Why you care about not caring about global warming (pt. 2)…
March 13th, 2007
If you haven’t already, I strongly suggest you take the time to read part one of this article here.
Global warming is a sensitive subject, one that stirs deep emotions in the hearts of those who follow the issue. Part of the reason is that global warming and the issue of environmental responsibility have become inextricably linked. Personally, I find this to be a brilliant tactic employed by any who wish to make their issue, cause, or argument unassailable. This is why the issue of abortion is knit to the issue of choice and women’s rights. If one were to simply debate the biological truths related to the issue of children, the pro-choice movement would be trounced and bereft of any moral ground to cling to; thus the inviolable freedoms and rights that all mankind deserves becomes the centerpiece of the war they are fighting. A pro-choice proponent can really immerse themselves in the belief that they are not fighting for themselves, but for the good of all mankind.
Many issues find their way to our heart-strings before too long. Health care reforms then become about the children (the ones that make it out of the womb, of course) - and who wants to oppose children? In politics, the line between truth, facts, rhetoric, and propaganda is often difficult to discern. Because these tactics are so often employed by Democrats in our nation in a manner that is knit to what is known as a “populist” message (government that provides services for the people), those on the Republican side have zeal and energy to expose the illogical but often heart-string pulling tactics of their opponents. Of course, this presumes that Republicans would never use social issues for personal gain.
The central issue, of course, is that ultimately few of these issues truly matter to most politicians of any shade of red and blue. The core issue is simply one of job security. Job security is one of the most powerful forces driving and motivating the hearts of men and women on the planet today. It has always been this way - for example, in the first century one of the primary issues that led to the crucifixion of Jesus was the zeal of the Pharisees for job security. It’s why they only highlighted the aspects and interpretations of the law that they could keep consistently, overlooking the parts of the law they could not. Even more insidiously, they really highlighted the aspects of the law that the rest of the Jews could not keep - and thus the Pharisees and scribes were sought after for their counsel and “expertise” in the matters of the law and righteousness. Job security.
Job security fuels Republican politicians who have a vested interest in crying out for justice in regards to abortion every four years or so, while making sure to do little about it in the meantime. I refuse to believe that many of these politicians truly care about issues related to justice and societal change knit to kingdom of God values. There is little political gain in fighting for orphans in Africa with AIDS that few Americans care about. Politicians care about what people care about, and people care about themselves. Thus, the main issue that almost every politician focuses on is the economy, not social justice.
Let’s deviate for a minute from self-serving politicians and their self-centered constituencies. Let’s talk about environmentalists. Last Thursday I read a not-very-surprising article about the disappointment of the Ten network related to “disastrous” ratings for a much-hyped save the environment special. Here’s an interesting quote from the article:
“Truthfully, we’re confused,” says Ten’s network head of programming, Beverley McGarvey. “They didn’t come. It’s not like they came to the show, sampled it and went away. They didn’t come.
“We had study guides in schools, we had the full support of the print media, both editorially and with advertising, and an extensive [Ten Network] on-air campaign with a number of different creative treatments and different stances.
“We spent a fortune to get the audience there and it didn’t work. We’ve talked about it quite a lot internally. We’re disappointed.”
Ten isn’t alone. Despite the focus on climate change, the green conundrum is alive across myriad product categories, including toilet paper.
The “green conundrum” is defined as follows, according to the article: “Toilet paper and TV shows are entirely different categories but both are facing the same challenge on the green front - how to get mass appeal and then turn a buck.” The environmentalists have suddenly found that they have the ear of both television producers and marketing agencies for a few reasons. There was the assumption that “where the treasure is, there the heart shall be” - that the hearts of the people had been captured by the environmental crisis facing the planet and thus their “treasure” would follow, reflected in responsible, or “green”, spending. These men, and others who are now mass-producing environmentally sound products, had seen themselves positioned to reap the benefits.
The issue here isn’t that these men were going to profit from global warming - there are lots of ways that enterprising and creative men and women can make money. The issue is that they were going to make money in a manner that helped them sleep better at night - they felt like their products were going to fly off of the shelves and save the earth at the same time. They felt like they were going to make a difference. “For the first time this year people say they can make a difference when it comes to the environment,” says Grey’s managing director, Jane Emery. “Roughly 60 per cent say they can make a difference.” Much to their disappointment, the ultimate indicator of the hearts of the people - what they spend their money on - reveals where people truly stand on the issue of global warming.
