Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 09/28/2009 7:03:40 AM PDT by Shout Bits
I would like to see a show of hands. How many of you believe global climate change is a serious threat and caused by human activity? – Carolyn Washburn
During the December 2008 GOP primary debate Ms. Washburn asked the presidential hopefuls if they "believed in global warming." Aside from being a classic gotcha question rooted in media bias against the GOP, the question revealed some of the true nature of global warming alarmism. The question implied that one must adhere to the entire global warming doctrine or be a non-believer. A system of commonly held beliefs whereby believers are expected to accept the entire set of beliefs is a working definition of a religion. Despite Washburn's insistence, global warming should not be a monolithic belief system that must be taken as a whole. This blog suggests that Washburn's single question should be broken into several logical steps in order to understand a politician's beliefs.
1.Do you believe the Earth is warming? The Earth has been both warmer and cooler than now over recent geological history. However, since the industrial revolution began in earnest, measured temperatures have increased somewhat. The past few years have seen a mild cooling, possibly a result of regular changes in solar activity. Still, during the Dark Ages, global temperatures were higher than they are now, so measured over a long enough time frame, the Earth is not warming much.
2.Do you believe human activity has contributed to the Earth's warming? There is solid proof that CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have gone up since the industrial revolution, and in proportion to human prosperity. Throughout geological history, however, CO2 concentration was a lagging indicator of global warming; the Earth warmed, then CO2 went up. Computer models suggest that increased CO2 and other greenhouse gasses should warm the Earth, but there is no empirical evidence to prove how much.
3.Do you believe human activity is a significant cause of the Earth's warming? That is a very different question than the prior one. Nobody knows whether the Earth is warming significantly, so nobody can know if humans are a significant factor. Increases in global temperature, sea level increases, and weather pattern shifts are all predictions based on untestable computer models that are hyper-sensitive to unproven inputs like sea foam and dust in the atmosphere. So far, the recorded changes in global temperature are within the norms from geological history.
4.Do you believe that coordinated action can prevent global warming? Even if the answer to the above three questions were 'yes,' that does not mean there is a reasonable solution to the problem. Logically, humans should reduce their so called carbon footprints to reduce global warming, but as John Christy, one of the recent Nobel laureates on climate change, pointed out, reducing carbon emissions by supposedly necessary levels would require the elimination of nearly all modern industrial activity – a return to a standard of living prior to the industrial revolution. Of course it would be technically feasible to build several thousand nuclear power plants and convert all activity to an electrical system (cars, home heat, industrial machinery), but the environmentalists would never stand for it.
5.Do the consequences of global warming constitute an emergency? Environmental alarmists like V.P. Al Gore make all sorts of unfounded claims about the impending global warming catastrophe. More reasoned voices like Bjorn Lomborg suggest a cost benefit analysis. The industrial revolution has brought the most health, prosperity, and happiness to all corners of the world than any other human endeavor. Turning away from modern life would cause far more harm to mankind than global warming ever could. Lomborg suggests spending money on addressing human advancement rather than battling the environmentalist shibboleth called climate change.
6.Can the world actually do anything about global warming? Even if the answer to all of the above questions is yes, we must take action, global coordination is a vaporous dream. Consider the accomplishments of the UN – there are none. Consider OPEC's efforts to curtain individual oil production for the benefit of the cartel – it never worked. Consider NATO's peacekeeping efforts – mostly failures. Countries are most often formed along cultural and economic lines; their very existence indicates a lack of interest in cooperation that is not individually beneficial. Any global carbon cap provides strong incentives for some countries to cheat, and cheat they will. China and India, for example, are quite up front that they do not want to give up their prosperity. With a gaping hole in the carbon cap like this, who can blame Eastern Europe or the Middle East for violating their global warming commitments too?
So, Ms. Washburn, one cannot argue global warming issues with a show of hands. Global warming is not a religion and there are more than two sides to consider. Until the debate can evolve like other important and complex issues, both the environment and human prosperity are in trouble.
In regard to global warming, we keep treating the earth as if it’s separate from this HUGE universe.
I look at it like the earth was something they sat on a hatched instead of the other way around. I saw a “Mother Earth” decal on a car the other day and the religion of green is the first thing that came to mind. Nowhere to be seen was a decal calling for the praises of Father God.
I also think Burt Rutan addressed much to debunk the whole AGW agenda and their methodology.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2321920/posts
This is a very sensible article that sums up the topic nicely.
It seems to me that a proper scientific attempt to model our climate would be historical in nature. After considering the sun, variation in the earth’s orbit, volcanic activity, oceans, clouds, etc., try to account for the historical temperature record. I’ve never heard of anyone making the attempt. It must be too hard. We just don’t know enough to explain the historical record, or make valid predictions for the future.
Even if one were to regress historical temperatures against thes variables, drawing any conclusions would require extrapolation because CO2 has rarely been this high. is the relationship linear? is it hetroskedastic? Are the independent variables colinear? Nobody knows the answers, which makes the models’ conclusions dubious.
As a believer in God written about in the Bible, I know he will dramatically change the planet in a few years. Even knowing that, real Christians don't wrecklessly pollute. We try to maintain and respect God's work like we would our own homes or a neighbors.
Over the very long record (100,000 year plus) timeframes, CO2 levels have gone up only AFTER temperature increases have occurred, and they have gone up every time temperatures increased. Therefore, much (not all!) of today's increased CO2 levels - plus the small in crease in sealevels found, are believed to be caused by the increase in temperatures from deepest part of the Little Ice Age (approximately 1650) until now.
You point is valid that CO2 increases due to increases in temperature, not the other way around. Temperature doesn’t increase due to increases in CO2. Additionally, volcanic activity, particularly those in the vast ocean areas, are UNMEASURABLE, and therefore there is no way to know what humans contribute. Non of these points have come out, because it is not about global warming, but rather 1) a way for Al Gore to get rich, and 2) a way for the Democrats to tax the hell out of us. If they didn’t have this scam, then they would come up with another one similar, shove it down the kool aid drinkers throats, and proceed with no debate whatsoever.
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.
