Global warming or not: What can you believe?


By Rick Manning

The battle over whether our nation should take aggressive actions to deal with climate change continues unabated.  One would think that it would be easy to determine the nation’s policy based upon what the science on the ground shows.

However, that is where it gets tricky, because the science and indeed, even the headlines are anything but settled.

This summer,  sailors  who believed those who predicted that the Arctic would be ice free this summer, became trapped with predictably disastrous consequences.

Yet, the Nordic Orion, a heavy ice graded bulk cargo freighter, became the first ship to traverse the Northwest Passage giving credence to those who claim that the Arctic ice is melting.

Independent scientists report that Arctic ice has increased by 29 percent this past summer with 533,000 square miles more ice recorded than the previous year.

Yet, NASA reports that this summer’s minimum  was the sixth lowest Arctic ice extent of the satellite record and is 432,000 square miles (1.12 million square kilometers) lower than the 1981-2010 average.

The Washington Post reports that South Pole sea ice has reached a 35 year high, confounding scientists to explain why Antarctic sea ice is actually growing rapidly on a year to year basis.

Yet, Environmental Times expresses concerns about the stability of the western Antarctic ice shelf due to alleged warmer temperatures.

There is universal agreement that global temperatures have not risen over the past sixteen years, which has proven to be an inconvenient truth to those who are pushing the global warming mantel.  In fact, the release of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s most recent report was delayed as governments demanded an explanation for this pause to be included in the document.

Yet, this latest report from the IPCC projects that the next seventeen years will see a .5-1.0 degree average increase in temperature than the period from 1986 to 2005.  This projection directly ignores the broken hockey stick that underlay their previous erroneous projections.

The contradictions go on and on, as the former claimed scientific consensus collapses around data that just doesn’t conform to computer models used as the basis of directing policies that have harsh economic impacts on the economies of developed countries.

In fact, while the argument rages over whether the earth is warming, there is an even more intense debate over what is causing the “warming” with some NASA scientists pointing to solar cycles, others looking at normal ocean warming and cooling cycles and still others pointing to increases of CO2 in the atmosphere.

At a time when the United States Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in an aggressive anti-carbon campaign that will significantly diminish the supply of electricity in our nation over the next three years, one would hope that they would look up from their computers and ask the question, “What if we’re wrong?”

Somehow, I suspect that is a question that never crosses the minds of the green zealots who are determined to save the world, even when Mother Earth herself seems to be telling them that she doesn’t need their help.

Rick Manning (@rmanning957) is the vice president of public policy and communications for Americans for Limited Government.

  • Pingback: NetRight DailyGlobal warming or not: What can you believe? » NetRight Daily | Jeff and Pam York's Blog-The Jeffrey & Pamela York Team-Licensed Real Estate Associate Brokers -Prudential Manor Homes -CRS-GRI ABR

  • al003

    When it comes to the atmosphere of our world the one thing we know for sure is that ‘we don’t have all of the data available’ and if we even knew what all the data was and could gather it in one place, could we really figure out what to do with it.
    Nature is a vast and unknown regulator of all things in our world.
    Think about what we know about the Rain Forest. We have discovered that a lot of Oxygen comes from the Rain Forest and this is a good thing for us. We tout this as one of our discoveries…. The trees give off Oxygen….. Hmmm, the tree siphons water from the earth and the sun shines on the leaves and through photosynthesis Oxygen is released. How does a tree release Oxygen atoms from a water molecule without also freeing the Hydrogen atoms. You know H2O, two atoms of Hydrogen and one atom of Oxygen is a single mole of water…. How come we do not speak about the Hydrogen that is released, where does it go? What is the purpose of this Hydrogen…..that is released…. Think about it for a few minutes…
    This same thing happens in the ocean every second of every day, it also happens on every lake and every river and in every mudhole on earth…. This is nature at work as it pumps our water cycle for the entire earth.
    Every place on earth we get the same actions of water being turned into gas by many different methods but they all work together in their own way to produce the Hydro Cycle for the Earth.
    The sun shines on the ocean, lake, river, creek or mudhole, within the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation are the wave lengths of Oxygen, 260nm and the wavelength of Hydrogen some 28nm. These frequencies resonate the atoms of the specific gas and cause them to separate from each other and then the gases rise to their natural place in the space around the earth according to their mass.
    Overtime the layers of gas increase and are moved by wind, as the gas layers shift and slide across each other they will create static electricity between all of the layers of the gases. The two major gases are the lightest and the heaviest, Hydrogen and Oxygen. When conditions are right the static electricity will draw an arc between the gases, lightning, and a specific amount of the Hydrogen and Oxygen will burn up in an amazing display of the explosion with the accompanying thunder…. and the rain as the two gases recombine to again form the water to nourish the earth…..
    As the water drops to the earth the atmosphere is cleaned up and all of the mineral dust is washed back into the earth to replenish the earth….. This is all a closed system, nothing goes away and nothing is added, this is exactly the way it was intelligently designed by nature or Nature’s God…..
    Can we predict when we will have our next Ice Age, NO.
    Can we predict when we will have our next Drought, NO
    Then what can we do? We can continue to live on this planet and understand that it is a closed system. What is, IS. And that is what we know.

