Global Warming Roundup
by Ted Slater on 12/13/2007 at 10:35 AM
A number of our readers are engaged in the global warming discussion. For their benefit, here are some recent headlines:
Arctic Sea Ice Re-Freezing at Record Pace
Record High Antarctic Ice Levels Ignored by Media
Earth's Heat Adds to Climate Change to Melt Greenland Ice
Island Shrinking by Global Warming… But for Over 100 Years?
Fall in weather deaths dents climate warnings
Weather Channel Founder: Global Warming 'Greatest Scam in History'
Jews Are Responsible For Global Warming
Chris Horner Identifies More Weather Station Problems
More Than Half of Analyzed Weather Stations Don’t Meet Federal Guidelines
Contaminated data: Hot cities, not CO2, cause urban thermometers to rise
Tax Parents for Children's Carbon Emissions
Baby tax needed to save planet, claims expert
Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge
Flatulent Kangaroos Could Save Planet
Gas-gobbling bug could be a weapon against global warming
Can the Sun save us from global warming?
Study says humans not heating up the planet
Skeptics Denied Press Credentials at UN Climate Meeting in Bali
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference
Skeptical Scientists Urge World To ‘Have the Courage to Do Nothing' At UN Conference
Dishonest Political Tampering with the Science on Global Warming
How Environmentalists Intend to Rule the World
The Pope condemns the climate change prophets of doom
Do You Think It’s Fun Being A Denier?
I don't necessarily agree with the authors of these pieces; I'm merely mentioning them for the sake of discussion. I look forward to the ensuing conversation.
1. P&P said the following at 10:53 AM on Dec 13:
What about this one from the Christian Science Monitor:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1212/p03s03-uspo.html
Also, the same Pulitzer Prize winning newspaper has a special section dedicated to following the debate as well:
http://www.csmonitor.com/globalwarming
2. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 10:55 AM on Dec 13:
Great, all this reading during exams. Thanks a bunch, Ted. ;)
3. Laura said the following at 11:42 AM on Dec 13:
Ted, I continue to have such a hard time understanding your antipathy to the climate change debate. Something's happening, and whether it's caused by human behavior or not, we're going to have to address its effects. And it seems to me that Christians should be leading the way in being good stewards of the earth by making choices that help to cut down on global warming's effects.
Where I work, in central Africa, global warming is evident to people who have no knowledge of the rest of the world's debate on this issue. When the rains come too early, or come too late, or don't come at all, families suffer, and farmers will tell you point-blank that something is wrong. Agricultural practices that have continued in more-or-less the same way for hundreds of years are becoming untenable.
I'm not trying to be unkind here. It just doesn't make sense to me why you post so many things that come off as being opposed to taking this issue seriously. (Or maybe I'm misreading this post, but it sounded pretty snarky from this end.)
4. NeedACatchyName said the following at 11:52 AM on Dec 13:
Gunning for that longest thread on Boundless title again, aren't we Ted? :-)
5. Ted Slater said the following at 12:06 PM on Dec 13:
Laura -- I am absolutely not antipathetic to the climate change debate. That's why I'm providing information to discuss. I'd like to actually *see* a debate, rather than just say that the case is closed. It's not that I don't "take this issue seriously." It's that I take this issue very seriously.
Let's not go down the road of saying that those not in a panic about environmental change are not good stewards of the earth. I concur with you that "Christians should be leading the way in being good stewards of the earth...."
You wrote, "When the rains come too early, or come too late, or don't come at all, families suffer...." So, no matter what happens, global warming is behind it. Rains will *always* be either "too early" or "too late" or "not come at all." That's a tautology.
Please (and this is a plea to all readers, not just Laura) -- take some time to click through some of those articles. You'll read things you just won't get from the main stream media, things that will temper what you've heard about GW. Where are the temperature figures coming from in the first place, for example? In many cases, from tainted weather sensors. And why would both the Pope and the founder of The Weather Channel encourage calm, rather than panic, when it comes to climate change? And is returning to a slightly warmer climate worse for the planet and its inhabitants, or actually better for us?
I'm petitioning that we not close the door on discussing this cyclic pattern of warming and cooling, that we look beyond the headlines, that we not dismiss GW skeptics as either foolishly hateful of the environment or in bed with Big Oil.
We Christians should be encouraged to think, to consider the evidence both for and against the extent of anthropogenic global warming. Doing so honors God.
6. Ryan A. said the following at 12:08 PM on Dec 13:
Ted, I'm afraid you'll be speaking to brick walls on this one... those that are convinced there is global warming, no matter how much evidence you pile on that there isn't, will never be dissuaded. It's like evolution: at what point will the evidence FINALLY dissuade lunatic theories? It won't because its an ideaology, not science.
This is why I am not a Liberal Druid but a Christian. Luke 12:6-7 says “Are not five sparrows sold for two copper coins? And not one of them is forgotten before God. 7 But the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Do not fear therefore; you are of more value than many sparrows." This is something our alarmist friends (both secular and sectarian alike) forget: Christians are to tend and keep the earth, but not allow the earth to overrun us. Wild nature is dangerous, but the pastoral is pleasant (Tolkien's "Lord of the Rings" is a good illustration in the comparisons between the Hobbit's Shire (pastoral and pleasant) vs. Bombadil's Old Forest or Treebeard's Fangorn Forest (wild, untamed, dangerous))... we are to have dominion over the earth.
YES, sparrows have value. But much LESS than a human being's. Which is why it is deplorable for a mother to have an abortion to "save the planet" (a headline from a couple weeks ago, curiously left out of this lineup).
The Druids will never be dissuaded. No amount of facts will convince them. The comments after me will most likely prove that. (They will attack myself and my character versus examining the arguments themselves, most likely).
7. Adam D said the following at 12:09 PM on Dec 13:
Whether or not Global Warming is real, that baby tax idea is frightening.
8. JB said the following at 12:14 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
Why do you so often write about global warming on here? The other political issues Boundless raises can at least be discussed on the level or moral or religious or political principles, but the global warming discussion is about whose science is better. What is the connection between global warming and Boundless?
