- Image by United Nations Photo via Flickr
As the political theater plays out inside, folks are protesting outside the climate summit in Copenhagen.
On one hand, it is a good thing that representatives are meeting to engage in the political game playing that makes up a summit. After all, climate change is a matter of serious concern and can have a very significant impact on human civilization. While I am skeptical of the efficacy of political talk, that is (ironically enough) the starting point for action (or inaction).
On the other hand, it does seem like the elites are meeting to create more useless hot air: to posture and pontificate (and line up new political and financial deals). While there is a scientific consensus on global warming, the recent disclosure of the hacked emails has raised serious doubts. After all, if some scientists have allegedly engaged in duplicitous behavior then it would not be unreasonable to be concerned about how far this has spread. After all, climate matters are now intensely political and this means that bias is to be suspected-both on the part of those who contend for and those who content against the claim that global warming is real and worrisome.
Green is now a big industry and has generated vast sums of money for folks like Al Gore. While this does not prove that Al and folks are biased or making false claims, the fact that people stand to make a lot of money from green does create a situation of possible bias. After all, the need to go green rests heavily on assumptions about global warming. If global warming were not occurring, then the motivation to go green (and hence the green to be made from going green) would be substantially reduced.
That said, if global warming will be as harmful as some have claimed, then going green would be rather important to the well being of our species. The fact that some people (such as Al Gore) will profit greatly from this has no actually effect on the truth or falsity of these claims. Obviously, the scientific community has reached a consensus on the matter, thus lending credence to the claims about the dangers of global warming. But, as noted above, the leaked emails and the fact that green is now a major profit (and political) engine do raise concerns that are worth paying attention to.
I am for saving resources and I am against pollution. As such, I was “green” even before it was in to be green. However, I do not think that green should serve as a trump card and that our actions regarding the climate should be carefully considered in a realistic manner. Of course, part of being realistic is being aware that the matter is highly political and economic-so much so that the truth no doubt has been long lost amidst the green.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](https://i2.wp.com/img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png)
I agree with your attitute. Trying to find a balance
The problem for us (observers of politics and scientists) is that both sides may be bad one, i.e. pursuing their own agendas
http://sensit.wordpress.com/2009/11/28/science-is-a-business-for-profit/
Yeah except that the pro Global Warming side gets billions aqnd trillions is on the table. The desenters get ridiculed, lose their jobs at times and in no way get anywhere near the compensation. Hmmmm, makes you wonder. Always follow the money.
It’s horsecrap.
I’m for saving resources and against polution also. The green meanines fail to see how much cleaner the environment is than 30-40 years ago.
But I don’t believe that global warming is man made. How do they explain the many times it’s been warmer than now and the fact that the CO2 levels are actually lower than they’ve been at other times–long before cars.
You’re the expert on Hume. Not only can’t they prove causaility, they can barely show association. CO2 is a miniscule greenhouse gas. Water constitutes, by far, the largest amount of greenhouse gas.
This whole thing is mind-bogglingly weird to me. The amount of info that has been kept out of the public eye, the fact that so many of the scientists that are part of the “concensus” aren’t even experts on climate or geology. that the Kyoto Protocol had *ZERO* effect on climate and those who signed it into law knew it wouldn’t–yet it cost trillions and actually cost lives in the form of starving people.
These people at Copenhagen just gave Hugo Chavez a roaring applause. http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/putting_our_economy_in_the_hands_of_chavez_fans
They are the enemy of progress and the true deniers. Of course pepel like this want to enact laws that limit the ability of America to remain powerful. In doing so thy hurt the whole world. Sadly, many of these types are themselves American.
It does make sense that human activity can impact the climate. However, it is reasonable to approach the data and claims with the proper degree of objectivity-this applies to the deniers and the green folks.
The political agreements about the climate tend to have little impact-after all, no country is going to sacrifice its economy for the “greater good.”
I wouldnt bet no one will sacrifice. The politicians will be willing to put the burden on others.
