Of nuts, Chicken Little and global warming

[Voegelin]

Townhall
By Jon Sanders
Jan 31, 2007

. . . The lesson of Chicken Little is that all that's required to start a panic is just one nut . . . And this Friday, Feb. 2, it's going to be a veritable nutstorm. That's when, we're told, the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change will release its "smoking gun" report on human-caused global warming . . .

Contrary to popular perception, however, the IPCC won't release the actual report until May. Friday's the day the IPCC releases its Summary for Policymakers. Not only does the IPCC plan to give policy meddlers three months' lead time without fear of challenge from what's in the report (a problem previous summaries have suffered) — they're also prepared to edit the report after the fact . . .

(This) approach has been the standard approach to building community consensus for federal action on global warming at least since 1989, when Stanford biological sciences professor Stephen Schneider told Discover Magazine that October, "We [scientists] need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Among others, Al Gore agrees with that approach . . .

http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/JonSanders/2007/01/31/of_nuts,_chicken_little_and_global_warming

 

[Dale]

Rep. Bob Inglis, a Republican from North Carolina, rejected global warming until a trip to the South Pole convinced him.

Stu Ostro, Senior Meteorologist for the weather channel says he was a past “global warming skeptic.” He was persuaded by the evidence that it is real, caused by people and “profoundly changing the planet.”

Greg Easterbrook, an editor at The New Republic, points to his long record of “opposing alarmism,” which is an understatement. Easterbrook has switched sides, admitting that the evidence for global warming is “near-unanimous.”

Even Pat Robertson now says that there is a build up of carbon dioxide in the air and that the burning of fossil fuels needs to be addressed.
All these quotes are available at bushgreenwatch.org.


Republicans For Environmental Protection. REP, is an Arizona based group which is trying to make the Republican Party more friendly toward the environment. REP Policy Director Jim DiPeso wrote a column called Global Warming Is No Idle Threat as long ago as 2003 for a Chicago newspaper.

A REP paper by Dr. John Bliese contains the following:
“Myth: There is a huge debate among scientists about whether global warming is a real problem.
False. If you look at the scientific journals, you will not find anything of the sort.”
Bliese goes on to say, “ In fact, we can reduce greenhouse gases in countless ways that will save money, leaving us better off than we are now.”

 

[JoshuaW]

Why does the right wing deny that humans have increased global warming? Simply to be contrary to the "liberal" position? It doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Avatar]

Why does the right wing deny that humans have increased global warming? Simply to be contrary to the "liberal" position? It doesn't make sense to me.

Science BAD!

 

[MichaelFJF]

This is going to rank right up there with "Get under your desk during a nuclear attack."

 

[Billnew]

Bliese goes on to say, “ In fact, we can reduce greenhouse gases in countless ways that will save money, leaving us better off than we are now.”

I don't have a problem with cleaner and more efficient products, but encouraging goverment to force people
to do everything in an unrealistic time frame, is crazy.

Reducing smog and air polution wasn't enough in the 70's, so the groups got together and decided they had to tell the world that it would be destroyed in a relatively short period of time if we don't make drastic changes in immediatly.

Global warming groups suggest ways to improve conditions, and they all are against freedoms. Make people car pool, use public transportation, make people buy the worthless hybred vehicles, make laws to forbid the light bulb, form being used.
Global warming groups want goverment to control everything.
So this is why conservatives have large doubts about global warming, and the scientists that don't belong to these groups have doubts too.

 

[variant]

Why does the right wing deny that humans have increased global warming? Simply to be contrary to the "liberal" position? It doesn't make sense to me.

Because the solutions involve change, regulation, and might effect business negatively in the short term.

Short sighted though, as the problems associated with global warming might effect business as well.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Global warming groups suggest ways to improve conditions, and they all are against freedoms. Make people car pool, use public transportation, make people buy the worthless hybred vehicles, make laws to forbid the light bulb, form being used.

Global warming groups want goverment to control everything.

So this is why conservatives have large doubts about global warming, and the scientists that don't belong to these groups have doubts too.

I wonder if you would count such multinational super energy corporations as Shell (or, say, an industrial giant like General Electric) among those pesky "global warming groups"?

Chairman of the Boards of Nokia and Shell Oil (and member of the Board of Dictators of Ford) wants to spread warning of global warming

[Jorma] Ollila says that he first heard about climate change sometime in 1992 or 1993 when Nokia was establishing an environmental policy. At that time, the phenomenon was still known as the greenhouse effect.

Ollila seriously confronted climate change in June last year when he moved over to Shell. At that time he understood that climate change and carbon dioxide emissions were routine topics of discussion in companies in the energy field.

"Europe's big energy and oil companies have long had the view that climate change is caused by humans", Ollila says. "Carbon dioxide emissions are the key question."

"Awareness of this fact was significantly greater than what I had assumed. Attitudes have changed during the past five years or more, and one place where they have changed most rapidly are companies in the business.

