Posted on 10/14/2018 7:26:49 AM PDT by Kaslin
There are multiple subjects that currently divide us. If you choose to challenge the conventional wisdom on one of these topics, in any regard, that the Earth is warming (now referred to as “Climate Change”) you are accused of being a heretic. Some of us believe there is no such thing as “settled science” thus we are always open to arguments from both sides as to what has occurred in the evolving knowledge. Recently, I was presented with a completely different argument.
Anytime I have written on this I have always referred to climatologists as my source of information. These are qualified experts who not only have a long history of scholarly study in the area, but have the scientific ability to analyze the models presented that predict future world weather. That is why my recent reading of a column really changed my typical way of looking at the issue.
Receiving email from a vast array of sources with a broad political bent keeps me informed of news that a large segment of the population thinks is important. One of the best collections of columns and articles that hits my email box every day comes from Real Clear Politics (RCP). RCP has an excellent distribution of columns that often have a unique perspective or a topic that is fresh to me. I spotted a column that piqued my interest from a person I had never heard of and a publication that was unfamiliar to me. The title was “How Do You Tell If the Earth’s Climate System is Warming?" by Francis Menton.
The crux of the column is that whether the Earth is warming or cooling is based on the time period you are comparing. The Earth over various different periods warmed or cooled and thus Menton’s thesis is that you could argue, and often people do, warming or cooling using inherently the same facts, but just a different base period. The thesis is something I found fascinating because of two reasons. First, I had never read what Menton was purporting anywhere else and; second, I have seen conflicting arguments as to whether we are currently in a warming or cooling trend.
Finding that the column was different and somewhat even-handed, I ventured into the orbit of sending it to someone who is a gung-ho global warming person to elicit their opinion. The response “A blogger debunking a vast conspiracy of scientists. I'll pass.” I replied, “It is always this guy does not qualify, that guy does not qualify. but is he wrong?” To which I got this “This is just more tribalism. The Republicans will automatically disagree with anything that is being supported by the Democrats. Also the vast majority of energy money is flowing to the Republicans. What Republican would ever be on the other side of an issue that the Koch brothers were lavishing money on. Scientific evidence and facts could not be more irrelevant to this debate. “I answered, “Thank you, but is he wrong? I picked up the column off of a daily summary from Real Clear Politics. They are truly even-handed; I did not know the guy’s background until after I read the column. Why would you assume he is a Republican? He is a NY lawyer.”
I decided to contact Francis Menton. Menton is a semi-retired trial lawyer. He formed his blog, Manhattan Contrarian, six years ago. He told me he not only was a Harvard Law graduate, but his undergraduate degree was from Yale in math. Though he is not a climatologist, this is one smart guy who understands what he reads. He said though he is a little rusty on his math as things have changed since he graduated from Yale, someone with these credentials has the ability to analyze the information into which he delves. This is why he has written about 100 pieces on the environment.
He told me he got interested in the subject because the Climate Change argument was being used by supporters to transform the world economy. He was studying the validity. He found the temperature measurements really only go back to 1880 as noted by NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). He also cited that measurements at that time only covered 5% of the Earth and they were only accurate to 1 degree Fahrenheit.
This still gets down to what are the facts. Whether you buy into the argument that the planet is warming, and it is because of man-made conditions or whether you don’t, or you are somewhere in-between, you need to be open to further understanding and additional facts/observations. Just knee-jerk rejection of the arguments on either side because of where they come from or whether they don’t agree with your baseline thinking defies scientific thinking.
My biggest problem with the climate change crowd is their argument that this is “settled science.” Science is never settled and arguing that is about the most unscientific thing ever stated.
I don’t debate global warming..I mean clinlmate change.. as much as I mock the leftist scheme to once again tax and or control humankind.
Back in HS, a long time ago, I had a very smart Biology teacher who said, ‘Any true scientist will tell you in science you never say never and you never say always. New facts can be found at anytime that challenge conventional wisdom’. I have never forgotten that.
Only because he refused to sign that Paris climate change treaty or whatever it was.
Just watched msnbc. This last hurricane was because of global warming. They said we only have 12 years left or else we can’t change it anymore.
By then I will be 72 and can’t afford to move south to warmer weather so if Minnesota turns tropical I’m good with that, tired of shoveling snow anyhow.
So, no civil discourse then? ;-)
Earth is always changing and it will keep do so after all humans are gone it’s not a set model.
