Doug's Darkworld

War, Science, and Philosophy in a Fractured World.

Two Excellent Global Warming Links: “How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic” and “The Skeptics vs the Ozone Hole.” Plus a Picture.

with 15 comments

global_warming-_proof.jpg

The wonderful thing about the Internet is that if one looks hard enough and long enough, one will eventually find the perfect site. Of course it’s getting harder to do this due the the amazing amount of glop going on line now, and how some (cough: one) of the big search engines rank their searches has made the situation even worse with link farms and spam comments proliferating like so many ravenous Zebra Mussels. Ah well, at least little of the spam email I get these days is X-rated, that’s some comfort I suppose. Of course it’s almost all now from big corporations, so in a way that’s even more obscene.

Moving right along, our old favourite, global warming. I was inspired to dig around a bit by a Drudge Report link about the global warming “hoax.” Yes, the Drudge Report prominently displayed a link titled “Climate expert says it’s time to attack the myth of global warming…” Looks like important stuff…until one reads the link. Yes, the “climate expert” is a meteorologist, and the august scientific body he was addressing is a farmer’s convention in New Zealand. OK, definitely scraping the bottom of the barrel here Drudge…

I did wonder about the argument he used of course, like so many global warming objections the meteorologist’s argument was superficially very convincing. He claimed that water vapour causes virtually all of global warming and thus human influence with rising CO2 is negligible. Could thousands of scientists be so incredibly stupid that they are ignoring an obvious fact that proves human caused global warming is a myth? Or is the meteorologist in question in error about the facts or his interpretation of them? I hit the Internet to research what he said…

And hit pay dirt. Yes, a fine gentleman has taken the time to carefully refute the various misinformation and logical fallacies that are bandied about by global warming skeptics. Every objection that has ever been made on my site to global warming is answered, I am astounded and impressed by the trouble that Coby Beck to to compile his How to Talk to a Global Warming Skeptic. He’s done it all, factually and politely, from the Global Cooling Scare of the Seventies to the meteorologist’s misunderstanding above and everything in between. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in global warming.

And for those who want to know how industry and government is going about creating the “global warming is a hoax” hoax, here’s a wonderful link I’ve posted before but just had to relink: The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole. Yes, this all played out before as government and the chemical industry fought tooth and nail to keep using the chemicals (CFCs) that were destroying the Earth’s ozone layer. What I think is particularly amusing about this is that the ozone hole skeptics predicted all sorts of dire economic disasters if CFCs were abandoned, whole industries would collapse, etc.

And a few years later CFCs were banned. Anyone remember the world wide depression that resulted? Anyone even know a single person who lost their job as a result? I’m sure there must have been a few, but somehow the world’s economy muddled through. We’ll do the same if we do what we need to do to stop making global warming worse, assuming we do it in time to save our sorry asses.

(The above image is claimed as Fair Use under US copyright law. It is not being used for profit and it is central to illustrating the article. Credit: Copyright © 2005 Cox Radio Interactive & Cox Radio, Inc.)

Written by unitedcats

May 20, 2007 at 8:48 am

15 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. The sad truth is that if man made global warming is a “fact”, its been most unfortunate that anarchist, rehab addicted celebrities, hysteric politicians with blatant agendas, and slight of hand amoral bureacrats aligned with the U.N. were put front and center in charge of securing the message to the folk.

    SteveH

    May 20, 2007 at 11:10 am

  2. Fortunately the link above addresses this concern directly:
    Global Warming is just a Greenie Hoax?
    See, works like a charm. :)

    unitedcats

    May 20, 2007 at 11:18 am

  3. Terrific post! I was aware of Coby’s work through others, but I’m glad it’s getting more visibility. Keep up the good work.

    tamino

    May 20, 2007 at 11:39 am

  4. Excellent.

    whig

    May 20, 2007 at 6:24 pm

  5. The greenhouse sceptics astound me. It there is any doubt we should be easing up on our release of greenhouse gases for the sake of our grandchildren.
    Blind Harry can see that we have had a devastating impact on our environment within our lifetimes. Blind Harry can also see that the amount of available oil is rapidly decreasing and we must think of alternative solutions
    On a totally frivolous note nowever, I do like to photo up the top.

