Global Warming Fact From Fiction

The positive argument

Published on October 13, 2006 By rabidrobot In Current Events

Dr. Guy has a recent entry where he claims there is a debate, yes a debate, about global warming. You can deny global warming if you like, but denial does not make a debate. To debate you should do more than just point to extreme behavior from the opposing viewpoint--you should also provide some justification for your own. This is difficult to do, because climate change denial is at its heart nothing but a statement of opinion that there isn't enough proof. It is an argument of negatives.

Negative Space

Global warming deniers have no evidence to support their ill formed opinion. Having little to defend themselves they attempt to draw attention to the unknown and irrelevant. Pointing out that not everything is known yet about climate change is not an argument that global warming does not exist.

Not everything is known about gravity, there are many holes and inconsistencies in grand theory. But that doesn't mean things don't fall. Electricity is both highly understood, and still vastly mysterious, but you can't deny that science and the scientific method have allowed you to be at a computer reading this.

When we want to know about things like global warming or climate change, we ask scientists. And they tell us what they know and what they don't know. The fact that they don't know something, is, again, not a direct refutation of what they do know.

So what does science say?

If any debate exists , as is Dr. Guy's main claim in my opinion, it is not among the people I would trust to know. Scientists, people who devote their lives to specifically and methodically studying the world, say global warming is real. Dr. Guy says, "there is no conclusive answer yet", but provides no evidence of that. On the contrary, all evidence points to scientists being in near agreement on the base ideas of increasing average temperature and a real human influence on that.

Even the Wiki pages discussing the "Scientific opinion on climate change" and the "Global warming controversy" are not marked as controversial, disputed, or biased in any way. The facts are in and global warming is real.

There may exist individuals who will dispute this, but no repeatable, methodologically sound experiments exist to provide any factual evidence for global warming deniers. You can find someone to say anything, as Dr. Guy demonstrates with his unsourced environmental group asking for climate change denial to be illegal, but the overwhelming scientific evidence supports the consensus among the scientific community--global warming is a real phenomena.

The evidence supporting the broad topic of global warming is based on contributions from fields such as geology, climatology, biology, archeology, and many more. The few "scientists" who deny global warming tend to come from perhaps the one field least likely to have a valid opinion on the matter, "political science". Most global warming deniers have no credentials whatsoever, and even irrelevant economic and political arguments are soundly debunked. The jury is not still out, scientific facts, empirical data(PDF), and the agreement of experts in relevant scientific fields confirm the reality of global warming.

WWJD?

There really is no serious debate among the scientific community, as my sources have shown. There does exist some debate among theologians, specifically Christians. But even among many evangelicals, the debate centers not around the reality of climate change, but around how God's word in the Bible tells us to deal with it. Does the concept of "stewardship" mean Christians should strive to protect God's gift, or do Biblical imperatives for helping the poor trump such arguments? While this may be a debate, it remains a debate of theology at best and political policy at worst. It is a debate of the response to more so than a debate about the reality of climate change.

There are many Christian deniers, of course, but they almost always resort to the negative argument and are in no position of scientific expertise to speak on scientific matters. If believers want to believe because they feel some Biblical justification, then they can debate the Biblical justification. Until they provide scientific evidence in support of their opinion, it has no bearing on the actual state of the world, and should not affect public policy.

Truth and Consequences

Pascal's Wager is not a purely logically sound argument, because in it's strict application it could apply to any fanciful notion. But, in light of the scientific proof and the theological near admission, climate change becomes an apt subject for an exploration of Pascal's base argument. Applied to global warming, Pascal's Wager might be phrased:

Considering the authority of experts--secular and sectarian--argument, the experimental supporting data, and moral motivations for accepting global warming, we are faced with an option.

Deny that it exists, do nothing, run out of oil, drive plants and animal species to extinction, and possibly ruin things so spectacularly as to wipe out humanity altogether in a horrific manner.

Or, accept that it is reality, and make efforts to protect the environment and prevent further damage in concert with a strategy to improve the standard of living for everyone economically and spiritually.

