25 Reasons Why You Should be Skeptical About Global Warming

Always good to have a bit of background on the source. Neil Boortz...

On the March 31 broadcast of his nationally syndicated radio program, Neal Boortz said that Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) "looks like a ghetto slut."

On the July 19 edition of his nationally syndicated radio show, host Neal Boortz claimed that "at its core," Islam is a "violent, violent religion," and called "this Muhammad guy just a phony rag-picker." Boortz asserted that "It is perfectly legitimate, perhaps even praiseworthy, to recognize Islam as a religion of vicious, violent, bloodthirsty cretins."

Earlier in the program, Boortz labeled anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan a "lunatic", a "moonbat", and a "crazy broad."

On the August 3 edition of his radio show, Boortz asked his audience, "How incompetent, how ignorant, how worthless is an adult that can't earn more than the minimum wage?" Boortz continued: "You have to really, really, really be a pretty pathetic human being to not be able to earn more than ... the minimum wage."

Media Matters has an archive of his false statements and outrageous smears. The guy is an formula entertainer, not a thinker.

And as a sort of counter point -- 300 Internationally Acclaimed Reasons Why You Shouldn't Be

Excellent article. Thanks for seeding it.

That sums up pretty well the extent of actual scientific support for the article. I like the ideological outcome this points to. This passes for "highly rated" comment on Newsvine? Thats what the vote on the article is for!

C'mon, Catch22, you know Newsvine is a hotbed of comm'nists. The rightwingers tell us so all the time, and if you can't believe them, who can you believe? Scientists?

Pamela, I would have thought better of you. Attacking the person rather than the ideas. Besides, Boortz apologized for the Cynthia McKinney comment.

Last Friday I said that that hairdo ... the wild and crazy every hair going in a different direction hairdo -- made her look like a ghetto slut. Know what? That was wrong. Bad wrong. That was overboard. I know Cynthia McKinney. I've know her for years. I intensely dislike her anti-American politics and her constant race baiting ... but on a personal level we've always gotten along just fine .. kidding each other ... needling each other. I remember her spotting me sitting in the House visitors gallery one day and yelling (with a smile on her face, by the way) "Neal Boortz! Who the hell let you in here?" I've known her father much longer than I've known her. I have said on the air several times this past week that I think that she has an endearing personality and a million-dollar smile.

That being said, I don't think that it was right to use the word "slut" in any description involving her or her hairdo. So ... my heartfelt apologies to Cynthia McKinney. I'll say it here, and I'll say it on the air on today. When I'm wrong I'll admit it with no hesitation.

But that doesn't really matter because attacking the messenger rather than the message does not a logical argument make.

On the other hand, Boortz's argument here is so bad that it's entertaining to hear about some of his other stupidities...

Here's a good find, from Union of Concerned Scientists...

EPA Set to Abandon 30 Years of Air Quality Control

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to regulate all air pollutants that pose a threat to public health and welfare by establishing the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is required to apply the best available science to update the standards every five years. [1]

Six highly dangerous air pollutants are monitored under these standards: ozone, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and lead. Federal regulation over the last three decades has reduced the quantity of lead in people's blood by over 78 percent; this stands as one of the crowning achievements of the Clean Air Act. [2]

Ingestion or inhalation of even low levels of lead poses severe risks to humans. Lead poisoning damages the major organs and causes osteoporosis, high blood pressure, heart disease, anemia, memory problems, and seizures. Children are at the greatest risk, as low levels of lead can cause lowered IQ levels and learning deficits. [3]

We have 1:166, American children now born with autism, keep filling the bodies with toxins and who will care for whom?

Here's an attack on the message:

His reasons are sketchy. Almost every one.

Instead of citing facts, he speculates.

"During the last 20 years -- a period of the highest carbon dioxide levels -- global temperatures have actually decreased. That's right ... decreased."

Is this true??? I don't know. There's no source, just tossing it out there, right?

"What happened to the Medieval Warm Period?"

From realclimate.com:

Weren't temperatures warmer than today during the "Medieval Warm Period"?

This is one of a number of popular myths regarding temperature variations in past centuries...
Claims that global average temperatures during Medieval times were warmer than present-day are based on a number of false premises that a) confuse past evidence of drought/precipitation with temperature evidence, b) fail to disinguish regional from global-scale temperature variations, and c) use the entire "20th century" to describe "modern" conditions, fail to differentiate between relatively cool early 20th century conditions and the anomalously warm late 20th century conditions.

Or here's more speculation:

"Over the past 3,000 years there have been five different extended periods when the earth was measurably warmer than it is today."

And from the NOAA/NCDC:

There are not enough records available to reconstruct global or even hemispheric mean temperature prior to about 600 years ago with a high degree of confidence. What records that do exist show is that there was no multi-century periods when global or hemispheric temperatures were the same or warmer than in the 20th century. The 1998 annual average temperature was more than two standard deviations warmer than any annual average temperature value since AD 1,000 (shown in yellow). (For complete scientific reference of this study, please click here. Link to Mann 1999 FTP Data.)

In summary, it appears that the 20th century, and in particular the late 20th century, is likely the warmest the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years. To learn more about the so-called "Medieval Warm Period", please read this review published in Climatic Change, written by M.K. Hughes and H.F. Diaz.

Adam Hobson...Pamela, I would have thought better of you. Attacking the person rather than the ideas. Besides, Boortz apologized for the Cynthia McKinney comment.

Always good to have a bit of background on the source. Neil Boortz...

That as an introduction to the examples of his public statements and smears is not an attack. Not even close, Boortz words and if later he recanted, someone more familiar can find that. I used quotes, words that came out of Boortz mouth, not mine.

If Boortz wants to influence public opinion on global warming, citing work in his career is not only fair game, it's sensible to ask who is talking. Attack? Not even close to an attack by questioning the source's credentials and ties.

Not questioning is where we get trouble.

As I said over in the art of debate - logical fallacies (where this thread is referenced) -- I think Pamela could have more clearly stated her premise or picked a better rebuttal source.

That said ... all anyone has to do is to look at the bullet points in the article (note - the seed links to the home page, not the article page) to quickly deflate the assertions, based on logic. Here's #1

• The United Nations is anti-American and anti-Capitalist. In short .. I don't trust them. Not a bit. The UN would eagerly engage in any enterprise that would weaken capitalist economies around the world.

