Scienti-Hooey | Current Events

Scienti-Hooey

Written by Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, 06 February 2007 11:09

Mark Steyn calls them ecochondriacs -- people who are convinced of global warming and who are wailing on their guitars and beating their statist drums to a tune that Foreigner made popular way back in the day. URGENT. Unless we all take action NOW, we are all going to DIE, and it won't FUNNY THEN. And ACTION NOW means, remarkably enough, that we need to sign over all kinds of additional authority to the state. Because if we don't, all the ice is going to melt and you will soon be able to go to the New Atlantic City in Pennsylvania somewhere. You get the drift.

This claptrap is being sold to us at the very time when Chicago has frozen clean solid through, and so the language has had to be adapted slightly. Now we must fear "global climate change." In the seventies SCIENCE warned us that we were facing a new ice age and great peril awaited us. Now SCIENCE tells us that we are heating right up and this also is perilous. But then things got really cold in a bunch of places, and scientific laymen were starting to ask questions that betrayed their ignorance, but were still kind of hard to answer anyway, like "how can it be heating up when it is getting colder?" So that brought us global climate change, so that no matter what happens, the evidence fits. Voila!

The only thing that could get any more noodles in this farrago of nonsense would be to have a bunch of evangelicals clamber on board and demand that we all go along with this scienti-hooey in the name of Jesus. Yep, right on schedule. The list of signatories includes a number of the usual suspects.

Add this page to your favorite Social Networking websites

Last Updated on Tuesday, 06 February 2007 11:09

Comments

Only registered users can write comments!

Craig Phelps

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:57 am

Someone forgot to remind western Michigan about global warming and the pipes are frozen again. If only...

Natalie

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 12:47 pm

They might be chasing the turnip truck, but I think they have a point about stewardship. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but regardless of what environmental doomsayers preach I think it makes sense to encourage efficient energy usage. However, I think it's monstrous to gabble about the necessity of government intervention when in their statement it says that numerous companies are anticipating the trend. Ok, it'd be idiotic anyway -that this is already going on in the private sector just makes it more so. I mean, we all know that when the government gets involved everything gets better. Bah.

RFB	Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:09 pm

"efficient energy usage" is probably a good thing, but its kinda of like a Miss America contender urging "World Peace". Wouldn't it be funny if there was just as much oil under the ground as there is sea on top. And is it mere coincidence that most of the crowd that worries about a so-called lack of petro are the same folks that do not want more oil exploration or development of "nookular" power. Say what you will about ole J. Vernon McGee, but he coined it right when he said we need "more nukes and fewer kooks".

StevenWedgeworth

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:36 pm

Urgent, classic.

I noticed that Jon Stewart was talking about global warming last night, or in my case the re-run today at lunch, and he referred to the Earth as "The giver of life."

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 1:50 pm

I'm afraid I have to take some issue with this post. Yes there is a lot of crazy rhetoric about climate change and the end of the world. But honestly, how else do you call a population to come to its senses while pointing out that global temperatures are about a half a degree warmer than they were a few decades ago? Most of us can't tell a temperature difference of 2-3 degrees, let alone a half of one! Yet there is significantly less ice covering the arctic, and global temperatures are averaging slightly warmer. Whether man has had a significant impact on this trend as opposed to it being simply natural remains to be seen.

However, we as Christians have a good reason to be environmentally conscious. We are called to take dominion over all creatures that move on the face of the earth. Our first task was to tend the garden of Eden. Are we glorifying God by driving Hummers around the city roads to work and back by ourselves? Are we being good stewards by building huge energy inefficient houses just because we can? I don't know whether our planet is experiencing any significant climate change or whether any such change is due to human actions. But I do know that humans, and Americans in particular, are incredibly wasteful, and we seem to do so based on a motivation of arrogance rather than need.

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:01 pm

One other comment. It seems that Christians and Conservatives are always ready to mock the environmentalists and point out the errors (real or perceived) in their arguments. (Does anyone really know where the global cooling claims originated? It's my understanding that they were in newsweek-type publications rather than scientific journals, which nowadays do include global warming discussions.) But should we not instead heed the (admittedly small) kernels of wisdom in what they have to say? Instead of responding with, "Hah! Global warming, schmobal warming. Give me scientific proof!" Would we not be better served with a response along the lines of, "You certainly have an argument about our wastefulness. Let's work together to come up with a common sense plan to cut back on our energy usage and pollution without causing major economic hardships."

So long as we mock them, we encourage others to be antagonistic towards them. Further, we alienate them and make ourselves look like the greedy big-business free market is perfection neo-cons they keep calling us. We as Christians have far better reasons to be conservationists than do the pagans, and our antagonism towards those that arouse our guilty feelings about our selfishness, arrogance, and greed certainly seems to be removing the flavor from our salt.

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:08 pm

Jeremiah, I would like to point out a couple things that may benefit you and anyone else reading this blog.
[p]
First, let's ask a question. If you have a cube of ice in a glass of water, and the ice melts, what happens to the water level inside the glass?
[p]
Answer: It remains the same. The water displaced by the buoyant object is equal to its weight. When it melts, the water that was displaced is no longer displaced. This is basic phsyics. Try it at home some time. It's fun and easy.
[p]
Secondly, we have not been observing global temperatures long enough to extrapolate any sort of reasonable prediction. You cannot even predict the weather five days in advance - what makes all these scientists so cock sure that they can predict it fifty years in advance?
[p]
Michael Crichton has an excellent article on the matter here. I highly encourage everyone to spend the time to read it.
[p]
Oh, and regarding the claim of rising temperatures, you migt find this interesting.

Frank Turk

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:26 pm

This petition is obviously a fraud. Tony Campolo and T.D. Jakes did not sign it.

Andy Dollahite

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:43 pm

Dave Hodges,

Regarding ice melting and volume changes: Water in solid form (ice) actually takes up more space/volume because of its crystalline structure. Same mass + more volume = less density (which is why ice floats). This is why you don't leave a glass (made of glass) in the freezer full of water. The volume will increase and break the glass.

Secondly, the ice in glaciers is over land, so by melting the claim is that it will add to the volume of the seas because it's not already accounted for in their volume.

Pastor Wilson,

I'm sure you'd agree that just because a local area experiences lower than average temperatures for a period does not mean that the total global temperature is not rising.

Too all,

I'm not a crazy environmentalist, nor do I believe global warming (if it exists... man caused or otherwise) is going to destroy the world. I just thought I'd add some thoughts to chew on for the discussion.

Andy Dollahite

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 2:45 pm

And yes, I know density is actually mass divided by volume, not mass added to volume.

RFB	Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:13 pm

Jeremiah, "Are we glorifying God by driving Hummers around the city roads to work and back by ourselves? Are we being good stewards by building huge energy inefficient houses just because we can?" SUV's and large houses have zero inherent disrespect for God. He has provided manifold blessings for many, and many give thanks to Him for such. The sun shines on the righteous and the evil. Energy efficiency is also a straw man since the entire concept is based upon the ability to quantify how much potential energy is available: would it still be considered wasteful if untapped energy reserves were 10 to the 50th power? You then state categorically "But I do know that humans, and Americans in particular, are incredibly wasteful". That's a tough call since neither you nor I know most Americans, and surely not most humans. We can agree on God's declaration of human depravity, but defining wasteful is another matter entirely. And here is a piquant global warming essay.
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:22 pm

Jeremiah, I believe that man in Christ is called to be a steward of the earth. The cultural mandate is designed to take us from the Garden in Genesis to the Garden/City in Revelation. My ethos is not "pave the planet," or "earth first; we'll log the other planets later" (although I have some sympathy with those who are provoked into such bumper sticker sentiments.

