 |
Setbacks in the Fight Against Global Warming |
 |
Two disturbing trends have emerged recently in the battle against global warming:
(1) According to Daily Kos, the percentage of Americans who believe global warming is real has dropped from 79% to 71% over the past few years - mostly due to a decline in Republican belief from 62% to 49%. Apparently, the conservative campaign to deny climate concerns, led by the likes of James Inhofe and James Dobson, has been making some inroads. Even as the scientific evidence for global warming continues to mount, the effort to convince the public of the danger seems to be losing to the right-wing propaganda machine.
(2) Edmunds.com reports that pick-up trucks and SUVs, with their lower gas mileage, have actually outsold cars over the past month, making up 51% of all vehicles sold - a distinct reversal of recent trends. The reason for this reversal is simple, as gas prices have plummeted by more than 50% over the last few months. What this trend makes clear is the fact that Americans, for the most part, base their purchasing decisions primarily on their pocketbooks, with little regard for environmental concerns. It also indicates a disturbing trend for short-sightedness, as gas prices are certain to rise again before too long.
Based on these developments, the challenge is two-fold. The first task is to convince the more reasonable conservatives to listen to the facts of science instead of the distortions of the deniers. This is a very achievable task. 23% of Republicans in Congress agree with the statement that “it has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth is warming because of man-made problems.” In addition, a number of evangelical leaders such as Rick Warren have backed a major initiative to fight the human causes of global warming. The tide can be turned against the right-wing deniers, but it will require the left to work together with those who are environmentally sensitive on the right - despite our differences on other issues.
The second challenge should prove more difficult: convincing the typical American to buy fuel-efficient cars even when they can afford the gas-guzzling behemoths. Perhaps this is where the government can step in and help provide the consumer with better options and incentives to buy green. In his campaign, Obama proposed a plan to help Detroit automakers retool their factories to make more efficient cars, and many have said that a bailout of the Big 3 should include requirements to do just this. I would advocate for even more aggressive measures, such as instituting a hefty tax on low gas-mileage personal vehicles that would help fund alternative energy research and the development of better public transportation.
At any rate, it is clear that we need to take seriously the deluded campaign of the right-wing deniers and the ongoing myopia of the American consumer. If we don’t, all the science in the world can’t save us.
(cross-posted at Discipline for Justice)
There is only one complete and exact computer of global climate and that is the planet itself. Results from the planet computer are archived in the Vostok and EPICA ice cores. Global average temperature anomalies and atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have been extracted from these ice cores and are widely available. Repeatedly during the last and previous glacial periods, a temperature increasing trend changed to a decreasing trend with the atmospheric carbon dioxide level higher during the temperature down-trend than it had been when the temperature trend was increasing. Alarmists are unaware of that part of science that proves, using the archived data, that added atmospheric carbon dioxide can not cause significant global warming. Any action that is taken to reduce human produced carbon dioxide to reduce global warming is a mistake and puts freedom and prosperity at risk.
Alarmists? You mean the mainstream scientific community?
As the atmospheric carbon dioxide level continues to increase and the average global temperature doesn%u2019t, many people are looking more and more foolish.
This graph is instructive:
http://earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm
Notice how there can be trends of 2 or 3 years of falling temperatures even as the overall direction is consistently rising. It’s important to examine the whole body of scientific data rather than just isolating on a small portion of the picture that seems to back your stance.
This is obviously a spam comment, as it does not address the specific issues raised in the article. Another nefarious tactic of the deniers.
Jim, will next year be warmer than 2001?
Thanks.
You bring up a point worth discussing. “Global warming” is actually a misleading term, because as it occurs, some places get warmer and some places get cooler. Also, the changes don’t happen on an even curve - meaning that we might have a few years of cooler temperatures in the midst of an overall trend toward warmer temperatures. So “climate change” is really the term that should be used.
And also, it’s misleading and irresponsible to use anecdotal evidence such as one year being warmer or cooler than another, or one winter seeming to have more or less snow than another. Comprhensive data from around the world shows that the average surface air temperature has risen 1.4 degrees(F) in the last century. Other non-anecdotal evidence includes shrinking ice in the polar regions, the lengthening of growing seasons, and the shifting of bird species to higher latitudes and altitudes.
And the global scientific consensus is now 90% sure that this climate change has human causes.
Oh… so it’s “climate change” now? So, you’ve set it up so that you can’t lose.
