The Global - Global Warming Movement
Submitted by Oculus on Tue, 07/24/2007 - 12:03pm.
The global warming debate had me thinking the other day. Global warming means different things to different people, and it depends on which filter you are looking through as to how your opinion falls. To a lot of people, the science is already done, there's no doubt about it, global warming exists, it's being caused by our vehicles, and there's no stopping it without government intervention. To others, the planet might be warming, but the cause and the implications are still considered in the realm of theory and speculation.
Personally, I'm in the crowd that thinks that global warming due to greenhouse gases and it's implications are still theory. I don't deny that it's possible, however I still think that it's entirely possible to be de-bunked in the future. I'm not writing this to talk about the science of the matter because there are a lot of conflicting theories out there. I'm mainly interested in exposing some of the political implications of the concept of global warming. Don't misunderstand me as ignoring the scientific data, as I believe that science, done properly, will inevitably find the truth in this whole matter.
Looking at this issue from the standpoint of political and government power, global warming quickly separates itself from a lot of other ideas as one of the farthest reaching and possibly dangerous movements to the sovereignty of our nation and economy and here's why. It is entirely possible that we are in the midst of one of the greatest attempts at a global shift towards the idea of socialism that we have ever come across. We already know that socialism is the idea that we should start to think of ourselves as just but one of a large group rather than individuals with our own agendas. Liberals have been pushing this for quite a while, and there are a lot of countries that have, for the most part, been overtaken by this movement. This line of thinking softens up the majority of the population to the idea of increased government control over our lives. Global warming fits this pattern very closely.
Here's the idea: The government identifies a problem (i.e. Warming of the planet), the government identifies a solution (i.e. increased regulation, control, taxes, and a decrease in the free market and the individuals right to make choices for themselves). In all cases, the government benefits and the individual is forced to give up some sort of resource, be it money or choice. This pattern has been seen before. Problem: Healthcare. Solution: increased regulation, control, taxes, and a decrease in the free market and the individuals right to make choices for themselves. Problem: Education. Solution: increased regulation, control, taxes, and an education system where the government is in control of the spread of ideas to as many soft minds as possible. You get the idea.
Now, the theory of global warming differs in one large way than a lot of these other issues. This 'problem' would have to be solved globally, and therefore would be more likely entrusted to a global organization such as the U.N.. What are the implications of this? Control. Control over the oil market, control over the energy market, control over the automobile industry and a lot of other so called 'dirty' industries which span pretty much all of the global economies. That, my friends, is a fact. These organizations cannot militarily take power from us, however political and economic consequences have no boundaries. We've seen this first hand from the establishment of the European Union. I'm not trying to be alarmist, just noting some obvious facts about how these things work. Money, resources, and ideas can travel at the speed of light these days.
Am I wrong? Possibly, however if you consider the previous patterns of some of these social movements, I am more likely right than wrong. Don't give me any more consensus science. I can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that socialism exists, however you still can't prove to me that we are going to kill ourselves through global warming. It's still theory at this point.
Oh boy, this ought to be fun!
What I hear you saying is...the concept of global warming may be the 10-horned beast.
Well, I don't know about that. I'm mainly considering the implications of a unified world movement towards anti-free-market practices.
...yeah...like I said...ten-horned beast :)
I think we are more likely to pass legislation that will stop Hurricanes from forming or impacting developed areas than to make a dent in global warming. I for one would rather be tasked with stopping a Hurricane from striking the Gulf than to reduce the temperature of the Earth by a half a degree or reduce CO2 emissions by a significant factor.
I mean, don't hurricanes cause billions of dollars worth of damage each year? Don't they kill people? Why don't the superpowers do something to help all of the developed areas that are prone to Hurricanes? The last time I checked, you even have days-worth of warning that one of these suckers is headed your way. That's enough time to nuke that SOB.
And wasn't Global Warming supposed to cause the most severe Hurricane seasons this and last year? And just where are these Hurricanes?
Wait. Strike my idea. We don't need legislation to prevent Hurricanes from impacting developed areas. It appears that someone else has already researched, developed, and implemented technology to do this. Last year's Hurricane season was a flop. This one isn't so hot so far.
Edit. Yep. The Hurricanes were stopped last year.
You say they're conflicting theories but where are they? I'm not trying to be condescending. However never mind “scientific consensus” or other absurd misnomers, where did you come up with this conclusion?
Naomi Oreskes two years ago did a study on just this. Looking at 928 articles from scientific journals, Oreskes found 75% agreed with view of global warming being man-made and the rest 25% stated no position either way. None, zero, 1 – 1, zilch, nada, argued man wasn't the cause of global warming.