That said, there is a vast difference between the zero sum game mentality of so-called conservationists, which will turn the earth brown if we let them have their way, and free-market conservationists. Is something scarce? Get rid of all penalties and subsidies, and let the owners raise the price. Get the state out of it. Demand will go down, and Bob's your uncle.

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:26 pm

The volume will increase and break the glass.
[p]
My point was that the melting of the polar ice caps will not result in the submerging of coastal cities. Most of the polar ice caps are FLOATING in the arctic circle. Their melting will not result in a change of sea level. I know about the properties of water and why it floats.
[p]
I'm sure you'd agree that just because a local area experiences lower than average temperatures for a period does not mean that the total global temperature is not rising.
[p]
Please refer to the graph from the NASA website I posted above.

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:35 pm

Dave,

You are quite right about the volume of ice. Just to give some background, I have an undergraduate degree if math and physics and hope to complete a PhD in Optical Physics this summer. So I do have some familiarity with the issue from a scientific perspective. Also, if you read my posts, I'm less concerned with immediate catastrophic changes than I am with overall common sense conservation and stewardship of the things God gave us.

As for the points you made, there are a couple worries about melting glaciers. Obviously floating ones will not raise the sea level, but ones over land will as Andy mentioned. Second, one concern is that the release of fresh water into the north Atlantic will slow the thermohaline circulation that helps stabilize global climate (wikipedia has some excellent information on this).

The chart of decreasing stratospheric temperatures is somewhat misleading without telling the whole story. The layer is cooler because there is less solar UV radiation being absorbed into it. This in turn is because of a decreased amount of ozone in the atmosphere. See this blog for more information.

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:35 pm

As for the amount of data of global temperatures, scientists use more than just thermometers scattered around the globe. A significant amount of data is based on core samples of polar ice caps, observations of plant material and fossils, and so forth. Obviously these methods are somewhat less accurate than direct measurements, but they are sufficient to develop models and establish trends. I will freely admit that they almost universally assume billions of years of earth history, which introduces serious problems if we postulate a young earth and Biblical flood into the measurements. However, even over the last 50 years there is evidence of a small increase in global temperature. The so-called scientific claims of global cooling from the 70s were actually suggestions (based on core samples and other long-term historical measurements) that one of the interglacial periods was drawing to a close and the northern hemisphere would see a gradual shift towards more glaciation and cooler temperatures over the next 20,000 years. The scientists at that time made no dramatic predictions for the short term (though the same cannot be said of the mass media). Now with 30 extra years of data, the climate models and simulations are more finely tuned and can make predictions with some degree of accuracy.

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:36 pm

One other thing. Let's suppose that all of Greenland's territory is covered by 2,000 feet of ice and the temperatures rise so much that the entire chunk of ice melts completely (absurd), the net change in the ocean's level would be 12 feet. And that's if we assume that the water level increases linearly which we know to be false since coastlines are sloped. Such a small change would hardly put Atlantic City in Pennsylvania. It might dunk New Orleans, but I don't know if that can be considered all that bad.

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:39 pm

I should be clear. Normally I am on the opposite side of this issue arguing against global warming advocates. I certainly don't see definitive proof that man is causing global warming. I do however see a lot of pollution that can be prevented. If we are willing to sacrifice a bit and seek the good the true and the beautiful rather than the almighty dollar, I suspect we can improve things an awful lot for our kids and grandkids. Not just to decrease concerns of global temperatures, but how about just limiting the amount of chemicals in the air and water they need?

Douglas Wilson

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:41 pm

Jeremiah, if we "act now" in a statist way to conserve resources, that will mean taxes, regulatory agencies, laws, restrictions, fewer products, etc. When the scientific community changes its mind about this five years from now, will there be a hue and cry to remove all the urgent policies that were passed because Al Gore was doing deep breathing exercises in that brown paper bag of his to keep from swooning? Not on your life. "Acting now" before we have the slightest idea of what is actually occurring is the kind of thing you would expect to find on a planet full of Dufflepuds.

I have a pertinent question. How big was the hole in the ozone layer in 1385?

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:45 pm

Jeremiah,
[p]
I am all for preserving God's green earth. Most of my friends would probably peg me as a "greenie" and that would be accurate. However, I am also a scientist (with my own credentials and experience in math, phsyics, and thermodynamics) and I expect that those claiming to be scientists follow the scientific method.
[p]
The article to which I linked i my first comment says much about the failure of global warming scientists to stick to this method.
[p]
Interpolation is one thing; extrapolation is quite another. Scientific models for any physical phenomenon must be based on observed empirical data. We know that Euler's and Bernoulli's equations for beams, columns, and fluid pressures are accurate because they have been tested against empirical results. They also have basis in first principles physics. But they have limits and those limits have a great deal to do with their accuracy and applicability. Attempting to extrapolate results for a string based on Euler's equation for columns will not work. The climate propogandists want us to expect their predictions which have not yet been validated by any observable data.

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 3:48 pm

I do however see a lot of pollution that can be prevented.
[p]
So do I, but if global climate changes are affected by the quantity CO and CO2 emissions, then the eruption of a single volcano does more to increase global warming than all the pollutants of every man-made source.

Jeremiah Brown

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:01 pm

Pastor Wilson,

You are quite right about the taxes and restrictions and so forth. But I think you're misunderstanding my main point. I don't know that the earth is warming in a significant way. There is evidence that it might be, but certainly there are alternate interpretations. I don't want statist-based solutions to a problem that may or may not exist.

This is the heart of the problem though. Anytime someone suggests a more conservative (in the conservation sense) approach to the environment, such as recycling or making choices of car or house based on pollution and energy efficiency it is assumed he is a big-government environmentalist liberal. I do own an SUV because I go camping and so forth and need a vehicle to carry equipment and bikes in. When I can, I bike to work instead of driving. It's better for me and it's better for the environment. This is what I want: for Christian brothers to encourage each other in ways we can best steward our resources (clean air as much or more so than oil!) because we have a Biblical basis to do so. Not for a pagan government to force us to do such things, particularly because their foundation lacks the basis of truth ours has.

RFB	Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:12 pm

And right on cue, the statist plans to punish heretics:
"Governor Planning To Fire Oregon Climatologist for Taking Skeptical View of Warming... " http://www.kgw.com/news-local/stories/kgw_020607_news_taylor_title.59f5d04a.html

Joshua Gibbs

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:39 pm

I think that some amount of splitting the difference might be in order. One of the big problems with the conservative/Christian response to scientific evidence for global warming (or global climate change) is that we, for some odd reason, believe that going along with the evidence means going along with the solution/meaning/fear as well. Not so. In the same way, I'm fine with a gene that makes people gay- of course, I'm also fine with the idea that the Lord put it there. There's ample evidence that the world is getting warmer (or "changing" or what have you). There's not much evidence that a warmer earth is worth getting upset about. All the projections for a "warm future" show a greener earth. The church should cross their fingers for a warmer earth. More inhabitable land, more room for baptized babies.

Mike Duchemin

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:50 pm

I have three points to make:

Jeremiah said "Whether man has had a significant impact on this trend as opposed to it being simply natural remains to be seen." NOTHING is "simply natural." The universe was created and is sustained by the sovereign, personal, triune God of the Bible.

"big-business free market is perfection neo-cons..." The tension in that phrase is killing me. Big businesses are NOT in favor of a free market. They are in favor of lobbying for government regulations that benefit them, drive smaller companies out of business, and create monopolies for them. Neo-cons are also not in favor of truly free markets by any means. Free markets get in the way of perpetual war and empire building.