Unlike the existence of an afterlife, the fact that we are going to have kids is well established. How should we behave in this life to best deserve, receive, and achieve the spiritual reward of a better life for our descendants?

What is the point?

Dr. Guy points to an extremist view held by passionate environmentalists. First, extremists views are just that; non-reflective in many cases of the mainstream. Not only besides the point he seems to be trying to make, it also ignores the larger context in which this statement was made. Think what you may about France and Germany, but they have laws against lying and are not communist. The United States has laws against lying, such as against slander, libel, and perjury. Denial law is a current global ongoing debate, and this is an attempt to ride the bandwagon. I'm sure they appreciate the free publicity Dr. Guy has given them.

I tend to agree with Dr. Guy that freedom of speech is more important than making lying illegal, but I find it disingenuous for a supporter of Bush's Patriot Act and, presumably, the Military Commissions Act, to cry about infringement of civil liberties.

Climate change denial is simply factually incorrect, theologically nearly indefensible, philosophically unwise, morally irresponsible, and ethically neglectful .

If a debate about global warming really does exist, as Dr. Guy claims, it is a debate the deniers have lost.

Comments (Page 2)

MasonM

on Oct 14, 2006

rabidrobot, you seemed to have entirely missed the point. The scientific bodies you have linked are the same ones that beat the drum regarding Global Cooling not so long ago. Science is hardly perfect, nor are the human beings that we call scientists.

If you truly believe that these scientific bodies are not influenced by money and politcs you are truly naive. Imagine how quickly research grants would dry up if there was no looming catastrophy which needed to be studied in depth. It seems that every decade or two some new disaster is just around the corner which required billions of dollars for research and yet they just never seem to materialize. Their track record on this sort of thing leaves a lot to be desired.

The planet's climate is fluid and cyclic. I would be seriously concerned if it became static. Areas that are deserts today were once dense forests. Areas that at one time were under water are now farmland. There have been some dramatic climate changes throughout the history of our planet and yet life goes on. All of this panic and dramatics regarding climate change does make for a nice little cash machine though.

rabidrobot

on Oct 14, 2006

The planet's climate is fluid and cyclic

Again, I will defer to the opinions of actual scientists, rather than some guy who knows a single fact and think it makes him qualified to have a valid opinion on global climate. You all state this one little tidbit of knowledge as if it were fait accompli, as if a point has been made! You will have to have more scientific evidence than a single observation blown out of logical proportion.

Even if it were not incredibly dense to base one's opinion on climate change on a single observation, your logic does not follow. Consider swings at a playground. You are saying because the wind blows the swing back and forth, sometimes a lot, it is impossible for a human to walk over and give it a shove!

So, again, I think I will respect the opinions of the trained, learned indiiduals who base their opinion on established data and innovative research. You seem to be saying, I didn't understand the science ten years ago, and I don't understand it now! Well, that doesn't amount to a real reason for me to distrust the science.

The scientific bodies you have linked are the same ones that beat the drum regarding Global Cooling not so long ago

I am sorry you find these fluctuations confusing. Perhaps climate science isn't really your field. I don't think I missed the point though, as my links have addressed this specifically. Aerosol pollutants had a cooling effect, which has since been overcome and overshadowed by the warming effect of a different pollutant, CO2.

The grant money conspiracy is a weak argument. You cannot assail the science itself, so you pick at grant money. Grant money pays for research and a basic salary. Researchers get decent wages for doing serious important work. To suggest that every scientist in the world would abandon all scientific principle in order to be able to pay their rent is just asinine.

First, this is a global issue, with scientists from around the world. Private and public researchers from multiple nations. They are not all competing for some little bit of U.S. grant funds. Additionally, if there were science research that even had a hint of supporting the negative side of this issue, THAT RESEARCH would be the line of study that would get grants under the current administration.

The motivations of deniars are questionable. I think these weak, mantra-like accusations hide a basic underlying desire to just not have to give a shit. If you just don't care, fine. If you'd rather maintain status quo regardless, argue for that. But if these arguments of negativity and ignorance are the best you have against, again, everyone else in the world, then I think I'll go with the crowd this once.

