Hopefully there'll someday be a consensus on global warming. Right now there is nothing of the sort, despite the fact that a vocal minority claims that there is a consensus that man is causing the bulk of global warming. If, ultimately, we can get enough honest people in the world, the consensus will be that man would have to do far more than we are now to have any significant effect at all on earth's climate. A recent report by the Discovery Channel is the latest salvo to make this inconvenient truth more clear.Humans should be stewards of the earth. But
A 30-years hiatus from global warming? Awesome! That will give us easy enough time to recover from our worldwide Establishment-induced economic coma.
they should also shake off the chains of hubris that have thus far compelled them to think that humans can collectively destroy earth's climate. Al Gore: Mother Nature sniffs her nose at you. Go get a real job.There is no consensus on the cause of global warming. But there are two ways by which a consensus could be established:
- The Bad Way - By the time Hitler reached the pinnacle of power in The Third Reich, he had achieved consensus--among millions of starstruck and otherwise dumb people. Leni Riefenstahl, videographer of the Hitler juggernaut, shows in her propaganda piece entitled "Triumph of the Will" how this came about. I pray to God that the preponderance of Americans do not become, in our soon-to-arrive economic hard times, as stupid as the overwhelming majority of Germans became during the hyperinflation in Germany during the 1920's and 30's.
- The Good Way - Honesty in the global warming debate, to coin a Billy Joel phrase, is such a lonely word. We need a gigantic dose of honesty, which will probably only come about if we knock our federal government down to the size of which was envisioned by our founding fathers.
...climate is known to be variable -- a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn't mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study in Geophysical Research Letters, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.The Discovery.com article goes on to say
Earth's climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
...one of the toughest problems in climate science [is] identifying the difference between natural variability (like the occasional March snowstorm) from human-induced change.Well...yah.
The authors of the study cited by the Disovery Channel are more than quick to point out that despite having been baffled by the current turn of events, they are nonetheless absolutely, positively sure that it will be really, really bad in the future.
Eager to avoid persecution, however, the authors of the study cited by the Disovery Channel are more than quick to point out that despite admitting to having been baffled by the current turn of events, they are nonetheless absolutely, positively sure that it will be really, really bad in the future--like it was supposed to be already. One of the study's authors, Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, says
...thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it's just a hiccup, and that humans' penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.Thirty years? Awesome! That will give us easy enough time to recover from our worldwide Establishment-induced economic coma. Dependence on a failed social security system will have made me dispensable (and "dispatched" by government Fabians) by then, anyway. Also, by then our children will have become accustomed to us leaving to them our problems to deal with.
"When the climate kicks back out of this state, we'll have explosive warming," Swanson said. "Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive."
;-)
Man is not killing the globe. I hope someday that there will be a consensus around this fact. I'm not holding my breath, though. There are enough government-paid science whores who are already doing that.
Related Articles:
Frank, I agree. I do think, however, that we need to be careful not to appear that we don't care about the environment. All people -- liberals, conservatives, libertarians, etc. -- should do all they can, within reason, to preserve the earth's natural resources for the next generation. So, there is nowhere near consensus on global warming, but we do have a duty to conserve and appreciate the environment in all we do the best we can. This has little to do with your post specifically, I just wanted to make that point because people assume that environmental issues are an all-or-nothing issue.
ReplyDeleteGood point. I hope, by my sarcasm, that I wasn't conveying that point of view. I agree that "we do have a duty to conserve and appreciate the environment in all we do the best we can".
ReplyDeleteThanks.
Frankly Frank, how can we take any comment about science seriously from someone who thinks the planet is 6000 years old.
ReplyDeleteI mean yeah, if that is "science" to you, then I am sure Global Warming fails to make sense.
But I imagine that so do big hard subjects like evolution, and, well, astronomy.
Nicely written. I am constantly startled by all the articles on Global warming. Some say it is an inevitable phase of nature, some say the humans are completely responsible. There is also so many different ideas on how long the global warming may last. I remember reading an article about 15 years ago about global warming and the predictions were quite interesting. From what i remember the article state that the global warming will cause huge ice meltdowns and thus cooling the oceans and bringing and Ice age. And here we are 15 years later and its still getting warmer and warmer each day :). Something needs to be done about the global warming but I'm curious what actually will be done.
ReplyDeleteTake care, Elli
Frank goes on another cherry-picking excursion into the land of denial. I don't expect him to change his mind about this issue any more than I would wait for El Rushbo.
ReplyDeleteWell, there is a scientific consensus, cherries to the contrary notwithstanding.
LOL, good post. It's a shame that the political powers that be continue to dupe the public on global warming. It's just a big money grab.
ReplyDeleteAl Gore is equivalent to Bernie Madoff.
You are right on! The "consensus" is such a fuzzy term in the context of climate change. There is an International Conference on Climate Change starting today going till the 10th of March, supposedly some 31,000 scientists have signed a petition that the climate change is of a natural cause.
ReplyDeleteA project Warm-or-Not is tracking the current state of affairs juxtaposing the two sides -- believers of man made vs. natural cause -- and last time I checked the score was 88 to 56. Still lots of folks think that global warming is anthropogenic. Where is the "consensus"?
The IPCC says that there is 90 percent certainty that climate change is human-caused. Also, more than 90 percent of the peer-reviewed scientific studies came to that conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThat's a consensus. More info here.
Shane, Shane, Shane, Shane, Shane:
ReplyDeleteI don't think the planet is 6,000 years old, for goodness gracious sakes. I was stating that human beings have lived on earth for about that long. If you'd like to suggest evidence for humans having lived here longer, I'll change the "6,000" number in my article.
Richard,
You've become addicted to Rocky Anderson if you think the IPCC is an unbiased group. Their bread is buttered by governments who expect them to jump however high they want them to.
Jon Huntsman did a bit of cherry picking of his own with his blue ribbon panel on climate change.
I see in your article at OneUtah that you have a picture similar to the one that Al Gore used a hydraulic lift to get to the top of in his silly movie.
Frank-- If you dismiss everyone involved with the IPCC, plus Al Gore, what does that leave you with?
ReplyDeleteI DON'T dismiss everyone from IPCC. There are several IPCC scientists who have tried to expose the charade. Christopher Horner's book "Red Hot Lies" describes several instances of (1) the attempt to blow the whistle on the IPCC, and (2) unqualified people making official statements about man-made global warming.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I will dismiss Al Gore out of hand. But only after I watched his movie.
Frank--
ReplyDeleteBasically, your claim is this: There is no consensus (or "concensus") even though more than 90 percent of the relevant studies indicate 90 percent or better confidence that most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities.
And just who, may I ask, is determining what studies are "relevant"? The scientists who care about the truth? Or the science whores who wake up in the morning to find their next governmental paycheck? I can't believe you can read the article linked to in my article and STILL throw all this 90% confidence stuff around.
ReplyDelete