Again, I am shocked by the glaring fact centered around global warming: If the scientists are predicting, claiming and making written reports, why are we so willing to believe that they are wrong?
It seems almost laughable, being that I have yet to read anything published by a actual intelligent scientist stating that global warming does not exist. The large majority of anti-global warming people are: governments, big business, unqualified writers.
Honesty, in your article, it claims that you cannot formulate long term predictions based on a loosely written, alarmist hypothesis. It ignores the blatant correlations of weather, temperature and environmental anomalies that are witnessed each year as the CO2 gas emmisions continue to rise. The alarmists are merely forming predictions about what will happen if the rates continue to rise.
Take for example, a bottle of propane and a single balloon. Fill the balloon with the propane, and then hold it close to an open flame. It will explode, and you can observe this. Do you need to fill a bigger balloon with more propane to see if the explosion will be bigger?
The fact that a meteorologist, albeit the prominent founder of The Weather Channel, John Coleman, was used in an article that is meant to discredit long term predictions founded from unprovable hypotheses is quite laughable. Isn't meteorology a science all about studying current trends and predicting, without experiments or proven accuracy, what the weather trends will be?
What is alarmingly funny, is that each year that we continue to discredit the once credible scientists, and delay action against what will likely kill more people than we care to admit, we are witnessing more and more of the things that were once considered impossible.. They are also the same things that these scientists have been telling us would happen.
So, if you choose not to believe in global warming, so be it. This summer, why don't you jump in a nice boat and head to the North Pole? It is scheduled to be free of ice for the first time in recorded history.
The North Pole article only further makes the point that none of these guys are quite sure what they're talking about. They expect the North Pole to have no ice by this years end, but original models stated that this wouldn't happen until 2013 at the earliest. Why are their models of our impending doom ALREADY off by 8-15 years?
Ok, that's just semantics...sort of.
The greenhouse effect of CO2 is only based on physics, not a correlative analysis of past temperatures. While this does not disprove CO2 as a warming factor, it does not mean CO2 definitely causes the earth to warm. In fact, increasing temperatures have also been shown to create more CO2.
My global warming arguments aside, what I think is fascinating is the funding. In the drug "wars" they say, follow the money. Of course their aren't any good anti-global warming argument--no one but crackpots with a few small trust funds is funding "prove global warming wrong" research. Meanwhile the "prove it right" camp is seeing billions in grants. Who's providing this money? If you're a scientist, what are you going to study--the hypothesis that has you eating ramen noodles after work, or the hypothesis that funds your mistress' 5th Avenue condo?
ExxonMobil, the Texas-based oil giant, has pledged $100 million over 10 years to research "innovative and cost-effective" ways of meeting the world's energy needs. One of its partners in the project? General Electric.
...
...Exxon is investing in Stanford's Global Climate and Energy Project...
Speaking of anomalies, what do you mean the biggest anti-global warming people are "governments, big businesses [and] unqualified writers"? Whenever I turn on the TV, all I see are big business--hell, big OIL--and governments pushing climate change initiatives. And unqualified writers, from USA Today to the Huffington Post, are excreting this Doomsday crap faster than we can push greenhouse gases out of our straight-piped Chevy truck. Publications and business are filling their pages and products with "green" and, in the process, lining their pockets with it as well.
Hell, even the G8--the ultimate evil in the world, for some reason--has brought the argument to the table. And the one thing they'll agree on is that global warming is happening.
But at the end of it all, my argument--and my love for this piece--has nothing to do with "disproving" global warming--I very much believe it's happening. My argument has to do with a skepticism. Healthy skepticism. Skepticism that simply demands that a measured approached be taken before everyone is informed that the sky is, in fact, falling.
The IPCC is "90%" certain that current global warming is due to humans and carbon emissions. Tell me what is scientific about "90%"? What is the process used to arrive at that number. Did they run their climate model 1,000 times and watch as 900 times the problem was with CO2 emissions? Or do they have 9,000 facts that point to human causes and 1,000 that point to other causes? Tell me which page in the IPCC report identifies the equation used to come to that percentage.
Vostok Ice core samples have shown repeated, cyclical period of CO2 density and temperature increase over the last 400,000 years. The latest one occurred almost 15,000 year prior to the development of the Ford Model T. Why are they suddenly so certain that I'm to blame for this recent spike?
I--a worthless writer--can cook up a number like "90%". SCIENTISTS deal in hypotheses and absolutes, not vague assertions. And when we turn to science for our vague assertions, I believe that something has become VERY wrong with our collective thinking.
Is it worth mentioning that you just showed a quote stating that Exxon is sponsoring research into a fuel alternative is about as good as when tobacco companies hired doctor's to research if they caused health effects or not?
Exxon is a company that is probably as morally healthy as the Junta in Bumra. They continuous pollute, exploit and get caught. To date, they systematically find creative ways to insure that their profits are not hurt in any way.
The famous Valdez affair just came to an end. Originally required by federal law to pay $75000 per person living in the Alaska coast line that they devastated by running aground and spilling so much crude, they fought hard for 10 years in Court to lower that amount to $10 000. The amount of money that they now must pay is equivalent to about half the interest they would have earned by simply putting the money in the bank while they waited for the trial.
So now they put 100 000 million on the table? You honestly believe that they want to see the money produce results that will effect their ability to produce and sell oil at these rediculous rates? Quit kidding yourself, that funding is merely a publicity point to convince people like you that their corporation is really trying to make the planet a greener place and to lower you all-ready-to-high fuel price.