Whether it’s warmer or colder… it’s my fault regardless. The scientific community
will continue to be “90% sure”. 100% would mean an end to their research funding.
As long as their not quite sure, they will continue to get $$$.
And you are the one who titled your piece the “Setback In The Fight Against Global Warming”.
So you don’t know if 2009 will be warmer than eight years ago? Haven’t we pumped more CO2 into the air since 2001? Therefore, should not 2009 be warmer than 2001? If not, than what does CO2 have to do with it? Perhaps the Sun has a larger influence.
uffffffffff!!!
Alex Thurston, obviously a spam comment but:
I think it’s a second, “Climate Change” on the Earth and the first major cause is the Man and, well, it also influences the moon, sun and more, but obviously MAN (us) is the main cause.
(Jim Moss do not worry, the saying reads: “a foolish words: deaf ears”)
Sometimes, in fact, almost always want to impose our opinion, but should not be the case if, before we talk about peace and good wishes for the world. A good communication is important and you are an example to the world.
Happy New Year?
Want Peace?
Begin at home.
———————————————
Algunas veces, en realidad, casi siempre queremos imponer nuestra opinion, pero no deber?a ser as? si antes hablamos de paz y buenos deseos para el mundo. La buena comunicaci?n es importante y ustedes son un ejemplo al mundo.
?Feliz a?o nuevo?
?Deseos de paz?
Comencemos por casa.
Jim,
The expression “deny climate concerns” is a disingeneous straw man. Climate has always been a concern since humanity has existed. You’ll always find SOME people in denial but the accusation of climate concern denial has no more basis than poverty or hunger concerns denial.
People may doubt that
- recent climate changes are outside naturals bounds
- data have sufficient accuracies and depth to scientifically conclude anything
- humans have discernible influence on climate change
- the science can predict, if ever, future climates in 20, 50 even 100 years
- it is wise to base large scale policies on such uncertain yet overblown science
- we can and should “protect the climate”
- there is an urgency to “protect the climate” compared to other PROVEN urgencies like poverty, corruption, regional conflicts, preventable diseases…
- the “climate protection” measures devised by politicians are good & efficient ways to improve people’s wellfare (biofuels have been an example where policies to combat global warming have had much worse effects than GW itself)
- the media correctly report the science
- anecdotal evidence are reported objectively as well for warming than for cooling
- global warming is not exagerated by vested interests (the MSM to publish sensationalistic news, searchers to secure research funds, environmentalists to support anti-development agenda, industries to greenwash their business, governments to yield more control on citizens…)
- warming is necessarily bad
etc, etc…
Refusing to address these legitimate doubts by qualifying them with the meaningless term “climate concerns denier” is a bullying tactics to close down debates. If you are really convinced your AGW case is strong, you wouldn’t need such totalitarian methods.
As to the substance of your conclusion that the shift in the public opinion is due to right wing propaganda, I think it’s a narrow pov which has no merit for debate. In Europe where there is NO mainstream political party officially doubting AGW, the shift in opinion has occured likewise.
The reasons must be elsewhere, maybe it’s because of reality-based facts
Jim, you have yet to answer my question. Will 2009 be warmer than 2001? You are the one who believes it. You are the one urging the government to raise my taxes based on this belief system. Will 2009 be warmer
than 2001 or not? Will 2010 be warmer than 2001? How about 2036?
Thanks.
Gary,
You must have missed it the first time I said it:
It%u2019s misleading and irresponsible to use anecdotal evidence such as one year being warmer or cooler than another, or one winter seeming to have more or less snow than another. Comprhensive data from around the world shows that the average surface air temperature has risen 1.4 degrees(F) in the last century. Other non-anecdotal evidence includes shrinking ice in the polar regions, the lengthening of growing seasons, and the shifting of bird species to higher latitudes and altitudes.
If you can’t understand what anecdoatal evidence is and why your question is irrelevant to the whether climate change is real, then you don’t need to be going around the Internet trying to talk about it.
Shrinking ice? The polar ice cap (reported today) is as thick as it’s been since 1979. How did that happen?
Did Al Gore predict that?
So, 2036? You say the trend is toward a warmer world. So, 2036 is out there a ways. You must believe
that it will be warmer than 2001. Right? You cannot answer one or two years out, but how about 30 years or so? Is that easier? These are your claims, not mine. You guys are the ones making predictions, not us. We do not pretend to be more powerful than nature. What will be the water vapor concentration in 2074?
How about sun spots? What will they be like in 2023?
Thanks.
Okay, Jim. You refuse to tell me what will happen in the future. How about the past? What caused the
last Ice Age to end? My house is sitting where a glacier used to be many years ago. It melted. How come?
I wasn’t even driving a car back then.
Thanks.
You were alive during the last age? You must be a neanderthal man or something. No wonder you’re having so much trouble grasping the comprehensive nature of climate change science.
That should say “last Ice Age”. Maybe my brain is frozen, too. Heh,heh.
Hi, no I wasn’t alive. What did Man do to cause the end of the last Ice Age?
You may insult me if you like, and call me names and such, but that does not answer the
question.
Thanks.
OK, Gary, your logic is flawed. Of course humans had nothing to do with the end of the last Ice Age. Does that mean that all future warmings must also have nothing to do with humans? Of course not. It would be ludicrous to assert such a thing.
You’re reaching for anecdotal evidence and poorly though-out arguments, and you are ignoring the comprehensive body of evidence, as well as the consensus of the majority of the world’s scientific community. Just curious, what are your motivations for debunking global warming/climate change?
Jim, the climate has changed in various ways forever. Only *now* is Man to blame. The government
cannot blame the Sun, because it has not yet figured out a way to tax it. My motivation? I demand
that you prove your theory before you turn the entire world economy upside down. Is that too much to ask?
There are real problems that are hurting real people right now that we can better direct our resources to,
instead of lining Al Gore’s pockets. This entire thing smells like a ruse to impose Socialism with
everyone’s blessing. If the government can convince us that the simple things we do on a day to day basis
will lead to the end of Mankind, then they have the excuse they need to control those simple things
we do on a day to day basis. The people need to be skeptical. How many times must we learn this?
I ask you again, will 2023 be warmer than 2001? You must know the answer.
Thanks.
Yes. 2023 will be warmer than 2001. I feel 99.99% certain of it. I’m just trying to make a point to you about anecdotal evidence, but you are completely missing it.
I don’t miss it. The AGW advocates use it all the time. A little bit of ice melts and
suddenly all of the polar bears are going to die.
Alright so 2023 will be warmer. Thank you. Now, it’s too late to fix this, right?
We have been told for years that we only have “10 years left” to fix this. We’re
told this every year. Why is it always 10? Why isn’t 3 by this time?
And, why wasn’t 2008 warmer than 1998? That’s 10 years of more CO2. Why wasn’t 2008
warmer than 1934? As for what I think about 2023, I have no idea. But if the Sun
doesn’t become more active than it is now, we may have an even bigger problem.
Thanks.
I’m not not going to let you end the conversation with such innaccuracies. Where in the world are you getting your data showing that 2008 was cooler than 1934?
Well in the US anyway. So why was 2008 cooler than 1998 then?
Looks like cooling over the last 10 years:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/2008/pr20081216.html
Look at that graph, Jim. From this, it appears that there has been a cooling
trend since the high of 1998, which is now 10 years ago. So, is more CO2 causing
a cooling trend, or a warming trend? Also, NASA tells us that the world’s oceans
have been cooling since 2003.
Thanks.
First of all, looking at data from one country is useless. You have to look at global temperature patterns, as well as the other signs I’ve mentioned.
Second, 1998 was an exceptionally warm year - and you’re using it anecdotally, which I think I have shown to be a false way to do this. It’s about as responsible as claiming global warming isn’t happening because it snowed it New Orleans last month.
Third, while there has been a very slight cooling trend over the past 2-3 years, this is not nearly long enough of a trend to be statistically significant. Look at this graph:
http://earth-policy.org/Indicators/Temp/2006Temp_data.htm
Cooling trends of 2-3 years in a row have occured many times within the overall warming trend. Gary, you are simply looking at too narrow of a set of data. The overall, gradual rise of global temperatures corresponds to the increased emissions of carbon that began with the Industrial Revolution - a period of over 150 years - and the trajectory of this curve still points up and up.
Increased carbon over the past 150 years? It’s never been higher? It was never higher prior to 150 years ago than it is now?
Jim, you don’t use Google, do you? Apparently, it increase global warming:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/11/tech/cnettechnews/main471314 7.shtml
Have you stopped fighting global warming?
I’m busy helping save Afghanistan this week:
http://www.getafghanistanright.com
Alright, well thanks for the discussion. I’ll un-bookmark this and not check in on it.