Naturally, the exception is the American oil company Exxon-Mobil, which up to a few weeks ago was still denying the existence of climate change. But otherwise, Ollila feels that the world of international business is far ahead of the politicians in awareness of the matter.

In his view, large companies are ready to place limits on emissions, because they can see that sooner or later, the restrictions will come. It is best to be involved in drafting the agreements.

Ollila shows an article in the Financial Times. It says that ten large American companies are putting pressure on President George W. Bush to impose tight emissions limits on greenhouse gases. Included in the process are the industrial giant General Electric, and its CEO Jeffrey Immelt.

Ollila is therefore not alone in the circles in which he is operating. According to the World Economic Forum, one fifth of the top names of finance and politics feel that protecting the climate is their most important task. Last year the figure was less than one in ten.

When asked if economic growth is absolutely necessary, Ollila answered that it is, if we want to eliminate poverty. Therefore, it is necessary to think how to achieve growth while reducing carbon dioxide emissions, says Ollila. According to him, the first way to do this is energy efficiency. "It needs to double. The amount of energy that is needed to increase GDP needs to be reduced by half of what it is now by 2050."

But, but if we need to cut our energy consumption, do we need to cut our lifestyle too?

Ollila believes no. "It is possible to live a quality life even if one pays heed to energy consumption." He takes Japan as an example. There, the government embarked on a massive campaign to save energy, following the oil crisis. Now the Japanese use 2.8 tonnes of oil per capita each year. In the Untied States the figure is 5.4 tonnes.

Ollila also praised the so-called Stern Report. "For the first time it raised the debate in language used by economists, and showed what kinds of financial losses climate change might cause."

Briefly: If we are to embark on a good fight against climate change, it will cost one per cent of the whole world's GDP every year until 2050. But if nothing is done, the annual costs will be between five and 20 per cent of world GDP.

"The report also raised the ethical question on what how much economic value we can place on weakening the possibilities of future generations to live on Planet Earth."

 

[trunks2k]

Global warming groups suggest ways to improve conditions, and they all are against freedoms. Make people car pool, use public transportation, make people buy the worthless hybred vehicles, make laws to forbid the light bulb, form being used.
Global warming groups want goverment to control everything.

Not make, promote the use of.

And just out of curiosity, what is so "useless" about a hybrid car? I've driven in a Prius before and I loved it, I plan to get one once I need a new car.

 

[Dale]

BillNew in post #6:
"So this is why conservatives have large doubts about global warming, and the scientists that don't belong to these groups have doubts too."

I don't believe this is true. Scientific instruments are in use every day that make use of the fact that carbon dioxide absorbs infrared. The absorption of infrared by CO2 is fact, not theory. There is no reason to doubt that it adds up in large volumes and over time.

 

[Goltzy]

It was already touched upon but I felt the need to restate that it looks like the right-wing just denies (the obvious) in order to be opposite of the liberals. instead of ignoring political lines and just being honest with what is being said in the scientific community. Its really simple: the rich dont care for global warming (hint: it has something to do with money) and they spread their lies and propaganda through political themed discussions in order to divide people. When the people are divided enough, they cant stand up to such a daunting task, such as fighting global climate change. Its quite smart, actually. The big business folks and those with vested interests continue to win.
Its a sad world we live in.

 

[USincognito]

Townhall
By Jon Sanders
Jan 31, 2007

(This) approach has been the standard approach to building community consensus for federal action on global warming at least since 1989, when Stanford biological sciences professor Stephen Schneider told Discover Magazine that October, "We [scientists] need to get some broad-based support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have."

Among others, Al Gore agrees with that approach . . .

Uh Oh. It looks like someone wasn't being entirely truthful with the Schneider quote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider

 

[KomissarSteve]

Global warming groups suggest ways to improve conditions, and they all are against freedoms. Make people car pool, use public transportation, make people buy the worthless hybred vehicles, make laws to forbid the light bulb, form being used.

This is a complete mischaracterization of environmental groups, the majority of whom don't want to force people to do anything, but who rather want to create incentives for people who act responsibly with regard to the environment.

 

[Kalevalatar]

Re: my post #8, I doubt this "global warming group" hates our freedom:

United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP)

United States Climate Action Partnership (USCAP) is a group of businesses and leading environmental organizations that have come together to call on the federal government to quickly enact strong national legislation to require significant reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.

USCAP members include chief executives of major corporations: Alcoa, the world's leading aluminum company, BP America, DuPont, Caterpillar, General Electric, Duke Energy, and several others.

Their mission statement says: "We are committeed to a pathway that will slow, stop and reverse the growth of U.S. emissions while expanding the U.S. economy."

Our Six Principles

1. Account for the global dimensions of climate change;
2. Create incentives for technology innovation;
3. Be environmentally effective;
4. Create economic opportunity and advantage;
5. Be fair to sectors disproportionately impacted;
6. Reward early action.