The global warming conversation serves a critical purpose for environmentalists that, to this point, has not borne the fruit that they were hoping for. Global warming serves as a flash point - an easily communicable set of ideas that stir urgency that will hopefully lead to activity. Activists that had long felt alone in a sea of human selfishness suddenly have a cause to rally the masses. The global warming issue, functionally, is a vehicle to bring societal change by appealing to the very self-centered desire for continued peace, comfort and safety that keeps environmental issues off the grid of what people care about. To oppose global warming, then, is to oppose environmental responsibility and necessary societal changes.
Global warming, then, becomes the means to transform selfish people into environmental activists. It becomes the issue that finally gets politicians to care about environmental laws and issues. It becomes the means to stir the nations towards responsibility in their productivity and consumption. The goals of the men and women behind the global warming conversation are the same as those of believers throughout the body of Christ - revival, in the way that they understand it. The men and women who are fueling the discussion are the “end-times” teachers of the environmental movement, and they are prophesying much doom and gloom if there is no repentance.
This is why it is becoming more and more difficult to oppose these environmental evangelists. Whether or not the facts are on their side - and I am not commenting on the facts right now - the moral imperative is clear. They are sure that they are on the right side and are aggressive in recruiting leaders and others of influence from every sphere of society to call the earth to change - before it’s too late. In a 2005 article about his movie, the 11th hour, Leonardo DiCaprio made the following statement: Global warming is not only the No. 1 environmental challenge we face today, but one of the most important issues facing all of humanity.” In 2004, the movie “The Day After Tomorrow” provided an apocalyptic glimpse at the sudden climate changes that could seemingly overwhelm the earth, practically overnight. Of course, even the global warming proponents cringed at both the science and the script for this universally panned attempt at eco-evangelism.
“Happy Feet”, the animated penguin movie that came out last year, was another attempt to indoctrinate both kids and their parents into the crisis facing the environment. The “people bad, animals good” message, however, was fairly and soundly rejected by many, including movie critics. Thus we have the critical, watershed moment for environmentalists - “An Inconvenient Truth” by Al Gore, besides being the most successful documentary in movie history, also becomes one of the most universally lauded and applauded presentation of the global warming issue to date. Whether all the facts line up is not the issue - even the filmmakers, producers, and scientists involved admit as much, in a New York Times article released just yesterday. This is an important article to read on the issue - and the sentiment is as follows: some of the details are inaccurate, but the big picture is important.
So, the question remains, for the moment: does the end justify the means? Though we probably agree that DiCaprio is incorrect - global warming is not the most critical issue of our time - is it important? Are we headed for climatological disaster on en epic scale? Though we may not agree with their methods, shouldn’t we get on board with what these men and women are saying?
Now that I’ve laid out what I consider to be some of the central issues in the first two parts, I’ll wrap up this conversation on global warming and the end of the age in the final article on my little series.
I’ll give one more hint as to where I’m going to throw in the mix with the two I gave a few days ago - is global warming depicted in the Bible?
David
Entry Filed under: current events, end times, global warming
24 Comments Add your own
1. John Cross | March 13th, 2007 at 11:12 am
David: thank you for the second part of your article. I think you do a fair job of getting the basics down, but there are a few details I could quibble with. For example where you say: and the sentiment is as follows: some of the details are inaccurate, but the big picture is important. ,I would say that the details are not inaccurate but there are some details that we are less certain about than others.
The article that you link to is an interesting one to me since it seems to be demonstrating a shift in the way the issue is being looked at. My first reading of it was colored by the fact that it draws very heavily on the denialists (those who are not skeptic, but deny the facts and truth). However a second reading made me realize that some of these people are starting to accept what can be shown by science. I will comment that the article does have a number of errors in it such as the statement:
So too, a report last June by the National Academies seemed to contradict Mr. Gore’s portrayal of recent temperatures as the highest in the past millennium. Instead, the report said, current highs appeared unrivaled since only 1600, the tail end of a temperature rise known as the medieval warm period.
That is not correct, and the report actually found it plausible that the current temperatures are the highest we have seen in the last 1000 years.
Some of the denialists still make an appearance in the article (e.g. Pieser and Carter) but I am glad to see that their numbers are being reduced. Skepticism is welcome in such an important discussion but simple denial without substance is the antithesis of truth.
I like to think of the issue of global warming as being divided into a problem that knowledge can address and one that wisdom can solve. The knowledge one is based on science and peer-review and we seem to have a good grasp of the basics. The wisdom portion - what to do with this knowledge - is the more complex and important problem and is what I think you are dealing with. Good luck!!
2. David | March 13th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
John - I fixed your comment for you.
Good thoughts - I appreciate your commitment to truth, which in this case is personified by accuracy. I appreciate any insertions or corrections that line us up with what is true rather than sentiment.
