May 23 2007

Responding to a Nutjob - Worth the Time? Probably Not.

Published under Climate Change

This comes from this webpage, which spouts the typical right-wing anti-science position. Here are some selected quotes.

Funny how you don’t hear the phrase “global warming so much any more. There is a new phrase, you know. Perhaps you didn’t get the memo .. but what was once continually referred to as “global warming” is now just becoming “climate change.” Why? Well, I suppose a few record cold winters around the world have made it a bit harder for the left and the eco-cultists to push the “warming” bit. Besides, as more and more is written more people come to understand that we’re in a period of increased solar activity, and even those educated in government schools understand that increased solar activity might somehow cause a bit of warming here on Earth.

First, I hadn’t noticed the change from “global warming” to “climate change”. I’ve previously discussed this in the difference between climate change and global warming. Climate change and global warming are two seperate and distinct things - both of which are different than anthropogenic climate change. To summarize, global warming is a rising of the mean temperature of the earth; climate change is, obviously, a change in the large-scale climate of the earth (climate includes, but is not limited, to temperature, precipitation, and wind); anthropogenic climate change is simply climate change caused by human actions.

This is interesting. The solar activity is increasing. I’ve heard this argument before from the anti-science crowd, and you’d think that it would only take one figure (perhaps the one below) to show that total solar irradiance has decreased since 2000! And has remained relatively unchanged since satellite measurements started in 1980. Surely this is the cause of global warming - I mean climate change. See also the trouble with sunspots, and the lure of solar forcing.

Total Solar Irradiance

Glaciers are retreating! Did you know that! Yup, retreating! It’s that pesky climate change thing. But something rather odd is happening as the glaciers retreat. We finding evidence of civilization where those glaciers once stood! In Switzerland they’re finding silver mines. That’s right, silver mines. As the glacier retreats they’re finding the mine shafts and the mining tools stacked up and waiting … (sic) waiting for the mine workers to return as the winter snows melted. It seems that one year those winter snows didn’t actually melt. Then year upon year passed and the snows grew deeper. Finally, a glacier. It was the little ice age! Now the little ice age is ending, the glaciers retreating, and evidence of civilization emerging where we’ve known nothing but ice. We’re also finding water management structures built by man where glaciers are retreating elsewhere. In other words .. yes, it’s warmer. One whole degree in the last 100 years. But we’ve been there before. Warmer than this. And we did it without SUVs and the industrial revolution.

Psst. The little ice age ended a long time ago. See medieval warm period, and the little ice age.

Maybe … (sic) just maybe .. (sic) the tide of hysteria is turning. Thank the new media. While mainstream newspapers and media outlets regurgitate the global warming and climate change mantra, people remain free to log on to the Internet (for now) where they’ll find more than enough to read from scientists who were once global warming alarmists but who are now skeptics.

This doesn’t even need a retort other than - “I saw it on the Internets! It must be true!.”

Take Dr. Nir Shaviv, an Astrophysicist. has recently recanted his belief that man was warming up the earth. He recently wrote: “Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye.” Shaviv adds that “Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming.”

Dr. David Evans is a mathematician and engineer. This is the man who did the carbon accounting for the government of Australia. He spent six years building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions. He’s now a global warming skeptic. Evans says that “By the late 1990s lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming.” He adds: “The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched.”

Wow. To refute global warming this guy found an astrophysicist and a ‘mathematician and engineer’. Two people - not even two climate scientists, but we’ll ignore their qualifications. Here’s just the list of contributers to Real Climate: Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Ray Bradley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Rasmus Benestad, Caspar Ammann, Thibault de Garidel, David Archer, and Ray Pierrehumbert. Eleven. I win! Woot! The fact that you could find two people that do not think that humans are causing global warming is not surprising. The fact that you think it disproves global warming does prove you’re an idiot.

And there’s the curious question. Global warming, or climate change, if you will, has indeed become a partisan political issue. But there’s more to it. It’s an issue for the left; for the world’s anti-capitalists and socialists. And just why would that be? Could it possibly be because these anti-capitalists and leftists see the religion of climate change as a way to bring down or harm powerful nations with economies based on capitalism and free enterprise?

Global warming is not a partisan issue. The same people who decried the link between passive smoking and lung cancer, and CFCs and the ozone hole are now saying there is no link between CO2 and global warming. How can you still trust these people? They have no credibility. The list: Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Timothy F. Ball, Richard Lindzen, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento, and of course the Cato Institute. Anyone on that list should not be listened to about anything. They are nothing more than a shill.

1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (No Ratings Yet)
Loading ... Loading ...

Related Posts:

  • North American Monsoon and ENSO?
  • Responding to a Defeatist
  • Class Attendance Part Deux
  • CO2 Reaches 650,000 Year High
  • Global Warming Not Debunked by Augie Auer
  • 4 Responses to “Responding to a Nutjob - Worth the Time? Probably Not.”

    1. Michael Fumentoon 23 May 2007 at 9:35 am

      You started out extremely well and suddenly this comes out of nowhere:

      “The same people who decried the link between smoking and lung cancer, and CFCs and the ozone hole are now saying there is no link between CO2 and global warming. How can you still trust these people? They have no credibility. The list: Sallie Baliunas, Patrick Michaels, Steven Milloy, Fred Singer, Fred Seitz, Timothy F. Ball, Richard Lindzen, Fred Seitz, Michael Crichton, Michael Fumento, and of course the Cato Institute.”

      NOBODY on this list has ever claimed there’s no link between smoking and lung cancer. While I have questioned the highly-politicized area of “passive smoking,” each time I do I point out the incredible stupidity of real smoking. I have also never weighed in on the ozone layer. And finally, I’ve never gotten a penny from anybody with an interest in global warming, aside from the (unfortunately) small writing fees from publications themselves.

    2. N. Johnsonon 23 May 2007 at 11:38 am

      I should have pointed out that the people listed there did not have to claim no link between both CFCs and the ozone hole and between passive smoking [should be fixed in original post] and lung cancer, just one; although some are in both camps. Passive (or secondhand) smoke causes lung cancer according to the World Health Organization, and the U.S. Surgeon General. I’m not qualified to comment on the risks of secondhand smoke, but if the U.S. government says that it causes lung cancer (presumably over the objections of the cigarette companies), I believe it.

    3. Michael Fumentoon 24 May 2007 at 11:22 am

      I have extensively studied the passive smoking literature and have extensively written on it. Among other things, I know the WHO report says it found a link but to actually read the report, which is available full-text online, it actually found either neutral or protective benefits. No, I’m not saying passive smoking is protective, just that that’s what their data say. But they issued an abstract and a press release to the contrary, knowing reporters don’t actually read studies. The biggest single analysis, published in the British Medical Journal, looked all the way back to 1960 and found no link. How could this be? Simple. The oldest rule in toxicology is “The dose makes the poison.” We have an incredible multi-layered defense against air pollutants, from nose hairs and mucous right down into the lungs. But 20 or 40 or 60 cigarettes a day overwhelms that system. Passive smokers on average get far less than a cigarette a day.

      [Ed: removed caps and ad hominem attacks.]

    4. N. Johnsonon 24 May 2007 at 11:44 am

      If you could provide a link to the report in the British Medical Journal, I’d like to read it.

    Trackback URI |

    To reduce spam, comments are automatically closed 30 days after the last comment. If you would like to comment on any closed thread, please use the contact form at the top of this page.