    Jean Cannon

    May 20, 2007 at 10:38 pm

  6. Excellent!

    balkan

    May 21, 2007 at 8:50 am

  7. Ouch, Doug! Mr. Coby’s post is a long one!

    I’ll be back.

    Regards,

    -Jack

    bereans

    May 21, 2007 at 8:50 am

  8. Hi Doug,

    Back, after making it about half-way through Mr. Coby’s post.

    Without reading the hundreds of links that he provided I find from the narrative that his argument seems to start getting thin at the stage where global warming becomes “anthropogenic.”

    He starts out really strong, many links, many sources–but then he gets to: “There is no proof that CO2 is what is causing the temperature to go up.” the arguments become a bit more faith-based and a bit less articulate.

    What amazes me about the whole situation though, is that skepticism used to be a liberal virtue! Years ago, it would be the halls of academia and the critical thinkers who would be fueling the skepticism on this topic–especially one so politically charged that its potential for absolute fascistic control on every one of our lives is such a possibility. As neo-cons have replaced classical conservatives, have neo-libs replaced classical liberals? :)

    It makes me almost miss the 60’s!

    -Jack

    bereans

    May 21, 2007 at 11:56 am

  9. hi i have a club penguin wordpress
    http://pezster12..wordpress.com

    pezster12

    May 21, 2007 at 6:43 pm

  10. hi doug

    pezster12

    May 21, 2007 at 6:44 pm

  11. Regarding “proof” of global warming:
    Oreskes, N., 2004. Science and public policy: what’s proof got to do with it? Environmental Science & Policy, 7:369-383 (PDF).
    In recent years it has become common for informed defenders of the status quo to argue that the scientific information pertinent to an environmental claim is uncertain, unreliable, and, fundamentally, unproven. Lack of proof is then used to deny demands for action. But the idea that science ever could provide proof upon which to base policy is a misunderstanding (or misrepresentation) of science, and therefore of the role that science ever could play in policy. In all but the most trivial cases, science does not produce logically indisputable proofs about the natural world. At best it produces a robust consensus based on a process of inquiry that allows for continued scrutiny, re-examination, and revision. . .
    Read the rest here:
    Proof?

    unitedcats

    May 22, 2007 at 6:30 am

  12. OK… I am a skeptic, it is because there are many points of this I do not understand.
    I will not take up to much time let me ask a couple of questions, where real speak will be appreciated and not scientific lingo. How is Global Warming different then the receeding of the icebergs way back after the ice age?
    If China has signed and ratified Kyoto, why are they choosing to (apparently) ignore it?
    In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from the People’s Republic of China were about 54% of the USA emissions. However, China is now building on average one coal-fired power plant every week, and plans to continue doing so for years. Various predictions see China overtaking the US in total greenhouse emissions between late 2007 and 2010. (Taken from Wikipedia)
    Is China going to be reprimanded by the UN for this?
    Why is India (who signed and ratified the agreement) exempt from the agreement? (Again from Wikipedia) India signed and ratified the Protocol in August, 2002. Since India is exempted from the framework of the treaty, it is expected to gain from the protocol in terms of transfer of technology and related foreign investments.

    Dave

    June 3, 2007 at 8:51 am

  13. One final question… if the US goes to ethanol gas. I understand the emissions level will go down to nil. But I understand what we will save on emissions will be lst on the making of the fuel. Will that do anything (positive or negative) to global warming?

    Dave

    June 3, 2007 at 9:08 am

  14. Dave:
    I will devote Monday’s post to answering your thoughtful questions. Thanks for dropping by.
    —Doug

    unitedcats

    June 3, 2007 at 11:07 am

  15. […] thoughtful reader asked a few questions about a previous global warming post. They are interesting questions, and more on point, they lead into some aspects of global warming […]


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: