climate change:
The key is to separate the increasingly convincing scientific arguments substantiating the fact of anthropogenic climate change from the remedies for that change, which can take many forms and will shape the world in which we live for generations to come. In theory it should be easy to do so—after all, one can never derive what “ought” from what “is.” The fact of anthropogenic climate change does not tell us what we ought to do about it. Unfortunately, politicians, activists, lawyers, journalists, and other advocates specialize in claiming, falsely, that “what ought” follows inexorably from “what is,” no matter how intellectually dishonest those claims may be. My advice to conservatives, therefore, is that we stop arguing about whether human activity causes global climate change and start getting in front of solutions that will accelerate the creation of wealth over the long term.(Hat Tip: MVG)
The fact is, there is plenty that we can do as a society to lower our emissions without experiencing the kind of catastrophic pain that would have been caused by following Kyoto dictates. Start with our automobiles – developing sensible timetables to drastically lower emissions from cars would be an excellent start. This would almost certainly force automakers to heavily invest in hybrid technology while improving the performance and lowering the price of those kinds of cars.
We could also start building nuclear power plants to replace the old, carbon spewing coal fired plants that have caused other environmental problems like acid rain. Small scale development of solar, wind, and geothermal power would also contribute to a lowering of emissions, despite the fact that industrial scale power production using those methods of generating electricity are extremely expensive and inefficient.
And doing what America does best – invent, improve, and innovate – spurred on by the free market will no doubt produce other solutions down the road. Hydrogen powered cars, more efficient public transportation, and things unimagined and unglimpsed will contribute in the future to reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases.
All of these are conservative alternatives to the bloated, government centered, confiscatory ideas advocated by Al Gore and his acolytes in the Democratic party as well as the even more draconian measures advocated by global warming advocates overseas or in the United Nations.
The political question is simple; can conservatives continue to ignore the implications of climate change? Or, as Tigerhawk writes, should we get out in front of the issue to advocate “solutions” that are mostly market based and not so damaging to our economy?
Color me a skeptic who thinks the time has come for conservatives to step up on this issue.
3:32 pm
One of the huge problems is that the partisan political scientists want to use data over a short, set amount of time and not look at the overall set of data sets covering… say… 600 million years.
Still, even stepping into the post-KT event world and moving down to a 1,000,000 year time scale, we find high temperature variations peaking much, much higher than our present day climate. Those then shift downwards, yet again, so that glaciers shift across the northern and parts of southern continents. This a repeating cycle over that time scale alone, and is caused by outside variables of which carbon dioxide plays little or no role save that we have so little of it in the atmosphere that we are abnormally chilly.
The planet, as a whole, has experienced much more regularity in temperatures over 600 MY, averaging about 14 degrees celsius higher than today. Those causational factors are independent variables across which carbon dioxide fluctuates to a point up to 20 times higher in atmospheric concentration than today. Indeed, at that point of over 7,000ppm of concentration (vice current hovering in the ~300ppm range) we also saw one of the largest concentrations of methane and water vapor: both greenhouse gases that make carbon dioxide look weak, in comparison. With all of that, the global temperature did not budge from that stable 14 degrees higher, which appears to be a normal state of affairs for Rock 3 from Star Sol.
The thing that does appear to be driving global temperatures with a biosphere present on Earth is: plate tectonics. The Carboniferous saw a large upswing in plant life (as a result we see lots of coal, methane and oil deposits, along with vast layers of calcium carbonate permanently removing the carbon dioxide from the atmosphere) but also saw a shift in plate tectonics in which a pangaea supercontinent not only removed lots of lovely coastline, shoved inland oceans into a single large planetary basin, but then slid into the southern polar region. The break-up of that marked the Permo-Triassic extinction as global temps drastically climbed… and 95% of all species got wiped out. With that we got an upswing in carbon dioxide as life forms were disappearing due to a truly, massive climate change. That sucker is still not well understood as it includes: flood basalts going out over what we call Siberia today, increased volcanic activity, shifting of the supercontinent from the south pole, and a possible cometary impact. Pretty much simultaneously on a geologic timescale where 1MY is a bare tick of the clock.
