Reject Global Warming Hype
By Jim Willis on Nov 18, 2007 in Environment | Printable Version
Sunday’s Press & Sun-Bulletin contained a guest viewpoint by retired Binghamton University professor Richard A. Rehberg, Ph.D., on the dangers to good ‘ole Binghamton from the big bad monster Global Warming. It contained the usual unsubstantiated scare tactics used by the left in this country to convince the people to lay down their freedoms, which is what this is REALLY all about.
Here was my response:
A rise in the “global” temperature due to human activity is not a proven fact. By the way, can you tell me where that thermometer is that tells us what the temp of the planet is? Do you even know how such temps are derived? Articles like this one attempt to persuade with long lists of supposed scientific facts, snowballing you with so much hype and data that you throw up your hands and say, “Wow! This guy must really know his stuff!” Don’t fall for it. REALLY read this article. Notice the laundry lists of statements that are not proven facts and not backed by any kind of solid scientific evidence. Notice how many times “might be” and “could be” and “likely” appear.
There is an interesting statement toward the end of this article. Somehow, magically, “economies” hold the key! “Immediate and substantial action by the world’s major economies, including the United States, India and China, could and would avoid Northeast climate change of the magnitude we have just described.” Ah…now we get to the REAL agenda of those who tell us the sky is falling. It is about anti-capitalism, about limiting legitimate businesses and limiting your freedoms. Global warming as it is presented is the latest way socialists are trying to control people in Western democracies on the planet. They can’t take over by force, so they’ll try and convince you to lay down your freedoms using threats that you’re going to bake to death. Don’t fall for it! Think!
In the best traditions of our great country, let’s have a debate about this and air both sides so “the people” (whom I trust far more than academics and politicians), can decide. But no! Now we hear that “the debate is over, this is science, you can’t question it.” Rubbish. The debate is FAR from over. It has just begun. Please, use your heads. Question this carefully. Look into the facts. Ask tough questions about how scientists measure temperature, why there are record cold spells on the earth right now (in South Africa for one), and why the ice caps are melting–on Mars. Might it be solar activity? Might there be a natural 50 or 100-year solar cycle? Don’t accept my word for it–check it out yourself. Think!
—–
Agree? Disagree? Leave a comment. I welcome all opinions.
UPDATE:
You should read the story chat comments on this article at the P&SB site. Some very perceptive comments and reporting by the citizenry. It seems the good Dr. Rehberg has a Ph.D. not in climate science, nor in geology nor chemistry nor physics…in fact, not in any of the “hard” sciences. Dr. Rehberg’s degree is in political science! How convenient the P&SB left that little tidbit out of the byline.
Technorati Tags: Binghamton, Binghamton University, Richard Rehberg, global warming, socialism, solar activity
Roger Thornhill | Nov 19, 2007 | Reply
Good article, Jim. Obviously the PSB doesn’t let facts get in the way of a good story.
Remember all the bogus hype the press fed to us continously in l999 about Y2K, all of which turned out to be bullroar?
Global warming is the same type of hype.
And now it appears that the data they use is compromised.
See my linked story today:
http://catskillcommentator.wordpress.com/2007/11/19/global-warming-shocker-whos-minding-thermometers/
All the best,
Roger Thornhill
http://www.commentator.vze.com
Jim Willis | Nov 20, 2007 | Reply
Excellent Roger. Thanks! Indeed I did read your story–a great one. A fleeting point I tried to make was this: Most people blindly accept what “the experts” say about rising temperatures without even knowing how such temperatures are measured. As your article so aptly points out, even today with all of our science, if you place an official thermometer 10 feet away from the exhaust of a jet, or near a tarmac or pavement or other heat-generating source, the readings are skewed. And that’s to say nothing of how they did it 100 or 150 years ago! Our science has progressed, but unfortunately, our logic and reasoning and hearts have not.
William | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
What is it that when you read a skeptic article on Global Warming it almost always written by a religious conservative? Instead of debating the science, because anyone who is intelligent enough and cares to know, the science is available and speaks for itself, I just want to make a few observations of the first issue - the amazingly consistent profile of the denialist - Jim Willis. Look at the other articles he’s written, chastising those that citicism Bush, giving thanks to God, I think it’s pretty clear what we have here is a lock-step right-wing religioun authoritarian whose ideas are generated in “Faux News / Rush Limbaugh land” and sees the global warming issue as a political imperative because he either, 1) doesn’t undersatnd the science, 2) is confused about the science thans to industry funded skeptic groups, or 3) is simply parroting what he’s been told. Either way, I find it fascination that this culture of denial and authoritarianism lends itself so strongly with religious conservative republicans and Jim Willis is a classica case in point.
Jim Willis | Nov 26, 2007 | Reply
William, thanks for posting! As I’ve stated in the About section of my site, I welcome all viewpoints. I suppose you’re right that I’m a “classic case” of a religious conservative Republican. I make no claims at being infallible, but I do believe my reasoning and logic are intact.
On the issue of global warming, perhaps we can agree on one thing: The earth may indeed be warming just a bit (although I’m skeptical of even that as I’m not sure how one measures a global average temperature). But for the sake of argument, let me concede the point that the earth’s overall average temperature has warmed 0.6 C in the past 100 years. Let’s further say this increase in temperature is now accelerating over the last, say, 25 years. The debate should center around what is causing that warming, correct?
You contend it is activity by humans producing an overabundance of CO2, particularly activity in the United States, and in countries like China and India. And that most of this activity comes from large industrial plants burning coal and oil, and from automobiles burning gas and diesel. This may be an over-simplification, so if I’ve missed something, feel free to correct me.
And so your proposed solution, based on the theory (not yet proven fact) that man is the source of most CO2 pollution, is to forcibly regulate man’s activities in order to “save the planet” from a horrible (some might say apocalyptic) end result.
Enter those of us on the other side of this issue. We believe that although CO2 may be on the increase, it is not a foregone conclusion that it is all due to mankind’s activity. Furthermore, we question whether or not CO2 is indeed the key reason or source of the increase in temperature on the earth. It may play a part, but is it the main or key cause of a temperature rising? Finally, I’ve not yet heard explanations from those who believe global warming is man-made as to what role the sun may play in all of this. In particular, why the polar caps on Mars are retreating as are our polar caps. It does not take a genius, nor a scientist, to start connecting some dots as to why there may be a slight rise in temperatures–the sun, the largest generator of radiation and heat in our part of the galaxy.
Neither do global warming proponents seem to take into account natural cycles that may last 50 or 100 years or even longer, nor the fact that accurate measurements of temperature have only been scientifically taken for perhaps the last 50-75 years, and prior to that the instrumentation and the methods used to measure it were not as rigorous as they are today. It seems to me global warming proponents are using data that is not accurate to support a claim that is the equivalent of a 911 call and when someone says “wait a minute, let’s look at this carefully” that person or movement is chided and made fun of and accused of being blind and ignorant to the so-called “facts”.
Au contraire! There are many credible, earnest, legitimate scientists who take issue with the global warming hysteria — “the sky is falling” — that is taking place. The latest tactic, as I’ve pointed out in my posting, is to declare the debate “over” and now action must be taken–immediately–or the earth will be in a peril it cannot recover from. This is nonsensical.
I’m not an expert on global warming, nor do I pretend to be one. In some respects I suppose I “parrot” what I have heard others say about this issue. I try to keep an open mind, and I think about it. What makes sense? Good old common sense is an excellent guide on such matters.
William, thanks again for posting. I hope you will continue to post and “keep me honest” in my opinions.
- Jim Willis
William | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply
You mention “natural cycles that may last 50 or 100 years or even longer” … yes even longer is right. There have been 5 notable spikes in CO2/Temp rise in the past 600,000 years. The present spike is far more dramtic and far higher than any seen in human history as shown by ice core sampling, a technology that wasn’t around 40 yrs ago when scientists were talking about ‘global cooling.’
