George Will Ponders Being Thankful
Washington Post columnist George Will takes a tongue- in- cheek look at whether we should be thankful about some things- in politics, anyway. I suppose it might not be considered funny by the politically correct, but don't worry. No Obama bashing. He did point out at least one thing I was unaware of:
"The Los Angeles Times announced that it had stopped publishing letters questioning global warming caused by human activity."
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, but it should be scary to everyone when another newspaper goes the route of Popular Science magazine and stops accepting comments or letters that question their "science".
Will goes on to point out the Times' action might make sense to some:
"Which makes sense, if you agree with the New Yorker’s resident expert, who called the latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report on warming “the last word on climate change.” It evidently is the first science to reach the end of its subject, all questions answered."
Frightening times we live in.
posted by Fred Mangels @ 7:50 AM
14 comments
14 Comments:
Climate change denial - or at the very least wanting a wack-adoodle fossil-fuels-industry fueled narrative to be at the table with science - is a very conservative notion (Exhibit A)*.
No Fred, George is right. The science is not over, it's never over. But the question of is anthropocentric climate change occurring has been answered, and the answer is yes.
Warming is happening, it is partially because of increased CO2, C02 increases are caused by humankind's activity, these levels of CO2 have not been seen for millions of years.
"The level of the most important heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide, has passed a long-feared milestone, scientists reported Friday, reaching a concentration not seen on the earth for millions of years."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/11/science/earth/carbon-dioxide-level-passes-long-feared-milestone.html?pagewanted=print
Apparently in your world, it would be nice to have a coal industry sponsored advocate or scientist on the board of a peer reviewed science journal. That's not how science works. Libertarians should be familiar with this concept based on the merit system which I think drives ideas of the free market, no? Science is a very libertarian field. Only the ideas free of ideology can make it. They have to be based on reality. Out here in the real world the 1st Amendment means anyone can say anything about science and have as much say or more than anyone else. I'm not going to shed a tear for Coal Industry shills and/or confused individuals who will not be able to spout their climate change denying viewpoints on this or that platform. Remember, there they can always start their own blog which can then compete in the marketplace of ideas. Right?
Having said all that Fred, I grateful for you on this day of thanks giving - Humboldt's fearless Libertarian!
*(I'll be chronicling the parallels between you and the right - assuming you allow it with an alphabetic series of exhibits)
Funny how even the IPCC report had to admit warming pretty much stopped 15 years ago, despite the supposed record levels of CO2. Then they go scurrying for excuses and come up with the suggestion the heat went down into the ocean instead of up.
They'd have more credibility with me if they'd just admit their models aren't working and that maybe they were wrong.
Now, are we going to have a serious discussion or a ideological one?
I googled "global temperature 15 years" or something like that, past the 3 conservative links, the 4th link is a Mother Jones one*. The Mother Jones article, if you let it load, will have a graph, about 2/3's of the way down that has the same stats with lined averages over about 30 years and about 5 to 10 year intervals.
By selecting the 15 year interval, your starting point is the warmest year ever recorded I believe. I know you are smart enough to realize that global warming isn't going to happen by x amount every year. Like anything with almost infinite number of variables, it will vary.
Also, remember, this is why the term climate change is prefered over global warming. Global warming implies the argument you are making. It also implies if we have an unusually cold winter, global warming is not occurring (Rush and Drudge use this seeming paradox a bunch during unusually cold storms in Winter).
I'm pretty sure you actually believe your own rhetoric, so I'm going to be kind. But note that you did not mention the CO2 measurement at all. Are you also in the camp that believes that because we breath out the stuff with every breath that it cannot or should not be a concern? Serious question - are you familiar with why CO2 is a concern? That it acts like a chemical equivalent to a glass pain in a green house (ie green house effect) trapping sunlight energy that has been transformed to re-radiated thermal radiation.** It's complicated so confusion or mis-understanding is common, especially when you have industries invested in people not understanding the problem.
Do you have a reference for the IPCC report admission btw? I'd like to rebut that as it is ridiculous on it's face. I think what they probably said is the average global temperature has not increased in the past 15 years. That would be true. Global warming has not stopped, pretty much or otherwise. That is also true.
"scurrying" - nice. (Exhibit B)
Exhibit C is your statement "Frightening times we live in"
*
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/global-warming-pause-ipcc
**http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
For fun... Check out Conservapedia's entry on Climate Change - you might find you agree with it more than the IPCC. I would assume you would. Here is a cool quote. "Good news is no news, which is why the mainstream media largely ignores all studies showing net benefits of climate change." Fun stuff.
Oh, looking up the Global Warming page, here is there BOLD quote.
"The most accurate data -- from satellites -- confirms that there has been virtually no global warming since 1998.[4] " (Exhibit D)
I do have a chemistry background. I offered the same thing to Supervisor Bohn, if you want any lessons on the Chemistry of climate change from understanding entropy to enthalpy let me know. The crazy thing about chemistry is the more you understand the smallest units of the physical world, the more you can understand the processes of the larger mechanisms of the physical world. (Supervisor Bohn thanked me but has not yet taken me up on my offer) I do hope (but don't expect)you will - I don't know it all and will have to re-learn a bunch of it, but the foundational - non-ideological - understanding is there. Believe me, Marx and Bill Ayers cannot be found in a chemistry text, no matter how much Rush or Glenn would like to think they are.
The thing about global warming is if you are prone to believe that liberals and/or democrats are more about ideology and will stop at nothing to get to that utopia, then yes, global warming would be the perfect organizing principle to rally around.
Thing is, the reverse is true. Environmentalists and liberals and Dems have been warning about global warming like things such as resource extraction, ozone layer depletion, destruction of the amazon, etc pre-global warming. The narrative and solution are the same - conserve, live within means ecologically - but there is this new, REAL thing happening that is effecting the entire gosh-darn planet.
If you think this is going away, think again. The rhetoric is just starting to go into overdrive if the methane that is frozen and stored in our sub-arctic regions is in danger of being released.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release
The reason Democrats are beginning to win the argument nationally may be largely due to democraphics, but I think another reason is the right's insistance on burying it's collective head in the sand on global warming. I would so love to continue this conversation with you because it is THE losing conversation for the right imho.
And it's a matter of the chicken and the egg. What came first the ideology or the need for the ideology. You would say ideology, I contend I'm actually pretty conservative by nature, the ideology is a reflection of society's and Humboldt's need - as evidenced by a host of things, including, importantly global warming, aka climate change.
The reason Democrats are beginning to win the argument nationally may be largely due to democraphics,...
Assuming the Believers are "winning" the argument, it's only because they have the media giving very one sided reporting on the issue. The vast majority of news media assume the Believer arguments, treat them as fact and report things from the Believer's standpoint.
Every once in a while a news report will give some heretical information out such as NPR did a year or so ago back during the last IPCC conference. They gave a brief synopsis on the late IPCC report, saying that most scientists that the earth was warming but disagreed to what extent man was causing the warming. That's often left out of IPCC coverage.
Then at the end of the segment the guy says, "So how much is the earth warming so far because of man's actions? Not much...yet, which is sure to disappoint many environmentalists out there".
I couldn't believe he included that as usually media says something along the line of all scientists agree....blah, blah.
Next day I went to the NPR site to find the quote so I could use it on my blog. They had the story on their site verbatim, but left off the quote I wanted to use. Just another example of at least some at NPR wanting to give just the story they preferred.
But even with the media doing their best to promote man caused "climate change" polls are showing the general populace less and less convinced or interested in it.
Oh, and remember that global warming guru, Al Gore, has never accepted an invitation to debate his claims. He just relies on the media to present his side of the story.
I have to deal with some rather upsetting business at home so don't expect any quick replies from me on this, if any, for a while.
"Believer" - nice - (Exihibt A(1)).
Again, Fred, as a Libertarian you should be totally down with the scientific method. It is almost entirely merit based, especially in fields like physics and chemistry. Peer- reviewed journals, academic research positions do not have a check-box for liberal or conservative, again, especially in Chemistry and Physics. I can tell you this first hand - it is dry stuff (I mean unless cold fusion is a topic)
"but disagreed to what extent man was causing the warming"
Yes - exactly, what is another way of writing that sentence Fred? Humans are causing warming (change) - we disagree on how much.
I agree with both versions. It is not know how much we are causing the warming - it may be 99% or 98%, or even 0.00000001% but the latter is very unlikely, again, we count the 400 ppm CO2 measurement last seen in MILLIONS OF YEARS. Isn't that concerning to you?
"Not much...yet, which is sure to disappoint many environmentalists out there"."
uh, ok, whatever, maybe some environmentalists will be disappointed. Not me - give me the best facts available and we will work with them. Remember there may be competing facts or narratives that will only be answered with further evidence.
I agree with you on Al Gore. I'm pissed he doesn't debate Rush et. al. on this. I'm also pissed of the hypocrisy of selling to Al-Jazzera (even though I'm a fan of Al Jazzeira - the money came from oil and that is beyond hypocritical) Al Gore has been both a blessing and a curse to the climate change debate.
But I'm serious Fred, your colors are showing on this. If it is really about Libertarianism and free markets and merit, then you should be totally down with the scientific method.
If NPR let you down, what about conservatives? This guy* was a hero of the right before he changed his mind. I wonder if Rush, Sean, Senator Inhofe or Coal Inc. mention him now? No, but they will mention those emails from some university in South England.
*
{http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html
and http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2012/07/global_warming_critic_richard.html }
Mark Murano one of the most prominent sceptics and a former Rush producer and I think former associate of Senator Inhofe. He said this in the second article...
"Muller will be remembered as a befuddled professor who has yet to figure out how to separate climate science from his media antics. His latest claims provide no new insight into the climate science debate," Morano said in an email."
also this quote which is appropriate turning the tables on your and Mr. Fullerton's arguments this past October..
"For the skeptic community, this isn't about data or fact. It's about team sports. He's been traded to the Indians. He's playing for the wrong team now."
Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/richard-muller-koch-brothers-funded-scientist-declares-global-warming-real-article-1.969870#ixzz2m3Pz8lj9
Also, I write these often sentence by sentence as I read your comments. Best wishes and good luck with the actual life business and thanks for giving me the heads up.
Fred - I think I know what the personal business was now. a) I hope this conversation can continue, because if not in this thread, I will be a vocal dissenter from you on global warming going forward. Largely because the political right (and you in this case) are wrong - demonstrably so. What the right is right about on this, is it does mean fundamental changes will have to be made. What it doesn't mean is we will have to have any lessor of an excellent life. Maybe we will have to take buses and trains more, but if we do the land use planning right, we can have our cake (what we need and want close by or within reach) and eat it too (have a high standard of living without necessarily continuing to cause climate change). Sacrifices, changes in lifestyles? Yes. Begin with the automobile. If we don't start planning for this and ADD CHOICE in habitats (ie new homes and apartments within developed areas) now, we will be forced to economically as gas prices inevitably continue to rise.
b) I am really sorry about stinker and I don't think I made that clear. As a pet - haver and as someone who as lost a few in my time due to the cruel difference in life spans, I want you to know that I feel your pain on this one. I don't know if that is any solace to you as we disagree on so much, but I am sorry for your loss.
Hey John have you ever done any research as to what the plan was like when co2 levels were at 7000 parts per million Everything was bigger the plant life the animals everything There were more green belts and rainforest There was also only one continent you are aware that the ocean produces 90 percent more co2 per year than all human activities combine and that 1 supervolcano eruption or comet strike with throw more co2 in the atmosphere than all human activity throughout the course of history has put in the fact is that the claimant has always been changing and will remain always changing even nASA has admitted that they can not definitely say that co2 is a greenhouse gas and it's funny that the only real solution that they push is paying a tax to the corporations that caused the most pollution instead we should concentrate on unsustainable farming clearcutting and fishing and radiation pollution from nuclear power and nuclear testing and while they're busy shutting down our coal-fired power plants wich are some of the cleanest in the world they're busy building them in China India and other countries that are exempt from any pollution laws the real pollution crisis that is facing this entire world has been hijacked by the greedy corporations to make a profit as usual
THC
John did you write agenda 21 if you did not and you're not familiar with it you should read it I think you'd really enjoy it
Oh, I'm familiar! I've never read it but I know the conspiracy. Fun!
