Shut up, already!
It always amuses me, and somewhat infuriates, that I still receive emails from Global warming naysayers.
Despite the scientific analysis of over 6,000 experts in the field, all of whom say the jury is in when it comes to human carbon emission contributions, despite the clear facts of human environmental impact (effects that we see all around us), despite our own empirical knowledge of pollution and climate change, there is a loud minority of people, (the same who believe man never landed on the moon), that maintain that global warming has two sides to it, that there should be a “debate”, that Al Gore is a phony and that the scientists are all wrong.
The simple fact of the matter is that there is no “opinion” when it comes to scientific method(s). Scientific process is there to achieve quantifiable evidence that is tested. People will say to me “Well, my opinion is that”. But what they fail to realize is that anyone can have a point of view on anything, but that doesn’t make it valid, or even listenable.
Anti-global warmers will try and trot out other “evidence” from researchers (many of whom come from the energy lobby in some form), that points to the opposite notion.
The International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has more than dealt with the evidence. Moreover, the world scientific body has no axe to grind economically – they do not profit one way or the other when it comes to their conclusions. Certainly, the fossil fuel sectors — the coal, gas, and oil lobbies — have much to gain by playing down the effects of greenhouse gas emissions that traps heat from the sun. They want as much coal and gas and oil used as possible — and these folks are in the world of record profits right now.
The most obvious problem with the nay sayers, is their total lack of scientific understanding. What exists, generally, with these people is newspaper knowledge — no books read; no studies read; no real work — just the internet.
The problem with the internet is that you can find anything about everything: talking dogs, alien visitations, Elvis clones, to the notion that the Holocaust was a hoax. Any view can find reinforcement, no matter how crank-strewn.
But forget the scientists for a moment.
You know when Stephen Harper comes in from the cold on this one that there must be something to it.
July 3rd, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Andrew, last time I checked you yourself did not have a scientific background, which easily explains why you think there is no room for “opinion” in a scientific discussion. Al Gore is not a scientist either - he is a wealthy politician whose household consumes over 10 times more electricity than the average American’s.
The vast majority, if not all, scientific literature is based on an interpretation of raw data. Some people can look at a series of seemingly random numbers and make sense of them. Take 340-493-1991 for example. An avid baseball fan would know that these figures represent the career batting average, home runs and runs batted in for Lou Gehrig. These three simple numbers tell someone who knows about baseball that Gehrig was one of the best hitters of all time, but someone unfamiliar with baseball would not even know what they represent, let alone have the ability to put them into any meaningful context.
The same is true with scientific data, although it is much more complicated because we are always talking about much more than three numbers worth of raw data. In order to present the numbers in a way that the general public can understand them (or even other scientists in a given field), MANY assumptions have to be made. As with all assumptions, these are made based on the education and experience of the scientist doing the study. Biases may also come into play, like when the government agency providing the grant that puts the food on the scientists table insinuates (and sometimes comes right out and demands) a specific result or specific tone the paper is to take.
Often these assumptions are explicitly stated in the research papers, but those boring sections never make it to Al Gore’s desk or the newspapers. That is why the people that want to know the truth, not just the propaganda, do their own research. The easiest way to figure out if something is legit or not is to follow the money, which in the arena of “global warming” leads directly to all of the governments that are trying to give us carbon taxes…..despite the fact that humans produce a very small fraction of all the CO2 in the atmosphere. But you don’t have to take my word for it, I’m just a crazy conspiracy theorist! There is lots of peer-reviewed scientific literature out there to prove my point.
July 3rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
I agree with you. I am a 38 year old Moncton male who tries his best, could do better, when it comes to our environment I use recharge batteries when I can, I reuse margarine containers, I use fluorescent light for my normal light and LED for backup, I use digital thermostat for my heater in winter, and plaining on returning my bags. I use my power wheelchair to driver everywhere I need to go and I notes in my life that something is wrong with our world.
You don’t need to understand Science to see it, just look around and you see something wrong when flowers are dying because of being burnt from the sun that if you can see it over the trash the we as people drop just about anywhere.
Our biggest problem is we don’t want do anything as people of the earth to improve our earth and we want to drive these gas suckers while tossing trash out our windows and wounder why gas is going up. You know the “me” problem of this earth.
We as people of our earth should abanding bad ideals that are harmful for us and our world and use ideal that have the minimum ware on our planet.
I just one person but some times I cry when I thing what are we doing to our earth and that the worst crime that we can commit, and that worst then murdering of anyone or sexual assaulting a child.
I believe that we all are doom if we continue on this same path and no god or person can us after when we all die for being, I don’t know, stupid. I define stupid as being someone doing something that he/she knows he/she can’t do but still does it.
I give you/news 91.9 etc the rights to edit the content as long as the main message is maintain.
July 8th, 2008 at 7:06 am
Andrew, I’m so glad you said it! Newspaper knowledge …it’s these people who debate issues they know so little about that really get to me. Thanks for calling them out!
July 9th, 2008 at 9:24 am
I agree 100% in Global Warming and the harmful effects of pollution & human carbon emission contributions. I am 38 years old and was tought in High school about pollution and the effects of Global Warming caused by man; and what we can do to try and reduce future damage and restore what damage we have already done.
The funny thing is, my mother would always look over my homework and any projects & essays I had to pass in to the teacher. She always told me that I had done a great job, even the science fair project I did on pollution & Global Warming. Yet, now when we discuss it or if there is a news article about it in the newspaper or on the television, she 100% totally denies that Global Warming is happening, due to pollution or other causes by man. She says that if there is anything happening with the earth (even though she thinks there isn’t) that it is God’s doing; that God made the earth and that he controls everything that happens to it, and he wouldn’t allow this so called Global Warming. I wonder if this is the reason with the nay sayers,and not their total lack of scientific understanding.
July 16th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Andrew,
Why do all scientists who go against this global warming religion have to be in an oil company’s pocket? That is such a lame brush off; everyone who follows this religion says it. And since you are apparently a follower, so do you.
Did you know that every ice core record going back 800,000 years now has shown that the planet warms up first, then CO2 rises afterwards? Afterwards. That means that CO2 is not a cause of climate change, it is an effect. An effect; Do you understand what this means? It means that CO2 does not control our climate. Your best buddy David Suzuki forgot to mention this didn’t he. Oh that’s too bad. Perhaps you can bring this up next time he visits, and just listen to how he skirts the question. But you’ll let him off the hook won’t you kiss ass.
How is it that Mars is warming up in lockstep with earth? It has no CO2 and no humans to burn fossil fuels. It’s true. NASA scientists discovered this parallel warming of Mars after the agency’s Mars Odyssey completed its first year of data collection. Why? It’s the sun stupid.
Look, planet Earth is a nothing more than a little blue dot circling around a single heat source, the Sun. To ignore the Sun and say that CO2 drives our climate is absolutely bazaar. But that’s what you and other armchair climatologists are selling.
When the public finally becomes aware of what might be the greatest scientific fraud ever perpetrated, I’m going to rub it in forever.
Go here: read it and begin the long journey back to reality.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport
July 17th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Andrew
No economic axe to grind? Are you joking? Here’s a quote from one of those science guys with no economic axe to grind: Dr. Richard Lindzen is one of the most distinguished climate scientists in the world: a past professor at the University of Chicago and Harvard, the Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, a member of the National Academy of Sciences, and a lead author in the landmark report from the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. He says “Almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized ‘Summaries for Policymakers’ which are written by representatives from governments, NGOs and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored.” The IPCC report was only 20 pages long, dumbed-down for suckers like you, the Full scientific report was 1600 pages. He also says “throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators’ would go around insisting that criticism of climate models be toned down, and that ‘motherhood’ statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their ‘green’ credentials in defense of their statements.” Then he says “Scientists who dissent from the CO2 alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis.”
Ya no economic axe to grind. Good one Andrew. Here on Earth, there is always an economic axe to grind.
July 17th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Andrew
Ok Mr. science “Understanding” guy, understand this:
According to scientists, humans produce between 2% and 3% of the CO2 that the Earth produces annually (lets pick 3%). That means the Earth produces 33 times more CO2 than all of humanity combined. And Canada only produces 2% or 1/50th of that tiny amount. Ok so follow me here: 1/50th of 1/33rd means that the Earth produces 1650 times more CO2 annually than all of Canadians combined. Now, let’s draw a scale that is 1.65 meters tall and look way down at the bottom, there is Canada coming in at the 1 millimeter mark. Gee, we’re important huh?
Now according to the National Post, our Federal Government stands to earn $10 Billion extra taxes per year on either the Carbon Tax or the Cap & Trade scam (your choice). And will force us to reduce our carbon footprint over the next 40 years, so this will only cost us $400 Billion. But hey we’ll reduce our CO2 contribution to the .99 Millimeter mark. Wow what a difference that will make! We’re really saving the planet now! Wahoo!
July 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
Some great comments already on this subject, by people Andrew, who are not denying the Holocost, or that the Earth is round! One hardly has to peruse scientific journals on “Global Warming” (a term which has been discarded - because there is virtually no evidence of same, in fact, less than 1C degree warming over the past two hundred years) in favour of Climate Change, (which now encompasses everything from tropical storms to acne), because we are continually bombasted in all the media by “those in the know”! What bull! Hitler did something like this once, didn’t he? The children are being brainwashed in our schools by Gore and that motorcycle guy to the point where they are incapable of any reasoning abilities! Are incapable of doing their own research, cause Teacher is right! Not in Britain, where their equivalent of our Supreme Court, refused to allow Al Gore’s propaganda flick to be aired in British schools, without first editing out points which have not been proven, including “that man has caused Global Warming”! And then the pinball machine/knee jerk remedies recommended, which are causing more harm than the original complaint. Cases in point: Ethanol, billed as the saviour, only to find that the process used more energy than it yeilded - plus drove up the price for cattle and hog feed, and the finished animal product; then there were the compact fluorescent bulbs which were heralded as saving up to 70% energy, WoW! Not to miss an opportunity, the Nova Scotia Government banned incadescant bulbs in the near future, and everybody rushed to Costco to buy them, only to find that most newly constructed houses and condos, are equipped with dimmer switches and halogen 12 volt lights. Whoops, can’t uses the new fluorescent bulbs where there are dimmer switches-won’t work! I can walk into my bathroom at any hour my prostate dictates, without having to fumble for a light switch. I deserve that right! But fluorescents will not work with an “intrusion” light setup! Of yes, the people “in the know” forgot to mention that the new fluorescent bulbs have significant mercury content! Is the government going to pay to have my new house rewired? Can you imagine enforcing this ban - coming through Canadian Customs: “Any Liquor, tobacco, plants or incandescent light bulbs to declare?” Over 90% of the incorrectly called “greenhouse gasses” are composed of water and water vapour. What are we going to do about that? We exhale carbon dioxide, I can hardly wait for the next pinball machine solution for this dilemma. YES, cut down on carbon emissions as a healthy cause (not as a doomsday-henny penny the sky is falling scenario) and go after the tar sands projects and the coal-burning power plants.
July 24th, 2008 at 9:33 am
Andrew!
I love this!! You mention 6000 scientists believe that global warming is causesd by human activity. Well guess what! Last month 31,000 signed a petition saying the opposite!
Here’s an excerpt from a news report:
That’s why 31,000 other scientists, including world figures such as physicist Prof Freeman Dyson, atmospheric physicist Prof Richard Lindzen and climate scientist Prof Fred Singer, issued a joint letter last month warning governments not to jump on board the global warming bandwagon.
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the earth’s climate.”
That’s why Ivar Glaever, who won a Nobel Prize for Physics, this month declared “I am a sceptic”. And it’s why the American Physical Society this month said “there is a considerable presence within the scientific community of people who do not agree with the (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) conclusion that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very probably likely to be primarily responsible for the global warming that has occurred since the Industrial Revolution.”
Just Google “31,000 scientists” . Read the aticles and weep baby! Ha ha!! In your face!