The Turning Point on Global Warming (McCain and Lieberman Op-Ed Alert)

THERE IS NOW a broad consensus in this country, and indeed in the world, that global warming is happening, that it is a serious problem, and that humans are causing it. The recent report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded there is a greater than 90 percent chance that greenhouse gases released by human activities like burning oil in cars and coal in power plants are causing most of the observed global warming. This report puts the final nail in denial's coffin about the problem of global warming.

In addition, the US Fish and Wildlife Service has identified a warming climate, and the resulting melting of sea ice, as the reason polar bears may now be threatened as a species. The US Center for Disease Control's National Center for Environmental Health has cited global warming as the largest looming public health challenge we face. And President Bush has himself called global warming a serious challenge that we need to confront.

Indeed, if we fail to start substantially reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the next couple of years, we risk bequeathing a diminished world to our grandchildren. Insect-borne diseases such as malaria will spike as tropical ecosystems expand; hotter air will exacerbate the pollution that sends children to the hospital with asthma attacks; food insecurity from shifting agricultural zones will spark border wars; and storms and coastal flooding from sea-level rise will cause mortality and dislocation.

To confront this challenge, we have reintroduced the Climate Stewardship and Innovation Act. The bill, which has growing bipartisan support, would harness the power of the free market and the engine of American innovation to reduce the nation's greenhouse gas emissions substantially enough and quickly enough to forestall catastrophic global warming.

If Manmade Global Warming was a done deal and proven, why is over a $Billion still being spent to prove it? I mean how much do we spend to prove the earth is round?
If Manmade Global Warming were a fact how come none of there predictions have come true?

If you BELIEVE in Manmade Global warming then you have less understanding then I do.

You cannot give me one provable fact to support your hypostasis, or a consistent prediction as to the effects of manmade global warming. Do you even know the ‘Scientific Method?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

1. Observe some aspect of the universe.

2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.

3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.

4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.

5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!

Answers:
1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.
2. The U.S., with it's vast forests (more now than in pre-Columbian times) and farmlands is a net ABSORBER of CO2...as opposed to Europe and Japan, which are net emitters.
3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there. It's an era referred to as the "Medieval Climate Optimum" in old climate textbooks, and was followed by the spread of Black Plague (the fleas of the rats taking advantage of the warmer climate to spread to northern Europe). That period was followed by what used to be referred to as the "Little Ice Age", in which England saw snow in areas never before seen, and the River Thames froze quite solidly on a regular basis. That period ended in the early/middle 1700's, and we've been in a warming trend ever since.
When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.

I'll answer your questions and the preempt your arguments based on them.

1. What gas is responsible for approximately 95% of the "greenhouse effect" on planet Earth?

No single gas amounts to that large a percentage of the greenhouse effect. I know you are going to claim it is water vapor, but that's an internet myth with no scientific support.

It is true that water vapor accounts for the vast majority of the greenhouse effect, but it's not 95%. it's more like 65-85%. Here's a source:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=220

But okay, I know where you're going with this, and 65-85% is high enough for you to do it. You're going to say that we don't have to worry about CO2 because it's so much smaller a proportion of current greenhouse gasses than is water vapor. This is an absurd argument, however, because the current proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere is irrelevent to the question of what increases in the gas will do to our climate.

2. Are the United States a net A) Emitter, or B) Absorber of carbon dioxide?

Emitter. I bet you think we're an absorber. Well, that's a myth, debunked here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

3. Is the global climate now A) Warmer, or B) Cooler than it was approximately 1,000 to 1,100 years ago?

Warmer. I know where you're going with this too. You're going to claim that the temperatures during the Mediavel warming period 1000 years ago were higher than today. This is smiply another internet myth.

See here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html

If Manmade Global Warming was a done deal and proven, why is over a $Billion still being spent to prove it?

Money is being spent to get more precise estimates of its magnitude and figuring out what can be done about it.

If Manmade Global Warming were a fact how come none of there predictions have come true?

They have come true.

You cannot give me one provable fact to support your hypostasis,

Hypostasis? I think you mean hypothesis. Well, here's one provable fact: the earth is warmer now than it has been in about 1,300 years. Here's another provable fact: C02 absorbes UV radiation. Here's another provable fact: CO2 concerntrations in the atmosphere are orders of magnitude higher now than they have been in that same period.

The environmentalists pushing the 'global warming' myth have never gotten past Step # 2!

They have, your willful ignorance not withstanding.