"In our view, the climate change challenge will
create more economic opportunities than risks for the U.S. economy."

Hmm, methinks the group that denies the global climate change is the same group that fears any and all technological changes in our society and whose kneejerk reaction is always to stick a head in the sand and resist, be it a change from analogical to digital, from telephone cables to cellular mobile phones, or from snailmail to e-mail.

 

[Godfixated]

I can't this stand all of this alarmist bull. As a student of true science, it is required to question theory and hypothesis. However, when it comes to "global warming," there is unquestioning loyalty with no questions asked. This brings up the question to a true scientist whether what people are blindly following is true science or not. How can an alarmist organization such as the National Weather Association predict what will happen in 50-100 years when it can't even correctly predict what will happen 5-10 days from now? Who's to say that this isn't some climate cycle that the earth seems to go through every 50 years or so. About 500 years ago there was a mini ice age and the beginning of the 20th century was supposedly warmer than it is now. One should question what one believes scientifically before they go headlong into a theory. I mean, how many of you on this forum have actually studied global climate change? Quite possibly none of you. Most people who believe in "global warming" are blindly believing it, without looking into it. That is the attitude of a layman.

 

[USincognito]

As a student of true science...

Uh Oh, it's never a good sign when someone says they know "true" anything. Could you define "true science" beyond your brief description?

How can an alarmist organization such as the National Weather Association predict what will happen in 50-100 years when it can't even correctly predict what will happen 5-10 days from now?

Actually, they can. You might pay more attention to the weather reports and you'll find a very high degree of accuracy in daily and weekly weather forcasts. Most people are victims of a reverse confirmation bias. That is they tend to forget the dozens of correct forcasts and focus on the one day it wasn't supposed to rain but did.

And the National Weather Bureau (not Association btw) is part of NOAA. Every major earth sciences entity in the federal government realized anthrogenic climate change is occuring. That includes NOAA, USGS and NASA.

I mean, how many of you on this forum have actually studied global climate change? Quite possibly none of you. Most people who believe in "global warming" are blindly believing it, without looking into it. That is the attitude of a layman.

Have you studied it, or have you just read some editorials and gone with your gut?
-----
Coral Bleaching.
Glacial retreat.
Increased CO2 levels.

All due to conditions that started about 100 years ago. Yeah, it's just blind belief that all these things are connected.

 

[KomissarSteve]

Who's to say that this isn't some climate cycle that the earth seems to go through every 50 years or so.

People with actual evidence, that's who.

What is your evidence that the climate shift scientists are observing is part of the natural cycle, and has not, in fact, been drastically thrown out-of-whack by humans?

 

[Billnew]

One should question what one believes scientifically before they go headlong into a theory. I mean, how many of you on this forum have actually studied global climate change? Quite possibly none of you. Most people who believe in "global warming" are blindly believing it, without looking into it. That is the attitude of a layman.

Some might think they have studied it, but in actuallity
they have just read multiple articles from the same or similar groups.

science, like math, requires people to continually prove
theories. It calls for every student to disprove the theories, to consentrate on the problem. To even find one flaw in a theory, is to disprove the theory. Every grain of theory must be proven.
I still continue to believe it is a liberal scam to force
society to conform to the liberal way of thinking and acting. Not at the individual level, but at the top levels.
I believe people posting here actually believe the earth
will be destroyed by global warming. But in truth, the whole idea is to tie the hands of large countries and allow the little countries to charge ahead. To redistribute the worlds wealth, from countries with to much to countries with to little.

 

[JoshuaW]

Perhaps the "alarmist" tone you see is a result of the accelerating evidence of non-reversible climate change. Greenland is melting, all the world's glaciers are disappearing, great chunks of Antarctica are breaking off into the sea. These ice formations are thousands of years old, they have existed since the beginning of recorded history. They are not just receding, they will be gone soon. If you are truly paying attention, how can you not be alarmed?

 

[chaim]

Thanks for telling me how science works and what I have done. However your understanding of science is horribly flawed. Nothing is 'proven' in science, that is reserved for mathematicians. One does not prove every grain of a theory. One tests a theory. You create a theorem based on the available evidence, then you collect more evidence and try and falsify the theorem you proposed. Anthropogenic climate change is a mature theory that has been tested many thousands of time and has yet to be falsified. However, just like gravitational theory it will never be proven.

Some might think they have studied it, but in actuallity
they have just read multiple articles from the same or similar groups.

science, like math, requires people to continually prove
theories. It calls for every student to disprove the theories, to consentrate on the problem. To even find one flaw in a theory, is to disprove the theory. Every grain of theory must be proven.
I still continue to believe it is a liberal scam to force
society to conform to the liberal way of thinking and acting. Not at the individual level, but at the top levels.
I believe people posting here actually believe the earth
will be destroyed by global warming. But in truth, the whole idea is to tie the hands of large countries and allow the little countries to charge ahead. To redistribute the worlds wealth, from countries with to much to countries with to little.