3. Idhrendur | March 13th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
I must say I am a big stickler for accuracy. If you knowingly throw incorrect facts my way, then I will refuse to believe you on almost anything else. If you unknowingly trhow incorrect, but easily verifiable facts my way, same thing.
In the case of An Inconvenient Truth, I remember watching the trailer. Two imaes stuck in my head: a hurricane sweeping across the landmass of Africa, and Florida completely covered by ocean water. The first picture I know to be absurd; hurricanes need water to keep going. The second led me to crunch some numbers (with the understanding that my math may not aplly to oceans, with their massive pressure and all). I, not surprisingly, found that picture to likewise be ridiculous.
The problem with this is that there may well be some truth to global warming. But to someone with my personality, the hype and fear will ensure I refuse to ally myself intellectually with that idea. I will resist purely to be apart from the hype.
I’m curious to see where this series goes…and I think your blog (or wordcast, or whatever) will be added to my bookmarks. And my RSS feed when I bother to put out the effort of taking the 2-3 steps of setting all that up…
4. tomcole | March 14th, 2007 at 5:07 am
The global warming “epidemic” is nothing more than a cause for unfounded fear. Warming trends are cyclical in nature and nearly impossible to predict. We have absolutely no idea what effect this will have on the earth in the long run. When Al Gore’s documentary came out with it’s dire (and rather short term) predictions, my first response was that this was a perfect way to explain away the seals in Revelation. We can blame mankind (and those rascally right-wing fundamentalists) for what is happening, instead of looking up and realizing that God’s patience has worn out.
5. ChriS | March 14th, 2007 at 6:48 am
David,
Best Post I have read on G.W. ! I know you are working on Part 3. But here are my questions/thoughts: 1. Evolution is far more destructive to me than the lies of G.W. and yet most christians haven’t even looked into the basic lies of Evolution. 2. We allowed science to Hi-Jack God and now we are suprised about more “lies” or exagerations? 3. I always thought at the end of the day it dosen’t matter because we do polute, rape, and pilage the earth without thougth for subsequent generations…
Tom’s point is powerful because they “Apocalyptic Destruction” that is coming to the earth will have a natural explanation. Just as commentators have attributed the 10 plagues of Egypt to “natural” mechanisms. Only the foolish simpltons known as Christians would dare call it judgment. 4 There is hype and misinformation on both sides: I remember when the environmental Issues with Freon gas came out…”Rush” said, we would never be able to afford air conditioning in our homes and cars…he was wrong too!
May the Readership of this Wordcast increase! May God give all IHOP-Wordcasters the “pen of a ready writer!”
6. John Cross | March 14th, 2007 at 6:48 am
Idhrendur:
Yes, accuracy is important and thus I agree with one part of your statement but I disagree with the other. I will note that I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth (I am not much for movies or TV)
First, if it shows a hurricane significantly inland then that is certainly wrong! You have have other types of disturbances inland but as you correctly pointed out a hurricane is driven by the latent heat of condensation. No water, no hurricane.
However I disagree with your second point. Let me present some numbers and you can shoot them down. I believe that in An Inconvenient Truth they were talking about Florida under a 20 foot (6 meter) rise in water level. To see if this is feasible we first get the total surface are of the ocean (from WorldAtlas.com) of 335,258,000 sq km. We increase this by say 2% to account for the fact that as the sea rises it will cover more area. Thus I will use 342,000,000 sq km. Converting this to meters and then multiplying by the rise of 6 meters, you get 2.05 x 10^15 cubic meters.
When they talk about sea level rise in regards to global warming they look at both thermal expansion and glacial melt. While thermal expansion is present, it will be (as you showed through your calculation) quite small. The glacial melt is the mechanism through which large amounts of water are added.
Looking at the proposed 6 meters, we only need to look at Greenland. The ice area of Greenland is about 1.7 million square km. In addition the average thickness of the Greenland ice sheet is about 2.1 km. Multiplying these, you get a volume of ice of 3.57 x 10^15. Since I am endevoring to be accurate, there are two effects I need to bring in. First, ice is less dense than water so the 3.57 x 10 ^15 cubic meters of ice will produce about 3.1 cubic meters of water. The second factor is the iso-static rebound of Greenland. I do not know how to calculate this with any accuracy so I will ignore it but state that it could only add to the sea level rise.
At any rate, this is more than enough water to cause the flooding predicted in An Inconvenient Truth.
