Global Warming As Mass Neurosis
by Bret Stephens - July 1st, 2008 - The Wall Street Journal
. . . mother nature has opinions of her own. NASA now begrudgingly confirms that the hottest year on record in the continental 48 was not 1998, as previously believed, but 1934, and that six of the 10 hottest years since 1880 antedate 1954. Data from 3,000 scientific robots in the world's oceans show there has been slight cooling in the past five years, never mind that "80% to 90% of global warming involves heating up ocean waters," according to a report by NPR's Richard Harris.
The Arctic ice cap may be thinning, but the extent of Antarctic sea ice has been expanding for years. At least as of February, last winter was the Northern Hemisphere's coldest in decades.
Why does the man is causing global warming crowd not acknowledge this? They are invested in the belief that the evidence is so confusing they cannot trust anyone who shows evidence that man is not the culprit, and they reject it. They do not just reject it, they smear and denounce anyone who dares argue with them. See the article below denouncing conservatives as anti-science.
I am not sure that I buy this whole theme, that global warming fanatics are quasi religious though. I simply think they are socialists who are using the typical technique of socialism to smear opponents. It is the agenda that brought us "political correctness" in the last century. We now have speech codes on our major college campuses which make a mockery of the concept of free speech. However these same socialist proponents find nothing wrong with disruptions (like throwing pies) and violent marches to shut down the free speech rights of those they oppose. They claim they are doing this in the name of free speech. Free speech? Free speech is not possible without civil speech.
That is the real agenda of the man is causing global warming crowd. To make sure this dialog is maintained on the stage of chaos and discord.
Please note: Bret Stephens is not related to me.
posted by Dean Stephens @ 8:30 AM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Well.... here's a Letter to the Editor that I sent the WSJ about his lack of understanding. I edited an environmental publication for business leaders, so I could go on and on... But you'll get my point.
Bret Stephens' July 1 commentary - Global Warming as Mass Neurosis - was obviously written by a man who doesn't understand science.
His socialist conspiracy theory for global warming is getting old. How is it that old capitalists like Lord Stern, former chief economist at the World Bank, are preaching the global warming gospel? Has he, too, been hypnotized?
Nevertheless, it would be easy for Lord Stern, or anyone with a basic knowledge of science, to refute Stephens' points.
NOAA is responsible for establishing the hottest years on record, not NASA. Their data set is considered more reliable. And they say that the hottest year on record is 1998, followed by 2006. And the hottest 10 years on record all occurred in the last 15 years.
A 2008 study in Nature — considered the most accurate on the subject — reports that oceans have warmed 50 percent faster than expected, and that our sea level is rising by 1 mm a year, or by 2.5 inches since the 1960s, and it's going to get worse.
NOAA reports that methane emissions - a greenhouse gas that has that 23 times the potency of CO2 - have suddenly spiked for no good reason, although scientists have been predicting for years that the thawing tundra would soon start releasing its methane hordes to the atmosphere if warming trends continued.
Another recent study in Nature, one of the most respected scientific journals, examined more than 30,000 sets of data, including little climate surprises — like tulips blooming in March in Wisconsin, or the February arrival of robins and Canada geese in Nova Scotia — and more worrisome signals like melting Alpine glaciers. The researchers concluded that the link between observed global warming and manmade activities is ironclad, offering greater than a 99 percent certainty.
But none of that matters. To give Stephens a shot at convincing me, all I need is real evidence — evidence published in a respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal that has been authored by a scientist with a degree in climatology — that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 can rise to to more than 450 part per million (ppm) without affecting global temperatures. We're at 390 ppm — or 430 ppm when GHG besides carbon dioxide are considered — and rising by 2.1 parts per million per year.
The concentration of atmospheric CO2 was in freefall for centuries, until the start of the Industrial Revolution. Since then, it's risen by 40 percent, and is growing at a rate that is faster than at any time since homo sapiens first walked the earth.
And of course the coincidence that we just happen to be coming out of the "little ice age" can be ignored, right? There is strong evidence that CO2 rises as temperatures go up, not the converse as argued by Al Gore. That is the same reason CO2 went down for centuries, falling temperatures as we went in to the "little ice age".
Of course your selective argument that you have a preferred organization whose opinion you chose to believe about what is the hottest year in recent history is based on the fact that NASA never had such outstanding scientists that it put a man on the moon. Oh wait. They did that. I guess their scientists are not complete idiots huh? Or do you want to smear them too?
Anyway, the issue is not whether we have global warming or not. The question is whether man is causing it or not and whether it is settled science or that scientists do not agree. Until you can explain why both Jupiter and Mars are warming I will not agree that man is causing warming here on earth by using carbon based fuels. Your failure to explain why the solar system is warming up is proof you are simply guessing. And based on your argument that NOAA and NASA have a different opinion about what is the warmest year in recent history, this is NOT settled science except in the mind of those who are too stupid to participate in the dialog.
This dialog will go on, no matter how much you chose to smear people like Bret Stephens because, in your opinion, he has a "lack of understanding".
As for your claim that you could "go on and on" with your rant smearing people, I am absolutely sure you can. If you read my comments, that is what I said.
Post a Comment
<< Home