The group think that occurs in the "scientific" community is revolting. To a man, these same people hold to the beliefs that something came from nothing, life came from non-life, intelligent from unintelligent, and moral from amoral. Should we really expect anything other than pseudoscience from these people?

David C. Moody

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:50 pm

We should look at global warming from a biblical perspective.

First, we are quick to jump to conclusions about "being good stewards of the earth." How have we been poor stewards of the earth? We have harnessed our natural resources in a way that our predecessors never even imagined. In my opinion, that is obeying the dominion mandate. That's good stewardship.

Second, we are quick to assume that we are responsible for the water level on the earth. When God challenges Job, he asks him many questions concerning who is in control of the water; and the answer was that God and God alone is in control of the water (Job 38:8,25-30). God made the waters recede during creation (Gen. 1:9-10). God gave man dominion over the fish of the sea, but not over the sea. We also have a promise from God that the waters shall never cover the earth again (Gen. 9:11). God, not man, controls the sea level.

David C. Moody

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:51 pm

Third, we are being asked to feel guilty for what is happening to the atmosphere. We are asked to look at our inventions which have harnessed creation, and we are asked to be ashamed for "destroying" nature. Never mind that most people who are excited about global warming are also pro-abortion.

We are being asked to solve a problem which we have no control over, and we are being distracted from our real sins by these fake "sins." Which is a weightier matter? Global climate change or abortion. Which is a weightier matter? Legalized homosexuality or poverty. They are trying to manipulate us by creating a new morality and hanging it over our heads.

And, by the way, if the water level does rise, it will probably have more to do with God punishing us because of our rampant immorality than with our obedience to the dominion mandate.

Mike Duchemin

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 4:52 pm

Forgot to close a tag...

Joshua Gibbs

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 5:28 pm

David, I'm just as opposed to "they" as the next guy, but I don't know that what you're saying is soundly put together. The fact that secularists say something is wrong or important doesn't make it right or of little importance. We should not allow the world to lead by negative example. This kind of reminds me of something Merkle said once about Christians who don't trust Hollywood at all, yet know by the fact a movie is rated R that it can't be good.

lewsta

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:20 pm

solutions by government mandate too often run along these lines: the Gov decrees the automakers must increase fuel mileage across their fleets. Fine. One way that's been adopted is to find a million ways to decrease the total weight of a vehicle, thus reducing the energy needed to moove it over its life. Fine. BUT--one example will make the point--they have shaved so much weight off the brake discs they are now so thin they must be REPLACED in as little as 25,000 miles. Used to be, just remachine the surface, and they're good for another 100K or so. No more. OK, so we have reduced the weight of the vehicle by a half a pound with the thinner discs, and save some fuel. Has any govamint wonk sat and figured out the environmental load of mining and manufacturing the iron into a new brake disc, then packaging it and transporting it to the parts house and repair facility? My intuitive sense is taht this load is many times that of the few gallons of fuel not used by carrying about the new lightweight parts. When government creates "fixes" as this one, I say keep them out.

lewsta

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:27 pm

global cooling in the 70's? Yes--I knew a chap who was a graduate fellow at Scripps Institute, and was working on this project--gathering and evaluating data. It was pretty clear the recent (at that time) trends, and their predictions of a coming ice age were based on solid, objective data from many sources. I've also read more recently that the periodic changes in sunspot and flare activity has far more effect on earth's weather and long-term climate change than many other factors. And I've yet to see any solid science conclusively linking the presence of C02 in the atmosphere with the so-called "greenhouse effect". If that were true, perhaps the abortion crowd could make a scientific case for promoting their abominations--less CO2 from the dead babies. Ridiculous thinking. And this ozone business--the whole freon hype was based on pseudoscience, and has cost us billions so far, and continues to do so. The replacement chemicals seem, to me, to be so similar its not even funny. Oh, and please, don't forget how/why Greenland got its name, nor that the Vikings had permanent settlements there a thousand years back--with vineyards, roses, green pastures, and the like. Suppose we're merely returning to a climate similar to what existed then? What if these last few hundred years of permanent icepacks on Greenland is the anomaly?

lewsta

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:38 pm

And Doug, I'll have to solidly agree with your premise that to surrender so much to "da govaming what knows best" would be to bow down to King Neb.....funny, but it seems much of this same lot fomenting for this sort of thing is the same crowd screaming against the present administration's restrictions in the name of fighting terror. Personally, I think that is overkill, but at the same time, I fear the coddling, accomodation, and even promotion of islam in our culture infinitely more than I do global smarming, er, scuse me, warming. And I haven't even mentioned the ease with which certain groups have been able to scream, yell, and stomp their widdow feets, and bring society to a screeching halt, simply because they're "offended" at the mere mentionn of God somewhere in the public sphere. Guess they've never read our founding documents, nor the writings and though of the men involved in that. Climate change? Gimme a break, there are some REAL issues of consequence that desparately need attention by the govamint doods........who prefer to play charades with pseudoscience and the promotion of a new cultural (im)morality. We're long overdue for another tea party......

Christopher Witmer

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 6:44 pm

I strongly recommend Cal Beisner's FREE podcast titled "Global Warming: Facts and Fictions" over at

http://www.wordmp3.com/podcast.asp

Gianni

Tuesday, February 06, 2007 7:48 pm

"The church should cross their fingers for a warmer earth". Joshua is on to something.

Take a look at this.

Call me selfish and irresponsible, but as someone living in Scandinavia, a coming global warming always sounds to me like something only the White Witch of Narnia might be worried about. And what do you know, it turns out that the usual suspects pushing for government intervention to prevent ice melting seem straight out of the Witch's Army.

Perhaps C.S. Lewis' metaphor for the advancement of the kingdom of God turns out to be more literal and prophetic than he intended.

(This is of course assuming that these dubious extrapolations are worth the paper they are printed on. As for Greenland, check this out.)

VP	Wednesday, February 07, 2007 12:21 am

Seems to me that longer term changes in the climate should be taken into consideration. There was a long warm period from about the tenth century to about the fourteenth century, sometimes referred to as the "Medieval Warm Period." Then beginning sometime between the fourteenth and the sixteenth century was the so-called "Little Ice Age," a period of cooler temperatures that lasted until the nineteenth century. Now it seems we may be in another long term warming period, but given the fluctuations over periods of centuries, man made causes would not seem to be a primary contributing factor.

Keith LaMothe

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:00 am

Frank's right, where's Campolo's signature in that list? It's got to be a fraud.

Dan Sack

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:16 am

Gianni, you stole my idea! I always think the reactions to Global warming look a lot like what the queen's palace might look like - a bunch of wide eyed creatures gasping and wailing at the thought of Aslan's return. Global Warming? Aslan is on the move!

Gene	Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:27 am

Rev. Haggard is not on the list, either...

The Burly Gates

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:58 am

I've always wondered whether I have "absolute moral authority" on this matter, in that classic Dowdian formulation regarding the mothers of fallen soldiers (or at least the ones that agree with her):

I walk to work, recycle, share a 40mpg car with my wife, and have thru-hiked the entire Appalachian Trail.

With that, I'd like to say that Pastor Wilson is exactly right; keep the State far away, and let the market-- us--sort it all out.

(fwiw,here's a link to my AT photo-blog.)

Douglas Wilson

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:59 am

Jeremiah, another problem with this issue is that public discussion is almost always limited to topics that are resting on top of multiple layers of assumptions. But not only am I a global warming skeptic, I am also a skeptic about the most ordinary of assigned green tasks. I don't know that ordinary conservation efforts actually do anything of the kind. But in the current climate (heh) these things can simply be asserted. And if they are asserted enough, a certain kind of mind thinks we have achieved a high enough level of dogmatism to create new moral duties. For just one of countless examples, what actual effect on the environment would my agreement to let the motel not wash my towels so much have? These things are not nearly as obvious as they appear.

Bill Harris

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:13 am

I guess I need to purchase a big boat to keep from drowning in the rising water. Oh yea it has to be big enough to hold all the extra water & food left over from Y2K.

Jmucciolo

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:29 am

They're not on the list because, like Mr. Wilson, they're smart and they don't want to impede the end of the world and thus prevent us from being raptured.

Or maybe they're afraid of what the hotel will do or not do next. Yuk.

Mister Ed

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:42 am

Here I come bringing up the rear! If Jeremiah (or anyone else) wants an explanation for the half degree increase, read my bi-weekly column in the Moscow-Pullman Daily News this coming Saturday. For those of you out of town, you can catch it over at Dale Courtney's "Right Mind" blog. He always runs my column after it comes out. And here is a shameless appeal: If anyone out there reads my column and likes it, you may be able to help. I have decided to expand beyond the confines of the Palouse. My goal is to place my column in 20 (mostly small-town) newspapers by August 1. You can either show my column to your home-town editor; or drop me a line at iversone2004@yahoo.com and I will take it from there. Thanks!

Mister Ed

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:43 am

PS. This week's column on the cult of Global Warming is a good representation of my column, which often features some historical angle to current issues.

Mister Ed

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:46 am

After reading the responses more carefully, I note that "VP" has anticipated the main point of my article in the DN.

Frank Turk

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:48 am

I have another 3,751 points to make, but a discourse that long will expend a lot of hot air and I will be contributing to Global Warming. So in an effort to derail man's destruction of the planet, I'm going to cut it off here.

Frank Turk

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:52 am

BTW, I demand to have my towels changed when I'm in a hotel. What am I paying $150 a night for again? That bed? I could have brought my bed with me for $150 a night. Don't con me with pseudo-environmental homiletics when what you're really trying to do is save some money on labor.

and yes, I did PriceLine this room. Don't look at me that way.

The Burly Gates

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 2:58 am

And anyway, maybe we are glorifying God by driving a Hummer around:

target="_blank">"Have You Hugged A Hummer Today?

the Dante

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 3:30 am

I'm surprised no one has reminded us that God is sovereign over His creation. I mean, we know what happens at the end. God will destroy the old heavens and the old earth and give us a new and improved (sinless) version. So no matter how hard we try to destroy it for Him, we will fail (unless God's will is to use us as the means for destroying the earth, which is unlikely).

Just like the silly arguments go for population control, God knew what He was doing when He said, "Be fruitful and multiply." God likewise knows what He is doing by giving us Hummers. I'm all for good stewardship, but I believe that fretting about "climate change" is not believing God's promises to us that He will provide and care for us. He is in charge of the global thermostat, not us. Let us praise His mighty works in creating and upholding His earth.

John Nicely

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:28 am

two things to say here. sorry if i'm covering anything anybody already said, i just didn't have time to read through EVERY SINGLE COMMENT (cause dang nab, this post got a lot of feedback, lol.)

1) yes, we need to prevent the government from getting involved. the government is the reason we still don't have cleaner-running cars - all in the favor of big oil. the government is the problem here, not the solution.
2) even if we don't have to worry about global warming we still do need to change our fuel practices. i have to live in smog in an area where if you breath it from the time of birth to the time of graduation, you will reduce your lung capacity by roughly 25% because of particulate matter in the air. pollution cannot be allowed to continue, cause if the heat don't kill us the smog will. it's pretty gross to walk out and see brown skies.

John Nicely

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:33 am

one other thing... just after i posted that comment, i read an article on slate (hadn't gotten to it in my rss feed yet, tehe) about the "statistical rhetoric of climate change"... interesting.

Dave Hodges

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:49 am

the Dante said: "I'm surprised no one has reminded us that God is sovereign over His creation."
[p]
Perhaps you missed what David C. Moody said at 2/7/2007 12:50:51 AM. He had some very good points.

kenny29

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:52 am

I'm being sarcastic, but I do blame Bill Clinton for a lot of the pollution that is now being created in China and spreads to North America via the jetstream. Why? Because he signed that trade deal with China in the late 1990's that opened the floadgate of cheap chinese goods into America.

Our money has effectively made the new communist super power-China.

Ok, while I'm connecting these pollution "dots". I will connect another one that I belive is the biggest cause of and it's Materialsim.

As a nation and as the West we are so well off materially, but spiritally we are in a deficit sorta like what Machen wrote. People become what they idolize and they become dumb with no time for reading or enjoying art,,,etc higher learning.

I like what you said Dante

lewsta

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:05 am

a church, buried in the retreating ice in Greenland, eh? I like that one. Perhaps those Vikings tunnelled down to hard earth right through the glaciers so they could build it to God's glory..they are a hardy and hardworking lot.......puts me in mind of the mummified body of a man, had been hiking in what are now the Alps in Switzerland. Had a crude rucksack, some food, still clothed...they surmised, after investigation, that he lived back before the time of Christ and the Roman occupation of Europe, and, judging from bits of plant matter on his clothing and such, concluded he had been walking from one village to another, not too distant, and in climate not very cold, based upon his lightweight attire. Wait a moment, here, out for a summer stroll high up in the Alps, twenty two hundred years ago? And we're all in a row over global climate change now? What sorts of man-centred activities might be put forward to suggest causality for the changes that have come since that poor soul met his end? Too many campfires for cooking their Brontoburgers? Uhhh, the cranium cracks over that one.

lewsta

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:08 am

As usual, follow the money, and one willl find the real root of the "global climate change" issue. At any rate, I'm not too concerned we'll pollute ourselves to death any time soon..I read just last night some pretty damning statistics that show most of the OPEC nations are, and have been, lying seriously about the amounts of oil they've remaining below ground...we may well run out before the atmosphere is significantly changed by burning fossil fuels. IF, indeed, the carbon gases produced really do function as "greenhouse gasses", which I've yet to see proven with any degree of likelihood. Saudi oil wells flare off more fuel as waste gas than we burn here in our Hummers and other contraptions. Someone is having us on..seriously. And as Kenny pointed out, no one seems concerned over the environmental load created by all that production on China to fill the shelves of our Home Cheapos and Shopkos

Bret McAtee

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:13 am

I may have missed it but I am surprised that nobody has mentioned that if the State gets involved to solve the problem then we can count on going from global warming (if there is any truth to it which I doubt)to global frying. The State has a brown thumb. Whatever it touches to 'fix' withers and perishes. With that in mind, we can all look forward to Universal Health Care. If the State does both we will all probably die from 1st degree sunburn.

David C. Moody

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:06 am

Joshua Gibbs, you are right. We shouldn't oppose "global warming" rhetoric just because Al Gore is a proponent of it.

My main point is that the Bible is explicit that God controls sea level, much as he controls the weather. Because the Bible is explicit that sea level is not under our authority, that means that those who are holding global warming over our heads are trying to manipulate us through guilt. They have essentially created a new religion with new laws.

Many religions have an undue interest in "preserving" nature. In India today many thousands of people are poverty-stricken and starving (or nearly so), yet they are surrounded by fertile soil and great riches. The problem is that these riches are cows, and are sacred to the Hindu religion. They are not to be eaten, and they are not to be restrained. The fields which could produce a vast harvest are ruined, and the cows which could be farmed are not eaten. And the people starve.

When Prince Charles was unable to fly to receive his "global warming proponent" award, I realized that this new religion is in the process of making us as paralyzed to travel as Hindus are paralyzed from eating.

I'm all for reducing smog, but "global warming" seems to be a different animal (unless, of course, I have misread the Bible which is possible).

