Whenever I write something about anthropogenic global warming it inevitably attracts angry rants from the deniers claiming that Tim Ball said this or that or they read something of other in the National Spot that proves the ice sheets are reforming and polar bears are fat, sassy and reproducing in astonishing numbers.
This is the sort of drivel one can typically expect to find on any of their websites:
"The Global Warming scam was designed to
1. Scare people into giving time, money and power to charlatan scientists and sham politicians
2. Dramatically increase the size and scope of government and proliferate a worldwide socialist agenda
3. Oppress developing Nations"
I guess it's a good thing those unscrupulous science types didn't cotton on to this idea when they were developing nuclear weapons, eh? Why they'd have all the money today, not Big Oil and Big Coal.
One of their tried and true tactics is to denigrate the views of anyone they don't consider a "climate scientist" particularly anyone not of the calibre of Ball. Message to morons - if they were the calibre of Tim Ball they'd be retired, dead, unemployed or begging for handouts from Big Oil.
Be that as it may, these clowns need to understand that climate science is omni-disciplinary. Climatologists are a key part of climate science but they're still just a part. They produce the research and analysis, computer models and theories of what's going on with the weather and what is likely to follow. But their science is dependent upon and supportive of a host of other sciences including zoology, botany, geography, geology; hydrology, oceanography and hydrogeology; agronomy, palaeontology, physics, chemistry and several others. Each science draws upon the others and, using its own research, contributes to all others. A particular observation in one science can often be confirmed or refuted by looking for supportive evidence from another science.
One reason the denialists treat scientists like Suzuki with such scorn is that his discipline produces, real time, plain, in your face evidence that consistently refutes the claims of their side. They can't stand to see the proof of it placed before their eyes. They strain science and logic to the breaking point, standing reason on its head, to dismiss perils such as desertification, species extinction, resource depletion, precipitation dislocations (droughts and floods), hurricanes, cyclones and typhoons as utterly divorced from global warming. They don't even attempt to explain these global warming warning signs as resulting from anything else - because they can't. Instead they go dumb and chant, "it isn't true, it isn't true, it isn't true" as though that will make it all go away.
I'm tired of them and their Pythonesque ways. The modern day Flat Earth Society.
16 comments:
Hey. This is the coldest winter all over North America in recent memory. How does this play into Global Warming?
You might not want to believe this but weather variations are expected and one season is simply anecdotal. Think of them as static. You have to look through the highs and lows and to discern the actual trends. That's why the science of global warming was so incredibly slow to emerge. The trends had to be identified and then the causes determined. Then scientists began examining records, such as ice cores, going back more than a hundred thousand years to verify the link between greenhouse gas levels and warming. As you're curious there's a vast amount of literature on the science being conducted and the results that are coming in, virtually daily. It does take some effort and a good deal of time to work through it but it's there if you want it.
Ok, I'll give you current weather variations are at least possibly anecdotal.
Trying not to sound sarcastic or argumentative: Do you have one link I can check out that is not liberal in nature?
I'm looking for something that is fair and balanced, but I can only seem to find things that are too heavy conservative (deniers) or too heavy liberal (doomsday-ers)
anonymous,
The temp here in Toronto is going to hit 11 degrees ABOVE zero by tuesday. How does that play into global warming?
Weather does not equal climate. But deniers only come out in droves when its cold, never when its warm. Don't you find that a little telling about their so called arguments?
Global warming ia about extremes, terribly dry in Australia, not at all normal, floods in places that normally are fairly dry. etc.,etc.,
RE: Jay.
Ok, Toronto is going to be a lot warmer than usual, so using the same argument weather does not equal climate. I just happened to monitor Saturday's weather here in Calgary since Wednesday, and it changed from a low of -12 to a low of -4 in 3 days.
So, I guess I'm not really disagreeing with you here. But if we can't predict the weather 3 days from now, how can we predict it in 300 years from now? I think we can agree that weather has not been accurately reported for 100 or more years. so when The MOS says "Then scientists began examining records, such as ice cores, going back more than a hundred thousand years to verify..." no scientist can verify this info, it has to be deduced from assumptions they are making, and those assumptions may or may not be true. That's a big problem with the Left (and admittedly right) science. That's why I'm looking for something more fairly balanced. The movie by Gore is relying heavily on certain assumptions you must agree.