9. Ted Slater said the following at 12:25 PM on Dec 13:
JB -- I write about GW because our readers are interested in discussing it. It's very relevant for 20-somethings and 30-somethings to consider what's happening with our environment. We are commanded by God to be good stewards of this earth, and so we struggle to know how best to carry out that command.
The thing is, I've seen a lot of ignorance among those who pull a headline from here and an anecdote from there, and conclude that humans are causing the earth's temperature to rise dramatically, thus dooming us to deadly consequences. The result? We panic, and the high priests of GW profit.
I want to see our readers educated. To ponder where the data come from. To ponder why a few people are trying to encourage calm (the Pope, the founder of The Weather Channel, many others), but they get shouted down by those profiting from GW alarmism (speech-givers, government agencies, NGOs, grant recipients, others). To ponder if rising temperatures might actually be good for most of us. To ponder whether or not increased solar activity has played a role in the rising temperatures of all the planets in our solar system, including our own. To ponder the question of who profits from GW alarmism. And so on.
I want to facilitate thoughtful discussion of this hot topic. I don't just want to jump mindlessly on the PC bandwagon, a bandwagon that includes more restrictions and more taxes ... for little or no benefit.
I write about global warming because the hysteria is a sympton of something deeper: thoughtlessness and faithlessness. Overcoming those things honors God.
10. mindlab said the following at 12:30 PM on Dec 13:
Let me be the first to say, simply: good post.
I don't see how this post deprecates the debate; it simply links to some viewpoints that are woefully missing from the main stream (ideologically driven) drivel.
11. obewan said the following at 12:40 PM on Dec 13:
I am amazed at how much opposition conservation faces. Whether or not Global Warming is a real concern, energy shortages are and will take place before Global Warming is a major threat. (So say the so-called experts.)
My point is that the cure for both so called Global Warming and energy shortages is the same. Maybe we do not need carbon taxes or a carbon trading monetary system, but what is the problem with a 35 mpg CAFE (just to start.) China just set their CAFE to 45 mpg. I believe Japan's is at 40 mpg, and some say the average fuel economy in Europe is already 40 mpg.
In the US? We fight tooth and nail over changing it to 35 mpg 10-15 years out. The auto lobby is corrupt and will cry job loss at the smallest change to the CAFE.
There is money to be had in all forms of conservation. Austerity and conservation are Christian virtues that should not be downplayed in the debate. Jerry Falwell in his non-engineering ignorance decreed that the fight against Global Warming would "destroy the current industrial complex." Did he know that new jet engines are available (for $6 million each) that produce a fraction of the pollution and yet SAVE the airlines $5 million dollars a year in fuel cost? There are countless other examples that will never come to fruition for obvious reasons. Compact fluorescent light bulbs are a huge win environmentally and financially, and will never be ruled in by law because people will cry about job loss, or loss of business, or the initial investment expense.
We should never forget that the US is 6% of the World population, and we use something like 40% of the world’s resources.
12. Ted Slater said the following at 12:58 PM on Dec 13:
obewan -- nobody I know is against conservationism. I'm in favor of it, and spend my money in a way that'd make most conservationists happy.
The figures you provide in your final paragraph are likely incorrect. Americans make up some 5 percent of the world population, and consume 26 percent of the world's energy. I imagine our resource usage is similar. Now, what could we possibly be doing with that energy and those resources? Being productive with it! :-)
13. Gene said the following at 1:06 PM on Dec 13:
"Flatulent kangaroos can save the planet"?
Ooh, the jokes on that one are just going to write themselves!
14. Nikki said the following at 1:16 PM on Dec 13:
I am so frustrated with this entire issue and this post just made it worse. I am not a scientist and, just like with so many other issues, I have to trust people who supposedly know what they're talking about. Here there are many people saying many differing things: opposition, mutually exclusive things. I just don't know who to trust. Every article seems to make sense, until someone who ostensibly knows more than I do comes along with something undermining and opposing it. I just don't know who is right, and I have no real way of finding out for myself who is right.
So all I am going to do is continue to live life as a good steward, like I should be doing anyways.
15. Kim said the following at 1:30 PM on Dec 13:
There is a fine line between being calm and being complacent. Feel free to calmly face the global warming debate, but please don't allow yourself to be complacent. I see far too much waste created by our complacent, apathetic, entitled generation. As obewan said, using CFLs make sense for everyone financially, but people go on using incandescents, and for the life of me, I can't understand why. Anyone out there have an explanation?
16. Matthew said the following at 1:33 PM on Dec 13:
The problem with global warming skepticism is that it cherry-picks a small minority of studies and scientists and then pits them against 2000+ other scientists who agree with the global warming consensus. "Debating" global warming in this manner is like debating whether or not the US government carried out 9/11-- you'll find reputable people who will vigorously offer evidence, but they are in the vast minority of experts. The conspiracy theories about who benefits from global warming hysteria have to get pretty far-fetched, as I would imagine that there is a lot of money from industrial companies for anyone who can prove that we're fine.
The BBC had an excellent series on climate skepticism, with some common objections (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm) and a few different articles about hearing out the skeptics themselves (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081026.stm) and (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7092614.stm)
17. Laura said the following at 1:42 PM on Dec 13:
Ted, I appreciate your clairifications here. I'm not trying to argue that anyone should panic, but rather that we should be aware of what's going on and do something about it. If I know that my behavior is causing a physical problem for someone else, I'm going to change that behavior because it's the right thing to do.
And just to clarify on my end, I don't think my statement about rain patterns was tautological. Rain patterns in central Africa are pretty set - they normally come and go at the same times of year like clockwork (eg, where we are, they start in early February and end in late May). The patterns alternate on either side of the equator in this tropical zone, so that when those south of the equator have rain, those north don't. This has noticably changed, and now we're getting too much rain while others are getting none. Families do suffer as a result of that change in rain patterns. It may be a logical leap to conclude that this is because of global warming, but I was just trying to convey the perceptions of locals.
