. . ..this guy tells him what to say:
Posted on 12/20/2007 8:09:30 PM PST by neverdem
The subject of man-made global warming is almost impossible to discuss without a descent into virulent name-calling (especially on the Internet, where anonymity breeds a special kind of vicious reaction to almost any social or political question), but I’ll try anyway. I consider myself to be relatively well-read on the matter, and I’ve still come down on the skeptical side, because there are aspects of the issue that don’t make a lot of sense to me. Though I confess to have written none-to-reverentially on the subject, I want to try to put all that aside and ask ten serious questions to which I have been unable to find definitive answers:
1. What is the perfect temperature?
If we are to embark on a lifestyle-altering quest to lower the temperature (or at least minimize its rise), what is our goal? I don’t ask this flippantly. Can we demonstrate that one setting on the global thermostat is preferable over another? If so, what is it, and how do we get there? And, once there, how do we maintain it? Will we ever have to “heat things up” again if it drops below that point?
2. Just what is the average temperature of the earth?
At any one time there are temperature extremes all over the planet. How do we come up with an average, and how do those variations fit in with our desire to slow global warming?
3. What factors have led to global warming in the past, and how do we know they aren’t the causes of the current warming trend?
Again, I don’t ask this in a judgmental way. There is no argument that warming cycles (or cooling, for that matter) have been a part of earth’s history. Why are we so sure this one is different?
4. Why is there such a strong effort to stifle discussion and dissent?
I’m always troubled by arguments that begin, “Everybody agrees...” or “Everyone knows...” In fact, there is a good deal of dissent in the scientific world about the theory of man-made global warming. A large (and growing) segment of those who study such things are questioning some of the basic premises of the theory. Why should there be anything wrong with that? Again, this is a big deal, and we should have the best information and opinion from the best minds.
5. Why are there such dramatically different warnings about the effects of man-made global warming?
Predictions of 20-foot rises in ocean levels have given way to talk of a few inches over time. In many cases, those predictions are less than the rises of the past few centuries. Whatever the case, why the scare tactics?
6. Are there potential benefits to global warming?
Again, I don’t ask this mockingly. Would a warmer climate in some areas actually improve living conditions? Would such improvement (health, crop production, lifestyle) balance any negative impact from the phenomenon?
7. Should such drastic changes in public policy be based on a “what if?” proposition?
There are some who say we can’t afford to wait, and, even if there’s some doubt, we should move ahead with altering the way we live. While there are good arguments for changing some of our environmental policies, should they be based on “what it?”
8. What will be the impact on the people of the world if we change the way we live based on man-made global warming concerns?
Nothing happens in a vacuum; there are always unintended consequences to our actions. For example, if we were to dramatically reduce our need for international oil, what happens to the economies of the Middle East and the populations that rely on oil income? There are thousands of other implications, some good and some bad. What are they? Shouldn’t we be thinking about them and talking about them?
9. How will we measure our successes?
Is the measuring stick going to be temperature, sea level, number of annual hurricanes, rainfall, or a combination of all those things? Again, do we have a goal in mind? What happens when we get there?
10. How has this movement gained such momentum?
We’ve faced environmental issues throughout our history, but it’s difficult to remember one which has gained such “status” in such a short time. To a skeptic, there seems to be a religious fervor that makes one wary. A gradual “ramping down” of the dire predictions has not led to a diminution of the doomsday rhetoric. Are these warning signs that the movement has become more of an activist cause than a scientific reality?
Just asking.
| Mr. Sajak is the host of "Wheel of Fortune" and PatSajak.com. |
You forgot Acid Rain:-)
You cannot apply logic to hysteria. GW is about creating and harnessing hysteria for the “greater good”.
You know the rules, where’s the pic?
Bookmarked
Yeah....that idiot doctor told me I was going to die someday, and he can't even tell me if I'm gonna get sick next week!