It's not relevant - and - it IS an ad hominem argument!

There are more along this line ... there are several "myths" masquerading as facts that have been debunked seventeen times over. [Maybe not in my native Georgia.]

Very weak argument against climate change, IMO.

The scientists supporting the anthropological global warming view are doing their work for free, right? No one pays them? They have no vested interest in continuing to hype the view? Their research funding doesn't depend on global warming being seen as a problem?

Such arguments strike me as rather odd. Do you think that there would be nothing for most of these scientists to study if global warming were just a natural event? I am pretty sure they could find grant money to do other things. Saying that the majority of scientists are saying the evidence points to global warming because they need the cash is like saying biologists accept evolution because they are in the field of evolutionary biology. Now there may be some groups and people who are in it for the money but we are talking about the bulk of scientists in this field (a broad umbrella that covers many other more specific areas) and it just seems silly to suggest they are all telling a lie to get money.

Yet, oddly enough, they usually don't.

Other than the fact that this statement is patently false, so what if scientists get funding for research? Since when was it a bad idea to pay experts to research something and, when and if they find a problem, pay them more to explore further? Do you think people researching cancer or AIDS do it for free, then? Science requires expertise and that costs money. Determining problems and solutions costs money.

If you don't think that's the case, the next time you feel ill, ask your doctor to diagnose and treat you for free because otherwise you can't trust his or her judgment. If they can hear you over their won laughter, then you can explain to them how you distrust any expert who receives compensation for their hard work.

You all are either missing or ignoring the point. Of course scientists should be paid for their work. Of course they should be paid for their opinions.

When the supporters of global warming views seek to detract from the views of other scientists who do not hold the anthropological warming view, they usually decry the fact that people on the other side of the fence are 'paid' for their opinions.

Everyone who does useful work should receive compensation. Valued opinions of experts should engender compensation.

Saying 'Your opinion is not good because someone paid you' is a very poor argument.

Who's missing the point? There is a very wide gap between a research grant that must be vetted and approved (something that's hard to understand how difficult it is until you've done it) and a multi-national energy corporation offering $10,000 to anyone who can seed some doubt. But then again, I doubt any of this matters to an individual who seems to take talk radio show's opinion over that of over 4,500 scientists from around the globe who have studied a phenomena for more than 30 years.

Here goes with the rest:

1. The U.N. is anti-American? What about NASA, NOAA, NIST, etc.?
2. Communist rhetoric aside, there's nothing stopping a free-market approach to solving global warming right now.
3. Who's not willing to acknowledge what? Solar forcing is mentioned on Page 2 of the IPCC summary. Read more here.
4. There is no global warming on Mars. Another old myth.
5. I think this chart clearly shows that the 1930's were not warmer across the globe.
6. Oh, and that global cooling thing? Another old myth.
7. One degree doesn't sound like much, but it's an annual global mean. Just because we wouldn't notice in the short term doesn't mean it's not a huge deal. Otherwise, cute attempt at ignoring a problem.
8. Of course, the National Academy of Sciences found that the so-called "Hockey Stick" graph was indeed accurate science. Too bad for skeptics and people who ignore the new.
9. The policy of the Kyoto protocol has nothing to do with the cause of global warming.
10. However, the Kyoto protocols can also be seen as an initial attempt to curb greenhouse gases. One which clearly needs work and the support of the U.S. government.
11. I've already addressed the issue of grant money, which is a non-argument at it's very best (but so are the rest of these generally).
12. I don't wish to "punish" anyone who disagrees with me. I am trying to get them to see reason and understand the science. I just am astounded by some people's willingness to ignore sound science. Then again, I'm also astounded when people ignore the advice of their physicians… Neither is smart.
13. The Medieval Warm Period. Yet another popular myth. The short answer: it's global warming, not just European warming.
14. One scientists said something that is taken out of context? See above.
15. Portions of the Antarctic ice sheet are thickening, but yet loosing overall volume due to shrinking area. In short, global warming results in great air moisture which in turn results in more precipitation. Oh, what does it matter, Boortz didn't care about the science to begin with…
16. Well, once again, It's global warming, not U.S. warming. The temperature difference isn't the same everywhere (particularly wrt latitude).
17. Interesting that in one sentence we can't know what's going on with the majority of the world's glaciers because we haven't visited them and in the next Boortz claims to know exactly what is happening with them. The fact is, most glaciers are losing volume and we don't have to set foot on them to know this. We have satellites that take remarkably accurate measurements.
18. Again, a portion of the Antarctic ice increased. The author of this study has clearly stated that this cherry-picking of data represents nothing but a misleading use of science.
19. Yes. Sea levels change naturally as the Earth's climate changes. However, both are changing at a rapid and previously unrecorded rate. That's really kind of the concern here.
20. Like Antarctica, the total volume of ice is receding in Greenland. We recently discovered what was thought to be a peninsula was actually an island connected by ice. It isn't anymore.
21. While the margin of error in some studies may support this (most global temperature reconstructions are for only 2,000 years or less), the Earth is clearly warmer today than it has been in 400 years, and likely for more than 2,000 years.
22. Decreased? Boortz has truly gone off the deep end. Global temperatures have most definately not decreased. I honestly don't know of anyone who believes otherwise. Clearly, not even the most ardent skeptics make such a claim.
23. NPR? Much like Kyoto, the willingness of a journalist to interview a scientist has nothing to do with the science. If this is a crucial piece of evidence, why ever listen to a scientist in the first place?
24. On the contrary, if these scientists are in it for the grant money, they are most certainly not saying it's settled. It can't be both. The fact is, most scientists are wanting to pin down the effects so we can back out a solution of what to do about it. This goes hand in hand with making sure the initial assumptions are right. This is science, and it's clearly something Boortz doesn't get.
25. More of that Ice Age stuff? Well, the point is, Time (and Newsweek) aren't peer-reviewed science journals and if you look at what those said at the time, there was not prediction of global cooling and most climatologists clearly said that there was no reason for alarm of cooling. Of course, as we see now, the mainstream press has a really hard time understanding what scientists are saying. The fact is, the greenhouse effect has been understood since the 1800's (yes, that's right) and climate science is a mature field which quite possibly has the most stringent review of any science in the world. The Fourth Assessment Report by the IPCC represents what may very well be the single most peer-reviewed science document in history. To ignore it with the psuedo-logic and poor understanding of science is nothing short of sad.

