GLOBAL WARMING - A CONSERVATIVE AGREES, SORT OF
Before all of my conservative readers think that I have lost my mind by agreeing that Global Warming exists please read the whole post first. To liberals who also think they have found a complete ally again I stress read the post. Global Warming exists. There is plenty of evidence of a gradual rise in temperature and it has had the effect of causing glaciers to melt and the climatological changes that have affected the earths weather. Where the farce about Global Warming occures is that man has caused this change and our emissions and polluting of the planet has caused this heating of the earth. Now is where the anger and argument from the left is going to spawn some very interesting comments about this post, because liberals want so desperately to blame The United States and man as a whole for this climatological phenomenon and most are completely unwilling to accept that the earth continually goes through changes as we are experiencing now and that the Sun through increased Sun spots and cycles as the Sun is in the midst of now causes a gradual warming of the earth. The difference in this cycle we are experiencing now and similar spikes in the Suns cycles of the past is that man today has the capability to monitor the changes because of technological advances which were not available thousands even hundreds of years ago. Additionally rather than accepting that the earth consistently goes through these type of changes and has since its creation, certain , "experts, " in the scientific community look for something or someone to blame for these changes and the only logical culprit in their mind is man. I will admit that emissions caused by man have contributed to certain problems that have been experienced on this planet and we have worked to correct those such as water pollution, air pollution etc. but nothing that man has the capability of doing can damage the earth beyond what this planet has the natural capability to repair and even those that I mentioned earlier in this sentence the earth would have corrected over time. This does not take man off the hook of being good stewards of the planet but man cannot through our normal activities regardless of how many vehicles we own and drive or how many plants we build to manufacture goods etc. cause sufficient , "damage, " to the planet that the earth cannot compensate for or repair. The only real capability that man has to do significant damage to the planet is through a massive nuclear war and even then after a sufficient amount of time the earth will recover from the damage, the only difference being that man would not be here to know of the planets recovery.
A prime example of the earths capability to recover from massive climatoligical changes happened in 1815. In April of that year in Indonesia the largest recorded volcanic eruption in history occurred, Tambora. The ash that was spewed from this cataclysmic eruption was forced high enough into the sky that it entered the upper atmosphere causing it to encircle the globe and cause as much as a three degree drop in temperatures worldwide for the next THREE YEARS. 1816 became known as the year without summer as winter temperatures continued throughout the summer months in Europe and The United States causing snow to fall in June and July in the Northeast US and much of Europe. Crops failed as temperatures would not allow a growing season and thousands died of starvation because of the ensuing lack of food. Tambora expelled more toxic volcanic ash into the atmosphere that the combined total of all man made emissions throughout our history and the far extended future yet the earth corrected the imbalance caused by the eruption and healed from the climotological damage caused by this massive natural disaster. Since the earth has the capability of healing from this and thousands of other natural disasters how can one logically think that man has the capability of causing the changes that are being blamed on humanity and used as fear mongering in order to sell the man made Global Warming theory ? Man is not the culprit nor will we be. The earth throughout its history has experienced far more in climatoligical changes and corrected those changes and healed from damage caused by those changes without the help or the assistance in making them from man and will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists. Earth has experienced natural changes that have destroyed entire species of plants and animals yet this heavenly body still survives and we as stewards of this planet cannot stop nor cause these natural cycles from taking place anymore that we have caused or can prevent Global Warming from taking place as part of the natural process of an ever changing planet.
Ken Taylor
A prime example of the earths capability to recover from massive climatoligical changes happened in 1815. In April of that year in Indonesia the largest recorded volcanic eruption in history occurred, Tambora. The ash that was spewed from this cataclysmic eruption was forced high enough into the sky that it entered the upper atmosphere causing it to encircle the globe and cause as much as a three degree drop in temperatures worldwide for the next THREE YEARS. 1816 became known as the year without summer as winter temperatures continued throughout the summer months in Europe and The United States causing snow to fall in June and July in the Northeast US and much of Europe. Crops failed as temperatures would not allow a growing season and thousands died of starvation because of the ensuing lack of food. Tambora expelled more toxic volcanic ash into the atmosphere that the combined total of all man made emissions throughout our history and the far extended future yet the earth corrected the imbalance caused by the eruption and healed from the climotological damage caused by this massive natural disaster. Since the earth has the capability of healing from this and thousands of other natural disasters how can one logically think that man has the capability of causing the changes that are being blamed on humanity and used as fear mongering in order to sell the man made Global Warming theory ? Man is not the culprit nor will we be. The earth throughout its history has experienced far more in climatoligical changes and corrected those changes and healed from damage caused by those changes without the help or the assistance in making them from man and will continue to do so until this planet no longer exists. Earth has experienced natural changes that have destroyed entire species of plants and animals yet this heavenly body still survives and we as stewards of this planet cannot stop nor cause these natural cycles from taking place anymore that we have caused or can prevent Global Warming from taking place as part of the natural process of an ever changing planet.
Ken Taylor
posted by The Liberal Lie The Conservative Truth | 10:31 AM
21 Comments:
I have no problem with this post whatsoever, Ken. I'm not positive that global warming does exist, but I am positive that if it does it's not because of us puny humans! :)
Gayle, It exists only in the same manner as it has during the consistant ever changing process that the earth has gone through since creation! Absolutly not by man!!!
Global warming may be happening. But there is absolutely NO reliable, objective scientific evidence to say it is manmade. Heck, there is some evidence that we may be entering a cooling period. Anyone who ponders the abandoned Viking settlements on Greenland (it got too cold to say) wonders if the same could happen again.
Yeah, Mike, I'll take your word for it over the consensus of the vast majority of the worlds scientists.
No one's saying Global Warming isn't a natural occurance, what scientists are saying is that man is accelerating global warming at an exponetially accelerated pace, and at a dangerous rate.
mudkitty: Perhaps you are not aware of the dispute within scientific circles caused by the strong arm tactics of those with a political agenda.
Oh, and please refresh me on your own environmental credentials.
Ken, Bush's own EPA disagrees with much of what you believe.
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html
Here is the National Academies of Sciences statement - they are a worldwide group of leading scientists.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/displaypagedoc.asp?id=20742
When Bush came to office he asked the U.S. National Academies of Sciences for info on global warming. The White House requested report told him what he didn't want that human activity is driving global warming.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/climate/2001-06-07-nrc-climate.htm
I'm not going to try to change any minds. Folks can believe whatever they want. However, the fact is that the consensus of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists around the world is that global warming is real and is being fueled by human beings (mostly through the burning of fossil fuels).
There is no real scientific debate on the issue - there are only a handful of scientists (mostly funded by the oil industry) who refuse to acknowledge the overwhelming evidence to support human responsibility for global warming.
First Rob, just because the EPA who are a group of government employees under a Presidentially appointed head and like the State Department have an agenda of their own that usually differs from any administration, does not mean it is so whether it is global warming as a man made problem or whatever.
Rob and Mudkitty, as I said in the post I believe that there is global warming but to think that man is the cause especially when the earth itself as stated by the evidence of the Tabmora volcano can place far more toxic substances in the air at a volume that man could NEVER match in mans entire history and the earth have the capability of healing from something that catastropic event then how can man even, "accelerate, " a natural warming cycle ? The reason that it is even noticed as it is today and in the forefront as it is stems from the fact that for the first time man has the capability of monitering the warming effect that has happened before and will happen again.
Mike, good point about the Vikings.
I know, author, I wasn't nessesarily addressing you, but when you say things like "never" I have to ask you what you're scientific credentials are.
Not that scientists aren't infallible. Don't distract yourself with that cannard. But the one thing science IS, is self-correcting, throught trial and error.
Ken, I won't try to convince you, but like I said above, there is overwhelming scientific evidence to support the concept that humans are largely responsible for global warming.
There is no real debate about this issue anymore within the scientific community because of the weight of the evidence.
If you want to believe that human activity is not responsible that is up to you, but there is very little to no scientific basis for that opinion.
Mudkitty, Scientific credentials aren't necessary when statistical facts concerning the volume of ash from one volcano equals more than the combined emissions from mans entire history. This is only one of the earths natural toxic emissions combined with countless others yet the earth still heals from these events and man is not only not needed to help the healing but does not have the capability to match the destructive force nor the emissions from earths natural disasters like volcanic eruptions.
Richard Linzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT :
"Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.
...
Indeed, there is a strange reluctance to actually find out how climate really behaves. In 2003, when the draft of the U.S. National Climate Plan urged a high priority for improving our knowledge of climate sensitivity, the National Research Council instead urged support to look at the impacts of the warming--not whether it would actually happen.
Alarm rather than genuine scientific curiosity, it appears, is essential to maintaining funding. And only the most senior scientists today can stand up against this alarmist gale, and defy the iron triangle of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers."
link:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220
Then of course there is this:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/11/05/nosplit/nwarm05.xml
Christopher Monckton does a great job in describing how agenda driven scientists deliberately cooked the numbers and ignored previous warming trends.
And just for reference, this chart from the UN shows warming and CO2 cycles over the past 400,000 years:
http://www.grida.no/climate/vital/02.htm
Anyone suggesting that there is some absolute consensus on manmade global warming is ill-informed or demonstrating a preference for ideology over science.
mudkitty, when you get around to posting your own made up credentials (the latest one being you are a "specialist" in comparitive religion) then you can demand to see the credentials of others. Heck, what am I saying? Try backing up even ONE of your ridiculous arguments and then get back to us.
There is no real scientific debate on the issue - there are only a handful of scientists (mostly funded by the oil industry)
And who are the saremongering scientists funded by? These global warming skeptics find funding with oil company because they find their grant funds dry up by not towing the line, as Mike points out.
It is silly to repeat the al gore line of "the scientific debate is over". It's not over.
A few years ago, when 1600 scientists made headlines by signing a letter warning of the dangers of global warming, was that an "overwhelming consensus"? In answer to that, what got little press attention by the media was the petition signed by 17,000 scientists that there was no convincing evidence that greenhouse gases will disrupt the earth's climate.
About 30 years ago, what were "leading" scientists scaremongering about? Global cooling. So whatever happened to that, huh? Gotta love them scientific "experts". Hope they enjoyed their grant money and funding.
Climate change is happening, as it's happened for thousands of years. It's part of the reality of living on this planet. And humans will adapt. What I question most about global warming, is how much of it is being induced by human activity.
The point is that it's getting worse.
Highboy, I don't claim to have credentials in science, but I will take the word of the world's scientists over your word, in this instance, if you don't mind.
The point is that it's getting worse.
And my counterpoint to that is, change is happening, but so what? Change is a natural part of life. Get used to it. Who is to say that the next major climate change will not be for the better? Something will be lost, something else will be gained. Wonder if Greenlanders are complaining?
So is global warming always bad?
Like I said earlier, I won't try to convince folks. It doesn't really matter to me if you don't accept the consensus of the leading climatologists around the world (and contrary to what you believe there is consensus). But I will address a couple of items above.
Mike, Lindzen is funded by GM (Alfred Sloan ran GM). The oil and large car manufacturers have much to gain by trying to discredit global warming.
Monckton's nonsense was exposed in numerous analyses of his arguments. For a good counter argument see:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1947248,00.html
Global warming skeptics often dismiss the rise in greenhouse gases as part of a naturally fluctuating cycle. The chart that Mike references is from 1999. However, we are now in 2006 and there has been much more research done. More recent data collected from the Vostok Station in Antarctica pushes back what we know about the earth's climate by more than 200,000 additional years.
Noted climatologist Edward Brook published a piece in the journal Science in 2005 that includes details of the findings of this extended time period. The article details the incredible increase in carbon dioxide and greenhouse gases over the last 200 years as a result of human activity. It also shows that today's rising level of carbon dioxide already is 27 percent higher than its peak over the last 650,000 years. This is a statistical anomoly that is NOT explained by normal climatalogical cycles.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/short/310/5752/1285
Wordsmith - your reference to the "17,000 scientists" is a joke. That nonsense comes from a John Stossel special and the list of scientists you are referring to included dentists, nutritionists and others with no expertise in climatalogy. FAIR found that the list also included a number of gag names added by environmentalists, including Ginger Spice and Michael J. Fox. That list is a complete joke which is why the press did not cover it.
Hey, I hope we're wrong, and you're right...but you rightwingers are wrong about everything else...
Mike, Lindzen is funded by GM (Alfred Sloan ran GM). The oil and large car manufacturers have much to gain by trying to discredit global warming.
I disagree that car manufacturers have a stake in discrediting global warming. Robert Williscroft made a good case for why; wish I could remember exactly how he put it. And I've seen all the liberal lists, "discrediting" the global warming skeptics, by revealing who funds them. But that's just as silly as discrediting sources simply because it comes from a liberal perspective or a conservative perspective.
And who funds the global warming true believers? Do you think they operate on purely selfless, impartial motives, absent of agendas and a stake in proving global warming to be the big-bad liberals and environmental alarmists want it to be?
Wordsmith - your reference to the "17,000 scientists" is a joke.
Thanks for pointing that out to me. If it's bogus, I don't want to go around spreading that sort of deceptive information.
Although I am disappointed that Michael J. Fox and Ginger Spice really didn't sign their names to that! (^_~)
I'd be curious to know, though, who the 1600 scientists are/were.
Rob,
I've seen the information you present; they are nothing new. And I've seen the counter-arguments. I disagree that the science absolutely supports the dangers of global warming. Or that in the absence of human activity, there'd be no warming. Just look at all the kooky things scientists- I'm talking, the best in the field with all the credibility given to them on God's green earth- have predicted over the years that have never come to pass.
What do you make of http://junkscience.com/, by the way?
You'd think, too, that if global warming is a bigger threat than terrorism, and we must act NOW, Al Gore would do more in his personal behavior to minimize the impact his life has in harmful emissions (no...not talking about the hot air whenever he opens his mouth; talking about liberal hypocrisy).
Wordsmith, if only you were right. Unfortunetly, you're not. I wish you were.
Governments, private science foundations, taxpayers, students, etc. fund legitimate science. Research done by the EPA, NOAA, universities, government researchers, private researchers, all show the same thing - that human activity is significantly contributing to global warming.
Contrary to what you may believe there is scientific consensus on the issue. I wish that was not true, and that the world was experiencing warming through a normal cycle - but that is not what the ever growing body of evidence shows.
Here is what I make of junkscience.com:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=JunkScience.com
If you want to accept "research" and conclusions cited by a non-scientist who has been shown to make fraudulant claims in the past, and who got his start as a paid lackey of Big Tobacco to question the role of second-hand smoke in causing cancer that is up to you.
http://prwatch.org/prwissues/2000Q3/junkman.html
Post a Comment
<< Home