Look at cap and trade and Kyoto.
Lord Monckton on Climategate. Well worth a watch.
http://www.cfact.tv/2009/12/07/lord-monckton-on-climategate-at-the-2nd-international-climate-conference/
This is honestly the biggest scam I’ve ever seen. It’s disgusting. They global warming people just won’t let go.
Excellent video. Thanks.
As he says, the stuff I’ve always had a problem with is the simple logic of some of their assertations–just as with evolution. I don’t argue with their mat, which is correct because they start with incorrect premises’.
How can the scientific community lend “credence to the claims about the dangers of global warming?” They can’t even land a man on the moon without experiencing “glitches”. Or produce an angel. I wish I had a nickel for every scientist who couldn’t convince a non-scientist of the facts supporting his theory. I’d be damn rich. Better yet, I wish I had a penny for every non-scientist who doesn’t know what the hell a scientist is talking about when he’s explaining how he’s reached his conclusions. I’d be the richest guy in the galaxy Ma!
Here’s a study I found, conducted by Harvard University: http://www.pnas.org/content/99/7/4167.full
Title: Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years
“Using a variety of sedimentological criteria, Frakes et al. (18) have concluded that Earth’s climate has cycled several times between warm and cool modes for roughly the last 600 My. Recent work by Veizer et al. (28), based on measurements of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells, appears to confirm the existence of these long-period (∼135 My) climatic fluctuations. Changes in CO2 levels are usually assumed to be among the dominant mechanisms driving such long-term climate change.
The most recent cool period corresponds to relatively low CO2 levels, as is widely expected (30). However, no correspondence between pCO2 and climate is evident in the remainder of the record, in part because the apparent 100 My cycle of the pCO2 record does not match the longer climatic cycle. The lack of correlation remains if one calculates the change in average global surface temperature resulting from changes in pCO2 and the solar constant using energy-balance arguments (7, 26).
Superficially, this observation would seem to imply that pCO2 does not exert dominant control on Earth’s climate at time scales greater than about 10 My. A wealth of evidence, however, suggests that pCO2 exerts at least some control [see Crowley and Berner (30) for a recent review]. Fig. 4 cannot by itself refute this assumption. Instead, it simply shows that the “null hypothesis” that pCO2 and climate are unrelated cannot be rejected on the basis of this evidence alone.
This study indicates that degassing and silicate weathering were the primary controls on the carbon cycle for the last 500 My.”
In layman’s terms: The link between CO2 and temp increase and weak, and many times does not correlate. And, most of the CO2 increase comes from sediment and rock “degassing.”
There is not a consensus Mike. That is what is being pushed on us constantly. If you say it enough we will believe any lie. Al Gore claims 20 feet sea level rise by the year 2050? The IPCC claims .5 to 2.0 feet rise in 100 years. The sea levels rose 1 foot in the 1900’s. where were all the cataclysmic events. Here is an article on ALL of the ice melting in the world. It is more credible than scientists that will not release data, or delete it so nobody can question them. Why question after all if there is consensus. It seems the consensus side is the ‘flat earth’ crowd.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/environment/waterworld.html
The IPCC’s info can no longer be trusted, as all of their estimates are based on tampered temperature readings.
Yes, indeed they cannot be trusted. I would just like to remind Mike that consensus must be taken from the whole and not just from those that say they are the consensus officially. After all, even the ‘official’ consensus cannot come to an apparent consensus.
The consensus is from the whole scientific community. Consensus is not unanimity and people need to have the proper qualifications to be considered part of the community (that is, legitimate experts).
You seem to be coming around in a slow way. I just hope there is enough crow in the world for all of the enviro-nazis.
I also think that many studies are probably like 1000 page bills in Congress: Not everyone who puts their stamp of approval on them reads them.
Read them? They decide on votes before a bill is written. There is no ‘Health Care Bill’ to read yet they have procured the 60 votes needed in the Senate. The American public is being railroaded.