Hey, I could go on as well. However, this article clearly shows Boortz knows nothing of the subject he's claiming to be a skeptic about, so why bother? You can read the summary of today's report here.

If they are pro-science, they should welcome those who disagree with them, and examine their evidence.

They don't have evidence, they have endless skepticism. So far, no one has put forth a better explanation of the observed warming than that which says that human activity and fossil fuels are playing a big part.

For anyone who is interested, I have formalized my response to Boortz' article in another article. I should have done that to begin with, but have been limited for time. I've also expanded the references as well, something Boortz lacks completely.

Jay, shouldn't you have compared global warming deniers to Hitler instead? That seems to be the fallback position when someone wants to attack by association rather than dealing with the merits. Yes, the article is hyped up but to is the UN report. 66-90% "very likely" by the exact same committee who wrote the report in 2001 ( so they don't include anyone outside the previous consensus ) is hardly convincing.

On the positive side, they avoid 'global warming' and 'CO2' this time and focused instead on climate change and greenhouse gases ( specifically, methane ) which makes for a lot more validity scientifically.

There is hype on both sides. You are just criticizing the side you happen not to be on.

On the positive side, they avoid 'global warming' and 'CO2' this time and focused instead on climate change and greenhouse gases ( specifically, methane ) which makes for a lot more validity scientifically.

That simply makes no sense. The IPCC is the International Panel on Climate Change. They have always used those phrases. Ref. the 2001 TAR:

Emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate.

Concentrations of atmospheric greenhouse gases and their radiative forcing have continued to increase as a result of human activities.

You can read the entire TAR here.

Further, the 2001 Assessment (TAR) gave a 66% likelihood of climate change being caused by human activity. The current Assessment states that it is 90% likely. Further, the IPCC had standing invitations to the heads of international and national organizations as well as foreign affairs ministers from every UN member.

Jay, shouldn't you have compared global warming deniers to Hitler instead?

While Jay invited your comment with the holocaust denial comparison, in fact its the fall back postion of prominent global warming deniers who have accused global warming scientists of being Nazis.

In a 2006 interview with the Tulsa World newspaper, Inhofe compared environmentalists to Nazis. He said, "It kind of reminds... I could use the Third Reich, the Big Lie... You say something over and over and over and over again, and people will believe it, and that's their [the environmentalists'] strategy... A hot summer has nothing to do with global warming. Let's keep in mind it was just three weeks ago that people were saying, 'Wait a minute; it is unusually cool...." He then said, "Everything on which they [the environmentalists] based their story, in terms of the facts, has been refuted scientifically." Inhofe had previously compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo....
Inhofe also compared An Inconvenient Truth to Hitler's book, Mein Kampf.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-OK) is the nation's most prominent global warming denier and former GOP Chairaman f the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee,

Jay, shouldn't you have compared global warming deniers to Hitler instead? That seems to be the fallback position when someone wants to attack by association rather than dealing with the merits.

Cash, I assure you that this was not merely an ad hominem attack on those with a viewpoint different than mine. If I were, then yes, I would have compared the climate change deniers to Hitler. However, Hitler and holocaust deniers are two very different things (like my statements and an ad hominem attack). Holocaust deniers ignore the facts that prove the holocaust did occur to support some manner of ideological position (usually antisemitism). Hitler actually ordered the holocaust, what he called the Endlösung der Judenfrage ("Final solution to the Jewish Question"). Hitler was well aware of what was going to happen to the Jews, even if he hypothetically would have denied it had he lived. Holocaust deniers say that nothing happened to the Jews, despite that objective sources have already established millions of documented cases of Jews being killed in concentration camps and the like.

Those who deny that climate change is occurring, much like deniers of the holocaust, are ignoring facts (either intentionally or unintentionally) and the warnings of a consensus of scientists all over the world. Here's a pretty good article on the consensus of scientists, though there are many more.

The whole reason I bring up the comparison is to note the silliness of giving climate change deniers the appearance of having an equally plausible theory. If you were going to have a forum discussing points of contention among historians about World War II, you wouldn't invite a holocaust denier and give him or her equal time to speak. Why? Because that would be ridiculous! It is well established that the holocaust did occur. There is no need to even debate it. Or if you were teaching a geology class, you wouldn't bring in someone who thinks the Earth is flat. The same goes for climate change. It is already well established that it is occurring and that we are causing it. There was a time when this wasn't yet true and there was genuine debate. The time for that debate is over as a consensus has already been reached. Now the debate is over the extent of the damage that will be caused, how fast it will happen and what should be done about it. Although I have to say, even the most conservative estimates don't seem very pleasant.

So as you can see, my statements were merely a comparison. Climate change deniers are like holocaust deniers in that they both (either intentionally or unintentionally) ignore or deny facts. And people who do that should not be listened to.

Environmental Defense.

Not that I think lawyers who make their living suing people 'for the environment' should be looked at skeptically - but if people are going to criticize Exxon for paying debunkers, you have to criticize groups who only fund researchers that already publish stuff that will help them in court.

Who are these groups that "only fund researchers that already publish stuff that will help them in court"? How much funding do they provide? How much of the science in support of global warming utilizes such funding?

Some such research might very well exist but you provide no evidence to support the conclusion that it in any way distorts the overwhelming evidence supported by scientific reasearch with no such conflict of interest.

Catch, you're right. I don't and I won't. It's unlikely you read all four volumes of the report, for example, and yet you accept its findings without question. If you can't be bothered to do some research to educate yourself on the opposing side, why should I do the work for you?

I'm not in the advocacy business and I am a solid neutral on this issue so I have zero problem with you continuing to think oil companies are the only ones paying for science they like.

the opposing side

I've repeated this elsewhere...

Humankind has introduced large, steady, and increasing quantities of CO2 and other greenhouse gases over an extended period of time since the Industrial Revolution and the rise of fossil fuels. The Earth's atmosphere is a large dynamic system, and if we alter the way it absorbs and retains the Sun's radiant energy, we could be looking at a drastic set of consequences.