So while the climatologists argue and the political scientists preach, the geologists look at the data and ask: ‘Say what?’
If you want to get to the nice, balmy, temps of the late Cretaceous, then re-unite the continental land masses, slow down the convection flow of the mantle, and let the continents subside to let the ocean waters flow over the continents again. Of course most of Europe, Asia, Africa, North and South America would disappear under half-mile or so of water. But Cheyenne,WY and Denver, CO would be prime beach front property! The Appalachians a nice island chain along with the Alps…
Until then, expect continued cold temperatures, with mile thick continental glaciers and temporary inter-glacial periods with sudden, wide variations in temperature before the thermostat goes back down to glacial. Check back in 5 million years for an updated forecast.
5:14 pm
[...] Right Wing Nut House has an article on this subject today as well. They say: I believe this to be a shortsighted and wrongheaded approach to the political problems of climate change. There is something to be said for the global warming advocate’s argument that we simply can’t afford not to do anything. Simply ignoring the problem as Republican Presidential candidates are doing is not only bad politics, it’s bad science as well. As Tigerhawk points out, we risk much by not engaging in the debate over what to do about climate change: The key is to separate the increasingly convincing scientific arguments substantiating the fact of anthropogenic climate change from the remedies for that change, which can take many forms and will shape the world in which we live for generations to come. In theory it should be easy to do so—after all, one can never derive what “ought†from what “is.†The fact of anthropogenic climate change does not tell us what we ought to do about it. Unfortunately, politicians, activists, lawyers, journalists, and other advocates specialize in claiming, falsely, that “what ought†follows inexorably from “what is,†no matter how intellectually dishonest those claims may be. My advice to conservatives, therefore, is that we stop arguing about whether human activity causes global climate change and start getting in front of solutions that will accelerate the creation of wealth over the long term. Full Right Wing Nut House Artical [...]
6:43 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno
What conservatives need to do, is be rational
first and foremost. That doesn’t mean buying
into the Left’s scenario that there is a catastrophe
looming, and certainly not if it’s the wrong
catastrophe they are worring about. Once you’ve
bought their dramatic scenario, you have bought
their solution. Since unless we go immediately
to a 1600’s economy, we aren’t going to cut
enough CO2 to make enough of a difference (by
their measure), we are going to need to be
forced into it by big government.
Watch the videos.
—Chris
7:22 pm
I graduated in the late 70’s and remember when GLOBAL COOLING and the FACT that we were running out of oil was all the rage. I even wrote a paper on the FACT we were running out of oil while I attended college. How foolish I was. Trust me this to will pass.
8:07 pm
1) Temps have not gone up since ‘98 – what are we trying to fix?
2) Are higher temps really bad? In the overall historical range we are closer to the bottom than the top. Mike Griffith NASA Admin. asked this question directly and was roasted for it – instead of getting an answer.
3) Temperature reporting is corrupted by comprimised measurement locations/situations.
4) Most importantly, IF we are going to address climate, first we must agree on a target (see question #2 above). Secondly, we must look at the entire system, not just the human part of it. Folks love to make fun of Reagan’s flatulent cattle, but there is truth in the underlying assertion. One case in point. Young trees bind CO2. Old trees release it. Dead and rotting trees really release CO2. So, why are we defending all of the downed timber and old growth? We have made forests unhealthy with attempts to “shrink wrap” them in pure preservation.
Nope, I remain entirely unconvinced of Glowball warming (actually the sun IS the cause). Even less do I buy human driven global climate change. Can we please change the debate to that which produces life rather than that which curtails it? (Refer to Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” to understand my view of adding to life)
9:21 pm
1. The basic science (i.e co2 = warming) has been around since 1896 when i swedish chemist discovored it.
2. Politicised…you dont say! By the right, not by progressives.
3. It’s past time the right started looking at the truth (climate change is serious and real) rather than the truthiness (climate change is a communist plot to increase state power) only this way can you make your argument for desireable right leaning policies.