I'll add a few things to my pre-emption:

1. Water vapor is responsible for about 95% of the Earth's greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is less than 2% of the total effect, with methane taking up most of the balance, and other gasses responsible for the remainder. But all we EVER hear about is CO2.

I already debunked the nonsense about 95% being water vapor. I'll only add one thing. The reason we hear about CO2 and not the others is because the amount of CO2 is increasing faster than the others by several orders of magnitude. The other gasses are have been pretty stable over the past 150 years.

#2 is already debunked.

3. Let's see...they were raising crops of oats in Greenland, and the Icelandic/Viking explorers were calling what is now the chilly area of Newfoundland "Vinland" because of the grapes which grew there.

I already posted a link which debunks the myth that global temperatures were lower during the Medieval Warming period. As to the annecdotes about milder climates in South Greenland and Europe, there is strong evidence that these were just local effects. Just because one part of the world gets warmer doesn't mean the same thing happens to the entire globe. In fact, the evidence points to the fact that the world as a whole was cooler then than today (though it was warmer than say, during the mid 1800's).

When an eco-fanatic that I'm talking to fails the first question, I have to enquire why they feel that they are entitled to demand legislation on a technical topic of which they have absolutely NO idea what they are talking about.

Unfortunately, you have demonstrated that you know about as much as the typical ecofanatic. You don't do the conservative cause any good by perpetuating internet myths that have been shown false long ago.

Here's an article from Opinion Journal that demonstrates what I was saying about feminized science with constructed outcomes, instead of proven science.

An Ohio State University press release, meanwhile, says that temperatures in Antarctica during the late 20th century "did not climb as had been predicted by many global climate models":

It also follows a similar finding from last summer by the same research group that showed no increase in precipitation over Antarctica in the last 50 years. Most models predict that both precipitation and temperature will increase over Antarctica with a warming of the planet.

But David Bromwich, a professor of atmospheric sciences at OSU, "said the disagreement between climate model predictions and the snowfall and temperature records doesn't necessarily mean that the models are wrong." The important thing is that they work in theory, not in practice.

Curiosity,
Do you even read the stuff you linked?
Your OWN source http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html States the following:
There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century.

What double talk. Fist they say there is no “high degree of confidence” then they make a statement that with a high degree of confidence.

Lets see the thermometer was not invented till the 1700’s. So to get “carbon, temperatures or what ever” we have to rely on “tree rings and ice cores.” There are so many variables besides temperature and carbon that can affect these that the scientist have to an average. Trees rings are also affected by the age of the tree, moisture, and soil content. Ice cores are affected by wind, moisture, age, debt, ect.
What do we have today” Satellites and hypersensitive electronic gear that allows us to measure smaller an smaller amounts. So to compare information from tree rings and ice cores with today’s reading is like comparing the time taken by a hour glass or sundial with an atomic clock. This is why your site says that they cannot construct anything with a HIGH DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE.

So how can anyone make statements that the temperatures today are higher than anytime in the last 500, 1000, 10,000 or what ever they do?

In addition the site http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medieval.html uses the computer program called the “hocky stick,” which has been proven to be worthless.
See Global Warming Bombshell http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=13830&ch=biztech and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3569604.stm

What it basically says that when they put random numbers into the program they got the same results something like 87 or 90 time tried. If you do more study on the Hockey Stick you find that it was written to eliminate that pesky medieval warming period.

In fact the people behind your ncdc website are talked about at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0

It is obvious from your answers and web links that you have never take a real science class or understand statistics or the scientific method. One thing you will notice in the links you gave there is really no math talk about variables.

See Pseudoscience http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Pseudoscience.html
All the links you gave do is use rhetoric. For real science see CO2: Reality vs. Fantasy http://www.friendsofscience.org/documents/Search%20This%20Site.htm
And Debunking Modern Climate Myths
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/Environment/debunking.htm

But before we get into a link vs link. I have to ask you have you looked at the motivation behind the Manmade Global warming pushers? Canadian Environment Minister Christine Stewart. said 'Climate change [provides] the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world.' Whether global warming actually exists is irrelevant. It is, in the hands of government and environmental activists, a convenient front for the introduction of programs and economic policies that Canadians - and most citizens of the world - would not otherwise accept.
http://www.junkscience.com/dec98/corcoran.htm

That is why the UN, AL Gore, Vladimir Putin, amoung other are big Greens and manmade global warming pushers. They are all pushing for more GOVERNMENTAL CONTROL OF ALL OUR LIVES, this is SOCIALISM. Haven’t you noticed that ALL CURES FOR THESE SO CALLED DISASTERS IS MORE GOVERNMENT?
Should we get environmental laws passed there will not be any aspect our lives that will not be under governmental control.