  • jwatersphd

    Only you, Rick, would think this should be simple. Well, no – a lot of people think so, too, but, it’s no surprise at all that the world’s climate is a complex matter. And, contrary to your idea that it’s simple, the scientists who work on this go over the contradictory and confirming data and freely admit it’s a puzzle. They don’t particularly like to try to answer the overall question, but obviously there’s a need for some opinion on it and the latest report shows very good confidence, in the scientific community, not only that warming is going on but that human activity contributes to it. I’m not a climate scientist, but the short story is that they believe earth’s surface temperatures have not risen but heat in the oceans is growing. They note what should be obvious, that not only are surface temperatures hard to measure over the entire earth surface but that is only a part of the overall picture. Yes, we know you like coal, you think that because plants use CO2 it can’t be harmful . . . You’re simple minded and a tool for the fossil fuels industry. If it weren’t for the pushback from the fossil fuels folks and the anti-science crowd, it would be a no-brainer that we can, fairly easily, take action and should, especially in a high-tech society like the US. It would be bad enough if you were only arguing that we should expect simple solutions to complex problems. It’s downright antisocial for you to suggest that, when about 95% of the people who should know think there’s a problem, we ought to doubt it. If the weather forecast says 95% probability of severe weather, do you expect fair weather? Yes, the forecast could be wrong, but one has to be an idiot to expect it to be wrong. And global warming is only one of many problems associated with your cherished coal and oil. This is good for the tinfoil hat crowd, but sensible people can see that you’re just destructive.

  • fastfood

    Gee! I wonder what happens when so much CO2 is removed from the Atmosphere that vegetation starts dying off because it can’t produce enough Oxygen for itself, let alone us?

  • jwatersphd

    A few corrections and questions: H2O is not a “mole” of water, it’s a molecule, or at least that configuration of atoms is a molecule of water. A mole of water is 6.02214129(27)×1023 molecules of water. Why does lightning strike the ground if the potential difference is between gases? What evidence do you have that all this was “intelligently designed?” You’re arguing that we don’t and can’t understand it, which seems to indicate that neither you nor anyone else knows its design. If you don’t know the design, how do you know it’s intelligent – whatever that means, anyhow. The planet is not a “closed system.” We get vast quantities of things coming into and out of it all the time. We have meteors, energy from the sun, and billions of subatomic particles coming and going, among other things. If it’s a closed system, we shouldn’t care if the sun shines at all. The notion that what we can do is live here and understand it’s a closed system and designed intelligently does not ring true to me. I agree it’s complicated but you are not giving us very much coherent information or thinking.

  • al003

    Evidently I did do enough to get some interest in how the Hydro cycle actually works — stay connected. Maybe Al Gore will read our stuff and get a clue….

  • jwatersphd

    Yes, there was a lot of interesting stuff; thanks for that. However, I don’t think much of it bears for or against the issue of global warming, because you seem to have some basic flaws in your premises.

  • al003

    Was pointing out the complex problems of coming up with a theory of global warming and how a little data can lead you to wrong conclusions without getting the big picture.
    Such as now the world knows that the program structure of global warming is all hogwash and there was way to much GI to get any constructive information out…….
    First we have to find the relevant data — or all is lost…. That is my basic premise… it is like the old story of blind men feeling an elephant and deciding what it is and how to use it…

  • jwatersphd

    No doubt it’s complex. However, I’m not sure what you mean by “the world knows that the ‘program structure’ of global warming is all hogwash. What “program structure”? Certainly not the world as I’m aware of it and certainly not the global scientific community. Having a variety of things unsettled doesn’t mean they “KNOW it’s hogwash.” I think if your ideas are dependent on the idea that the earth is a closed system, you’re going to face questions such as I raised. Energy, at any rate, is coming and going from the system all the time, and so are subatomic particles. Energy and matter are equivalent and thus the earth system is changing all the time. Also if you think “the big picture” involves knowing the intentions of some intelligent designer, especially one we can’t possibly understand, we might as well give up right now. You’ve just built in a huge fudge factor; every time something has been presented as “proving” intelligent design, it’s been explained. I agree we must be missing some relevant data because of the level of uncertainty and error, but another problem is making the right computations. If you’re placing a limit on the model by assuming nothing comes into or leaves earth’s system, you can’t possibly get correct results because your computations don’t include input and output.