Now, looking at the bigger picture, should we worry about it? My answer is a qualified no. This is based on the time frame involved. Will the Greenland ice sheet melt in 100 years? Not a chance. Will it melt in 1000 years? A significant chance but a lot could happen between now and then.
7. Brent Steeno | March 14th, 2007 at 9:34 am
John,
I want to make a couple responses to your points. Everyone I hear defended man made global warming rails on those who do not by saying we do not lay out the statistics or give scientific evidence to back our claims. Well, if you would check out my site you will see that there is plenty if not more REAL, and I emphasize REAL for a reason, evidence against the idea that global warming is man made and even more against the idea that global warming is even happening.
Global Warming science starts off with an end goal, to prove their numbers and prove global warming is happening, and then manipulates the numbers in order to get the numbers to try to prove their desired goals. That is a well proven fact. And in fact that is not how science is done at all. Science is doing by making observations first and then the data is used to come up with a conclusion. The conclusion does not come first. Global warming science is full of major, major holes.
Also, did it ever cross your mind that if Greenland melts it really is not that big of a deal? After all in order to get the name Greenland it must have been very green at one point in its history!
Im at the airport and have to get on a plane but I have plenty more to bring at everyone! See ya in Milwaukee!
8. Aaron James | March 14th, 2007 at 11:14 am
I thought “SuperSize Me” was the biggest and best documentary to date. At least it is still the most interesting in a very gossly facinating way.
As for my stance on Global Warming “The Day After Tommrow” made some good points in a way that only a really really well produced movie can. I’m so glad there were Artic Wolves in it.
9. David | March 14th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
Brent - that’s actually not true. “Greenland” has ALWAYS been something of an icy wasteland. “Iceland” has always been the more preferable place to live. The naming of both was a Nordic strategy to deflect their competitors to the less desirable place while they could claim the superior place for themselves.
Now, they may have been “accidentally prophetic”, but that’s beside the point.
10. John Cross | March 15th, 2007 at 5:53 am
David, I agree with your thoughts about the names of Greenalnd and Iceland, although another explanation that I have read is that the name was essentially the first documented real-estate fraud since the name was chosen to encourage settlers.
Brent. I appreciate your point of view and when you have time I would request that you point to some of the real reasons. I have obviously read Millard’s take on thing and would be pleased to go through the list one by one but since no one posted a reply to my initial look at them I didn’t think anyone was interested.
I wish you well and have a safe and successful trip.
John
11. David | March 15th, 2007 at 8:10 am
John - I would love to hear your analysis of Millard’s points. Fire away, friend.
12. Idhrendur | March 15th, 2007 at 11:50 am
Oh, I’ll agree that a 6 meter rise is plausible. What I was reacting to was the mage that showed ALL of Florida covered by water. That’s much greater than a 6 meter rise (105 meters to cover the highest point). And that’s the kind of information falsification I object to. To show an image that depicts something (drastically) worse than you’re talking about is equivocation, pure and simple. And if you break your intellectual integrity on a simple point, you’ll get nothing but harsh skepticism from me from that point on.
13. John Cross | March 15th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
David, I don’t want to take up your bandwidth but I thank you for allowing us to use your site as an opportunity to exchange ideas. If you feel that I am taking up too much of your space please let me know and I shall be happy to cease.
In regards to Millard’s questions, I will take them 8 at a time (there are 32 in all). The first 8 are:
1) Why cannot those climate models be run backwards?
The climate models are based on the laws of physics and chemistry as well as other things like momentum. Many of these physical laws only work in one direction and it is not as simple as applying a negative sign to get them to run backwards.
2) Why is Mars warming right along with earth? (Perhaps the Mars rover is pumping out CO2? Then again, there’s no atmosphere or greenhouse effect on Mars to trap the gas.)
We really don’t have any good idea. The two current explanations are that there is CO2 and water melting from the icecaps thus increasing the greenhouse effect and there are changes in the martian orbit that cause changes in the climate (the same takes place on earth). Usually this is done as part of an argument that the sun is causing warming to both but in fact we have observed the sun and are not seeing any increased output that would explain either.
3) What happens to the carbon “trapped” in trees when the trees are burned or die or decay?
That carbon is returned to the atmosphere if burned or the atmosphere and soil if it decays. I suspect that you list this as part of an argument regarding the source of CO2, if so I can answer that directly.
4) Why was China exempted from the Kyoto Accords, when next year she will be the world’s #1 producer of so-called greenhouse gases?
I am not going to defend the Kyoto Accords, but I can answer that all developing countries were exempted from Kyoto to allow them to develop their economies. The reasoning goes that we have already been given our chance. The idea is to bring them into Kyoto as they become developed. In China’s case this could be as early as 2010.