If the limits to growth analysis of our predicament is correct we have no choice but to undertake radical changes in lifestyles, values, the geography of our settlements and especially change to a different economy. http://socialwork.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/12b-The-Alt-Sust-Soc-Lng.html

If you believe in manmade global warming you are what Lenin called a useful idiot, remember he called for abolition of private property and if you read what he wanted to do it is the same as the manmade global warming pushers.

Do you even read the stuff you linked?

Yes.

What double talk. Fist they say there is no “high degree of confidence” then they make a statement that with a high degree of confidence.

Do me a favor and go take a class in statistics. It's possible to have a low degree of confidence about a mean temperature in a short period while at the same time have a high degree of confidence in a temperature range over longer periods of time.

So to get “carbon, temperatures or what ever” we have to rely on “tree rings and ice cores.” There are so many variables besides temperature and carbon that can affect these that the scientist have to an average. Trees rings are also affected by the age of the tree, moisture, and soil content. Ice cores are affected by wind, moisture, age, debt, ect.

Sure. So there's a margin of error. There are ways of measuring this margin, and the difference between today's temperatures and estimates of 1000 years ago lie outside that margin. Please, please, take a class in statistics.

So to compare information from tree rings and ice cores with today’s reading is like comparing the time taken by a hour glass or sundial with an atomic clock.

Yeah, one estimate is more precise than the other. So what? If the difference between estiamtes is large enough, you can still tell that there is a difference with a high degree of confidence.

Let's use your example. Suppose at one point during the day I use a sundial and I estimate that the time is 9:00 AM. Later in the day I look an an atomic clock and find that it's 5:00 PM. That first reading isn't very precise. It may have as late as 9:20 or early 8:40. On the hand, the second reading was very precise. I can still say with confidence that the atomic clock reading was made at least 7:40 hours after the the sundial reading, and at most 8:20 hours later. I can't say it was 8:00 hours on the dot, but who cares?

So how can anyone make statements that the temperatures today are higher than anytime in the last 500, 1000, 10,000 or what ever they do?

Gee, you tell me. How is it that you make statements the earth was warmer 1,100 years ago than it is today?

Hot And Bothered
INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 2/2/2007
Climate Change: A U.N. panel officially releases its report telling us the planet is warming, man is the primary cause and doom is imminent. But can computer models that can't predict the past predict the future?
We'll stipulate that the planet is warming. It's been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age. It's been warming since Newsweek warned in the mid-1970s of the onset of the next ice age.
We'll even agree that man has contributed to rising carbon dioxide levels by activities that include breathing and driving the kids to soccer practice.
But the 21-page report released in Paris on Friday portrays man as a plague on the planet that has produced everything from rising seas that will flood coastal areas to monster storms that will flatten everything in their path. Katrina, in the experts' view, was just an appetizer before the apocalypse.
Problem is, they ignore the planet's own history. About 20,000 years ago — long before the first SUV — global sea levels were 400 feet lower than they are now. Sea levels were rising long before the Industrial Revolution and will likely continue to rise, just not at the cataclysmic rates predicted by computer models.
Last year was supposed to be the year hurricanes would start arriving with greater frequency and strength. But nature didn't get the memo. There were only nine named storms during the Atlantic season, with just five becoming hurricanes.
In 2005 there were 27 named storms, 15 of them hurricanes, an exceptional year. The average is 15 named storms and 8.5 hurricanes. Last year was the first since 1997 in which the Gulf of Mexico had only one named storm and the first since 1997 when there were no Category 4 or Category 5 Atlantic storms. Apocalypse not?
All these prophecies of doom are based on computer models that are based on agreed-upon assumptions and fed a relatively small portion of the immense number of variables that affect weather or climate. Not all these variables are known or fully understood, which helps explain why these models can't even predict the past.
When the Clinton administration, which never submitted Kyoto to the Senate for ratification, produced a voluminous climate report, it selected two climate models.
One, from the Canadian Climate Center, forecast dramatic temperature increases. The other, a British model, predicted dramatic increases in precipitation.
Climatologist Patrick Michaels examined these two models and discovered they could not reproduce recorded temperature trends regardless of the period selected. The Canadian model overestimated actual U.S. warming in the 20th century by 300%.
When you can't grasp the past, how can you predict the future?
Even the man credited for starting the warming hype, NASA scientist James Hansen, has been spectacularly wrong in his own predictions. As author Michael Crichton has noted, Hansen's prediction in 1988 of a 0.35-degree Celsius rise in temperatures over the next decade overshot the actual rise — 0.11 degrees — by 219%.
Of course, that's the big problem with these mammoth mathematical models that have dozens of variables. Even minor errors or mismeasurements in key input data can result in huge errors. And these errors aren't without cost.
Global warming advocates want us to spend trillions of dollars to mitigate global warming based on an error-prone approach. It's a risky investment.
As a matter of both fiscal policy and common sense, we need to ask ourselves whether global warming warrants such massive spending — or whether we'd be better off spending that money on other things that would save lives now, like ending the scourge of malaria or helping to provide clean water in developing nations.
These things might not be very sexy, but the money spent would save literally hundreds of thousands of lives each year. Some 2.8 billion people —nearly half the world's population — now live on less than $2 a day. Must we spend trillions to make them — and us — poorer?
Earth has repeatedly warmed and cooled over eons. It's been warmer than now and colder than now. There have been numerous ice ages followed by subsequent warming periods.
We're in one now. It might be argued that man's greenhouse gas emissions have had the beneficial effect of postponing the next ice age, perhaps indefinitely.
We frankly don't see the apocalyptic nature of warmer winters, longer growing seasons or abundant vegetation and crops from increased precipitation and higher CO2 levels.
One thing we do know is that if the environmentalists say it's going to rain tomorrow, it might be wise to apply some sunscreen.
Your example of the sundial and atomic clock. Suppose your accused of a crime and your alibi needs to be within 10 minutes of the time the crime took place. However all your witness can say is that using a sun dial says that the last time you were seen may have as late as 9:20 or early 8:40. How would a more accurate time piece looked at 12 hours later help you out?