18. Jacob Douvier said the following at 1:56 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
You said, "I want to see our readers educated."
Are you suggesting that I don't know everything? I mean, I have a college degree and am a little smarter than the average joe....Maybe if I just told everyone the way things are, tossing in a few ad homonyns, I could settle this debate by telling everyone how stupid they are for disagreeing with me.
Let's have some charity and civility, people. I have become convicted of late of my own lack of love and I think it's something we all need to grow in here.
19. Paul said the following at 2:08 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
Yes you're right, we do need to think about all this stuff. We also need to act on our thoughts, even if we're not 100% certain that we're right yet. Being a good steward will mean going the extra mile (a biblical term) and perhaps doing some things that turn out to have been unnecessary, for the sake of making sure we aren't oppressing other people and nations in our use of those resources that God's has entrusted to us. We should be pouring aid into the hands of those working with the poor irrespective of the climate debate, and if there's any glimmer of doubt that we're managing creation well, we should be ploughing money into fixing that too.
If you'll permit me to draw a parallel, Jesus asks us to consider who our neighbor is. It's something we should think about quite a lot. However, when Jesus returns and asks us what we did to help our neighbor, He will probably be quite dissapointed if we reply "well, I thought quite a lot about who my neighbor was, but I'm not absolutely certain yet, and I didn't want to be wasteful, so I've kept the money I was going to spend on my neighbor in the bank for now".
Ryan,
I think you're missing the point. A lot of the scientists who tell us to do something about climate change also tell us that the result of unchecked climate change will be the extinction of humanity, while the planet carries on quite happily without us (though you and I might believe that Jesus will return soon before this happens). The point is that the science is about protecting human life and very little else. Granted, we're also interested in protecting endangered species, but only because we gain some benefit from them (probably in terms of pleasure or interest).
As Christians we should indeed have dominion over creation and not be too concerned if we are changing our environment. Unless of course the changes we make to the environment have a negative impact on other people, who God cares about greatly. We should be at the forefront of environmental action, setting an agenda that ensures we relieve both present and potential future human suffering. In doing so, we will have unlimited opportunities for powerful Christian witness.
20. Jethro said the following at 3:00 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
Why do you continue to flog this dead horse? We all know what you think about global warming. We all know how it's simply a massive conspiracy to sell carbon credits and make people on the far left extremely rich, so they can have enough money to kill all the babies they want.
Oh, and for the record, citing blogs to prove your point is weak. All you're doing is backing up one worthless opinion with another. Much as if I did the same (my opinion is worthless too). Cite research Ted. Cite journals. Cite studies.
21. Dan Pangburn said the following at 3:30 PM on Dec 13:
Climate obviously has changed and will continue to change. But the observation that ice is melting does not show that human activity is the cause. The assertion that humans have or ever can have a significant influence on climate such as by limiting the use of fossil fuel (a.k.a. limiting human production of carbon dioxide) is not supported by any historical record. Directly interrogate official government data that taxpayers have paid for from ORNL and NOAA as follows: If the carbon dioxide level from Lawdome, Antarctica http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/co2/lawdome.combined.dat is graphed on the same time scale as global fossil fuel usage from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_glob.htm it is discovered that the current carbon dioxide level increase started about 1750, a century before any significant fossil fuel use. If average earth temperature anomalies (variations) since 1880 from http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html are graphed on the same time scale as global fossil fuel use it is discovered that there is no correlation between rising fossil fuel use and average global temperature to 1976. The asserted hypothesis that, since 1976, increasing carbon dioxide level has caused the average global temperature to rise is refuted by the carbon dioxide level from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.html and earth temperature anomalies from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/trends/temp/vostok/vostok.1999.temp.dat determined from the Vostok, Antarctica ice cores. If these are graphed on a higher-resolution time scale it is discovered that the change in atmospheric carbon dioxide level lags earth temperature change by hundreds of years. If Lawdome (and other sources) carbon dioxide data and Vostok temperature are plotted on the same graph since 1000 AD (or earlier) it is observed that temperature oscillates up to ±1.5ºC (half pitch about 100 yr) while carbon dioxide level remains essentially unchanged (carbon dioxide level changed little between 9000BC and 1750AD) which again demonstrates that global temperature change is independent of carbon dioxide. The conclusion from all this is that carbon dioxide change does NOT cause significant climate change. Also, around 440 million years ago, the carbon dioxide level was over ten times the present and the Andean-Saharan ice age happened that lasted several million years so even large increases in carbon dioxide level won’t cause the planet to warm. The human-caused global warming myth puts American freedom and prosperity at risk.
22. Ryan A. said the following at 3:44 PM on Dec 13:
Paul,
Point well taken, however there are a growing amount of people who are still looking at the same data and drawing different conclusions. The world is hardly at the brink of extinction.
Jethro-- studies? Journals? You do realize that if the UN could get away with harassing scientists for their credentials and blackballing them from attending the conference in Bali that the same ideology would well PERMEATE those editorial boards who decide which study to include in those journals. Or which study to fund. Frankly, if none of the Alarmists can see the patent bias in the scientific community (which seeks to obscure every good and worthy bit of evidence in support of creationism/ID) than frankly i don't know what to say.
I throw my hands up in this entire affair. How can people be so blind? WE ARE BEING HOODWINKED. The scientific community has for ages done so with evolution to suit their naturalistic needs. A few scientists have stood up in opposition. Same now with GW. Who do i believe?
Obviously those who have nothing to gain from telling the truth. Friends like that don't come easily these days.
23. Jethro said the following at 5:16 PM on Dec 13:
Ryan A,
Why on earth would a reputable journal like Nature reject an article from a Creationist? The answer is simply because the science is shaky/non-existent. I'm quite familiar with AiG and their strategy of finding a hole in a scientific theory and filling it with a Bible verse. That's their prerogative, but it isn't science. It's not even close.
As for GW, you're basing your argument on the 'fact' that editorial boards are stacked and that's why anti GW articles don't get published. Therefore GW must be a lie of the secular left? Good reasoning. Reminds me of AiG.