David C. Moody

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 6:14 am

Dave Hodges, I had a thermodynamics question. As I understand it, the higher the temperature, the more water vapor exists in the air. Is it possible that, if global warming happened, enough ice would turn into water and enough water into water vapor that the sea level would not change? Maybe the west coast could be as humid as the east coast.

Also, how would that water vapor interact with other substances in the air (carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, and ozone)? I assume it wouldn't react with the other substances, since they are stable, but I was just wondering.

Quena Gonzalez

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:00 am

Anyone who reading this far--50+ replies!--may be interested to know that not all evangelicals have bought in.

Dave Hodges

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:18 am

David Moody,
[p]
The temperature change, provided it were to melt all the ice in Greenland (which would be a substantial increase in temperature, to the tune of +25°C), would result in a total increase in water vapour equal to less than five per cent of the increase in water volume from the melted ice, i.e. not that much.
[p]
Interestingly enough, it is even published on Wikipedia that if the entire ice sheet were to melt, the ocean level would rise but 7 metres. That is hardly enough to do any significant damage to most coastal cities. It would submerge Key West and New Orleans, but like I said before, it wouldn't submerge New Jersey.
[p]
Here is a great website.

Jane Dunsworth

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 7:51 am

Yes, "Remember Greenland" is really the answer to all this silliness.

Another problem with this whole echochondria is the worship of the status quo -- if people now rely upon the ocean being at a particular level and certain crops being able to be grown at certain latitudes, then by golly we've got to make sure it STAYS that way. Let's not consider how we might adapt to narrowed coasts or changes in the suitability of land for various purposes -- let's stand athwart meteorology yelling "STOP!"

Gerv	Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:42 am

The whole "global warming! we need more power for the state!" thing could just be a case of "if life hands you a lemon...". If people are statist, they will use any problem as an excuse to increase the power of the state. However, that doesn't mean that the problem they are using as an excuse doesn't exist.

This post seems to me to take such a different tone to other ones on this blog, almost as if it were written by someone else. Pastor Wilson uses non-sequiturs like "Chicago is currently cold, therefore global climate change doesn't exist", knocks down straw men like "the global climate change theory suggests the climate will get hotter, everywhere, by the same amount" and uses false assumptions like "the evidence for the ice-age that a few scientists predicted in the 70s is equivalent to the evidence marshalled by 2,100 scientists over the past 20 years in the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate Change". Poor argumentation, surely?

I see nothing in the Bible which tells me that human-caused global climate change is impossible, or incompatible with God's revelation to us. Yes, God is sovereign over creation - but he also lets us feel the consequences of our actions. That fact is no shield. Yes, the entire earth will never be flooded again - but no global warming theory says it will. No shield there either. So why the easy dismissal?

Dave Hodges

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 9:54 am

Gerv, you should really read all the links that have been provided in the comments above. Most of us don't object to global warming because of the silly arguments you listed above. Most of us object to it because it is conjecture based on pseudo-science and inappropriate extrapolation.

Gerv	Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:59 am

Dave: the three arguments I picked out were from the original blogpost. Or have I misunderstood his points somewhere?

"This claptrap is being sold to us at the very time when Chicago has frozen clean solid through, and so the language has had to be adapted slightly." --> "Chicago is currently cold, therefore global climate change doesn't exist". And so on for the other two.

And there were mentions above of both "God is sovereign over creation" and "God will never let the earth be flooded again". Perhaps I've misread the tone of the discussion (it is quite long) and these are not typical arguments. If so, apologies.

If you believe that climate change is pseudo-science, does that make the 2100 climaticians who contributed to the IPCC report published this month pseudo-scientists?

One further thing: while it is by no means the most dangerous potential effect of climate change, 7 meters of sea level rise is not "insignificant". It would be the end of several entire nations, for a start. It would change the ecology of deltas such as the Nile on which tens of thousands depend for their livelihoods. It would submerge large parts of New York, London, Hong Kong and other coastal cities.

(How do I get paragraph breaks on this blog? Trying HTML in this post...)

Dave Hodges

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:15 pm

Gerv,
[p]
Your arguments against Rev. Wilson are fine, but I wanted to clarify that the basis of many objections to global warming is not summed up by his arguments. Global warming is pseudo-science because it violates the scientific method and ignores a great deal of evidence that is contrary to its conclusions.
[p]
"If you believe that climate change is pseudo-science, does that make the 2100 climaticians who contributed to the IPCC report published this month pseudo-scientists?"
[p]
I didn't claim that "climate change" was pseudo-science. I claimed that the global warming advocates use pseudo-science to arrive at their unprovable conclusions.
[p]
"7 meters of sea level rise is not 'insignificant'."
[p]
Maybe not, but seven metres of sea level rise is impossible. The fact is that that is the highestthis blog. [p]
Finally, the global warming scientists claim correlations between CO/CO2 and the greenhouse effect which they claim is a primary cause in global warming. If this is the case, volcanos should be outlawed before combustion engines, as they release more CO/CO2 in a single eruption than all man-made sources do in a fifty-year span. In short, if the climate changes, it's not our fault.
[p]
I highly recommend >

Jamie Soles

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 5:10 pm

"If the climate changes, it's not our fault."

Well, at least not in ways that can be hindered by government restrictions. I suppose that God could melt ice caps with the purpose of destroying certain people, but I would think the sins that would arouse such wrath had more to do with the things that God calls sins than the things that our culture calls sins. What is worse in God's sight, corrupting his worship, or ecological pollution?

I live in Canada at about the 56th parallel, and I am all for "global warming". Anyone want to make me a t-shirt?

Gerv	Wednesday, February 07, 2007 10:30 pm

Dave said "We're humans; we adapt". No-one is arguing the human race is going to be wiped out. However, there are plenty of painful places between that and 'no effect'. Are are you going to be the one to come and 'adapt' London for me by moving it a few miles inland?

The only figures I can find for relative amounts of volcanic CO2 and human are from Oregon State University here; it says "Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm [volcanic] by at least 150 times." Do you have other figures? I searched the blog you referenced but found nothing there.

Even if the two figures were comparable, that doesn't really prove much. One can upset a balanced scale with a finger, even if there's a ton weight on each side. Volcanic emissions are part of the current equilibrium; the burning of fossil fuels isn't.

Jamie: if you take no action, your climate improves but others elsewhere in the world suffer drought and floods, are you loving your neighbour? If all your ecological pollution did was to make *your* sky dirty, it might be easier to argue it wasn't a sin.

Dave Hodges

Wednesday, February 07, 2007 11:50 pm

Gerv,
[p]
"Are are you going to be the one to come and 'adapt' London for me by moving it a few miles inland?"
[p]
I'll say this one more time: the idea of the sea level rising by seven metres is absurd, since it requires the melting of the entire Arctic ice cap, something that would require a temperature increase of 25°C. The global warming pseudo-scientists want to extrapolate that increase as occurring hundreds of years from now based on a the recorded temperatures from the past few years, all the while ignoring the much higher temperatures that were recorded before the recent lull that started thirty or so years ago. This is not the way science works. Inductive proof operates on interpolation not extrapolation.
[p]
"Volcanic emissions are part of the current equilibrium; the burning of fossil fuels isn't."
[p]
This is precisely the kind of bald assertion that the global warming pseudo-scientists parade as if it were somehow provable that naturally-occurring forest fires are "okay" whilst man-made fires are "not okay". What is the basis for this assertion?

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:35 am

"Are are you going to be the one to come and 'adapt' London for me by moving it a few miles inland?"

How about this: how about ALL the people who live in London and are concerned about move somewhere unaffected? Why is adaptation to changing conditions someone else's problem, rather than the problem of the person who is at risk?