5) What did Lief Ericsson do about icebergs on his journey to Greenland? (Trick question, of course, there were no icebergs back then. Imagine if they suddenly appeared today — oh the panic!)
Sorry, I can’t answer you on this one. All evidence shows that there were icebergs so I would guess that he avoided them.
6) Since Greenland was…um…green in Lief’s time, who’s to say that it’s present state is “natural”?
This has been answered above.
7) Why did the recent UN climate report slash in half the predicted level of sea rise? The IPCC’s new report has cut in half the prediction of sea level rise to a knee-dampening 17 inches. So why does Al Gore claim a whopping 20 to 30-FOOT — an order of magnitude 14 to 21 times larger than the UN…consensus?
In fact, the IPCC did not slash the predicted sealevel rise in 1/2. The actual prediction was 31 inches in 2099. While I have not seen An Inconvenient Truth I do know that the 20 - 30 foot rise in sea level that Mr. Gore talked about was due to glacier melt and he did not mention a timeframe. IT is accepted that we would only see a 20 to 30 foot rise well after 2099. This there is no inconsistency in the two statements.
I am not sure I understand your comment - the context of the word posit throws me. If I assume that you are asking why we don’t hear about global warming as countering those deaths I would say that deaths due to cold happen due to extreme cold. Even in a warmer world we will still have extreme cold. I would also argue that there are a significant number of deaths that can be attributed to heat.
That is the first 8. I will also note that Tamino posted answers to these questions. I have not read his in a while so you may find it interesting to compare his to mine. Thank you for the opportunity to post.
14. John Cross | March 15th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
Idhrendur: fair enough - it appears we were working from different premises. I will agree that the 105 meter rise is extrodinary and while there may be enough ice in the antarctic to do it I do think that even global warming could do it. However I would encourage you to keep up your back of the envelope calculations.
Regards,
John
15. Brent Steeno | March 16th, 2007 at 6:56 am
David - I actually read a recent article that stated that Greenland may at one time been totally green. The article was discussing the findings of Lief Erikson.
16. Brent Steeno | March 16th, 2007 at 6:57 am
I really like John!
17. David | March 16th, 2007 at 7:13 am
John - I read Tamino’s answers, and I appreciated yours. I will say that I have a big problem with the Kyoto accords and the heat Bush took unfairly for his refusal to abide by them. The issue of the Chinese is a far bigger one, in terms of the prophetic scriptures, than the scope of this discussion.
This is what I meant, in part, when I talked about man’s solutions apart from God greatly contributing to coming crisis and trouble rather than curing the world’s ills.
18. John Cross | March 16th, 2007 at 9:14 am
Brent: that makes 2 of you (including my wife)
.
David: I agree that Bust took unfair heat in regards to the Kyoto protocol. The Clinton administration could have doen something and didn’t and the Senate, in a “sense of the Senate”, clearly indicated they would not support something that harmed American industry.
I do think Bush deserves criticism in how he viewed the larger issue. Early in his administration a series of questions was posed to the NAS in regards to global warming (the NAS is generally considered the science advisor to the White House). To paraphrase, the NAS said that global warming was a problem, but the administration essentially claimed that the NAS was wrong and there was not enough information to act.
I think Bush could have been very effect at changing Kyoto if he had said we are not going to follow Kyoto, but here is a new plan that we are going to follow and it is better than Kyoto because …
As for myself, I try not to discuss Kyoto. It is not something I am that knowledgable about and don’t have any real desire to look into. I did bring it up since it was in Millard’s questions.
Does anyone wish me to post answers / responses to another 8?
19. David | March 16th, 2007 at 4:06 pm
Go for it.
20. John Cross | March 18th, 2007 at 9:10 am
Hi David: thanks for the opportunity to post this. It forces me to write what I have been thinking about which is always a good exercise. Here is my next set (more than 8). I hope to provide comments to the last few later. Comments are always welcome.
9) What happened to the ozone hole, AIDS, homelessness, CFCs, the pace movement, starving in Africa, nuclear disarmament and any number of other cause célèbres? Are these issues all solved, or is it just that we can never have any
I am not really sure how this is related to global warming. I think that David has an excellent article on AIDS. However I can speak for CFC since they are an interesting case study. They were identifyed as a problem in the late 70’s and additional research confirmed the initial analysis. The problem was addressed in the Montreal Protocol and the CFC’s were phased out. CFC’s are fairly long lived in the stratosphere so they are still causing reduced ozone protection but there are indications that things are improving. To me that is what should happen. As technical – knowledge based – problems are developed they are addressed as appropriate and there there is not much more heard about them. This is generally the case with wisdom based problems. However I am afriad I am getting off topic and I am trying to keep answers brief.