The problem is that the temperature is rising fast and globally, faster than the life on this planet may be able to adapt to it, including us. The uncertainty is also a big problem - we just don't know what could happen, but the risk of catastrophe cannot be ignored.

Nice, Cash. You have no evidence at all for your position, so all you do is repeat it.

I have zero problem with you continuing to think oil companies are the only ones paying for science they like.

You can do what you like, but dont put words in my mouth. I never asserted anything of the sort. Oil companies are not the only ones "paying for science they like." The fact that some advocates try to influence science is hardly debateable. My point is that the bulk of the scientific evidence that does not appear at all influenced by self interest points in the same direction. The fact is that large companies both have more money and a bigger financial stake in policy than most interest groups that might try to fund slanted sceince.

Some people try to pretend that since some people are trying to influence the science and research we cannot trust any of the research, thats ridiculous.

During the election season i was paid to write ideas for professional forrum posters.. to make it look like the general public randomly liked this politician so much that they felt the need to share that in forrum. I have also seen this in the advertising business, both ati and nvidia have been caught paying people to post favorable stuff about them..
Exxon has a much biggger pocket than nvidia.. or senators like the one that hired me.
Concidering how much exxon has paid to change reports and hirer skeptics
and concidering there really are people like me paid to post
is it a stretch to belive that exxon does the same thing?
I think it si safe to say.. that on a site that many consider to be leaning left, that when there is a high percentage of skeptics than in the standard pop, you can bet some are plants.

MtG, FL I and Koozbane fit the bill JB... Odds are high I would say tehy are exxon folk.

Surya, my Former Friend! I take exception to your mis-characterization of my farmyard animal's intelligence! We keep a radio playing in our chicken house to keep predators away. My wife unknowingly put it on the local station that carries Rush's show. Before she could get the station changed to NPR, she was pecked by three old hens, bit by one of our geese and butted by our sheep. NPR calmed everyone right down. So don't talk to me about farmyard animals intelligence!

And, BTW, they blame us humans for climate change too...

The guy who wrote this original article is an unscientific redneck moron.

I guess you have a lot in common with an unscientific redneck moron

He referred to no facts at all except a few that he got completely wrong or was apparently not intelligent enough to understand the implications of.

Considering that you referred to no facts all all, etc, etc. Look up ad hominem. Report back.

name calling does not validate the opinion of another.

A racist is a disgusting pig... does my attack on him make his position more valid?

It does not make it less valid either.

But it is known to NOT be valid. SO calling someone who holds a known invalid position a "moron" or "idiot" does not have any effect other than labeling them accuratly.

Weather predictions beyond 10 days are a roll of the dice. How much faith can we put in climate predictions of 100 years from now?

Weather and climate are not the same thing. Weather is the chance it might snow tomorrow, climate says that a region averages 50" of snow in a year.

Even as recently as the 1980's climatologists were predicting global cooling and the coming of another Ice Age.

Well whoever said that didn't have the benefit of 30 years of research that has accumulated since then.

This planet has undergone warming and cooling cycles long before modern industrial activity. This planet would undergo warming and cooling cycles if every greenhouse gas-producing activity ceased today.

The atmosphere is always in flux, but THIS recent global warming trend cannot be explained by any known natural process. The contributions of human activity explain it very well.

it is cold n the north pole and i am 100% right
it will be cold tomorrow at the north pole and i am 99% right(see below)
I couldnt tell you if it will rain tomorrow where i live.. the weather man says 60% chance

weather=highly unpredictable
climate-very predictable

climate predictions can be wrong long term do to the randomness of the universe.. but not nearly as wrong as weather due to the randomness of the universe. Climate can be wrong because say..a volcano goes off and blocks out the sun.. well then it could get colder.. or if one hit the ocean causeing a mass unfreezing of methane deposits.. we could get very hot very fast,, but besides for the rare random event, climate is amazingly exact... it is rainy in seatle..hot in the desert, cold at the polls, humid in the tropics.. and i dont even have to consult a weatherman.. amazing isnt it.

Here's a little example of the difference between weather and climate: I can't say if I'll need my winter coat next Friday, even though it's winter. It may warm up a bit on a sunny day. However, I can say with very high certainty that I'll need my winter coat during the month of February, 2057. One is weather, the other is climate. They are related, but two very different concepts.

As for your other claims, user More Than Happy is correct. Further, I attempted to address most of them above wrt to Boortz's standard denier myths regarding climate science.

The idea that the sun might be causing whatever warming we're experiencing seems to be something that might require further investigation to me.

Is it possible that this has been investigated and determined to not be the cause? Further, increased solar activity is only amplified by the greenhouse effect, only doubling the worry about human carbon emissions. I find it somewhat naive to assume that the mainstream press has reported on something that over 4,500 scientists contributing to the IPCC neglected to think of.

This is from the USGS regarding the differences in the amount of CO2 emissions between volcanoes and man:

On the Big Island, we have a significant natural source of greenhouse gas. Kilauea volcano emits more than 700,000 tons of CO2 each year, less than 0.01% of the yearly global contribution by human sources. For some local perspective, this is about the same amount of CO2 as is emitted by 132,000 sport utility vehicles (there are 118,000 registered vehicles on the island).

Man produces far more CO2 than volcanic activity, but a factor of 150!

I agree it helps to be unbiased. However, what we are currently seeing is a heavily biased attach on what may be the single most peer-reviewed science document ever produced. I urge you to read the IPCC's summary report and the evidence there-in.

Did you read Jason Coleman's comment in 2.6 of this thread?

This is probably the most logical statement made in the pages of my side is better then your side bickering that has preceded it

..very well said...!

Al Gore is a lot smarter than Neal Boortz. He's also a nicer guy. You'd be safer going with him.

..yeah, right over the edge..

You understand that "he invented the Internet" was a Republican talking point, not reality?

What he did do was change the Internet from strictly Government/Education to Public, leading to us idiots exchanging crap via keyboard instead of being anything closely associated with productive.

Al Gore is a lot smarter than Michael the Great, too.