"nASA has admitted that they can not definitely say that co2 is a greenhouse gas" - Reference Please!
" while they're busy shutting down our coal-fired power plants wich are some of the cleanest in the world they're busy building them in China India and other countries"
Yes, very true which is why it is in our interest to be proactive in UN and global initiatives to help incentivize other countries, especially those with the potentially huge middle class, to do what is right.
And yes, anything we can do to stop the corporate folks from continuing to exploit the world's peoples would be great too. On that we agree.
But the interesting thing is this, what you have done, is agreed with me apparently on the argument with Fred and said, so what, so what if climate change is happening and real AND it's man made. The plants will LOVE it. That's another argument. Let's first agree with people like Fred that it's happening and it's man made. Your point can be made after everyone is on board with the more basic point of whether it's happening or not.
Spoiler alert, I don't think we should count on it being a good thing and you are going to have to do a considerable cost/benefit analysis. One that is much more complete than can be done on a blog comment.
Here is Agenda 21 and your property rights all in one happy lecture
http://www.scribd.com/doc/174207614/HRWF-Redwood-Alert-0ctober-2013-Issue
Great global warming discussion over at the San Diego Union- Tribune. Some fellow writes a piece decrying people challenging his man caused global warming beliefs. The comments take him to task. There's a few Believers in the comments, too.
Not sure if you'll be able to read the article as most links there don't work even if you do have an online subscription. This happened to be one of the few I could access:
http://tinyurl.com/o7sef6m
Just google new NASA study Link co2 to possible cooling effect John I think you missed my point completely I was trying to relay the fact I believe no matter what we do we will not be able to stop the climate from changing over the long run it has changed drastically just in the last five thousand years a lone and that is a very small time scale compared to the overall existence of the earth I suppose you think NAFTA the Patriot Act the national security authorisation act and the trans-pacific partnership Are all conspiracy theories to?
THC
Checked it out Fred. Not sure what to find there except opinions but FYI the link worked fine. It would be interesting to explore this with you specifically because of the connections between Libertarianism and the free market and science and basically what amounts to a free market of ideas. The right wing (should not be libertarian) spin is the Universities are slanted. I could see this in, say, the humanities, but science? - arguably biology - what conservative wants to appreciate biological diversity, but chemistry? Physics? It's a bit much to take, especially after spending about 6 years in this or that program.
Anyway, I think we can chaulk this up to disagree. So can I put you down for skeptic, denier? Are you the opposite of a Believer? What would that be?
THC - I am a big believe that Alex Jones, Georgy Noory, and Glenn Beck are frauds. Does that help? I actually liked Art Bell a little. The Patriot Act was a right-wing overreach bouied by a Democratic Party which was too afraid to stand up to Bush's reaction to 9/11. NAFTA was a mistake by a Democratic President attempting to triangulate his power by passing an international agreement which businesses would love, probably knowingly undermining the middle class. The trans-pacific partnership is the trucking thing right? That's totally Alex Jones territory I think. I haven't read about that in the NYT.
Oops, THC. I Googled your sentence and past the first unknown links, I finally found a credible link I've heard of. He debunks your study pretty well if you care to read it.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/28/a-misinterpreted-claim-about-a-nasa-press-release-co2-solar-flares-and-the-thermosphere-is-making-the-rounds/
"I believe no matter what we do we will not be able to stop the climate from changing over the long run"
I'm a "Believer" that giving up is not an option.
Well then I'm sure you're happy with the fact that they've been geoengineering our climate for last 50 years I wonder if that could account for some of the changes
Post a Comment
<< Home