10) Why did I freeze my nether regions off walking across Manhattan this morning, when we’re told cold days in March are a thing of the past?
Who said that? Globally, we have seen a rise in the temperature of 0.6 C so far. A very cold day – 0.6C is still a very cold day.
11) Why, when someone sights a day as being a short bit of anecdotal evidence, do they not also realize that in the age of this globe, a year or twenty years or 100 years are similar blinks of an eye?
I am not sure of your point here. Geologically we are dealing with short times. However we are also projecting for geologically short times as well.
12) When will Newsweek and TIME retract their articles reporting on “global cooling” from the 1970s — specifically Newsweek’s (and I love this) suggestion that we NUKE THE POLAR ICE CAPS.
I am not sure that magazines are in the habit of retracting comments like that. Specifically I do not recall the suggestion to nuke the ice caps. Is there a reference for that part? I looked on google but could not find it.
13) Why, when it’s hot do they say global warming and when it’s cold “climate change”? Is there ever just “weather”?
In climatology, climate and weather are very specific words that have different meanings. As one meteorologist put it “climate is what you expect, weather is what you get”. However you raise an interesting point in bringing up the term climate change. In fact the term “climate change” came out of something called the Luntz memo. If you look at pg 142 of the memo you can see that it is recommended that the term climate change be used because it will sound less scary to the public.
14) Why was no mention made of the fact that unseasonably cold weather exacerbated the recent tornadoes?
I am sorry, I would need to see some more information before I could answer this.
15) In 2005, we were told that hurricanes of Katrina-strength (although she was not particularly massive, historically, only in terms of damage. I know you don’t like links, but, I like to cite sources. Scientists do: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/2315076.html?page=4)) would become the norm and that the 2006 season would be even worse. How many hurricanes of any strength made landfall in the US last year? (hint, it’s less than one) As a bonus question, how many of significant strength formed?
You covered a lot of ground in the last question. First in regards to Katrina, while not record breaking, it was a very serious storm. As your link points out the problem with Katrina was its size (i.e. the physical area it covered).
In regards to your other points, you are quite correct and I am very glad that no hurricanes made landfall in the US last year. Although hurricane Ernesto came very close but had downgraded to slightly under hurricane strength just before landfall. Incidentally, even though Ernesto was only a tropical storm it still caused $500 million in damages and the President declaired 19 counties as disaster areas. In regards to how many of significant strength, the answer is 2 of category 3 or up and a total of 5. I sincerely hope that we are this luck again this year.
16) Did the approximately 800 automobiles in 1900 cause the great Galveston hurricane which killed 6,000?
This is, I would guess, a rehtorical question, but in the interested of providing answers, I will only say no!
17) Is it not always unseasonably hot or cold somewhere in the world, and isn’t there a chance we simply see it more because there are cameras everywhere and news organizations anxious to fill time and sell Velveeta?
It probably is, that is the problem with weather, but keep in mind that weather and climate are two different things. However you are correct that we are able to look into more places and as we collect more information our knowledge improves. That is why we can say things like the globe is warming.
18) Since Al Gore is a college drop out, why does his citing scientists he “respects” give added credence to a person’s scientific qualifications?
In my opinion it does not. If they present their knowledge and can defend it then I am happy with that and don’t really care about what Mr. Gore says.
19) How come every one of Gore’s ways to stop global warming, are available at Lowes — which just happens to be underwriting his campaign?
I didn’t know that they did! However my response would be – how does this affect the science being looked at. Now show me how Lowes funds scientists to produce a particular point of view and I will gladly join you in denouncing them.
20) How come Mr. Gore purchases carbon credits in the form of buying stock in companies — the very companies he’s pushing others to buy from?
Again, I didn’t know this. However, I would like to see a quote about it to see that the details are.
21) Since “An Inconvenient Truth” is Paramount’s highest grossing film ever, and we are all told to conserve and reduce our lifestyles to fight global warming, how much is Mr. Gore giving of his cut to fight the issue?
Paramount has made a donation of $1,000,000 and Mr. Gore is donating 100% of his profits from both book and movie to fight the issue.
22) When, exactly, was this period of cleanliness before the automobile, when the streets of cities ran yellow and brown with the waste from horses?
At the time the environment was not clean. And we didn’t have antibiotics either. And what either of these has to do with global warming is beyond me.