Curiosity,
Let’s face it you are a “believer” to the Church of Global Warming and Liberalism. No matter what proof of explanation is given you, you will quote the gospel of Al “I invented the internet” Gore. And come up with absurd truths. See "Environmentalism as Religion” by Michael Crichton, or Environmentalism: A New Religion? By: David G. Danielson

You did not respond to the fact that Socialist and Communist are the manmade global warming pushers, who want to control all of us and dictate our life style. Are you for Government Control of your total life?

You missed my point but pointed out what the Pushers do. The tree rings and ice cores can only give a magnitude over a range. You can say that 1,000 years ago the temperature was warmer over a period of time than today. It cannot be determined the exact years or exact temperatures. You can say that carbon was 300 time higher in concentration 5,000 years ago but not the years or days it was higher. Only the magnitude and the approximate time frame. However, today the Pushers will see a miniscule change that can only be detected by precise instruments and then extrapolate it for extended periods of time. It is only the Pushers that will use such phrases as the hottest “year” in over 1,000 years. The phrases is meaningless because when you change measuring systems you can multiply errors. Tell me the average temperature of the year 100 AD?
Further with carbon they make two major errors, 1. That the increase will go on indefinitely; and, 2. Ignore the fact that a some point there will be a saturation of carbon to the point that more carbon will have no additional affect on warming.

So Curiosity, I told you what the motivation for the manmade global warming pushers is. World Socialism. What is the motivation of the manmade global warming skeptics? Don’t use money, because the Pushers receive over a $billion and companies like Exxon have given only a few million.
And do you agree with the Stalinist tactic of attacking the skeptics? Or if you’re a believer I guess they would be considered heretics.

jwalsh07
The important point to remember is that Manmade Global Warming (MGW) is not a science it’s a POLITICAL movement connected to a religious belief.
A man who ceases to believe in God does not believe in nothing; he believes in anything.
- G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy
The socialist are pushing MGW to steal our rights and put in place bigger government. To help them they have used the useful idiots to believe in the power of man and like a religion all they have to offer is belief and a rule of behavior. Thou SHALT recycle, thou SHALT not drive a gas combustion engine but take public transportation, Thou shalt not drill or use oil, Thou shalt see the Al Gore film and not use his name in vane, Thou shalt reduce your standard of living, Thou shalt not have children or abort them if you do. Thou shalt give all money and power to the government that will tell you how to live and what you can buy. Thou shalt feel guilty for being white and living in America.

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.