Let's admit it, Al Gore is the smartest person in the entire universe. Everything he says is fact, no matter what. If he ever contradicted himself it would tear the fabric of time and space and end the universe. In fact, he is just about to replace god on the omnipotence scale, however as we all know true liberals don't believe in god so they will soon not believe in Al Gore either.

Adam Hobson,

At last. A man on newsvine able to look on the bright side! I like the way you think.

Adam, you seem to have a very high opinion of the intelligence of Neal Boortz and Michael the Great, if you think that's what it takes to be smarter than them. Is it all faith, or do you have some evidence to back it up?

Jimmy, it could just be that I don't believe that Al Gore is god-like, unlike a few people here on the vine.

I haven't had much experience with Michael the Great, so I could not comment on his intelligence. I would definitely say that Neal Boortz is easily far above average on the intelligence scale, though I would never consider him an expert on certain fields, such as science at all. However, he is certainly allowed to hold an opinion on scientific topics as well as hold some doubts and questions.

And those commenting on his opinions on science are allowed to call him an uncredentialed fool in regards to those scientific topics.

it could just be that I don't believe that Al Gore is god-like, unlike a few people here on the vine.

A very few people. Less than one, in fact.

I know.. just yesterday the crazy guy on the corner told me I was dying from cancer... I said "but the doctor said everything is fine!!"... I am so confused!!! Now I am worried about my health!!!

wait... heh.. why would I listen to a crazy guy on the corner over my doctor?

The moral? pay attention to the source of the information before you weight it's impact on your world view.

The problem with this issue is that there are scientists on both sides that appear to have good credentials and plenty of very persuading data for their cause. People on the side of global warming tell me all the other scientists claiming to debunk aspects of it are crazy or not real scientists or not experts in the field or whatever. And scientists who don't agree with some of the claims of global warming or at least don't believe that it's necessarily man-made claim the scientists backing global warming are selectively ignoring facts that don't support their cause or that they're letting bias affect their judgment and aren't using real science to draw their conclusions or whatever.

So which batch of scientists am I supposed to believe here? The ones you support on whatever side that is? Of course. Paying attention to the source is great advice - I completely agree with you on that. But this isn't all real scientists on one side and all scientists who don't know what they're talking about on the other.

I'm just saying from someone who really doesn't give a crap one way or another because I know for a fact that *I* cannot change the climate of this planet and there's probably nothing I can do even with the remaining minutes and seconds of my life that will change it - I look at both sides of this and I get confused by who is supposed to be an authority and who isn't and how all these scientists with all these credentials can look at the same input and come away with different data or reach such completely different conclusions about the same subject. I don't know who to believe. I have to ignore a source of information that claims and in every respect appears to be relevant to this issue in order to choose a side in this. And I see far too much bias in comments from scientists on both sides to be able to discern who might actually being taking a practical look at this issue. Science and bias don't mix. People need to understand that. I will wholeheartedly come against any plans to raise my taxes as a result of this issue at this point. There is far too much "might" and "most likely" and "probably" in comments from global warming scientists and too much speculation as to when this supposed doomsday is coming as a result of it. I hear scare tactics in the news all the time - always different. Oh this will happen by 2040, oh that will happen by 2100, oh we're only maybe 50 years from x. Yet the story changes all the time with these things too. So there really is no consensus as to what is going on even on the side of people supporting global warming. I could probably go and research this and post a huge list of things that are "going to happen" in the next hundred years from all these infallible scientists who have this issue pegged and yadda yadda yadda... yeah the guys on the other side claim the same thing and they say we're all going to be frozen in 60 years.... So to say that there's no reason to be confused on this issue is well... sorta crazy to me. I guess I could go do a bunch of research on all the articles published in favor of and against global warming and show just how convoluted this really is but I really feel like I've wasted enough time on this at this point. Like I said, I'll be as responsible as I can with what I have and let it be until the bickering is over or we're all dead from freezing or heating or whatever.

Neil Boortz is not a scientists, nor does he have any credentials worth pig snot.

Nor does Al Gore, but somehow he gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie and acts as the standard bearer for global warming.

However, it is clear that Al Gore understands the science a great deal more than Boortz and don't see how anyone could possibly argue otherwise. Boortz can't even get it straight in this completely un-referenced pile of junk. Al Gore at least has spoken to a few scientists and they agree that he gets the core climatology right in his presentation. Now, I know that some have tried to pick at the fringe portions of the documentary, hoping that it will cast a poor light on the whole. However, the facts presented in that film are generally accurate, relevant, and up to date. Boortz's argument here has none of those traits. There is no comparison, regardless of one's 'position' on global warming.

I think one of the serious problems we face, as an electorate, is this idea that anyone who has a position is biased. Bias, I want to be clear, is a preference that exists without evidence or justification. Thus, someone who votes for a political party without paying attention to the candidate is biased. Someone who, on the other hand, examines the candidates (and their platforms) and happens to consistently choose one party because that party's candidate are the most appealing is not biased. Realistically, most people are a mix of the two, but the point remains: just because someone comes down on one side or the other of an issue does not mean they are biased. It means either that they are biased, or that they have compelling reasons, or both.

This brings us to the scientists. The word 'scientists' gets used to mean several different kinds of people. On the one hand, there are academic scientists, who work in a college/university context. This type of scientists is more likely to pursue knowledge for its own sake because the tenure system frees researchers from threats to their livelihood based on their findings. On the other hand, many "scientists" are industry researchers. Unlike academic researchers, they are beholden to a company for their livelihood and are essentially required to find what the company asks them to find. This conflict of interest sometimes (not always) leads to profoundly bad science, in which findings are systematically distorted to fit the company line.

In 'An Inconvenient Truth,' Al Gore pointed out the disconnect between peer-reviewed scientific journals and the mainstream media in portraying the Global Warming debate. Peer-reviewed journals are unilateral in their support for the hypothesis that human-driven change is occurring in to atmosphere. The media, however, consistently portrays this as a "debate" in which both sides have valid points. This is an important observation, because publication in a peer-reviewed journal is difficult. In order to do so, your research is fact-checked by as many as half-a-dozen reviewers. Your statistics are examined. Holes in your argument are sought and exposed.