23) What happened to the nuclear winter-like conditions Carl Sagan predicted if Saddam set Kuwait’s oil fields on fire? Everyone took the prediction as gospel, and likewise the insistence that the fires would burn for 20 years. Neither happened, and yet at the time, it was the scientific “consensus.”
You are partially correct. Carl Sagan did predict nuclear winter like conditions but the majority did not agree. For example Carl Zimmer wrote about it in the January 1992 issue of Discover and he quoted many who felt that that the two caases were not parallel. More to the point, I am not a big believer in consensus when it comes to science.
24) Why did the IPCC dump the much-ballyhooed “hockey stick graph”? Clearly, it’s because “skeptics” pointed out that the graphic — claming to illustrate that the earth is warmer than it has been in 1,000 years — ignored the medieval warm period and the Little Ice Age.
In fact, we don’t know what the IPCC will dump and what it will not since the Fourth Assessment Report is not out yet (only the summary is currently out). If you wish to discuss the “hockey-stick” I am very willing but that probably gets into a very technical conversation.
As a final note David, please feel free to delete this if you wish. I think the discussion has moved on to more time sensitive issues like slavery. But as you may have gathered I am somewhat of a stickler for accuracy in knowledge.
regards,
John
21. David | March 21st, 2007 at 10:10 am
John - I appreciate you taking the time to post here. Both sides of an argument are really important to me so that I can make the most reasoned, researched, and thought through responses to an issue. I don’t want to just say provocative but ill-informed statements, which helps no one. So I am thankful for your diligence.
22. John Cross | March 23rd, 2007 at 11:02 am
I suspect that no-one (except possible David – thanks for paying attention) is reading this so I will feel free to go into a little more technical detail. David – as always I will not complain if you delete my posts, but thanks for an opportunity to put the record straight.
On a particular point. Many of these “questions” are directly aimed at An Inconvenient Truth and as such I am not the best person to answer since I have never seen the movie. I do not accept An Inconvenient Truth as a scientific document but rather a documentary that shows some of the science.
25) Speaking of the Little Ice Age, why did it end, exactly — or to put a finer point on it, why did the globe warm THEN, and why is it not the same factor at play no
The appearance of ice ages tend to correlate with longterm orbital cycles called Milankovitch cycles. There are at least 3 cycles involves and cover things like the precession of the equinoxes. We can measure the stages of the cycles and can thus rule them out as the driving factor. In addition, they cause very slow climate changes, much faster than the ones we are seeing. This idea was first proposed about 30 years ago in a paper by Shackleton called “Variations in the Earth’s orbit: Pacemaker of the ice ages.” Found in Science, 194, 1121-1132 – sorry, I could not find an online copy.
26) If the facts are so on his side, why did Mr. Gore back out of an interview with Denmark’s largest newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, and Bjorn Lomborg, author of “The Skeptical Environmentalist”?
I can’t answer this one – I have no special insight into Mr. Gore. But if you wish to discuss Bjorn’s viewpoint, I would certainly be willing starting with his Copenhagen Consensus.
27) “An Inconvenient Truth” shows that scary 20-feet flooding of Florida, New York, Calcutta and Beijing. But the U.N. climate panel expects only a foot of sea-level rise over this century — and sea levels actually climbed that much over the past 150 years. Why the exaggeration and panic?
In fact as stated before, the actual prediction for sea level rise is not a foot but about 30 inches. I would suspect that Mr. Gore did not put a timeframe on his statement
28) Gore threatens an increase in malaria, specifically in Nairobi. In fact, the World Health Organization’s declares Nairobi malaria-free. More to the point, in the 1920s and ’30s, temperatures colder than today, and malaria epidemics occurred regularly.
In regards to Nairobi, I would say that measures have been taken to control malaria in that city. I will note that malaria is rampant through the rest of Kenya. However I would not be willing to support this statement of Mr. Gore’s since I believe that any increases in malaria could be easily counteracted by changes in infrastructure. For example Britian has a long history with malaria which seems to have been cured by changes in land usage and housing.
29) Gore ignores the 98% of Antarctica that has cooled over the past 35 years in favor of the melting 2%, and ignores that The U.N. panel predicts — by “consensus” one would assume, since no one can truly see the future — that the frozen continent’s ice mass will INCREASE in the next 100 years.
In fact, there is no significant evidence that cooling has taken place over the last 35 years in the Antarctic. This diagram shows trends and as you can see (if you ignore the peninsula) there appears to be a very small warming trend.
Second, I see no consensus statements by the ipcc about the ice mass increasing over the next 100 years, although you would expect to get more snow (warmer air can hold more moisture). What they actually say is that this is an area of research that needs to be looked at.