As it is past time i will admit that it gives my a certain pleasure to believe that since the Bush administration has been SO awful on this issue, no one will ever vote for a Republican president if they are worried about climate change. And, as this issue is only going to grow ( the impacts becoming more evident) the right will pay severly for neglecting this issue and putting the planet in peril.
I will admit however, this is scant consolation for what is to come.
8:57 am
Rick, while I will agree that we do need to look into more environmentally friendly power sources, I do not think we need to engage the left in man made global warming. The majority of the cause of the current slight warming trend is natural. The Sun. Earth forces. It is cyclical. It happens. We came out of the Little Ice Age around the 1850’s. We had a warmer period prior to the 1200’s, which went on for almost a thousand years.
Global warming is real. But global warming as caused by man is miniscule. The question to ask is “if it is such a danger, then why do none of the leaders, and not many of the Disciples, of the Church of Climate Change ever change their behavior?”
9:05 am
PS: this is not to say that Man doesn’t have some responsibility. But, we are not the primary cause. We certainly can do things that exagerate the condition, but, mostly, look at natural forces.
10:08 am
Based purely on scientific evidence, there is no doubt that the world is getting warmer…” – Moran
Quite the opposite is true. There is little to no scientific evidence that the world is getting warmer.. unless you want to be alarmed about one degree in a short period of time.
There is a 30 to 60 degree swing in local temperatures at various points on earth – daily, and no one gets excited – because it happens every year. Why get excited about a 1 degree earth mean-temperature change over a period of ten years?
But warming isn’t the real problem here – its the declaration that the warming is caused by human activity – and that has certainly not been established by any form of scientific evidence.
“At least on the other side of the political coin with the most organized efforts to debunk global warming there is the rationality of promoting an anti-warming agenda based largely on economic interests.” – Moran
The leftist agenda isn’t science, it’s an economic wrecking-ball aimed at private industry and the future behavior of individuals and government. There is significant verifiable scientific data that refutes the best data promoted by the IPCC (and originally by Gore, backed by very few ‘scientists,’ all of which are financially and politically dedicated to false figures used to promote a false thesis. Hence, indeed it is good that we have economic arguments to counter false science – but, we have far more than that.
Want to leave politics out of it, and focus on none anthropogenic climate change evidence – just repeatable verifiable temperature facts, to first ascertain whether or not there is a rational reason to be alarmed at some significant temperature rise? Then there is a host of evidence to draw from. I heartily recommend the #1 science blog on the net – Climate Audit, as a good starting place.
There you will find more than enough real science to refute Gore’s hockey-stick evidence. Second, if you have not already visited the site, and all the links to others found there – check the science at JunkScience.com
You don’t have to be an expert to commit to honesty. If you spend but a few hours looking at all of the evidence presented by both sides, it isn’t hard to find out which side is most forthcoming, most diverse, most thorough – and most absent an agenda that promotes government dictating future behavior and taxation.
Bottom line though, why ignore the political implications? Why should we, when the left is using falsehoods to push a political agenda? For conservatives to ignore that would be folly of the highest degree.
10:46 am
I think you are absolutely right to mention nuclear power, which rarely if ever gets a mention in the whole global warming debate: it’s cheap, abundant, and produces no significant greenhouse gas emissions. The only real long-term problem with it seems to be the generation of (solid) radioactive waste, which takes hundreds of years to decay, but even there the total amount produced by each plant is about 10 sq. ft./year – about 25 tons. (By contrast, the USA produces 630,000 tons of trash every DAY - and it takes up a lot more space per ton, too).