(You forgot your sarcasm tag, so I'll close it for us both...) </sarc>
Years ago “Wheel” was doing an American Cities tour, hosting the show is various places across the country. I owned a business at the time that was able to service the show for a week. What a hoot!
Trust this: Dessler knows what he's talking about.
Easy answer: my profile, point #2.
I’m going to try to address Mr. Sajak’s questions (may take a bit of time). Would you email him with my responses when I’m done?
You say you take the “Consensus” view that Manmade Global warming is real.
How can we ever doubt you. I mean, since when has the consensus of the scientific community been wrong.
I guess we can always strive to attain your omnipotent intellect. To hell with those other 400+ heretics (a.k.a. scientists.).
Easily. Biases are hard to give up.
I mean, since when has the consensus of the scientific community been wrong.
I find the whole consensus issue to be a ridiculous distraction. What matters is whether the scientific understanding of the basic mechanisms is sound. And it is. The ramifications of the future path of climate change are not definite, but the basics tell a consistent message: further warming is the most likely outcome, and this warming is largely due to human activities.
Do you think this piece by him is arrogant or just dismissive?
“Wednesday, August 09, 2006
Aged skeptics
I’ve noticed a pattern recently. Some of the most vociferous skeptics of AGW are professors emeritus. No doubt, some people will argue that these are the most trustworthy sources, since their career is over and they are not dependent on getting funding.
However, I will advance a second theory. I was at a meeting a few weeks ago where I ran into Bill Gray, a famous emeritus skeptic. He gave his standard stump speech in which he claims that the water vapor feedback is negative. I followed up on this with him and it became quite clear to me that he is unfamiliar with all of the peer-reviewed literature on this subject that has been published in the last five years. This makes sense. Reading the literature is a difficult and full-time job, and emeritus faculty simply don’t need to do that. Especially (in the case of Gray) when your time is occupied being interviewed and screaming at people. As a result, my sense is that the views of emeritus skeptics are often substantially out of date.
But the story goes on. After arguing with him for a few minutes, it became clear that Bill Gray has no scientific theory of his own *why* the water vapor feedback is negative, and no data to support his non-theory. He has no manuscript describing his non-theory and no plans to attempt to publish it. After I pointed out all of the evidence supporting a positive feedback, he looked confused and finally said, “OK, maybe the feedback isn’t negative, maybe it’s neutral. I’ll give you that.” I quickly concluded that he has no idea what he’s talking about. I wish everyone that considers him credible could have witnessed this exchange.
Thus, we have two explanations for the emeritus-skeptic phenomenon: 1) only they are credible because their career is over, vs. 2) their knowledge is substantially out-of-date. My personal experience is that the second explains the phenomenon far better than the first.”
How much warmer is it now than in 1998?
How much warmer will it be in another 9 years?
No one doubts you are a true believer, but we can’t go to church every day.
The latest con is that the oceans are absorbing more carbon dioxide than ever and that this is resulting in the production of carbolic acid, which is increasing the acidity of the water, and suppressing the growth of algae.
Now, I believe that it is the algae that absorbs the carbon dioxide, and as the algae proliferates, the absorbtion increases. So, how can the increased acidity be decreasing the algae growth?
Sajak wrote that?
Not much, if any. 1998 was an exceptionally warm year due to an exceptionally large El Nino event. But remember that 2005 was nearly as warm as 1998 without an El Nino.
How much warmer will it be in another 9 years?
Exactly 9 years from now -- impossible to say. Approximately nine years from now, the global temperature will be approximately 0.2 deg C warmer than the current average (which I would ascertain by averaging the last three years together).
I will also predict (for fun, not for any actual wagering purposes) that one of the next six years: 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, or 2013 -- will set a new global temperature record surpassing 1998. I ask, theoretically, if my prediction happens, what will happen to the arguments that global warming ended in 1998? (See my profile, point #4, for why I make that statement).
Where is the daily (yearly) running total/average - I have yet to find such a link for all the noise.
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.