Convince "people like me"? Don't worry Jeff, I've got my own copy of "Trust Us, We're Experts" sitting on the shelf behind me, alongside Michael Moore's "Downsize This!" to confirm my anti-establishment all-corporations-are-evil credentials. I may not have gone to th'm fancy book larnin' schools, but I dun knows me a t'ing 'r two 'bout Corporate Marketing--from the inside and out.
I'm certainly not defending Exxon--I'm making the point that ridiculous amounts of funding are going into global warming research from a variety of sources to a variety of reputable destinations. Hell, BP overshadows Exxon by pledging 500 million to UC-Berkeley. Take THAT Stanford.
Hell, even random sources such as an investment manager (100 Mln to Princeton) or the "Midwest Governors Association" (150 million to the "development and promotion" of alternative energy sources) are popping up, support the conclusion that human-based CO2 emissions are the only cause of global warming.
This is all in addition to the billions in Global-Warming-based grants that governments (the U.S. put 200 million into these coffers) are already placing into the blanket of research that says "Global Warming IS happening". None of these organizations' stated goals are to question the link between global warming and human involvement--they all openly accept the IPCC findings as Gospel.
Which is my problem. There are hundred of millions put to programs that can manipulate the fear of global warming, but not a penny put to continued analysis of these findings. Which undermines the fundamental principals of science.
...Without controls, one cannot draw conclusions from the experiment. Controls enable scientists to test the effects of a single variable...
And honestly, I don't think Exxon cares how they make money--in fact, they'd probably like to divest themselves of oil, since the hassle of mitigating all those legal claims cuts so deeply into their profits. They'd probably make more money by clearing 1,000,000 acres of Amazonian rainforest, planting corn crops, and selling government-subsidized ethanol. The article I linked already said that they attempted at foray into solar energy--and ditched it when it began to cost the shareholders' money.
I guess, in my opinion, I see a oil company giving money to study the effects of its product on global warming and I see it as the same as a Tobacco Company hiring medical researchers to see the effects of its products on people's house. Its only there to satisfy a public concern, even if they do not wish for any harmful results.
Do you honestly believe that a company with the financial profit margins of Exxon would like to rid themselves of oil? Its joke to say that they could make more money from corn harvested ethanol products, Exxon/Chevron reported the worlds highest quarter profits last year, and they are on track to do it again.
And if you want to argue that because results are arriving faster than any scientist predicted means that we have no clue going on, look no further than your own uncertainties that they have no idea what is going on. You are calling them alarmists for predicting things happening ten years from now. Imagine what you would call them if they claimed things would happen tomorrow. I know that is not ethical science, but they have no choice but to try and sell it to a public that is hell bent on ignoring the pending need to change their consumption lifestyles.
I let my bravado get the better of me in the previous posts. Which is unfortunate, because I think we're basically of the same mind--rampant over-consumption is bad, regardless of the context under which it's done. To that degree, I personally don't much differentiate between the tea-hungry oil tycoons who need to toe the bottom line, and the mother of two that says it's just "not reasonable" to drive anything but a Chevy Suburban. (a mother of 3-6 children could make that argument, but...)
You're a fascinating character Jeff. If fate ever finds you in the Wisconsin area of the U.S., be sure to send me a message.
Joined: 01-06-07
I'm not a particular fan of the Wall Street Journal. I'm also not a fan of global warming rhetoric. As the saying goes, my enemy's enemy is my ally.
Yellow Science
Nevertheless, over the past several decades an increasing number of scientists have shed the restraints imposed by the scientific method and begun to proclaim the truth of man-made global warming. This is a hypothesis that remains untested, makes no predictions that can be tested in the near future, and cannot offer a numerical explanation for the limited evidence to which it clings. No equations have been shown to explain the relationship between fossil-fuel emission and global temperature. The only predictions that have been made are apocalyptic, so the hypothesis has to be accepted before it can be tested.
This article summed up exactly what bothers me about all of the "expert evidence" on global warming. It is related to my previous post: "Global Warming Nonsense"
I'm not a scientist, but I am a citizen of earth. Author James Kerian's parallel between "Yellow journalism" and young scientists' desperate scramble to secure the billions of dollars in Global Warming grants intrigues me. All writers have felt the inevitable pull of good writing vs. commercial interests. Is it not safe to assume a scientist could suffer the same dilemma? Who is then responsible for reversing this trend?
Finally, one should not underestimate the temptation of convenience. Just as it is far easier to publish stories without verifying the sources; so is it much more convenient to practice yellow science than the real thing. It takes far more courage, perseverance, and perspiration to develop formulas, make predictions, and risk being proved wrong than to look at historical data and muse about observed similarities. Yellow scientists have fled the risks of science that Albert Einstein described when he said, "No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, a single experiment can prove me wrong."
* * *
The layman might object that this is not his problem. Surely Joe Six-Pack should not be expected to monitor the findings of research physicists; if anything is to be done about this collapse of scientific standards, it must be done by the scientific community itself. Unfortunately, history has shown the inability of professional communities to police their own ranks. When it first reared its head, yellow journalism was roundly condemned by the journalistic community. In fact, it was these critics who coined the term yellow journalism. The condemnation of their peers was an insufficient deterrent for Pulitzer and Hearst, because it was the approval of the public that drove their circulation. Eventually the entire journalistic community acceded to the sensationalism that the public seemed to insist on.