MasonM

on Oct 14, 2006

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

-Stephen Schneider (leading advocate of the global warming theory)
(in interview for Discover magazine, Oct 1989)

In the long run, the replacement of the precise and disciplined language of science by the misleading language of litigation and advocacy may be one of the more important sources of damage to society incurred in the current debate over global warming.

-Dr. Richard S. Lindzen
(leading climate and atmospheric science expert- MIT)

Researchers pound the global-warming drum because they know there is politics and, therefore, money behind it. . . I've been critical of global warming and am persona non grata."

-Dr. William Gray
(Professor of Atmospheric Sciences at Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado and leading expert of hurricane prediction )
(in an interview for the Denver Rocky Mountain News, November 28, 1999)

Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are."

-Petr Chylek
(Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia)
Commenting on reports by other researchers that Greenland's glaciers are melting.
(Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits.... Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world."

-Christine Stewart, Minister of the Environment of Canada
quote from the Calgary Herald

MasonM

on Oct 14, 2006

From Oct 4, 2006 Media Release:

Published online in “Proceedings of the Royal Society A”, October 3rd

Title: ‘Experimental Evidence for the role of Ions in Particle Nucleation under Atmospheric Conditions’.

Authors: Henrik Svensmark, Jens Olaf Pepke Pedersen, Nigel Marsh, Martin Enghoff and Ulrik Uggerhøj.

A team at the Danish National Space Center has discovered how cosmic rays can help to make clouds in the atmosphere. The results support the theory that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate.

The experimental results lend strong empirical support to the theory proposed a decade ago by Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen that cosmic rays influence Earth’s climate through their effect on cloud formation. The original theory rested on data showing a strong correlation between variation in the intensity of cosmic radiation penetrating the atmosphere and the amount of low-altitude clouds. Cloud cover increases when the intensity of cosmic rays grows and decreases when the intensity declines.

Interestingly, during the 20th Century, the Sun’s magnetic field which shields Earth from cosmic rays more than doubled, thereby reducing the average influx of cosmic rays. The resulting reduction in cloudiness, especially of low-altitude clouds, may be a significant factor in the global warming Earth has undergone during the last century. However, until now, there has been no experimental evidence of how the causal mechanism linking cosmic rays and cloud formation may work.

‘Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds to climate as unproven,’ comments Eigil Friis-Christensen, who is now Director of the Danish National Space Center. ‘Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. The SKY experiment now shows how they do so, and should help to put the cosmic-ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research.’

Dr Guy

on Oct 14, 2006

I must say I am honored for the attribution, and now can understand why the point of my article would be so authenticated. As there are sheeple as naive as you that have no clue of what they are talking about. I salute those of both sides who have commented on this and basically told you what a jerk you are. And I understand now where that cretin could get his justification for persecuting those who do not believe as he does. You validate his lunacy.

I will participate in your delusions. For the sake of argument (and by no means it is a concensus as you claim, but cannot prove) we will accept the earth is warming. now prove the cause. Go ahead. Eliminate the sun and then prove your case. And kill those you do not agree with, for that is in reality your argument. You are arguing for the censure of all that do not agree with you.

You are a bad example of the liberals. Unfortunately, you are not alone. Fortunately for the rest of us, we know you do not represent all liberals and fortunately for you that is the case as some of your saner breathren will get some moderate votes, discounting the loony fringe as not indicative of what the left truly represents.

In time, they will not be able to make that distinction as you will control the left. The loony fringe. Congratulations on your conquest. Short lived as it may be.

bakerstreet

on Oct 14, 2006

What really gets me is how RR can write, literally, hundreds of words and never really address anything. He repeats the argument, derides it, and then says that "smart" people agree with him. Basically his perspective seems to be "I'm going to believe scientists because they are scientists".

I mean good lord, re-read post #15. He looks at my argument and says "That's it?", but is there a single argument of his own in there anywhere? Is there any real proof of causation there? Nope, and that's why his response is so wordy and indignant yet makes no attempt to explain anything or offer anything other than self-righteous tone.