If such great proof and evidence exists that man isn't causing global warming. Why not publish it in a scientific journal?
The conclusion I draw from this is they, the so called global warming denier crowd, don't have any evidence or facts to support their bogus claims. If they actually published real science, that would mean they'd actually have to back up their claims with real evidence. Why do that? If you lay out your scientific reasoning providing evidence, facts, and climate models contrary to the so called consensus view. Facts, evidence and hypothesis's from them, can be proven wrong or their scientific reasoning seen as, for what is it, logically flawed. If your claims are bogus, you wouldn't publish would you. You'd leave yourself open for attack.
Instead you spread FUD(fear uncertainty and doubt) via publishing op-ed pieces and giving quotes for newspapers articles, the obvious bastions of scientific thought, while all the while cherry picking and taking out of context the real work of climatologists. Pretend there is ambiguity; and at the same time, complain about the scientific consensus. Never mind it may not make any sense that you can have both ambiguity and consensus at the same time. Your whole argument doesn't make any sense anyway, so whose counting.
All the while link the global warming consensus, to the historical malfeasance of the so called consensus on eugenics. Hence linking global warming consensus and climatologists to biological racism, Nazi's and Hitler all in one fell swoop; and in the process, probably breaking Godwin's Law. But I digress back to the point at hand.
With all the absurd global warming banter going about. We miss the simplicity of the idea. I'll just give the facts. Since the Industrial Revolution began, concentrations of CO2 have increased by about 31 percent, methane has more than doubled, and nitrous oxide has risen by 17 percent all of which are greenhouse gases and absorb infrared radiation. CO2 levels are currently at the highest level in the last 400,000 years. Not because CO2 levels were higher 400,000 years ago. We are limited to our current measuring methods. It is probable it is much more than 400,000 years.
Link to graph it isn't showing
The reason for this graph is simple. Anthropogenic, a fancy word for human activities, emissions account for 5% of the total CO2 emissions annually around 28 billion tonnes of the 550 billion tonnes in total. However, the natural emissions of CO2 are offset by the natural absorption processes; such as by plants through photosynthesis, and absorption by the oceans and plankton. This is even more imbalanced by deforestation but will leave that out. From the graph below, notice the yearly raise and fall of CO2 levels.
Link to graph it isn't showing
Anthropogenic emissions, on the other hand, are not part of any natural process, and are essentially stored up battery energy in the form of fossil fuels.
The question is simple with these facts. If you the simplify the problem and just take the extra anthropogenic emissions, around 5% annually, one should easily be able to calculate the temperate increase caused by them. Now, if these extra emission aren't causing warming, as to take the claim by the global warming denier crowd. Other processes must be offsetting this warming, if so what are they? The ball here is really in the court of the global warming denier crowd, they must explain away all the warming created by the extra greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. But they don't even publish scientific papers or do any research, they don't even try. It is completely bogus.
Now to be fair it isn't as simple as I make it sound. There are many different factors to global warming. CO2 absorption by the oceans, dozens of different forcings, aerosol cooling, etc, etc, and these disparities show up in the climate models. For instance, if you read the IPCC report on global warming, you'll see it predicting anthropogenic effects will cause 1.4C to 5.8C degrees of warming this century. For those who are celsius illiterate, like myself, that is almost a 8 degree fahrenheit range between best case and worst case scenarios. Hardly a hive mind, pod people consensus people claim exists.
Your argument completely and utterly missed my point and seems like it was intended to sidestep the original intent of the argument.
If one had skipped over my original post they'd think you were making some valid points, however it was essentially the equivalent of "LOL WTF, You don't believe in gravity, OMG look at the evidence". Here's what I said: "but the cause and the implications are still considered in the realm of theory and speculation."
I noticed your quick to label me a "Global Warming Denier" That's a buzzword this crowd always uses to invoke emotional ridicule on the person against their view. I have, however not denied that such a phenomenon existed. I also have not denied that it would end life as we know it. I have however stated that it is more likely that the solutions to this proposed warming is an attempt to spread a social and political movement across the planet.
I'm sick of liberals claiming that anyone who disagrees with their view of the world is "against science and fact". It's simply a misguided and stereotypical view. It'd be as if I called all liberals "hippies who just like to smoke weed and protest things, all the while living in their mother's basement while still 35 years old". It's an attempt to get people on the side of the accuser. I very much believe in science, however, I also believe in the fallibility of man, and the fact that a majority of researchers on the topic of global warming could have been influenced by outside political forces.
And you claim I'm spreading FUD (Fear Uncertainty, Doubt)???! And the global warming prophets aren't? Last time I checked, they were the ones calling out the end of mankind as we know it. I'm basing my views off of a known source that has never let us down... History. History has shown us that social movements exist, and they will usually latch themselves onto a valid and real-world phenomenon. There is a distinct possibility that this movement is no different. The global warming crowd is the one spreading FUD by saying "there's no turning back", "we've reached the tipping point", "we're doomed", hell you've probably even seen the faked picture of the polar bear sitting on a 'melted' iceberg. Textbook FUD. I'm not saying some people aren't doing it on the other side as well, that'd be naive.
I have no tolerance for people telling me there is a problem without giving me a practical solution for it. The fact of the matter is that global warming has been spread with such religious fervor that it's essentially become more of a political and social movement thats attached to scientific data to validate their true intentions of remaking the world in their own image, be-damned any economic or individualist ramifications. That's the argument at hand. Any proposed solution to the theorized problem has been impractical at best.
There's a growing trend of thinking, usually by the environmentalist crowd, that humanity is a virus on this planet. In order to cure this disease, they suggest government regulation, control, .. etc. Sure, some regulation is necessary, otherwise we'd be living in a cesspool. I've probably taken more environmental classes in my lifetime than most people. I know the ramifications of uncontrolled industrial activity, it's quite scary. But the solution to this type of pollution is *usually* applied in a practical manner, much unlike the solutions of the global warming movement.
Everyone organization or group of people has their intentions and motives. Some of these may conflict with the actual situation at hand. It's human nature. Until you concede this fact, we'll always be viewing two different versions of reality.
I don't think many people deny the planet is getting warmer. Many people are uncertain what is causing it. Any explanation we may conceive is based on 100 years of empirical data from a 4.5 billion year old planet. I remain unsure.
That's why you gotta watch out when environmentalists say "... highest it's been in recorded history!"
Not true.
Historical temperature data has been recorded by people for millennia. However, the best data comes from ice cores. Ice core data extends the historical record of temperature variations and CO2, methane, and other greenhouse gas concentrations back over 400,000 years.
What is interesting about the ice core data is it shows a possible link between CO2 and temperature variations. The graph of the data is available here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Co2-temperature-plot.svg
Notice how the CO2 variations match the temperature variations quite well. Now because of the imprecise nature of exactly dating the water and air samples from ice cores. It is hard to determine whether increase CO2 and green house gases concentrations, precede and cause increase temperatures, or vice-versa, or whether they happen at the same time.
It is hard to determine whether increase CO2 and green house gases concentrations, precede and cause increase temperatures, or vice-versa, or whether they happen at the same time.
I think this is one of the major reasons that a lot of people have their doubts about the "consensus" that man is causing all of the warming that is taking place. It also causes doubt as to what man can do to prevent warming and even if we should try to prevent it, maybe it's a perfectly normal natural thing, we know from the ice cores that the earth has been warmer than it is now.
Personally, I am a doubter, not as to whether or not the earth is warming, but as to how much of it is due to human activity. I do believe that with 6 billion people on the planet we have to have some affect on it, but how much? Is CO2 the main cause of warming? If so how much CO2 do we emit relative to the rest of the earth? Depending on who you listen to you'll get many different answers. I don't think anyone really knows for sure and I don't think anyone will anytime soon.
So, as long as there are these doubts out there, should we regulate ourselves into the stone age? Should we stifle developing countries and cause the deaths of their people in the thousands per year by forcing them to use "green" energy. I don't think so.
And that's my 2 cents.
-Rev
I think y'all should seriously consider this massage from Al Gore before you jump to conclusions.
I recently learned that UAH is home to a prominent climatologist Roy W. Spencer. He is aware of the earth's gradual change in climate, but he is not convinced of man's hand in it. I thought y'all might be interested in reading his stuff.
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
http://www.uah.edu/News/climatebackground.php
Dr. John Christy is more well-known because of a goof he did with some global warming data several years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/atmos/christy.html
He's outspoken against GW, but he took a hit on his credibility when an error was found in one of his data sets.
He goes to the DC on a regular basis (and before international organizations) to brief our representatives. Both he and Spencer give talks at UAH throughout the year that anyone can attend
I've seriously considered going to UAH to get an Atmospheric Science degree after I worked around some of those guys in my senior year. UAH has a top-notch Atmospheric Science program, especially with it's strong ties to NASA.
Post new comment