Hi all. Hope I can lend a little help from my limited, layman's perspective. Whether weather has been accurately predicted for the past hundred years is irrelevant. What's important is that it has been accurately recorded (although prediction has also improved markedly). Scientists have gotten very good at verifying climate histories from artifacts such as ancient trees and ice cores. They're not relying on assumptions. They're now recovering ice core samples from two miles down and they're able to date those cores with good accuracy. What's important in this evidence are trapped air bubbles and chemical traces that allow them to link C02 concentrations with warming periods and cooling periods. These have been matched with other evidence such as fossil records and extinction data (there have been a few of those) to provide a good, working knowledge of the relationship between CO2 and other greenhouse gas levels and the development and disappearance of lifeforms.
It sounds like you're interested in this. There is a great deal being written today for us laymen, simple enough that you can make sense of it with what you can recall from your highschool physics and chem classes.
This isn't about liberal versus conservative. Science is science. It is, and ought to be completely apolitical. The denial community, however, is largely driven by the fossil fuel industry and its political facilitators who do come from the right.
Imagine where this debate would be in Canada if it wasn't for the Tar Sands? That's the 800-pound gorilla in Canada's global warming debate.
Gore's movie doesn't rely "heavily" on assumptions. There are a few but not many. That has already been determined in a British court. It's easy to say the movie is biased because that requires no proof, just an inherent layer of cynicism.
This notion that the global warming camp is a liberal operation is perpetuated by those who can't be bothered to read the science. The more you learn the more you will appreciate that there's only one side that's running a political agenda - the side that believes it stands to lose big bucks. The other side is focused on research and learning. Read and you'll understand that.
Its useless to look at day to day weather patterns or even weekly or monthly trends. The way climate change is monitored is by climate and global average temperature.
Global average temperature during an ice age (yes we are in one, just in an interglacial) is just above zero Celsius. Thats the average of temperatures everywhere from the poles to the tropics all year round. The other age we have been in is a "hot house" where the yearly average global temperature is near 30 Celsius.
The problem with climate change is the effects that increasing global average temperatures have. As you increase from zero upwards a lot of significant changes occur. First is unpredictable weather but keep in mind it has to be averaged out to indicate change. It will be blistering hot sometimes and intensely cold at other times. Its when the heat starts to surpass the cold and your global average temperature increases, which it has been, that climate change, more specifically global warming can be said to be said to be occurring. As global average temperatures continue to rise and the planet gets closer to be being more homogeneously warm and then weather patterns start to slow due to the lack of colder air which is what drives weather when combined with warm air. At some point rainfall will nearly cease as moisture cannot condense. The interior of land masses turn to desert and only near the coast is their any sort of moisture. This has huge ramifications obviously on farming since the land is arid, no rain and aquifers don't replenish. I don't need to elaborate any further on the consequences for humans.
The current variety of ecosystems from which we get a variety of foods from will also be gone. The extremes in cold and warm we currently have and more so in the past creates a very diverse mosaic of niches for organisms to live in. With that gone, you tend to get more generalist animals as plants such as weeds. So food stocks decrease and the beauty of the world around us is gone.
This is not science fiction. This happened in the past just gradually and over a huge period of time. The coal we have today originated in a period of warmth like we are headed for. Coal came from swamps that surrounded all the landmasses (interior was uninhabitable) and came from tress that died ad due to the absence of lignin digesting bacteria at this time became coal.
When I first started studying climate change in the very early nineties this was never about liberal or conservative or anything else. I couldn't tell them apart myself as I wasn't politically involved. It was something that had to be dealt with and that was it.
As for assumptions. There are always going to be as there was with the ozone problem we seemed to have dealt with quite successfully. The planet is more complex than anyone or any group could ever pretend to know but that doesn't mean you sit on your ass until its too late just so you can have all the answers. Humans have always made assumptions and we have always progressed. Their are much much fewer assumptions today as there were in the early nineties but the fact is they weren't wrong. The only thing that was wrong was the speed at which this would occur. I remember when it was several hundred years away now its as little as 50. Thats the only assumption that has caused problems. We were addressing it too slowly then and since politics has been dragged into it it has stalled completely and IMHO we are moving backwards.