This is why industry researchers don't generally publish their findings in peer-reviewed journals: the science (i.e. the objective hypothesis testing) simply isn't rigorous enough, especially after the parent company's legal department has taken editorial liberties with the manuscript. In short: industry-driven research is not a substitute for independent, academic research because it represents a conflict of interest.

To reuse the cancer example: two people are trying to diagnose you. One is your doctor, who is legally bound to treat patients ethically, and whose pledge to uphold the Hippocratic Oath requires him to keep your best interests in mind. The other is a snake oil salesman, who has a vested interest in 'proving' that you need to buy his cancer-curing snake oil.

Who should you believe? The guy who's trying to get at the truth, or the guy who has something to sell?

Nor does Al Gore, but somehow he gets nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize for his movie and acts as the standard bearer for global warming.

But here's the thing - Al Gore is on the same side as the science.

"But here's the thing - Al Gore is on the same side as the science."

That alone should make anyone question the science.

jpark, that is the most ridiculous thing I have read on this site since its inception.

Behind My Screen,

I think you exaggerate.

I don't exaggerate when I say that if the best thing I can say about a proposition is that Al Gore supports it, I definitely need to re-examine the proposition.

if the best thing I can say about a proposition is that Al Gore supports it, I definitely need to re-examine the proposition.

If you think Al Gore's opinion is the strongest evidence for global warming, then calling you a moron is an insult to morons.

Jimmy Havok,

Don't you mean 'anthropogenic global warming'?

That alone should make anyone question the science.

Well what's your question?

More Than Happy,

Everything about anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be swallowed by everyone without question. Most of it is speculation and conjecture. All of it is driven by political motives.

What is really scary is the actions which have been proposed to 'fix' the supposed problem. Many of them are irreversible and if they were implemented and worked, might cause more problems than any of the supposed problems of global warming.

In anything as important as the world's climate, caution should be primary.

Right...the amount of carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is "speculation and conjecture." All you have to do is look at the amount of petroleum we are burning, and it becomes obvious that greenhouse gasses are increasing, even without the confirmation of measurements. Thinking we can spew that amount of carbon into the atmosphere without any warming effect is like thinking you can throw your garbage on the floor without creating a roach problem. The anti-solution forces have broken down to admitting that there are roaches, now they are arguing 1) roaches are natural, and 2) we won't end up with rats even if we throw down more garbage.

I find it amusing that you recommend continuing on our current suicidal course in the name of caution.

I've never recommended any such thing. Conservation of resources and efficiency has sufficient benefit that it makes sense without ever having to evoke the boogyman global warming.

Everything about anthropogenic global warming is supposed to be swallowed by everyone without question. Most of it is speculation and conjecture. All of it is driven by political motives.

jpark, we know that the atmosphere is experiencing a rapid and global warming trend. It is recent, within the last 150 years, and coincides with the rise of human industry. We know that the concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere have spiked, and wind and ocean currents are shifting. There's nothing 'political' about it.

What is really scary is the actions which have been proposed to 'fix' the supposed problem. Many of them are irreversible and if they were implemented and worked, might cause more problems than any of the supposed problems of global warming.

Cap-and-trade is not irreversible, and the practice has had a good record with other types of pollution. It allows for the market to find the equilibrium of who gets to pollute how much, and it brings the total pollution down over time. We can stop making the problem worse.

In anything as important as the world's climate, caution should be primary.

That's just it - we're not exercising caution when we are _introducing— tons upon tons of known greenhouse-gases into the atmosphere each and every day. It is a trend that is going to have to be countered, and now. Ignoring the problem will be disastrous.

More Than Happy,

It must be comforting to be so certain -- no doubts at all.

You do know that correlation does not equate to causation?

140 nations have ratified the Kyoto treaty. There is obviously nothing political involved. ;-)

It must be comforting to be so certain -- no doubts at all. You do know that correlation does not equate to causation?

No, it doesn't. You'd explore the relationship, and see that no known natural cycle or phenomenon explains the steady warming trend like human activity! Global warming is strongest near dense populations, weaker outside, and CO2 is known to cause it!

140 nations have ratified the Kyoto treaty. There is obviously nothing political involved. ;-)

If all the nations or none of the nations of the world ratified Kyoto, it wouldn't change the simple observed fact of rapid global warming.

Can you point to a explanation of the observed events better than what has been produced? NASA hires some very thorough people.

jPark,

see, "correlation not equaling causation" is the trumpet of the ill-informed. It allows them to seem knowledgeable on the topic with out really knowing anting but that phrase. It also allows them to continue to hold their ill-informed position and not further their education on the matter.

Once you find a correlation, you search to see if indeed there is a causation. Correlation is a connection between two events... one event causing the other is not always true, but the two events ARE related to each other that is the what a correlation means... a relationship.

you are treating the correlation between the rise of industry and the rise in global temperatures as if they were mutually exclusive... perhaps if there was a weak correlation to each other, you would rightfully be able to argue that they were indeed not related and any correlating data is simple coinsidence... but statistics tells us that very strong correlations exist only when there is a relationship two both data sets.... The strength of the correlation between human industry and global temperatures is VERY strong... did human industry cause Global Warming? well... a simple correlation can not show that... but because we know that a relationship exists, I would like you to come up with some brainstorming ideas that can be the cause for the rise of human industry and global warming... since you are casting doubt on industry being the root cause, and we know that GW and industry are related to each other, they both must be caused by the same thing.... what could it be?

two == to in the middle of my last paragraph.

You do know that correlation does not equate to causation?

If you throw @!$%# on the floor and then the house stinks, do you try to use that line?

You are attempting to deny uncontested physical facts. CO2 absorbs low-frequency energy (aka heat). We are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. The atmosphere is warming. When you have a solid theoretical foundation for your hypothesis, then correlation does imply causation.

If the Earth wasn't warming in response to the increase in carbon in the atmosphere, then we'd have an interesting theoretical problem. But it is, and so all we really have here is confirmation of an unremarkable hypothesis. If you want to claim that the correlation in a case like this doesn't imply causation, you have a heavy burden of proof that isn't met by parroting a canned talking point that you don't even understand.

Global warming is strongest near dense populations, weaker outside

Sorry, no. There is local warming near cities, because of their energy use, but global warming is global. If the warming we were talking about was local, it wouldn't be melting glaciers in Greenland or the Antarctic ice shelves. The degree of warming is greater in the higher latitudes, less in the tropics.

The anti-solution forces will seize on any small anomaly in local warming,such as the recent ice storms, to claim that global warming is bunk. One irony is that Atlantic current changes may cause Europe to become colder than it is now (Europe is actually quite warm, compare the climate of North American locales with those of European locales on the same latitude: New York and Spain are at the same latitude). But those local changes don't change the fact that overall global temperatures are rising.

jimmy,

Let me help jpark along on pondering your comment.

you mean proving that the same force that induced human industry is also causing Global Warming?... well.. if Humans did not cause both, then what did? I mean... the data says they are related... so the same force is the cause.... Perhaps the FSM!! :-)

Notice that when I make a simple logical statement "correlation does not equal causation", I am told that "I am ill informed", "that I don't understand what I am saying", "that @!$%# stinks". Mentioning that simple fact is somehow unfair. The hallmark of 'me too' arguments is that any dissension is met with derision and insult.

There are other greenhouse gases besides CO2 (water vapor, for example). Pinning all causation on one gas tends to indicate a desire for that one gas to be the cause. It is also to be expected that global warming (from any cause) would tend to increase CO2, since CO2 is more soluble at colder temperatures.

I am not arguing that global warming is not happening. I am not arguing that anthropogenic global warming is not happening.

I am arguing that the certainty with which anthropogenic global warming proponents present their views and the disdain they hold for dissenting views tends to severely weaken their position.

I am arguing that climate will change (with or without human beings to observe or affect it). A warmer earth seems to me to be much preferred to a colder earth -- considering the number of people on the earth and the difficulty in producing food in cold climates.

I do fear the draconian measures proposed to 'fix' the supposed problem. Measures which could, if effective, cause rapid cooling -- and the subsequent starvation of millions of people from lowered food production.

That said, we should reduce our use of coal/gas resources whenever possible, continue to develop more efficient use of coal/gas and develop alternate sources of energy. We should do this because it makes sense to conserve resources. We shouldn't do this because of the global warming monster.

Notice that when I make a simple logical statement "correlation does not equal causation", I am told that "I am ill informed", "that I don't understand what I am saying", "that @!$%# stinks". Mentioning that simple fact is somehow unfair. The hallmark of 'me too' arguments is that any dissension is met with derision and insult.

That's because your "simple logical statement" does not apply to the argument for anthropogenic global warming. When you use it, you demonstrate that you are uninformed.

It would apply to an argument like "There are more pet stores in the world now, and the world is warmier now. Therefore, pet stores cause global warming."

OK... jpark, again I will say:

If Anthropomorphic Global Warming is not caused by human industrial activities, and yet there is a very strong statistical corrilation between the two which indicates at the very least "When one happens, the other should be happening as well"... Please explain how both have the same root cause but that root cause not be related to humans.

Did I cause a paradox in your mind? well... do you know what that means? it means that you are wrong!

that should be correlation

Here's some information on why water vapor is not the most important greenhouse gas and why carbon emissions are where most of the guilt appears to lie.

As for the certainty, I strongly urge you to read at least the Summary for Policy Makers published last Friday. The main point of this is the level of certainty is arrived and just how certain we are, which has increased considerably since only four years ago (from about 66% to 90%). As for a a warmer climate being better, there is quite a bit of research that indicates that a warmer Earth will produce less food that what we are accustomed to.

Climate change does occur naturally. The kind of climate change that has been observed over the past 100 years does not.

Of course some have prescribed "draconian measures" (whether economic or geo-engineering). However, those are more fringe and it is highly unlikely that any of them could result in "rapid cooling." If we had that kind of magic bullet, this would be a different conversation, but it simply does not exist. Right now, we are more concerned with simply how to slow the rate of cooling. There's essentially no chance right now of actually cooling the planet back down for literally hundreds of years.

The measures mentioned by most (notably, Al Gore's presentation and the documentary "An Inconvenient Truth") are far more modest. I've outlined quite a few in an article here, if you're interested in reading some.

Jason Coleman,

I haven't read all the Summary, but I have read a good portion of it. I particularly like all the "likely's" in the document.

Behind My Screen believes that anything other than full acceptance of anthropogenic global warming is wrong. But the report itself has the (small) moderation to use the term "very likely" rather than certain.

Behind My Screen,

You seem to think that a correlation requires that there be a direct causation based on the correlation. Other factors my be involved -- variations in solar radiation, for example. Even cosmic ray variation may influence global climate. And there are certainly political reasons for the current massive effort to convince everyone that man has caused significant changes to the global climate (but only in very recent history, apparently).

I will state again that I believe we should seek more environmentally friendly methods of energy use, because that makes good sense. The political 'solutions' proposed by the global warming factions are driven by power, money and social redistribution.

We would be far better off to focus our efforts on developing better energy technology than in creating 'energy taxes', which won't solve anything, but which can place power and money in the political arena.

If the best argument you have is that you take issue with their use of the word "likely," which they define precisely what they mean by in statistical terms, then you have no argument to make. "Very likely" is defined as having a 90+% confidence. I suggest you read the entire document rather than just pick out words you feel are easy to take issue with.

You further seem to be confusing the science with policy. They are two entirely different issues. Unfortunately, there are too many people who out of some fear of what a future policy might be seek to undermine and deny the well-founded science. You can't have it both ways and that is what you seem to be doing.

Oh, I can have it both ways.

The bride and the groom walk the same path.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. Do you actually have anything of merit to add to this or are we done here? If you have any questions about the science or various policy initiatives, I'd enjoy discussing them.

I seem to be one of the few people here who took the time to address Boortz 'article.' Now we have to do this dance between science and policy because either you can't defend your position on either or you simply don't understand the facts. However, if you're simply going to do this with cryptic phrases, then I have no desire to take part.

jpark, you seem to not understand the difference between a relationship and causation.

If two things happen at the same time every time one is observed, a statistical relationship exists... the nature of that relationship is the question. Does one cause the other or are they related through a common causing factor.

if you deny that human industrial activity does not cause global warming, then the only possibility you have left is that both human industry and global warming were caused by the same thing.

perhaps I can educate jpark with a little better explanation of what correlation means with reference to causality:

The conventional dictum that "correlation does not imply causation" is a commonly-used admonition to using correlation to support a direct causal relationship among the variables. However, this maxim should not be taken to mean that correlations are acausal, merely that the causes underlying the correlation may be indirect and unknown. A correlation between age and height is fairly causally transparent, but a correlation between mood and health might be less so. Does improved mood lead to improved health? Or does good health lead to good mood? Or does some other factor underlie both? In other words, a correlation can be taken as evidence for a causal relationship, but cannot indicate precisely what the causal relationship might be.

So... again... either one causes the other, or there is an underlying causal relationship between GW and Human CO2 emitions.

face it jpark, you cannot explain it in any fashion that will satisfy your position... which means you are wrong.

Behind My Screen,

The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature may indicate that CO2 causes an increase in global temperature. It could just as easily mean that rising temperature causes an increase in CO2 (in which case the CO2 has not caused the warming).

Noting a correlation does not mean that the correlation is even related to the cause.

a correlation is an indication of a relationship jpark... stop claiming otherwise.

Please... give me an explanation of where this CO2 comes from if not from human activity.

The correlation between atmospheric CO2 and global temperature may indicate that CO2 causes an increase in global temperature.

Since CO2 absorbs heat, the causal chain is obvious. Since we are producing CO2 at a prodigious rate, claims that the increase might be caused by rising temperatures are stupid.

I haven't argued that human activity hasn't increased CO2, only that the measured increase in global temperatures are not necessarily related significantly to human generated CO2.

There are many natural sources of CO2 and most atmospheric CO2 is from natural sources.

"Most" atmospheric CO2 is not the problem. The problem is the increase in CO2 by about a third since we started burning significant quantities of fossil carbon. Natural releases of CO2 may be larger than human releases, but they are part of a cycle of release and absorption that maintains a fairly constant level, while releases of fossil carbon are not.

the measured increase in global temperatures are not necessarily related significantly to human generated CO2.

And garbage doesn't bring roaches. That garbage on the floor was naturally generated. I only threw a little garbage on the floor.

jpark,
I guess your plan is sit idly by and observe global warming and continue the argument on its validity. Meanwhile, like W, I will do nothing like creating and enforcing emission standards, or fuel economy standards. I will continue to promote actions that "could" potentially increase CO2 levels.

That is the argument of big business that does not want to cover the cost of scrubbers etc, when in fact we will all incur the cost through increased prices. The difference between you and me is that I am completely willing to suffer through a 2-3% increase in costs to lower emissions.

I want something done so my children and their children don't have to suffer because my generation had its head in the sand.

ThePef,

No, the difference between you and me is that I think scientists and governments can accomplish environmental goals by honestly saying we need to conserve finite natural energy sources, develop new sources of energy and develop better methods of extracting energy from various sources. I don't think we need to create a 'global warming' monster to accomplish these goals. Honesty should be sufficient.

You think we need to create a doomsday scenario in order to effect useful change. I think people respond better to simply pointing out the environmental and economic benefits of change.

jpark,

People have been "pointing out the environmental and economic benefits of change" for 30 years and look where that has gotten us. We are worse off now.

I remember 35 - 40 years ago. All large towns (in my remembrance Nashville and Memphis) were smoggy. The rivers were filthy with garbage, etc. Not today.

The sky isn't falling. Pretending that it is doesn't accomplish anything.

Time to pull your head out of the sand.

ThePef,

What is the plan if the sky doesn't fall? Just curious. Hundreds of nations and thousands of scientists must have a fall back plan -- don't they?

Yep, cleaner air, and a better quality of life regardless. This is one of things where we are all happy in the end. Why does it hurt to pursue things like alternative non polluting energy sources? Why does it hurt to place scrubbers on smoke stacks? Why does it hurt to clean up vehicle emissions? Why does it hurt reduce the amount of CO2 placed into the air by human consumption?

It doesn't. It just leads to a better quality of life. That is the fall back plan.

ThePef,

All those things are good with or without global warming. What I was asking is what are the nations and scientists going to say or do if their dire warnings don't materialize. Just say OOPS?

and that would be a bad thing. In the meantime the world would be cleaner, etc. Sometimes it just doesn't matter if you are right or wrong. The awareness raising is a good symptom.

What about the fact that, so far, they have proven to be accurate? So there's the science. It's the state of the art and we have no reason to believe that it is wrong. Your hanging on to a thin thread of doubt as if it were substantial. Clearly, it is not.

Now, policy: you seem to fail to acknowledge that acting on climate change now is the same as following your doctor's recommendations. If you doctor tells you that they are 90% sure that you need a procedure to save your life, then wouldn't you be foolish to not act? What if you had multiple second opinions agreeing (thousands, to be exact, in this case)? The cost of doing nothing vastly outweighs the cost of inaction. Further, the side benefits of action (reduced dependency on foreign energy and economic benefits from technological innovation and possible carbon credit trading, for example) make it attractive even if the science proved to be wrong, which is highly unlikely.

Now, you have asked that question over and over. Unless you can provide some new information as to you skepticism, then please consider it answered. As of now, I've yet to see you provide anything other than baseless skepticism since the very first comment on this seed. It's a waste of everyone's time.

jpark...I remember 35 - 40 years ago. All large towns (in my remembrance Nashville and Memphis) were smoggy. The rivers were filthy with garbage, etc. Not today. The sky isn't falling.

Much of what was not or could not be cleaned up from the fetid waste pumped out by petrochemical companies was the pcb's and dioxins and chemical contamination. They were predicted to cause illness and disease, possibly have birth defects and neurological problems.

We have an epidemic of disease in America. Much is tied to these same companies raising toxic limits, pumping and dumping their waste to keep their profits high, and creating public doubt that the ills of the Nation are in any way related or petrochemicals are to blame. GE, Monsanto, DOW, Exxon the list goes on; they laugh all the way to the bank. Unless you want a country that's nothing but diabetic autistics wake up.

I agree. Even if all the nay-sayers are wrong and all the global-warming fears are completely correct I'm going to be really skeptical of whatever ideas our politicians might propose to counter it.