No, RR can't really say anything to anyone about 'cereal box' debate, because in post after post he just diverts to other people's boxes and offers nothing but insult in terms of personal insight. Well, pal, showing up with a grocery list of links to propaganda isn't any more insightful... less, actually. Come on, at least we are saying why we believe what we believe at this point, you just say you believe so-and-so says so.

dupe.

Fred Garvin

on Oct 15, 2006

"Global warming deniers have no evidence to support their ill formed opinion"

Unstoppable Global Warming—Every 1500

The Greenhouse Theory says the atmosphere above us should warm faster than the Earth’s surface around us. But this doesn’t seem to be happening. For example, compare California temperatures in the state’s central farming valleys with the readings on the Sierra Nevada Mountains just above them.

John Christy, a native of the Valley now at the University of Alabama/Huntsville, has done just that. He recently led a team that digitized the old manual temperature records and adjusted for any change that could have altered the individual station records: location, instruments, paving, etc.

The adjusted record says the San Joaquin Valley’s minimum summer-fall temperatures have risen about 3 degrees C since 1910—“a rise that is not detectable in the adjacent Sierra Nevada.” Christy says the big reason for the mountain-valley differential is that the Central Valley today is irrigating an additional 1 million acres of farmland. “Human engineering of the environment has changed a [highly-reflective] desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain” that absorbs more heat.

However, the big news from the more-accurate record is that Sierra Nevada Mountains show only a tiny warming trend--0.02 degrees C per decade from 1910–2003. Why didn’t the Sierra Nevada warm more? The carefully adjusted records of the virtually undeveloped Sierra Nevada weather stations disagree with the global climate models. And high-altitude stations are where the Greenhouse Theory says the signs of human-induced warming should be clearest.

Then we have the discrepancies between the surface thermometers and the high-altitude balloons and satellites. Seven out of eight datasets on upper air temperatures in the tropics show much less warming in the atmosphere than on the Earth’s surface, according to Christy’s July 20, 2006 testimony before Congress. Christy points out that the tropics make up one-third of the planet’s surface. He warns that seven datasets are very unlikely to differ from the eighth in the same way by random chance, he warns.

Christy’s conclusion: “There is likely a significant difference between the surface and atmospheric trends, with the atmosphere being cooler. This is significant because all model simulations indicate the atmosphere should be warming faster than the surface if greenhouse influences are correctly included in climate models.”

He believes that the earth is warming slowly, and that some part of the warming could be related to additional greenhouse gases. However, he says, we have no way to know how much of the 0.6 degree C warming of the 20th century has been natural.

Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica brought up in the 1980s have told of a long, moderate, irregular 1500-year global warming cycle linked to the sun. It was too moderate and masked by too much natural climate variability to be discerned by primitive peoples without thermometers or written records. It has since been found in seabed sediments, tree rings, glacier retreats, stalagmites, pollen fossils, seashells, and prehistoric dwelling sites all over the world.

The current warming began about 1850, before much human-emitted CO2, and the record includes such erratic events as the global cooling from 1940 to 1975. The 1500-year cycle explains our warming better than the Greenhouse Theory. If we subtract the 0.5 degree C of warming that occurred before 1940 from the overall warming of 0.7-0.8 degrees C, that doesn’t leave much to generate scary scenarios about human-emitted CO2. Christy’s new paper strengthens the case for examining natural warming factors besides CO2, such as the broadly documented 1500-year cycle.

Christy says he is unimpressed by claims that today’s weather is “unusual.” In his experience, weather is always erratic and wildly variable—and humans always think it’s unusual.

rabidrobot

on Oct 20, 2006

ass.

My first post consists of not one, but at least three arguments in favor of accepting human influence on climate change-the argument from experts of science is only one of them. Deniers keep trying to use quasi-scientific method to back up their claims. Such as claims like "the earth...is warmer than it was in the past", pointing out that there has been historical fluctuations, and the mind-boggling truism that it is the Sun that provides the Earth with energy.

I return to the scientific, reasoned, and rational argument because this is the debate the deniers have engaged, ignoring theological and philosophical aspects, not to mention the political, economical, and social impact discussion. Deniers take isolated facts, state them as if they sum up centuries of scientific research, then leap to illogical conclusions from them. It is fair for me to point out as many times as this is done, that these arguments are insipid, asinine and ignorant on several levels. If you can only handle one science tidbit at a time, then multi-variable climate modeling is just going to be too confusing.