30) Gore laments the shrinkage of sea ice in the northern half of the globe, but conveniently ignores the inconvenient truth that it’s INCREASING in the southern half.
Well, if you read the IPCC AR-4 at the bottom of page 9 you will see that they claim there is no significant trend in the southern sea ice.
31) The UK Department of Health: “With winters becoming milder, there are likely to be up to 20,000 fewer cold-related deaths,” yet Gore focuses only on the 2,000 deaths per year he estimates from a hotter world.
I would guess that he was trying to make a point. Milder winters generally result in less deaths but for a number of complex reasons, some of which are related to general winter conditions, not particularly cold temperatures. For example a number of that 20,000 are related to influenza deaths that take place because people tend to have windows closed in the winter allowing viruses to circulate better.
32) The U.N. estimates that fighting this “danger” will cost us $553 trillion — that’s 553,000,000,000,000 — this century. Not only is that a burden placed on the people of the world, but it also requires those living in giant mansions like Mr. Gore to tell the vast majority of the world struggling in back-breaking poverty, “Sit right there and do not advance. Stay in the Stone Age.”
I have never seen a valid reference for this number. It is no where in the IPCC literature that I can find but I would appreciate it if someone could point me to it. I have made a point of looking at the various cost estimates and think that they are interesting but they all tend to ignore benefits. This is never a valid comparison.
Now, let me ask a question to those still reading this. Are my comments above answers or responses (and I am not sure of teh difference). More to the point, if I have not given answers, what would you accept as answers?
Regards,
John
23. Nate | March 25th, 2007 at 6:13 am
John,
The main problem I have with your answers is that you make a significant number of assertions for which you claim the science is settled. You didn’t do this for *all*, but for many. For example:
“Usually this is done as part of an argument that the sun is causing warming to both but in fact we have observed the sun and are not seeing any increased output that would explain either.”
In fact, if you google: “increased solar activity”, you will immediately see that this is not the case. There are many links to share, but the first says what I would say: http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/
So, I had difficulty reading through the rest of your answers because this very fact of solar radiation seems so critical in an understanding of the current change in climate.
And this doesn’t even address the question: “Is Global Warming even bad?” There are many who would even say: “no” (see Bjorn Lomborg, for example). Or at the very least: “GW is not nearly as bad as other pressing environmental issues.”
This is where I fall…that the hysteria over GW is leading many to ignore serious stewardship issues facing the church and the culture which are causing many in poverty to be affected. For instance, the elimination of DDT to avoid the deaths of certain kinds of birds has caused exponential increases in malaria deaths in the developing world. This is a grave injustice which the church and the world faces NOW…yet because of an ideology that humans and animals are morally equivalent, we are not seeing real solutions.
Lastly, I love David’s point that this GW hysteria elicits a false comfort for many…much like what Bickle has said in the past that “serving the poor” (though CLEARLY a biblical cause) could distract many from first engaging with the heart of God for his people.
I wonder how many of the GW crusaders are seeking God’s heart for his kingdom. Not that nobody is…I just wonder.
24. John Cross | March 26th, 2007 at 4:47 am
Nate:
Thanks for the comment and you raise a good point. I would have found it a little long to reference all my work so I do throw some things out there expecting anyone who questioned it would ask (as you very politely did).
Your link goes to a review of several papers that were published about 2 years ago that looked at an apparent increase of radiation at the earth (eg the one by Wild et al and this one by Pinker). The key thing is that these papers are looking at solar radiation hitting the earth’s surface as opposed to increases in solar activity. This seems to be related to the atmosphere being clearer now than it was in the past. The reason for this seems to be more related to changes in the atmosphere, the first related to changes in clouds, the second related to changes in pollution in the atmosphere.
What I was talking about was changes in the actual output of the sun. This does change a little over time with the sunspot cycle but is essentially constant in the long term. Here is a good introductory article on it . Recent work seems to be indicating that Lean’s interpretation is correct.
So while I can appreciate your point, in the context in which I was using the change in solar radiation - i.e. a change in solar output causing warming on Mars and Earth, I believe I was correct.
That is mostly from memory since most of my referfence papers are at work. But I would be happy to go into it in more detail tomorrow.
Are there other points that you feel I should reference? I should be able to back up everything I say with something peer-reviewed - at least as long as it is a scientific question (no questions on Gore’s power consumption please
).
In regards to your point about hysteria, I agree, hysteria does no good. However I would argue that neither does inaccurate information which can lead us to make wrong decisions.
Regards,
John
Leave a Comment
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed