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. |
Great Questions. We need to get answers before we start to dismantle the advancements we have made. The whole thing as a panic driven propaganda ring to it.
I was told to ride a bike to work tp “save the planet.” I can’t see how my saving a bit of exhast so a guy in China or India or Mexico can drive his car is going to save anything. There are good reasons to ride a bike—get fit, save money, etc... but saving the earth isn’t one of them. I prefer real change to symbolism.
Dessler wrote 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.
I'd go with dismissive.
13: When is fear-mongering OK?(IE exorbinant hyperbole to support the premise) Is it OK when it's used in the Global Warming hype but not OK in Terrorism, or Secure border discussions?
Not really expecting a cogent answer.
Regards
Bonehead
John Derbyshire: Liberty! Liberty! - Why I’m for Ron Paul. I'm not.
From time to time, I’ll ping on noteworthy articles about politics, foreign and military affairs. FReepmail me if you want on or off my list.
I'm not sure that he is correct, but I admit that he is impressive.
Any idea what happened to your old debating partner ancient_geezer?
While it is not exactly talk radio at its finest, there are worse ways to spend 90 minutes.
There is not much debate, since the AGW skeptic who was supposed to debate Dessler never showed up. At first I mistook one of the callers for the skeptic.
It would take me a couple of hours to put Dessler's words into a readable format. Instead I will just give what I took away from what he said. This is far from verbatim.
Below, common claims by AGW skeptics are followed by paraphrases of Dessler's responses.
Claim: Increased planetary temperatures caused increased atmospheric C02, not the other way around. The historical record shows that increased C02 always follows the temperature increases, so it cannot have been a causal factor.
Response: There is a feedback loop in which small increases in temperature causes increase in CO2 release, that causes additional warming, that causes the release of yet more CO2. We have no other way to explain the warming.
Claim : The medieval warm period was warmer than it is now, and they didn't have a problem with greenhouse gases.
Response: We don't really know how warm it was during that period.
Claim: You can prove anything with computer models. A small error in the data can produce a huge error in output.
Response: There is plenty of evidence for AGW that does not depend on computer models.
Claim: It was warmer in the U.S. in the 1930s than it is now, though output of CO2 has increased drastically since the 1930s.
Response: The drought of the 1930s reduced evaporative cooling.
Claim: Variations in solar radiance caused the historical variations in temperature. Response: This is not supported by satellite measurements of solar radiance.
Claim: Scientists who disagree with AGW put their careers at risk.
Response: Conspiracy theory rubbish. The scientists who recently published an article in Nature questioning the relationship between AGW and hurricanes have not harmed their careers. Finding an example of strong negative feedback, some physical process that acted to counterbalance the warming effects of CO2, would greatly help a scientist's career.
Claim: Concensus is not science.
Response: True, but someone looking for advice on a subject he does not understand does well to seek out the opinions of experts. If most of the experts agree, that is significant.
Claim: Temperatures on Mars are rising, without any man-made greenhouse gases.
Response: We don’t have good long term measurements of Martian temperatures. The paper claiming that Martian temps were rising was “One of the worst papers I’ve ever read.”
Claim: MIT's Lindzen is a highly regarded AGW skeptic.
Response: Lindzen been trying to prove negative feedback from cloud cover, but has so far failed to do so.
Claim: Satellites/weather balloons don’t show atmospheric warming.
Response: Yes, this is an interesting discrepancy between the data and model. In this case the data are probably wrong. There have been big revisions in the satellite/weather balloon data sets. People are working on this.
Not a great summary, but it will have to do. While I thought that some of his answers were weak, he came across as open minded.
Thanks for the ping!
No, I don't. I know his wife had health problems, and I suspect his nickname reflected a long life. But I haven't seen a post from him in several months. Checking... last time he posted was early July.
So it would be better to say that some of the data analyses show a large discrepancy between data and model, and some show only a small discrepancy. And that does indicate the need for further work.
Given the significantly increased metabolism of someone on a bicycle compared with someone in a car, the former person would emit considerably more CO2 while traveling. How does that amount of extra CO2 compare with the amount of CO2 emitted by the vehicle?
To be sure, there are personal advantages to the person who gets exercise during the course of his travels, but what's the CO2 balance?
~~AGW ™ ping~~
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.