24. Ted Slater said the following at 5:40 PM on Dec 13:
A couple of dozen comments, and nobody has yet to mention anything in any of the articles and columns I've linked to? Nothing about how the temperatures are gathered? Nothing about the record freezing at both poles? Nothing about the founder of the Weather Channel calling GW the "Greatest Scam in History"? Nothing about the Pope's condemnation of GW's "prophets of doom"?
OK, one comment about kangaroos.
If I don't start hearing some discussion of the writings to which I linked, I'll publish one blog post per headline. It'll dwarf Tom's series on Hollywood. I can sense your fear.
25. Jacob Douvier said the following at 5:55 PM on Dec 13:
Out of curiosity, Jethro, have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's "Structure of Scientific Revolutions?" I think it's a book you might be interested in.
26. P&P said the following at 6:27 PM on Dec 13:
I don't understand why some people are so threatened by science, whether it's global warming, evolution or, in some extreme cases, whether or not the moon landing was faked.
Is there something threatening to peoples' values and beliefs when scientific fact enters the picture?
Also, Ted wrote:
"the PC bandwagon, a bandwagon that includes more restrictions and more taxes ... for little or no benefit."
What restrictions? The idea that people will be given tax breaks for driving a hybrid? Encouraging people to cut their electric bills by using low-energy appliances and unplugging them when they're not in use?
More taxes? I have no problem with paying taxes when they go to public services like fire, police, libraries, schools, elder care, etc. My current problem with my taxes is that they're going to a war.
27. P&P said the following at 6:36 PM on Dec 13:
Ted, I read the one about the Hanukkah candles and thought the fact that you would link to something so snarky shows that you don't take this topic seriously.
So what if a bunch of environmentalists don't want to light a candle? What does that have to do with scientific fact?
28. farmer Tom said the following at 8:03 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
If I counted right, which is highly doubtful(I went to public school, learned new math), there are 26 articles. I have read or heard on talk radio 20 of the 26 articles. I consider them old news. Sorry.
Of course, I don't believe the scam anyway, because I'm an old guy and I read Paul Ehrlich's "The Population Bomb" in high school, a book which has been so wrong that to mention it, is a joke. He predicted global starvation by now. And last year 300,000 people died from the effects of obesity.
The scare at the time was global winter. We were all going to freeze to death in the next twenty years.
In other words,.... been there, done that, got the T-shirt to prove it.
Furthermore I believe in global warming, serious global warming. Like atomic meltdown hot.
II Peter 3:
3 Know this first of all, that in the last days mockers will come with their mocking, following after their own lusts,
4 and saying, "Where is the promise of His coming? For ever since the fathers fell asleep, all continues just as it was from the beginning of creation."
5 For when they maintain this, it escapes their notice that by the word of God the heavens existed long ago and the earth was formed out of water and by water,
6 through which the world at that time was destroyed, being flooded with water.
7 But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men.
10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.
11 Since all these things are to be destroyed in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness,
12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning, and the elements will melt with intense heat!
13 But according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells."
Now that, folks, is some serious global warming, and God has promised that it's coming and there's nothing we can do to stop it. We would be far better off spending our time telling friends family and co-workers that God is again going to judge the world, this time with fire instead of flood, and the only escape is personal relationship with Jesus Christ.
29. Ted Slater said the following at 8:05 PM on Dec 13:
P&P -- I have no problem with science. Science done right honors God and provides us wonderful insights into His creativity and character. Science is a fantastic tool with which to gain an understanding of the physical world. Love it!
Yes, I advocate approaching GW and "evolution" and other such issues with a scientific mindset.
What I do not advocate is shutting down the conversation and saying that there's no need for further scientific examination, that there's no need to take a closer look at what GW alarmists are doing and saying, something GWers are doing when they discard scientific research and critique that challenge their beliefs.
Thank you for affirming my concerns about GW hysteria in your latest comment.
30. xeres said the following at 8:13 PM on Dec 13:
P&P,
Science doesn't solve everything. Many of Romantic, Victorian, and Modernist writers lamented the potential dehumanization and manipulation science can do to people if used in the wrong hands. When I read Yeats' "Second Coming" and Wilfred Owen's "Decorium est Dulce", it actually brought chills to my spine of how much dismay and horror the Modernist writers have toward humanity when the same science that brought industrialization also brought WWI and WWII. Science did bring cool things but at what cost?
31. Ted Slater said the following at 8:24 PM on Dec 13:
Global warming alarmists are so insecure about the scientific backing for their theory that they resort to extreme demonization to quell competing theories. Consider this example, published today:
The head of the U.N. panel on climate change compared him to Hitler. Another leading scientist called him a parasite. A third described his latest book as a "stealth attack" on mankind.
The list of allegations against Bjoern Lomborg, one of the world's leading climate change skeptics, almost reads like an indictment for war crimes.
Read more here....
I implore you, for the sake of truth and liberty, be open to considering the evidence against catastrophic global warming. As Farmer Tom wrote, we have more pressing matters to attend to. Yes, let's conserve, and properly care for the earth that the Lord has entrusted to us, but let's not get all worked up about the latest fear fad.
32. k. said the following at 8:44 PM on Dec 13:
Yawn!! It's sweet of you to want to see us educated, Ted, but how about writing something new and different for a change? =)
33. ptschett said the following at 8:57 PM on Dec 13:
This post reminds me of this page I came across the other day:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/11/everything_is_caused_by_global.html>Everything is Caused by Global Warming (600+ links)
34. JB said the following at 10:17 PM on Dec 13:
Ted,
Isn't this just a question of practical epistemology? When we aren't experts in a complicated scientific field, we generally defer to the consensus of those who are. There are very few issues where there is a unanimity of opinion, so we go with what most experts believe to be true.
So, for example, suppose that you're trying to decide whether or not your new daughter should receive the standard set of vaccinations. There are a few people, and some of them are doctors with seemingly good reputations, who believe that vaccines cause diseases like autism and should be avoided. However, the vast majority of doctors and every national medical organization will tell you that (a) no such link has been found and (b) it is far more dangerous to forgo childhood vaccines than it is to get them. If you're not a doctor it is probably less useful for you to read the original literature and try to determine which side makes the best case about the neuroanatomy of autism than it is for you to go with the consensus view. After all, you're more likely to misjudge the evidence than the American Medical Association.
Now, I'm not a climatologist or a meteorologist and know very little about the subjects. So I can't really tell whether the points made by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are more or less valid than the points made by the guy who founded the Weather Channel. Sure, I can read what they write, but there's a fairly high chance I'll misunderstand. I see how easy it is for laypeople to get confused by academic debates in my area of knowledge, and I know I'm a layperson when it comes to climatology. So doesn't it make sense for me to pick my GW position the same way I pick my position on medical advice?
That's not to say that the scientific consensus is infallible, but in an uncertain world going with the scientific consensus (in this case, global warming is real and caused in part by humans) is the best way of minimizing error. I know that sounds bad, but what's the alternative? Am I to believe that the thousand-odd scientists that comprised the IPCC failed to chart global temperature versus atmospheric CO2 and I, with no training at all, can discover their error for myself on some web page? Or that can I adjudicate disputes between whose mathematical model of climate change is superior on the strength of a couple semesters of undergrad calculus? I don't advocate ignorance here, just a realistic view of our abilities and limitations. I'm afraid that you and I can't tell whether the Weather Channel guy or the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration have the more correct view of global warming, but I know who I trust more.
(Oh, and btw, your first article about refreezing in the Arctic also points out that Arctic ice remains well below the mean. That's evidence for, not against, global warming I'd think.)
35. Matthew said the following at 12:47 AM on Dec 14:
Ted,
The BBC articles I posted answered a bunch of the objections, but since discussion is what you want, here goes: Urban heat islands don't affect the temperatures measured all the time because temperatures are often measured in rural areas and by other standards.
Arctic ice re-freezing doesn't say much; a lot more still melted and we don't know if it'll get back to normal levels.
The fall in weather deaths compared 1900-1989 to 1990-2006. There have been incredible technological and medical advances in the last century to help people survive disasters and/or recover from them.
Unless the Pope or the founder of the Weather Channel has some data behind them, I'm not as inclined to listen to them.
There was one story about an actual peer-reviewed study and it talked about heating from the sun, but that's no more proven than is the model of CO2 emissions.
Just about all the other stories were just trying to make fun of the idea of global warming or suggest some sort of conspiracy theory. Groups like the ICSC seem to be the lackeys of conservative organizations like the Heartland Institute and thus not exactly the most reliable sources of information (unless you are John the troll.) The BBC articles examined the whole conspiracy theory bit quite well and I don't think I could say it much better than they did.
Furthermore, not a single one of the articles you posted gave the impression of trying to be fair or balanced in their approach, taking into account all the facts. They picked one thing and ran with it. I don't think we should take Gore and pals at face value and run around freaking out by any means, but it is disingenuous and deceptive to suggest that this an even-handed debate with equal evidence for and against both sides.
36. Jethro said the following at 2:19 AM on Dec 14:
Just one thing Ted. I think someone addressed this, but I'd be interested in your answer. You often refer to the people 'getting rich' of carbon credit 'scams' etc, yet you never refer to the people with vested interests who don't believe in GW and are getting rich of oil, gas and coal. Why?
37. Ted Slater said the following at 9:05 AM on Dec 14:
Jethro -- I regularly buy products that come from oil, gas and coal. They help me get to work, they're in the packaging for the food I buy, they keep me warm during the cold Colorado Springs nights. Petroleum products are used to make ink, dishwashing liquids, telephones, tires, shoes, soft contact lenses, fishing rods, house paint, vitamin capsules, movie film, crayons, balloons, milk jugs, bandages, antihistamines, aspirin, shaving cream.... I actually *get* a tangible benefit from oil, gas and coal. As do you, Jethro.
Now, on to "carbon credits." Tell me one tangible thing you get for your money when you buy a "carbon credit."
... crickets ...
I'm happy to see wise investors profit from their involvement in providing me something so useful as oil, gas and coal. Life would be very difficult without their services and products. They're not the only ones who have a "vested interest" in the success of their businesses; you and I have "vested interests" in their success as well. You, Jethro, benefit greatly from Big Oil; they make your life much more enjoyable and productive.
I can't say the same thing about those who offer those intangible wisps known as "carbon credits." I'm not sure I've personally ever used the term "scam" to describe what these individuals are involved with. But it does seem to me an apt term. Money for nothin'!
You speak of those who "don't believe in GW...." Well, I'm not one of them. I do believe the climate changes cyclically. Sometimes the earth goes through periods of warming. Sometimes we go through periods of cooling. Have we ever experienced an ice age? Yes. Has the earth made its way, naturally, out of it? Yes. Several times. Cyclically. And there seems to be a correlation between the temperature of the earth and the object that warms the earth: the sun and its fluctuating activity.
So, I believe we may have been experiencing GW. Is it chiefly our fault? Nah. Is there anything we can do to make it cooler? Probably not. Is the current global temperature "the ideal"? In other words, is it bad for the earth's temperature to rise a degree? Would it be better for the earth's temperature to decrease a degree? Which would result in more death? Which would benefit plantlife more? A degree warmer or a degree cooler? Or is the current temperature -- not at all the historic average -- the perfect one?
Jethro -- these are great questions that we should grapple with. It's foolish to swallow, without thoughtful reflection, what GW alarmists are shoving down our throats, at their profit and our detriment.
It frankly shows a lack of faith in God, in my opinion, something we at Boundless want to counter. We want our readers to appreciate God's providential creation of climatic cycles of warming and cooling, and not get all panicked that some things in His earth are beyond our ... control.
Perhaps that's what this is all about. Some people fear leaving a portion of their lives in God's hands. Doing so means that they are not entirely in control of their lives, and they need to ... trust Someone.
Whew. I need a cup of water. :-)
38. Adam D said the following at 9:10 AM on Dec 14:
Well Ted I posted regarding one of the articles that caught my eye. The one with the baby tax seemed like something that would be pretty horrible for the common man if someone took the advice of the Australians and actually made a law where you had to pay $4,000 for every child you had. To me, that sounds like the epitome of what Global Warming is truly about, which is the money. If we allow people to get away with unjust taxation because of some nutjob's belief that the children of the future carbon emissions are dangerous to society, and no one here seems to care, then it may be too late already. If people continue to be spoon fed all this global warming garbage that people are the cause and people are dooming the earth and we need less people so let's make it really expensive to even have children, then I think it is pretty obvious to see Satan's agenda, at least to me. This baby tax case seems extreme, yet it is still be evaluated as a possible solution to GW. If there is anything the government is good at, it is taking taxpayers money. God help us if we have to pay 4k for a child, I can just see abortion rates rising if such a law were put in place eventually.
To me this is just a dangerous consequence of buying into the Global Warming theory. How much money does the government already spend on GW? How much money will the common man lose over this and what rights will he lose?
39. xeres said the following at 10:38 AM on Dec 14:
You guys,
When both side don't understand was climate change doesn't affect all nations equally at all. If climate were to happen tommorow, the first world countries are the most likely going to be able to rebuild their live because they have the technology, wealth and the ideology needed to weather through the situation. Those in the third world will be squashed by the climate change. Their livelihood will more or less be taken away from them.
Regarding of GW, it is resulted of BOTH natural AND man-made causes equally. It's NOT either/or. While one of the causes of these environment issues is overconsumption (not overpopulation), there are factors we can't control that cause it as well.
What about saving endangered species? Or stopping poachers? What about actually teaching people the difference between want and need? What about getting people to realize that possessions aren't everything especially when nobody is going to have those things with them in their deathbed? Demanding fair trade or have most manufacturing done in the U.S? Here in America, the issue is that everyone thinks it's their God-given right to own a tacky McMansion or chateau in the suburbs and own a fleet of cars. It's no wonder that automobile accidents are one of the leading causes of death here.
I'm saying this is because we need to change the cultural mindset.
40. Eric said the following at 10:41 AM on Dec 14:
The debate is whether Global Warming is manmade or not. And if it's not, don't ya'll think trying to alter the earth's temperature cycle, at best, would be pointless and at worst, catastrophic?
Matthew. We need fair and balanced. But we've heard enough prop..er.. evidence from the left, I want to hear dissenting arguements.
41. obewan said the following at 11:13 AM on Dec 14:
They FINALLY did it. The big news today is the passing of the senate energy bill. The CAFE for automotive will be raised to 35 mpg over the next 12-13 years.
The fuel economy standard has not been raised (in the US) for some THREE DECADES! We can thank the democrats for finally brining some sanity to the SUV scandal that has plagued our nation.
Of course, the Republicans fought back tooth and nail to the bitter end with a filibuster! What are they fighting? A savings of 1.1 million barrels of oil a day, equal to 1/2 the oil now imported from the (war torn) Persian Gulf, a SAVINGS of $22 billion a year at the pump, and a REDUCTION IN GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS BY 200 MILLION TONS A YEAR!
Forget GW, we should take the money and run. Our economy can sure use it!
(Ref. H. Josef Herbert, Associated Press, "Democrats win on fuel economy and ethanol use.)
42. Paul said the following at 12:53 PM on Dec 14:
Ted,
Thanks for reminding me that oil, gas and coal make my life much more enjoyable and productive. I had completely forgotten that life on earth is all about me, but I'm so glad that Boundless is here to keep telling me.
43. P&P said the following at 2:38 PM on Dec 14:
Ted, et. al.:
Sure petroleum has become essential to modern living, but while you extol the virtues of it, you should look at how petroleum workers are treated overseas (most un-Christian, I assure you) to produce it as well as the fact that we're using petroleum far faster than the earth can produce it. What you pump into your car or drink out of or tear open to get to your Doritos took billions and billions* of years to produce.
We should have been looking at alternative and renewable energy sources far sooner than now.
*With apologies to Carl Sagan. If you 've ever seen the old astronomy mini-series "Cosmos" on PBS, you'll get the joke.
44. ptschett said the following at 2:51 PM on Dec 14:
obewan: the irony is that CAFE helped create the SUV boom. Before CAFE came along, people could buy big station wagons to haul their family. With CAFE those big cars were below the 27.5 MPG average, so the automakers took an end run around that with minivans and 4-door SUVs which could do the station wagon's job while only having to fit into the CAFE truck standard.
Customers will eventually benefit at the pump, but I'd hate to need to buy a new car in the 2020 timeframe, especially if my needs trend toward a large vehicle (and they probably will.) For example, Chrysler figures their current lineup will increase in cost by $6700/vehicle... it'll take most of one of those vehicle's usable life to pay off the increased cost with the fuel saved.
45. Ted Slater said the following at 3:05 PM on Dec 14:
P&P -- I agree heartily with you that we should be looking into alternative and renewable energy sources. Definitely.
Paul -- you're free to be ascetic.
Obewan -- according to the Energy Information Administration, "In 2006, the Persian Gulf countries combined exported 18.2 million barrels per day." Half of 18.2 million is 9.1 million, significantly more than the 1.1 million figure you gave. Obewan, for the love, please do a bit more research with your figures (I know you love them); please understand that I get a kick out of researching them, and will call you out when they're incorrect. And that just harms the legitimacy of your argument. I want to see your arguments seen as legitimate.
Kim -- you wrote that "using CFLs make sense for everyone financially, but people go on using incandescents, and for the life of me, I can't understand why." Ever try reading by the light of a CFL? Yuck. That said, I do use 5 CFLs in my home, where they are appropriate.
46. Sara said the following at 3:55 PM on Dec 14:
Ted, to quote Kurt Cobain, "just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you". Maybe it's true that there are millions of hysterical and deluded self-appointed prophets (you'll want to say 'profits') of doom, that doesn't address the issue of whether global warming is happening, and what we should do about it. (Yet another straw man...)