"Volcanic emissions are part of the current equilibrium; the burning of fossil fuels isn't."

Just to echo Dave: Why would that be?

Kirsten

Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:15 am

Can anyone supply a link to a sensible website that evaluates the value of the environmentalist proscribed duties that are supposed to "care for the planet?"

As a homemaker, I need to figure out how to run my household in a God-honoring way and teach my children to do the same. For example, I would be happy to recycle more, if I could see some reasonable data that it really is a responsible habit that is worth my time. I don't know who is creditable in this area.

RFB	Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:20 am

Jane, "Just to echo Dave: Why would that be?"
They do not need a "why". It is an article of faith.

Phil Walker

Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:27 am

I find it intriguing that you don't find (as Gerv has demonstrated) people on this side of the (rising?) pond showing such a careless attitude towards the creation we have been entrusted with. There are some serious geographic factors which need consideration here. But onto actual argument: I heard mention of the exercise of dominion, as if harnessing resources is all that it's about. Surely our dominion should model the gracious and loving dominion of our God! Does he treat us as resources to be harnessed?

And the American exceptionalism evinced by Jane Dunsworth is simply appalling. Jane, I assume you wouldn't mind me redirecting a few rivers in your area and telling people to lump it or move? Adaptation to changing conditions is everyone's problem if we're all responsible for causing them.

The Burly Gates

Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:39 am

But Phil, it's precisely the "if we're all responsible" part that's the problem. If that's even knowable, we sure as heck don't know it yet. And anyway, what to make of the fact that Europe is making worse progess under Kyoto than America is without it?

I'm afraid that your "adaptation is everyone's problem" is simply the standard code for weakening the US economy at all costs so that we can all feel better about the "progress" we're making.

If I'm misreading you, I do apologize.

Dave Hodges

Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:15 am

I think it would do well for me to speak on the behalf of many Christians regarding the environment.
[p]
First off: I recycle, I buy organic, I don't litter, I drive an economy car, and I dispose of chemicals at the local county receptacle.
[p]
I am about as pro-environment as a man can be. Now, I light fires in the winter and drive a car, but that's about the extent of my damage done to the environment. I am an environmentally conscious person and I seethe when I see people who have made landfills out of any property they can find that is not theirs (this is common in rural Georgia). But just because I am environmentally conscious does not mean that I must accept every notion promulgated by the Greenpeace agenda. And just because global warming is a popular dogma does not mean I must accept it de fide even if it has been declared ex cathedra by the UN. Global warming is a religion that claims to be based on scientific evidence but it not; it is rather based on the practises of pseudo-science. It is, in every conceivable respect, a pagan religion. And I, as a scientist and an environmentally conscious Christian, refuse to buy into it.

RFB	Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:18 am

"Northern Michigan IS EXPERIENCING AMONG THE TOP 10 COLDEST STARTS TO FEBRUARY IN THE LAST 100 YEARS."
http://www.tv7-4.com/Global/category.asp?C=8549&nav=menu129_4

RFB	Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:19 am

"Emergency relief for Sweden's starving reindeer due to thick ice"

http://www.terradaily.com/2006/070207171633.474eyhua.html

Jamie Soles

Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:20 am

Gerv,

In the Bible God does demonstrate his anger at polluters, but the fact that they are polluting His worship instead of the Sea of Galilee should cause us to reflect on the things that make God angry. God is in control of the weather, as Jesus demonstrated by calming the storm. God does great things on the earth, like sending a flood to destroy everything. Whenever He makes a connection between man's doings and the weather or the environment, it is always in relation to how they are treating Him, and never in relation to how they are treating the earth, or "mankind" in general. If God controls the weather and the environment, why do we act as though man controls it?

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:47 am

Burly -- yes, that's what I meant. The assertion that "we're all responsible" must be proven before the issue shifts to "I diverted your river so I have to help you move" from "your river was naturally diverted so I guess it's time for you to move." Adaptation has to take place either way, and blaming me for your need to move doesn't change that. Blaming me might mean that I've got some responsibility to help you, but the blame isn't established by the mere need to adapt.

Lebenswanderungs have happened before, and humanity has survived. If global warming is happening according to the catastrophic models being pushed by some, you can't make London stay above sea level even if you succeed in placing the blame where you like. You still have to move.

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:49 am

BTW, I have NO CLUE what American exceptionalism has to do with what I said, even from Phil's standpoint. London was someone else's example, not mine -- I would have said the same thing about Miami.

Jane Dunsworth

Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:56 am

Oh, how silly of me, that's Volkswanderung.

Sorry for the string of comments.

Xon Hostetter

Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:04 am

My general perspective on this is with the skeptics, but I am curious about Craig's claim regarding volcanoes contributing more CO2 than humans. I'm not able to find any scientific sources backing this up. Can you help me, Craig?

Andy Packer

Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:10 am

For those interested:

The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming (and Enviromentalism) was recently released.

Phil Walker

Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:38 am

Burly and Jane: indeed, the "if" is essential. I believe that there is climate change in progress, and that we have aggravated, rather than caused, it. But if we are making things worse shouldn't we try to stop? How, now there's a question.

Jane, my apologies for the comment about exceptionalism. I assumed that you were suggesting that Londoners should just lump higher sea levels because the US economy (objectively, the biggest contributor to carbon emissions) should be allowed to continue along its present economic path unhindered. Presumably, then, we agree that the costs of pollution should be borne by the polluters.

Dave Hodges

Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:20 am

Phil Walker: "But if we are making things worse shouldn't we try to stop?"this.
[p]
Xon Hostetter: "but I am curious about Craig's claim regarding volcanoes contributing more CO2 than humans."
[p]
That was my claim, not Craig's, and I got it from Cal Beisner, but cannot find the specific reference. [p]
Read >

Zwei	Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:42 am

Various and sundry comments.

Recyclers may be interested in an episode of Penn and Teller's (somewhat offensive) show Bull****. Turns out that most of the time, recycling is significantly more expensive than throwing things away (which translates into energy cost and therefore pollution), and only exists because of government subsidies.
I find some of the arguments here (i.e., "God said no more floods", "God is in control of the weather") exceptionally weak. Frankly, I think that arguments like these make Christians look pretty silly to the outside world. More in a moment.
CO2 levels in the atmosphere and the corresponding effect on global warming are very difficult to deal with from a typical libertarian/Austrian economics/property rights standpoint. The short version is that it is not possible to quantify the damage inflicted by any individual polluter or the damage received by any individual victim. Some strongly libertarian thinkers have concluded that there is no property rights based solution to a problem such as this (not that this would justify government intervention in their view)

Xon Hostetter

Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:46 am

Sorry, Dave, I've been doing too much blog polemics lately, can't keep the names straight!

Zwei	Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:51 am

Regarding point 2:

"God said no more floods." Well, as we have seen, melting all the ice on earth wouldn't result in a global flood (7 meters, did someone say?). Therefore this can't possibly apply.

"God is in control of the weather." God is sovereign over *everything*, and it easily leads to error to emphasize his sovereignty over one thing in particular but not all things generally. For example, emphasizing God's sovereignty in election ("God chooses who will be saved") leads to error ("I don't need to evangelize") because it detaches God's sovereignty in one area from his sovereignty over everything. God *is* in control of the weather, but he is also sovereign over our actions. It is entirely wrong to use God's sovereignty to eliminate human responsibility.

If God sovereignly permits mankind to detonate a thousand nuclear warheads over the surface of the earth, then I would be willing to bet that his sovereign control over the weather will include quite a bit of radiation. If he sovereignly permits mankind to pollute and pollute and pollute, then I'm betting he sovereignly includes that in future weather patterns. (I'm not making any statement regarding my position on the scientific issues, but hypothetically speaking...)

Gerv	Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:13 am

Dave: I agree with you that 7m is unlikely; however, it will take far less than that to devastate the coastal cities and deltas I mentioned.

Your statement about interpolation rather than extrapolation implies that you completely exclude extrapolation from the scientific method of making predictions. ("That's not the way science works.") Is that right?

My statement about volcanic emissions comes from the (obvious) fact that volcanoes have been emitting CO2 since whenever, but man has only started doing it in the last 200 years, and seriously in the last 50. But that's not the first worry you have about your "well, let's ban volcanoes" riposte. You first need to rebut my evidence that it's only a 150th of the output of man's CO2 emissions.

Jane suggested: "How about this: how about ALL the people who live in London and are concerned about move somewhere unaffected?"

That's all very well if it's not your entire country disappearing under water. And if it was your house and your neighbourhood, I doubt you'd accept such a glib answer.

RFB: what understanding of climate change theory do you have that means that links to stories about places being cold rebuts anything?

Gerv	Thursday, February 08, 2007 9:13 am

Oops, sorry about that. Poor markup on my part. No shouting intended. Try again:

Dave: I agree with you that 7m is unlikely; however, it will take far less than that to devastate the coastal cities and deltas I mentioned.

Your statement about interpolation rather than extrapolation implies that you completely exclude extrapolation from the scientific method of making predictions. ("That's not the way science works.") Is that right?

My statement about volcanic emissions comes from the (obvious) fact that volcanoes have been emitting CO2 since whenever, but man has only started doing it in the last 200 years, and seriously in the last 50. But that's not the first worry you have about your "well, let's ban volcanoes" riposte. You first need to rebut my evidence that it's only a 150th of the output of man's CO2 emissions.

Jane suggested: "How about this: how about ALL the people who live in London and are concerned about move somewhere unaffected?"

That's all very well if it's not your entire country disappearing under water. And if it was your house and your neighbourhood, I doubt you'd accept such a glib answer.

RFB: what understanding of climate change theory do you have that means that links to stories about places being cold rebuts anything?

Xon Hostetter

Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:33 pm

Closing bold, hopefully...

David C. Moody

Thursday, February 08, 2007 1:49 pm

Zwei, you are right that man is responsible for what he does. I do agree that we can pollute the atmosphere, and for those cities which have smog problems, I think it would be great to figure out a way to purify the air (just as people also purify water in Africa).

However, the rhetoric that the IPCC is using is beginning to draw lines between fuel emission and greenhouse gases, then they draw lines between greenhouse gases and hurricanes. Now, when another hurricane hits the U.S. and causes more havoc than Katrina, are we going to be held liable for that? Will SUV-owners be tried for crimes against humanity?

Jamie Soles said what I had tried to say, but much better.

Phil Walker

Thursday, February 08, 2007 10:17 pm

Dave, I'm afraid that article's logic is flawed at the crucial point. It accepts that human activity is making a difference to our climate, but argues that because there's so much damage already done, and levels of emissions are so high, we shouldn't bother trying to stop. The immediate image that I had was of a bull being left to run free in a china shop because "damage has already been done". Picking up this business about volcanoes, the image then shifted to a man taking a mallet to the rest of the china on the grounds that the bull had already done quite enough damage, and a bit more wouldn't hurt.

Jane Dunsworth

Friday, February 09, 2007 1:24 am

Gerv, I don't see how calling my comment glib refutes it.

If your house sinks under water, you have to move. No amount of anything is going to change that. And what we're being told is that global warming IS happening and IS irreversible. (It probably is irreversible but that doesn't mean it won't reverse on its own, just like it did 800 years ago.)

My point wasn't that I didn't care or that people in that situation wouldn't need help, it's that if this stuff is inevitable, than the on-the-ground issue is GET THE HECK OUT OF THERE! As I said, people have survived forced migration before, and will again. That doesn't mean I like it and don't care, but it does mean that it is part of the ebb and flow of human existence. It's a fallen world.

Dave Hodges

Friday, February 09, 2007 3:13 am

Phil Walker: "It accepts that human activity is making a difference to our climate"observed linear cooling.
[p]
Why no mention of the Medieval Warm Period? What massive CFC's were being released then that caused the entire planet to warm? I'll say it again: you can't even tell me what the weather will be six days from now. But you can tell me what it will be in fifty years? Right. [p]
No, the author does NOT accept that human activity has any affect on climate. He is using the models of the global warming activists and showing that if one assumes their models, no amount of regulation will curb the inevitable catastrophe. You need to read the remainder of his articles to understand his perspective.
[p]
It is interesting that throughout this whole discussion, nobody has as of yet proven what the global warming activists want us to accept as dogma - that humans are setting the earth on an irreversible trend of endless heating. Where is the proof for this? The "proof" lies in the extrapolation of trends far beyond their scope. They use thirty years of data to predict what will happen hundreds of years from now. That's very poor methodology. What's even worse about it is that they ignore the thirty years prior to the last thirty years because it doesn't fit their model. We are told of global warming in spite of the >

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 3:39 am

Dave, I think it would be interesting to hear more about the MWP. From everything I've seen, it looks like some of the best evidence against global warming being anthropogenic.

On the other hand, it does not follow that because we can't predict the weather in six days we can't predict it in fifty years. Something like weather is modeled as a stochastic process, having both deterministic and random components (a stochastic partial differential equation, to be precise---stock prices are modeled similarly). In the short run, the random component is large relative to the deterministic component, but in the long run, the deterministic component makes a larger contribution. An example of this: I can't predict the weather tomorrow, but I can predict with a fair amount of confidence that in six months the temperature will be 80-90 degrees higher than it is today. The deterministic component (seasons changing) is bigger than the random component (daily temp fluctuations). The same argument can be made for long-term climate change.

You may argue that the differential equations modeling global long-term climate patterns are inadequate (which may well be the case, I'm no expert there), but our inability to make short-term predictions is not a good counter-argument.

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 3:52 am

I mentioned this above, but it may be interesting to some to go into more detail. Libertarians, Austrian economic theorists, etc., generally make the protection of private property rights the foundation of all (almost all) legitimate state action. Any kind of damage reparations must be based on strict causation; in other words, a specific victim must establish that a specific offender directly caused a specific amount of harm. Otherwise, no dice.

In the case of anthropogenic global warming, it is impossible to establish the amount of harm, who the offender is, and that the offender directly caused the harm. Therefore, there is no strictly property-rights based solution.

I am not arguing that we should conclude that state regulation is necessary, but I hope everyone recognizes that problems like GW do pose significant challenges to libertarian political/economic theory.

As I mentioned earlier, I was told by a prominent writer of the Austrian persuasion that something like this must be treated like an "act of God" with no recourse for damages cause to anyone.

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 3:53 am

One last...here is another example of the same problem, which I posted on the Mises blog some time ago:

Say you live in a small town, a peaceful, quiet place. One day, extraordinary mineral wealth is discovered, and several mining companies are started and 1 million people move to the area. Both the plants and the new residents' vehicles emit pollution (in varying and hard to measure amounts), and your town is now covered by a haze of smog. You and your family develop asthma and lung disease, and it is known that smog increases the chances of both. Is anyone liable? Who? To what degree? What if it is known that 25% of the population ordinarily develops asthma, and after the population boom 75% of the town's old residents develop asthma? It is impossible to establish that, for an individual, the smog was to blame; but, it is clear that the smog had some impact to the townsfolk as a whole. Who is liable? To what degree?