But know that the scientists are aware of sunspots and the Sun for christ's sake. They are aware of cosmic freaking waves. They welcome regional studies of valleys into their cumulative knowledge. Being skeptical sorts they will give such studies scriutiny, and among such there will be differences of opinion and plenty of quotes to take out of context. The model takes your isolated anecdotes into account, and finds that recent dramatic climate change is human caused. This model is built on all the fluctuation data you all sum up so well. This model is just one aspect of the scientific body of knowledge on climate change. The data that allows people to make remarks such as, 'the temperature has always fluctuated', is the very data that these scientists have actually collected and researched. Summing up some third grade factoid about the climate, again, does not allow one to make the conclusion that climate change is not real.

Arguments of science will be responded to in a logical manner with sources, as is proper. If you find the debate style of baseless "The sun heats the earth, therefore global warming is a myth" claims back and forth more entertaining, tough shit.

You could always have debated the more flexible theological and philosophical discussion. Deniers have chosen the focus of the discussion, science. Which just shows how out of touch they are, because it is their weakest argument of all.

The fact that BakerStreet completely overlooked 80% of my original post only shows that even the swiftest of you can only think about the issue so much without resorting to name calling and repeating yourselves. If you think I am missing the point, state the point again. I think I've covered all the bases thus far, but again, I have probably just written too much. I can hardly expect those who can't even internalize what I write myself to actually look at my sources.

For example, BakerStreet asks, "Is there any real proof of causation there? " in response to sources like Link. And says I offer no argument besides that of the reality of scientific opinion in response to my original post.

I say again, any debate that exists, the deniers have lost. They don't even take themselves seriously. Their only hope now is to argue that there is actually a debate, lost cause or not, please let us debate. Well, here it is. You've lost the scientific debate, cherry-picked quotes and isolated studies aside from (actually not 'aside from' but 'part of' the overall) the vast majority of scientific consensus. You can't win on that front--arguing what is real, so if you don't want to keep losing there, then either move the discussion, or for a change, accept reality. You can't win on the logical front--Dr. Guy, in there somewhere, says,

Eliminate the sun and then prove your case. And kill those you do not agree with, for that is in reality your argument.

If that's the quality of the deniers' reasoned, rational 'debate', then I really don't have to say anything.

jennifer1

on Oct 20, 2006

Just a bit of humor!

MasonM

on Oct 20, 2006

How do you account for the fact that ice core samples demonstrate the fact that the planet has been warming and CO2 levels have been rising for the past 18,000 years?

Mikes Daily Log

on Oct 21, 2006

Brad Wardell

on Oct 31, 2006

Rabid - the problem you seem to be having is not all of us are willing to be governed by our "betters".

Do I think human activity is responsible for increasing temperatures? Probably. But to what degree? No idea. And if it is getting warmer do I really care? Not really. The temperature of the earth rises and falls over cycles.

I noticed that your respect for experts in a field is selective. In my article on how government interference affects the behaviors of producers you discarded my opinion for the opinion of an academic with no real world business experience (Sachs is the numbskull who wrote "End of Poverty").

My next house is going to be largely solar powered. And if I could buy an electric car, I would in a second. But I do not want the federal government imposing a bunch of heavy handed policies on greenhouse emmissions until they can figure out the exact ROI of such policies. Some scientist claiming we could solve the problem with 1% of our GDP or wait and spend up to 20% of our GDP to solve the problem is not serious proof (as I saw someone recently claim).

MasonM

on Oct 31, 2006

The idea that man-made pollution is responsible for global warming is not supported by historical fact. The period known as the Holocene Maximum is a good example-- so-named because it was the hottest period in human history. The interesting thing is this period occurred approximately 7500 to 4000 years B.P. (before present)-- long before human's invented industrial pollution.

Compiled by R.S. Bradley and J.A. Eddy based on J.T. Houghton et al., Climate Change: The IPCC Assessment, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1990 and published in EarthQuest, vo. 1, 1991.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!