Environmentalists seem to have an instinctive distrust of nuclear power, but by opposing it they are taking off the table what’s maybe the only possible way to make a big dent in greenhouse gas emissions (not to mention industrial toxins, etc). Conservatives just need to be able to make the case for it.
11:05 am
Anybody remember the big flap about CFCs? They were supposed to be causing the hole in the ozone layer over the south pole that was going to cause all the poor penguins to die from sunburn. Or some such. So CFCs were banned.
Here we are 30 years onward and guess what? The hole in the ozone layer at the south pole is bigger than ever. The response of the atmospheric scientists who have been carefully observing the situation? “Beats the hell out of us.”
When the climate modelers can tell us why banning CFCs didn’t work, I’ll be convinced that they can predict temperatures for the next 100 years
11:31 am
Does anyone remember as far back as the 1960’s and 1970’s? We had some really cold winters and lots of snow here in the midwest. I like global warming.
Go back to the dark ages. It was cold. Go back to the “little ice age” (Google it).
Very cold. There is no doubt times are worse when it is cold. Bring on the warm temps. But we have no control over it. It is going to warm up and it is going to get cold. No matter what socialist like Al Gore or the UN will tell you the earth does it own thing.
6:58 pm
And back during the beginning of the Little Ice Age, we got the Black Plague, which scientists say was hightened by the colder temps. Around 75 million people in Asia and Europe died. They reckon 25% of the European population died from the plague. And that is what the Climahysterics want us to return too.
Blaming this all on Man is simply a way for certain people to make money and gain stature. Why else, to repeat myself, do the climahysteria leaders not only fail to change their lifestyles to match their rhetoric, but are traveling even more, and asking people to “invest” in carbon offsets?
4:06 am
Guess you were wrong Mr. Moran—Conservatives apparently can ignore climate change
12:54 pm
To get the truth about climate change, we need to discuss various ideas in a free and open debate, examine the evidence and the logic carefully. This debate is not happening because political forces have decided to focus on a specific solution – carbon dioxide from fossil fuels. If your university wants grant funding to study global warming, the focus must be CO2 or you get zero. We are trying to gather evidence about an elephant using a microscope. Let’s back out.
If, as the warmies claim, carbon dioxide is causing global warming, how much is being deposited in the atmosphere and what are its sources? According to NASA, annual CO2 emissions are 168 billion metric tons. 100 BMT are released by the oceans. 30 BMT, generated by the decay of plant and animal matter. 30 BMT are caused by respiration. Nature generates 160 BMT of 168B (95.23%) without the burning of a pound coal, a gallon of gasoline or a cubic foot of natural gas. Deforestation adds 1 BMT. Other industrial processes – fermentation, steel production, industrial use of yeast (bread), manufacture of cement and others – account for 1 BMT. Only 6 BMT of CO2 result from fossil fuels. We could cut CO2 emissions by 3.57% by prohibiting the use of fossil fuel worldwide.
How large a part does carbon dioxide play in the greenhouse effect? According to Dr Reid Bryson, University of Wisconsin, the father of climate science, 80% of the greenhouse warming effect occurs within 30’ of the ground and is caused by water vapor. CO2 absorbs only 0.08% of the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is 1,000 times more important than CO2. Banning fossil fuel would reduce the greenhouse effect by only 0.00286%.
There are other theories about why climate changes occur. Ajacksonian commented on plate tectonics.
A Serbian civil engineer, M. Milankovitch, postulated that ice ages are cyclic, occurring about every 100,000 years, as the result of astrophysics – changes in the earth motion. The eccentricity of our elliptical orbit is affected by the gravitational forces of Jupiter and Saturn at times taking us farther from the sun (e=0.005 to 0.058). Earth’s axial tilt varies from 21.5° to 24.5° shading or exposing the poles to solar energy. The Earth wobbles – precesses – above and below the plane of the planets. The coincidence of these three cycles seem to align with periods of glaciation.
There is a final question we should ask. Can the human race do anything to alter climate change significantly or are we just passengers on the train?
Arch