Back when they were talking about global cooling, so-called ’super computers’ were less powerful than the computers sitting on our desks right now. The science of super computer climate modeling was in it’s infancy as was the science of obtaining ice core data. Has global warming occured before? Certainly, but not on the scale it is happening today since man has been around in the past 2.5 million years - a blink of an eye in geologic time. 55 million years ago, the planet warmed several degrees over a few thousand years melting the arctic and causing mass extinction in a period called the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum (PETM). Volcanic activity may have been a factor and some suggest a massive asteroid or comet impact could have also triggered the episode. It doesn’t take much to upset the earth’s co2 balance. Again, such mass extinctions were caused by a global rise in temp of between 5 and 8 degrees C over 2000 years or so. The present rise of 1 degree in just 100 years IS very significant and the ramifications are being seen in the arctic today. Computer models from 8 different climate labs from Japan, Australia, Germany the US, the UK, show tempurature projections that indicate a warming event not unlike the PETM. Quite simply the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is greater now than at anytime since the advent of the human species as we know it. And we know unequivocally that the more the CO2, the warmer the planet. As the PETM was caused by massive volcanism or earth impact, the present unprecedented CO2 rise mirrors exactly the rise in fossil fuel burning. No coincidence. It took the earth 80,000 years to recover from the PETM warming event. The question is, can we do anything about it? Unlike most activists on this issue, I personally doubt it. The tipping point has already likely been reached. But don’t worry gramps, we’ll all be dead by the time these drastic effects impact most humans. Just forget about politics. Forget about what Al Gore says, what the ‘Bushcult 30%ers’ tell you. Just look at the science.
http://bp2.blogger.com/_Rgqz8UD5Vb8/Rm9PY6auZcI/AAAAAAAAATA/yDClRheCy34/s1600-h/co2+levels+400K+years+copy.jpg
http://www.answers.com/topic/global-warming-predictions-png
Jim Willis | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply
William, thanks for this additional post. You obviously know much more about the science of CO2 emissions than I! I will endeavor to better education myself.
I did follow your links (thanks for those). I won’t pretend to understand in detail the graphs. I will only make one observation for now. It’s my observation much of the time (not all, but definitely much) when you read about global warming (being caused by man) you see references to economics. For example, on the Answers page link you provided it says: “The A2 scenario is characterized by a politically and socially diverse world that exhibits sustained economic growth but does not address the inequities between rich and poor nations, and takes no special actions to combat global warming or environmental change issues.”
Did you catch that “inequities between rich and poor nations.” This kind of language, to us conservatives, is code words for socialism. Part and parcel of the global warming debate is that we must “fix it” via imposing strict laws on the freedoms of people. America is great because she is free. I am deeply suspicious of a “scientific” movement that demands stripping people in countries like the US of their freedoms. That is one of the things that disturbs me about the global warming movement. It seems to me it’s more about socialism (enforcing behaviors, limiting freedoms) than it is about saving the planet.
Again, thanks for posting.
- Jim
William | Nov 29, 2007 | Reply
Regarding ‘fixing it’ - it is unrealistic to institute the changes necessary with the rapidity and with on the international scale that would be (possibly) effective. As I said, I doubt it can be fixed, humans are likely the major contributing factor, but you and I will be gone long before the catastrophic effects happen. I’m generally a realist on such matters, politics cloud the issue.
mike | Nov 30, 2007 | Reply
First let me say I think the planet will be just fine, we are talking about the inhabitants. When I look at Global Climate Change (they renamed Global Warming) I try to use mythbuster reasoning, if you have not seen the show on discover they try to prove something and state afterwards whether the myth was confirmed, plausible or busted. I have it at least on the plausible stage right now. I see global climate change as an excuse to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and start using the breakthroughs in solar and wind technology that have come about in the last 10 years. I really do see no bad side effects to using the abovementioned as well as biomass fuels to reduce our oil usage. No one is enforcing behaviors or limiting freedoms as far as I know about. The only behavior or freedom limitations I see now are from the extremely high cost of fuel:)