There is no science in the Climate Change debate because the Scientific Method can’t be used to study it. That’s why there are computer models.
It’s not possible to test a theory of Climate Change because there is no way to have a control to test against. It’s a joke.
I hate what those dam wind towers are doing. Creating global warming by slowing down the winds.
“Only because he refused to sign that Paris climate change treaty or whatever it was.”
I love the way Euros sign these agreements at the drop of a hat. They have figured out that it works fine to sign and then never hit a target. But you signed, and that makes you golden.
“Only because he refused to sign that Paris climate change treaty or whatever it was.”
I love the way Euros sign these agreements at the drop of a hat. They have figured out that it works fine to sign and then never hit a target. But you signed, and that makes you golden.
Darn good article!
Thanks.
The Earth has warmed somewhat since the Little Ice Age (LIA), which ran from about 1650 to 1850. As Earth is want to do. But there has been little to no warming over the past 20 years.
Almost all authoritative datasets have been manipulated corruptly to “erase the pause,” by “adjusting” older temperatures down. It’s to the point that feal climatologists won’t even use them anymore.
Best recent set is sattelite data from UA Huntsville. It shows the definite pause.
Best site on the net, for actual no bs climatology is Watts Up With That (.com), run by Anthony Watts. It’s heavy on science, so be warned lol. Been lurking there for years.
“The global warming isn’t real for the time period claimed, which is the past 125 years.”
Actually, it has, just not recently. We’re currently in a pause, due to lack of sunspots. Remember, we had the Little Ice Age, which ended mid 1800’s. Earth warmed since, but not because of CO2.
That is true, courtesy of Milankovitch cycles.
The absolutely rock-solid science of global warming is that extra CO2 in the atmosphere - which is largely from human activity - is causing some global warming. The crux of the matter is, "how much?". There is a huge difference between 3C by 2100, and 0.5C. It definitely seems to me that panic is not justified at this time. It is also mainstream scientific thought that the next Ice Age is now not going to happen, which would be a huge win for humanity and life as a whole.
I think market forces are going to drastically impact how much fossil fuel is burned going forward. In the meantime, I believe a push towards replacing coal-fired electric generation worldwide with nuclear generation is simple commonsense. Coal power has major downsides beyond producing CO2, namely pollution (particulates, mercury etc.), ash waste, and the environmental impact of coal mining.
The various companies working on small modular reactors (SMRs) have designs that are extremely safe, can be mass-produced, and in many cases don't require water cooling. They will provide electricity for less than ten cents per KWH, perhaps as cheap as three to five cents.
Each kilogram of nuclear fuel (uranium or thorium) provides as much energy as one million kilograms (one thousand tons) of coal. It is beyond foolish to not take advantage of such a cheap, plentiful source of clean, reliable power.
For unbiased information on global warming, I recommend Dr. Roy Spencer's site (http://drroyspencer.com). He is a non-alarmist atmospheric physicist, who's been labeled a "denier" by the alarmists - despite his agreement with the basic (undisputed) science of greenhouse gasses.
We can whip the horse's eyes
And make them sleep
And cry
If Minnesota (by then known as New Somalia) turns tropical the residents will be overjoyed.
big massive article in local paper this am abotu how climate change is threatening our local area- pine martins, fischers, birds, all at risk because they are ‘cold climate species’- funny how they all survived the great melting of the ice age- and funny how they all survived much warmer temps in the past when the planet was young and the climates were warmer-
What scientists are actually saying is this “We love our cold weather species, that have migrated here, and don’t want to see them leave for some other part of the planet due to climate change, so we must alter natural cyclical warming trends in order to pervert the natural way of things so that we can keep the animals we want and get rid of the ones we don’t
climates change, species migrate- always have always will- but science and liberals want to bastardize the natural process of life by mucking with climate (funny thing is though- no amount of attempted mucking will result in changing it one iota- and they know this- they KNOW that climate change is NOT due to CO2- but climate change agenda is NOT about facts, but about manipulating emotions in order to commit the world to poverty so that governments can swim in money and control the masses- period! Science is NOT o n their side- hyperbole and thievery is
Man Made Climate Change is Real and its Awesome, Except I call it Central Air and Heat! hehehe
If Minnesota (by then known as New Somalia) turns tropical the residents will be overjoyed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
True dat. Everyday I go see my son at a hospital in the center of Little Mogadishu. Those skinnies don’t like the cold but they stay for the free stuff.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.