"This notion that the global warming camp is a liberal operation is perpetuated by those who can't be bothered to read the science. The more you learn the more you will appreciate that there's only one side that's running a political agenda - the side that believes it stands to lose big bucks. The other side is focused on research and learning."
That says it all.
Jay, thanks for the input. Much appreciated. A lot of us seem to have an ingrained fear of science (probably a reaction to having to memorize the Periodic Table in Grade 12) and, until recently, much of the climate change science was beyond the layman's grasp. The science community has recognized this disconnect problem and has made great strides in restating their findings in layman's language. There's so much information out there today that wasn't to be found even five years ago. People need only reach for it and, I believe, more are every day. Not enough, perhaps, but let's just keep hammering away at it because the sooner popular understanding reaches critical mass, the sooner and easier it will be to respond and the more options that will remain available to us.
You and I both know that societies can only neglect this for so long before the negative realities become severe enough that remedies will be demanded.
As I've written before, the best options for confronting AGW slipped through our fingers decades ago before we realized the nature and extent of the problem. As each decade since has passed we've lost a succession of "next best" options. We can only work our way down the option line for so long before what's left turns out to be radical to the point of being brutal.
When I was a kid I worked at an oil refinery with an old, wizened up welder we called "Blue." He told of being caught on a catalytic cracker tower when lightning struck setting the tower afire below him. As the flames rose he retreated up the stairs and catwalk, ever higher. Finally he looked at the concrete pad below and realized that, eventually, he'd be forced to jump. Realizing that he was already likely toast he threw a leg over the rail and fell several stories to the concrete below. He was horribly injured and spent a few months in a coma but he survived. We're also running up a cat cracker of our own.
Possibly another reason deniers get a hate-on for Suzuki is because he's a good communicator who can explain in great detail a whole lot of information in less than an hour, and then have you wanting even more.
'Coldest winter in memory'? I heart that argument. I can only counter with my own observations.
We've gotten a lot of snow here, the most in my memory, but it doesn't seem like it'll last until summer, as it used to even fifteen years ago. It'll be gone by winters end, and the lake will go another inch down. In fact, I'm worried about the water in these parts. BC might become like the prairies in even fifteen years time.
You've got a genuine problem, Troy. Out here we're all somewhat at the mercy of the snowpack - humans, salmon, bears, wolves, eagles - we're all dependent on how much snow accumulates over the winter and how gradually it's released through the spring and summer. I think you'll find that BC will pursue a big public works programme over the next few decades to create mountain reservoirs to hold that water, if only because the consequences of letting it run off at the wrong times will be too disastrous. At least we have the option, that's a lot more than many places have.
I expect California's mega-snowpack will cause it problems soon. I expect there'll be stability problems and a premature spring melt could trigger a lot of flooding and slides although it should recharge the reservoirs.
Alright guys. Let's try this again.
Could I please have one (don't spam me with a dozen) link that discusses global warming (or even lack there of) that is not politically one sided?
Even reading all these comments this morning made me feel like I was at a Liberal fund raising dinner.
"BC might become like the prairies in even fifteen years time." -- things like this disappoint me as it looks so much like fear mongering.
Is this balanced:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=related
I'm sure you would say no, because it does not go your way.
That's how I feel about Gore's movie.
Come on guys. Let's try to get one link.
If it's truly apolitical, show me one link.
Thanks for your time guys.
Jim - go to RealClimate.org. There you can find discussions by scientists involved in the related fields and a vast array of links to other sites, all of them science oriented. You're going to have to spend some time reading but those links will lead you to the essential information.
Jim, you remind me of some smokers who don't want to quit - they either grab on to stories of someone who lived to one hundred who had one ciggie a day, or they just don't seem to see all the written reports out there saying smoking is bad. There is a ton of stuff out there to read, just open your eyes and realize we are addicted to easy oil.
weenie
Anon, I've never said we weren't addicted to oil. I'm just saying it might not be a bad thing.
That being said, I'm trying to keep an open mind.
Thanks for the link, The MoS. This looks promising.
Post a Comment