For all the lip service you give to looking at both sides of an issue, are you able, and eager, to understand (not necessarily publish, if you're worried about imbalances) 26 articles that present a counter-argument in its best possible light?
47. Sara said the following at 3:30 PM on Dec 15:
Oops, not straw man, I meant red herring and ad hominem.
Anyhow, you wouldn't get 'crickets' when you ask about carbon credits if you actually asked a bunch of economists.
48. John said the following at 11:21 PM on Dec 15:
Matt,
What are "normal" levels? What about the record ice levels in the antarctic
Who is "John the troll"?
Where is the "data" to back up your points?
"GW deniers are just mouth pieces for big oil, so their objections are not valid. GW chicken littles are just capitalizing on our fears, but their arguements are valid."
I don't know, sounds like logical fallacy to me. Hmmm, could be.
49. obewan said the following at 6:37 AM on Dec 17:
ptschett:
Don't forget Chrysler invented the minivan for large families, and it got around 22mpg with the right engine. I think 12mpg or worse is a scandal when we only have 50 years left on the oil supply.
I heard about a new mini van in China that hauls 10-12 people and gets over 30 mpg. The Ford Escape hybrid SUV gets over 30, which is pretty good for an SUV. I think most American families could get by with a 4 place Honda Civic. (but you see them over and over buying SUV's)
I see dozens of singles at my church driving HUGE SUV's - ALONE. One SINGLE woman even has to have a Hummer H2. (8mpg). That is the scandal I am talking about.
Ted:
Don't blame me for the figures. They came from the article I cited, and clearly said GULF. I now assume they meant Iraq. I think the point of the "liberal" press is that we should not be exchanging blood for oil.
50. obewan said the following at 2:00 PM on Dec 18:
Regarding 35 mpg, ptschett said:
"Chrysler figures their current lineup will increase in cost by $6700/vehicle... it'll take most of one of those vehicle's usable life to pay off the increased cost with the fuel saved."
You know what I have to say about that? Tough beans.
The price of the VW Golf Diesel (40+ mpg already) won't change, nor will the Honda Civic (high 30's mpg), nor the Toyota Prius (Mid 40's mpg with less purchase cost than most SUV's with similar passenger capacity.)
The US will just be forced into learning how to compete with those who are already doing it quite successfully ALREADY. It seems threat of bankruptcy is the only business parameter they are capable of understanding.
Yes, people may be forced to give up their rollover death trap for a potentially safer vehicle with better handling and driving performance.
51. ptschett said the following at 1:19 AM on Dec 19:
obewan: you've just helped me make my point!
The Prius, and the Escape and Civic hybrids all are about $7000 more than a regular car (I compared to the Matrix in the Prius' case, and the conventional versions for the other two.) Where will these cars have to go in price if they have to offset 25 or 30 MPG SUVs?
52. ptschett said the following at 8:27 AM on Dec 19:
I seem to remember saying something about the VW too, but my above comment is missing it...
...new diesel cars in this country need to meet Tier 2 Bin 5 emissions, the strictest standard in the world for diesels. It takes some pretty advanced technologies to clean the exhaust gas, on top of the extra cost of the diesel engine (since a diesel has to withstand cylinder pressures about twice those seen in a gasoline engine.) Again at an added cost.
I can argue the safety and performance item too.... is it safe to be stuck in a snowbank in a small car, compared to being in an SUV that'll get you home in winter conditions as long as you don't roll it? That's the performance that people are looking for up here in North Dakota.
53. obewan said the following at 8:39 AM on Dec 19:
ptschett:
You forgot about the Diesels. The new Diesels are cleaner, quicker, and more reliable, and not a lot more expensive. Very high milage and lots of power and quickness too. What I see happening is SUV's changing. Why should cars be forced to do the whole offset thing?
When I said CIVIC I meant non-hybrid. It gets 36-38 mpg standard. The Prius is not a fair comparison because there is not a non-Hybrid Prius to base the offset on. Yes, forget the CAFE --my opinion is that if someone has to have a large SUV, they should be forced to pay a luxury tax to offset the defense budget spent defending the remaining world oil supply.
54. ptschett said the following at 11:39 AM on Dec 19:
obewan: I see SUV's changing too, but I don't see your luxury tax getting by the current populace. If people still buy high-consumption SUVs in an environment of $3-4/gal. gas and $100/bbl. oil, there must be rational reasons. Diesels and hybrid designs, combined with weight reductions and shifts toward smaller models will help, but it'll still take more work to push them through the air and accelerate them compared to a car, so I don't see the cars that are already at 2020 levels getting a free pass... if I'm selling SUV's that average 30 MPG, a huge increase over today for the most part, I still need to sell an equal number of cars averaging to 40 MPG.
RE comparisons, the Prius is either a really efficient $22,000 car or an expensive compact... if I'm in one of those markets, I'm either looking at how much more space/features/functions I can get for my $22k and how much more it'll cost me in fuel, or how much gas I can buy with the money saved on the initial purchase by going with an equally-sized conventional car. Ditto with the Civic where the $7000 premium gets a 30% decrease in fuel consumption.
55. obewan said the following at 1:01 PM on Dec 19:
ptschett:
You are still not acknowledging modern diesel technology. (My last post and this one too got seriously diluted by the spam filter. It had too many brand name examples I guess.)
There are new mid sized diesels that will probably get over 40 mpg with superior performance and little if any additional expense over a conventional engine.
My family of 4-5 people has always been able to travel (comfortably) in smaller cars. All it takes is some organization when the trunk is packed. Besides, how many people have a family that is bigger than 4 people?
Again, I point to all the single women in my church singles group who needlessly drive SUV’s --only because they are in fashion or because they need to go on a diet.
There is a good book out called "High and Mighty" that addresses the current SUV scandal and the mentality of those who buy and drive them. I happen to agree with a lot of the good points the author makes.
56. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 2:33 PM on Dec 19:
I wrote a long comment a few days ago, which was either blocked by the spam filter or simply not allowed (big surprise), but there is one thing Ted said that I want to address:
"It frankly shows a lack of faith in God, in my opinion, something we at Boundless want to counter. We want our readers to appreciate God's providential creation of climatic cycles of warming and cooling, and not get all panicked that some things in His earth are beyond our ... control.
Perhaps that's what this is all about. Some people fear leaving a portion of their lives in God's hands. Doing so means that they are not entirely in control of their lives, and they need to ... trust Someone."
This is dangerous thinking, and I've seen it in comments on the Line before: the idea that because God is in control of everything, we don't need to worry about what will happen to our earth. And while I do believe that God is in control, that does not mean we can just sit back and continue living our wasteful, polluting lives.
It seems that the idea here is that God would not allow human-created GW to happen on this earth. I don't see the rationale behind this idea- this world is full of war, famine, genocide and plauge, where does the idea come from that God will intervene for GW? He's given us the world, it's our job to take care of it.
Maybe GW is God's way of telling us that we're consuming and wasting too much, that we're abusing His earth too often and too quickly. Whatever the reason, the science makes it clear that we have to do something about it, instead of simply sitting around and thinking "God won't let us do this to ourselves!" Because, really, I can't think of a time in post-Biblical history when doing nothing and expecting God to fix everything worked. We need to take action; in the same way that humans have worked to end wars, famines and genocides, we need to combat, and beat, GW.
57. ptschett said the following at 2:45 PM on Dec 19:
obewan: see my post of 8:27AM this morning. I know a fair bit about diesels (for a living I design equipment that is diesel powered) and I agree on their efficiency, cleanliness (with Tier 2 Bin 5 standards) and usefulness in these applications, but I disagree strongly that they will be anywhere near cost neutral on the initial vehicle purchase price.
58. Ted Slater said the following at 3:02 PM on Dec 19:
Andrew R. -- I'm not sure if your misunderstanding is intentional or unintentional. Surely you've seen in my various posts on GW that I believe Christians should care for our earth as wise stewards of creation, and that I personally do things that are good for both my wallet and my environment. Your characterizing my position as "we don't need to worry about what will happen to our earth" is completely and utterly incorrect. Please stop saying that.
I do not advocate "sitting back and continuing living our wasteful, polluting lives." I never have. Nobody I know has ever said that. It just makes your argument so irrlevant to frame my position that way. Straw Man, my friend.
Here's my position, again: I concur with many scientists that the earth's apparent warming is not primarily caused by human behavior, but by activity from the sun and from within the earth. Our changing our behavior, therefore, is not going to affect global warming.
And just as the cycle has brought us to a place where the temperatures have risen for a few years, the cycle will bring us back to a place where the temperatures will decrease. Which temperature is the ideal -- the one we were at 10 years ago, or the one we were at 10,000 years ago? I don't know. Why are we insisting that the current temperature is ideal, and we don't want that to change? Perhaps it's arrogance.
Why are some people so tied up in knots about global warming? I'll tell you what I think. I think that people are afraid of losing control, and when the cycles that God instituted take us up or down a degree, people freak out.
Some people see this lack of control, and want to exercise control -- not only over their own behavior, but over mine and everyone else's.
Some people see this as an opportunity to profit financially. Marketing people will tell you that fear is the best motivator to sell stuff, which makes the anxiety surrounding GW fertile soil for the sale of such silly fear- and guilt-reducers as "carbon credits."
Maybe this is a good time to cite two more pieces:
The UN Climate Change Numbers Hoax
The Global Warming Suicide Cult
Some interesting points from the second piece:
I'm in favor of "tending the garden" that the Lord has entrusted to us. I'm in favor of clean air and water. I'm in favor of willingly sacrificing our own pleasure for the benefit of others. I'm not for getting anxious about things that are beyond our control, thereby demonstrating lack of faith toward God.
59. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 9:48 PM on Dec 19:
Ted,
You are correct- I misunderstood what you had said, and built up a straw man argument. For that, I am deeply sorry.
That said, I still think it is very dangerous to say that this is just the earth naturally heating up, and that we have nothing to be afraid of. Should these "alarmists" be correct, and their research certainly seems to make them feel that they are, our world could be irreversibly damaged. And while there are dissenters and skeptics, there are enough top organizations and scientists on the "yes-this-really-is-happening" side for me to think this is an issue that cannot be quickly dismissed as "alarmism."
Again, I'm sorry about my earlier comment. Hope we're both on the same page now... or, at the very least, the same book.
60. ptschett said the following at 6:50 AM on Dec 20:
A reference follow up to my 2:45PM post:
http://blog.chryslerllc.com/blog.do?id=115&p=entry>THe Future of Diesel at Chrysler ("up to $5,000 per vehicle" additional cost)
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2007/07/lutz-gm-will-ha.html> GreenCarCongress.com -- GM will have Tier 2 Bin 5 Diesels (at a $2000-$2800 per vehicle cost)
http://www.worldfuels.com/TRIAL/MARKETING/DieselFuel_News/Content/4ac38bb3-5ad4-4a3b-a282-f753b6be4847.html>Worldfuels.com - Light Duty Diesels ready for "Prime Time" in N. America (mentions a $1500/vehicle premium for diesel options and goes on to say that even that premium doesn't cover the additional cost)
61. Ted Slater said the following at 10:08 AM on Dec 20:
Andrew -- thank you for continuing an honest discussion.
I'm confident that as time goes by, more scientists will be given a platform to voice their conclusions that there's no need to become alarmed about climate change. And that we'll come to recognize as ridiculous the claims of alarmists like Al Gore et. al.
Consider this Senate report that came out today: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007.
The first step toward meaningful dialog regarding GW is to acknowledge that there is in fact no "consensus," and that many scientists are not "global warming 'deniers'" (which implies that they're to be grouped with Holocaust deniers or moonlanding deniers or round-earth deniers), but are scientists engaged in the scientific process.
62. obewan said the following at 2:40 PM on Dec 21:
They just announced a new X Prize. $10 million will be awarded to the first person who builds car that gets 100 mpg and is suitable for mass production. Several teams are active in pursuit of the goal. Even if they get 1/2 way it will be an achievement.