Gene	Friday, February 09, 2007 4:50 am

Jane, pardon me, but are you saying that the weather, especially what we would call bad weather, is the result of the fall? Just curious! God Bless,

Dave Hodges

Friday, February 09, 2007 5:32 am

Zwie: "Something like weather is modeled as a stochastic process, having both deterministic and random components"
[p]
This is true no doubt, but the extrapolation of three hundred years based on a purposefully limited sampling of thirty years is patently absurd. Just because there appears to be a linear relationship now does not mean that everything will increase linearly ad infinitumhere. [p]
Computer models have validity insofar as they accurately represent already observed phenomena. Since levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have never been observed higher than those we have now, it is not scientific to make predictions based on such high levels. Using fluid laws that are formulated based on an assumption of incompressible flow do not work when the fluid is compressible. Using fluid laws based on subsonic flow will not work when modelling supersonic flow. Attempting to build an accurate model of the earth's climate that involves higher concentrations of CO/CO2 than have ever been observed is not scientifically sound. It is hype, pseudo-science, and conjecture. To make climate as simplistic as a relationship of CO/CO2 concentration when an innumerable amount of other factors are undoubtedly involved is absurd. And to base a prediction on extrapolation beyond that which has been observed is pure speculation and has no place in the scientific method.
[p]
Again I offer you a wonderful article on it >

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 6:07 am

Dave, this is precisely the kind of argument that will carry some weight; if I knew more about climate models and data, this is the approach I would attack them from. In *principle*, though, it is possible to make reasonably accurate predictions about the future even if short-term predictions are necessarily imprecise. Possible, but I don't think they're actually accomplishing it.

Crichton has got some horrifically bad science in a few of his books (Prey almost made me vomit), but I did like this article. Lotsa good stuff there.

Xon Hostetter

Friday, February 09, 2007 8:06 am

Dave, you've given a lot of helpful arguments (and links) in this thread. So have a lot of other folks, but I'm focusing on your at the moment. Good job, and thanks.

I'm still hung up on the volcano thing, b/c is one of the arguments you hear so often from GW-skeptic talking heads. It's a great rhetorical weapon if it's true, but is it? If it's not, there are lots of cool arguments that have been presented in this thread, so I'm still a GW skeptic. I'm just curious about the volcanos thing in particular.

It sounds like, having listened to the Cal Beisner interview on wordmp3.com, that the real issue is that CO2 only makes up a minute proporition of "greenhouse gases" in the first place (Beisner said something like 1/4 of a percent, I think). So instead of arguing about who causes more CO2 emission, humans or volcanos, we should simply point out that CO2 doesn't make up that much of the total greenhouse gases in any case. Yet is primarily CO2 emissions that we are being "encouraged" by alarmists to curb, and this doesn't seem like much of a solution when CO2 makes up such a small part of the atmospheric gases in the first place.

Does this seem like a good way to state the argument?

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 8:17 am

The consensus seems to be that volcanos contribute to global cooling due to a hazing effect arising from sulfur particles emitted. This has even led to some prominent scientists saying we should artificially duplicate this to counteract GHGs: link

Zwei	Friday, February 09, 2007 9:07 am

Some links about CO2:

CO2 easily has the largest concentration of any GHG in the atmosphere (not counting water vapor): link
A figure here gives numbers about the transfer of carbon to and from the atmosphere. It appears that human emissions account for about 2% of all emissions, but humans don't provide any "carbon sinks", either.
CO2 accounts for approx. 85% of all GHG emissions in the US: link
Atmospheric CO2 concentration as well as anthropogenic emissions are rising

Gerv	Monday, February 12, 2007 10:21 am

Dave, Jane: I don't know who is telling you both that the warming is unstoppable/irreversible, but that's certainly not what I've been hearing. What I'm hearing from places like the IPCC is that it's not completely preventable, but what we do in the next ten years is likely to have an effect on how bad it gets. So while yes, mitigation measures such as moving house may be necessary, saying we shouldn't do anything sounds very like Phil's "bull and a human in a china shop" analogy.

Dave said: "Since levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have never been observed higher than those we have now, it is not scientific to make predictions based on such high levels."

But you are making a prediction. You are saying that it's not going to have any effect. You are saying this because you are arguing for inaction (as far as I can tell). Also, if you take your position to its logical conclusion, if we were to reach a position where the worst predictions of the GW lobby were coming true, you would still be arguing that we couldn't possibly predict anything about the future because the CO2 level was still higher than it had ever been!

Dave Hodges

Monday, February 12, 2007 10:48 am

"But you are making a prediction."
[p]
I did no such thing. I denied the ability to predict based on a lack of information.
[p]
"You are saying that it's not going to have any effect."
[p]
I said no such thing. Now it is true that I see no evidence that anything will happen especially given what we have learnt about weather in the past hundred years and beyond, but I made no statement that it would not happen (I, for one, would be delighted if global warming were real, but that's neither here nor there).
[p]
The point remains this: extrapolation beyond that which has been observed is not scientific. To model atmospheric temperature as nothing more than a linear correlation with CO2 is excessively simplistic. The fact is that there are an uncountable number of factors that affect global temperature and if if CO2 plays a part, it is certianly not the only part in the play. It has not been demonstrated that CO2 levels have anything to do with global temperature. What about the Medieval Warm Period? What CO2 levels caused that?
[p]
Gerv, I don't know if you're read a single link that I've posted on this thread, but as long as you're ignoring the scientific method in your assessment of global warming, I'm not really interested in carrying this on any longer. Global warming is pseudo-science. Observable, repeatable, testable, verifiable. The "science" of global warming has none of these traits.

Zwei	Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:43 am

Dave, where are the best places to get info about the MWP? I have seen some graphs that make it seem that the MWP was much warmer than the past century, but I was doing some reading on Wikipedia and found this. This makes the MWP seem warm but not super warm. Any thoughts?

Dave Hodges

Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:04 am

Zwei,
[p]
I am far from being an expert on climatology; my arguments as of yet have focused not on my knowledge of weather patterns but on the lack of adherence to the scientific method inherent in global warming studies.
[p]
That said, whether or not the MWP was as high or not as high as current temperatures is not important; it does show that attempting to build a climate model where CO2 concentration is the primary variable is ridiculous. Other factors are obviously involved.
[p]
For the type of propoganda that ought to make any thinking person laugh out loud, look at the baseless assertions in this "scientific" FAQ document.
[p]
This is an issue which, as Rev. Wilson nicely pointed out, is an attempt to scare people into giving up freedoms in order to save the planet. Many scientists back it because, well, scientists have mortgage payments, too. Believe me, just because a man wears a white lab coat at work doesn't mean that he has scruples. Like Crichton said, instead of science, people are now invoking the "consensus of scientists". That is not science - it is propoganda.

Gerv	Thursday, February 15, 2007 8:25 am

Dave: no science we do where we only get one shot at it is repeatable. We can't play with an alternate earth and see what happens. Given that, what do we do about climate modelling or other earth-scale scientific predictions? Assert that it's utterly impossible to predict anything, by definition? That's what you seem to be doing, because you are asking for the impossible.

If you are not saying it's impossible to predict the climate in the future, what sort of experiments would you consider valid to draw conclusions from?

Of course other factors are involved in climate modelling. Do any of the IPCC models use only CO2 as a variable? You are attacking a straw man.

This is an issue which, as Rev. Wilson nicely pointed out, is an attempt to scare people into giving up freedoms in order to save the planet.

No. This is an issue which is being used to scare people into giving up freedoms in order to save the planet. The fact that it is being so used says absolutely nothing about how genuine the problem is. To say otherwise is cum hoc ergo propter hoc.

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Father
Sister Heather
Avuncular
Femina

Nate
Shadow Shroud
Nephew
Amoretti

About the Proprietor

Family Blogroll

Blogroll

Pastors Blogroll