HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM
The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”
"Congressman Dennis Kucinich says he'll try to bring back the fairness doctrine, a measure aimed at restricting conservative talk radio. Unfortunately, he said it on Air America Radio so nobody heard it!"
I report, you decide! I suppose that Air America is global-warming friendly since almost no one is listening to their particular brand of hot air. This brings us to the two topics for the day:
1) Global Warming
2) The Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour
Global Warming Redux
Yep, I've made a few posts about Global Warming, like here.
Darned if it didn't all start from here!
I have waited patiently for commenters to refute the facts presented by me in these columns and they have failed miserably. One of them insists upon changing the discussion to whether or not I am still a YEC proponent. For instance:
I said: "I took a great deal of time to make a subsequent post on the subject of global warming in order to give commenters a chance to refute my points and give myself time to get some work done and a few other projects. Commenters have failed miserably to refute the stated facts as follows:
The Earth's average temperature has been fluctuating for the whole of recorded history, long before fossil fuels were in widespread use or anyone had invented the term, "carbon footprint." No one has been able to refute this obvious fact. I didn't think that they could."
Creeper said: On the contrary, Radar, you haven't been able to back this up, and we've been waiting for you to do so.
Creeper, bad form. I submitted the data and made the statements. It is up to you to try to find evidence to refute. But you cannot, which I knew already, so you obfuscate instead.
Last time I checked the comments on the previous posts, the ball was in your court to attempt the feat of backing up these "facts" without becoming an Old Earth Creationist in the process.
Now Creeper tries to change the argument away from Global Warming to deflect the scrutiny upon the evidence I had presented. The ball is still in your court and it appears you are unable to return it.
Your silence and subsequent evasion tells me that this is yet another circle you can't square, and yet another question you wish to walk away from.
What silence? I presented evidence and links and commentary from other sources. You have come back with.....nothing so far. Nada. Zip.
Please tell us the temperature cycles of the Earth from a YEC perspective, that is, excluding those layers and layers of rocks, ice cores and tree rings that you need to deny in order to keep a YEC worldview alive. Have any YECers done any research compatible with their beliefs into this issue, or do they all practice a collective mental disconnect, in which one kind of science applies to anything not to do with evolution, and another pseudo-science (one that excludes dendrochronology, ice cores etc.) that is slapped together to prop up YEC in some way?
Perhaps a post on ice cores and etc. would be a good one? I will likely make one soon just because you brought it up as if it were some insurmountable point of a debate that I have been avoiding. Meanwhile, how about at least trying to dispute the evidence I presented? Wow.
Lava said this, by the way: Radar- do you it would be proper for me to take what you say, and then extrapolate from these quotes and make blanket statements about conservatives as a whole--how they think and act? (I was writing this question thinking I'd obviously get a "no" answer, but now that I read it over, I'm not quite so sure).
Lava, my friend, I am a blogger and sometimes I need to make a point by going overboard to get comments going. I don't think all liberals are the same, no. Some of them are loony-toons who wear tinfoil hats to the beach and put signs on their vehicles reading, Chimpeach. (hmm, that was catchy...) Some of them are, like you, thoughtful individuals with whom I most often disagree.
In truth, why there are so many liberals who not only believe in Global Warming but believe it is fact rather than speculation and believe it with such fervor they are willing to practically call for censorship and mass jailings of dissidents over the issue is way beyond me.
David Harsanyi says that it is just another fad that will fade away:
"The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.
Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.
"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?
Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.
No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?
Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.
I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.
No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.
I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.
In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?
Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.
I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.
Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.
I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.
As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.
Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.
Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.
I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction."
Hmmm..."a matter of faith"...."concensus was reached before research had even begun"....that sounds about right. Greenpeacers think up global warming, declare it to be a fact, and then begin research in hopes of proving it.....and have come up empty. Why? Are there people who are determined to prove than mankind has great control over the planet? Are there people who are determined to control every conceivable aspect of our lives? Are there elitists who wish to rule the world because they know better than the common folk? Are there great numbers of loonies who love new and improved causes? Are there great numbers of folks who want global warming to be a manmade phenomenon???? I find it all very puzzling, but one thing I am sure of: Global Warming is not controlled by man, any more than global cooling is controlled by man! We still cannot make it rain over deserts or stop hurricanes before they begin or predict or defuse tornadoes. We can't alter the ocean's tides nor can we even accurately predict whether it will snow in my town a week from today.
Oh yeah, That Fox 1/2 Hour News Hour!
I got carried away with the global warming thingy, sorry. Yes, I watched it and thought it was hilarious at times and too true at times (The ACLU commercials were all too true and not really all that funny). I think the show has promise as kind of a counterpoint of sorts to "The Daily Show." Conservatives will tend to enjoy it and liberals will tend to hate it.
Unfair and unbalanced is the motto. For the show to be a success, it will have to begin being filmed within a week of airing so that it can be timely, and there will have to be some skewering of the good guys, too. John Stewart has been known to take a shot at inviting liberal targets like John Kerry from time to time. If F1/2HNH is to be successful, they'll need to fire a shot across the bow of a John McCain or a Dick Cheney from time to time as opportunity arises.
The anchors (Jenn Robertson and Kurt Long as "Jennifer Lange" and "Kent McNally") are perfect for their roles...the facial expressions of Jenn are Jane Curtin-esque. If they are given fresh and timely material to work with the show will succeed.
Could you tell which of the two lead items was from Sunday Night's show and which was simply a straight news item? I'm not sure which one was the funniest...I report, you decide!