  • Jack Parker

    No matter how much the data disproves “global warming”, libtard, anti-American environmentalists will continue to fight for the destruction of America.

  • MasonRaines

    Um…to clarify…these pseudo-scientists who receive their grant money from the political left ar 95% sure of one thing….they are 95% sure they think they believe what they say….and nothing more. For Gods sake…quit reading what the self appointed “experts” claim and do your own research. Mans contribution to the present 400 ppm of CO2 is <4% (and the single largest source is human breath), which means we are talking ppb (with a B). Do you have the slightest clue what a ppb is let alone a ppm? One ppm is 1 inch in 16 mile, and 16 ppb (mans contribution to the 400 ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere equates to 16 seconds in 32 years. Man, you, and all the fools who buy this Man-,made global warming nonsense are pompous jackasses who seem to be bent on making man more powerful than he is….in 100 years man has not made a drop of piss in the Atlantic ocean worth of influence on global weather functions….not even 1/2 of one drop of piss. If we ceased every known man made source of CO2 production (sans breathing by over 6 billion humans and trillions of other mamals) it would affect only one thing….mans future. Pretty small thing right? All the DA's who buy into this are the same morons who voted for Obama….they are easily confused, illinformed, blind sheeple who will only wake up when they find themselves paying carbon taxes or without energy in the peak of summer or dead of winter because they have used all their alotment…..where do YOU think this is going? To some fantasy future where unicorns shoot rainbows out of their asses and forests of wind turbines wirelessly send unlimited power to you? It will start with carbon credits, fines to major corporations followed by individuals….gasoline will cost your kids 9.00 a gallon and your grandchildren 15.00 a gallon if they can get it on the black market. America will be a bitch to the middle East (we're already their whore) and our economy will be so disfunctional a masters degree will get you inline for a position flipping burgers. If 95% of people tell you something do you just swallow it because it's 95% or do you consider whats being placed at your feet? Obviously if I can get 95 of 100 "experts" to tell you whale farts are responsible for global warming you will buy that too. You are probably too young to remember the 70'swhen we were all sold on a global freeze if we didn't give up our canned aerosol depderant which was destroying the ozone layer. I am continued to be amazed at mans ability to repackage a lie and sell it all over again to a new generation…..sadly today people get their data and make their decisions by looking at you tube and wikipedia for facts or accept whatever they are told because they were told by an "expert".

  • jwatersphd

    Well, aren’t you the thoughtful one? I’ve known plenty of these scientists in various capacities, and they’ve been doing this work for decades; nothing to do with the political left. They don’t give a damn what Obama thinks. They’re from Cal Tech, MIT, etc., and I’m sure they know more than you (or I) about these matters. If you took the time to talk with them you would recognize that. Moreover, scientific assertions don’t rely on bluster and hype such as you are posting, such as the relative or absolute concentration of a chemical. They rely on experimentation.They don’t “get their data” from youtube or Wikipedia. They’re worried about the concentration because it looks like it matters. You seem to have little understanding of chemistry or physics where seemingly small factors can make a big difference (e.g., catalysis). It’s incredible that you really think that the research that’s been done over decades has been all made up to satisfy some political imperative, especially since it has only gotten any momentum in the recent past. As if entire teams of scientists have been trained, all across the world, just to put on a show. What a nonsensical, improbable, paranoid fantasy. What seems more likely, from the tone of your outburst, is that you impugn their expertise, scientific training, and knowledge, because you don’t like the implications. I was in my 30s when the CFC crisis developed, and, through assiduous effort, progress has been made. No one was talking about a global freeze; they were correctly worried about the loss of the protective ozone layer and ultraviolet. They can “sell” the current findings because those from the 70s were solid, though complex as with global warming. These guys don’t go to work every day to fabricate nonsense for “the left” to use. They were doing this long ago and will still be doing it regardless of who’s in power. Arriving at a public statement of consensus is not what they are really interested in; they have weighed in because they were asked to do so. They’d rather be doing their work, trying to understand something very complex. Calling me a fool does not make it so and none of your abuse has any scientific merit. It looks mostly like right wing paranoia, where the politics drive the statements and the most incredible conspiracies are seen as self-evident, plus he-man bravado of tossing out obscenities as if you were just a real common sense kind of guy.

Back to top

Copyright © 2008-2014 NetRight Daily