« Swimming upstream | Main | Put down that Mars bar »

Growing Number Believe Global Warming Exaggerated

When I started blogging in 2004 I would occasionally link to articles about scientists who did not believe in the global warming hysteria. Sometimes I would even comment on the topic myself. Without fail, no matter how good the scientists' credentials or how compelling the argument, I would get a flood of comments saying how stupid I was. Global warming was settled fact, don'tcha know? It was tantamount to heresy to even dare question it. Lately I have noticed that those posts don't draw so many angry self righteous comments anymore.

And you know what? Global warming is not global warming anymore. I guess there were just too many global warming events canceled due to record snows to stick with the name. Now it is global climate change. According to Gallup, a rising number of people believe global warming is exaggerated. I wonder how long it will be before a majority feel that way. I wonder if all those who were besmirched and branded science haters for daring to question Al Gore's facts will ever get an apology. If science ever shows that global warming is not real, or that it has been grossly exaggerated, will those who scared and shamed so many people into switching to swirly light bulbs and purchasing carbon credits ever pay for their fear mongering? Would they ever lose their reputations? Of course not -- just as those who said we had lost in Iraq, or that there was no way the surge could ever work, were never called out by the media for being so incredibly wrong. That's just the way it works folks.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/34878.

Comments (29)

Unfortunately not soon enou... (Below threshold)
jpm100:

Unfortunately not soon enough to stop Obama from taking advantage of a good perceived crisis. Obama will not only initiate cap and trade, but will likely tie it to some treaty obligations eventually.

Obama will not onl... (Below threshold)
Stan25:
Obama will not only initiate cap and trade, but will likely tie it to some treaty obligations eventually.

He will tie it to a treaty in the making at the Unholy Nations

If you don't believe in Glo... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

If you don't believe in Global Warming can you still be *against* pollution?

If there is global warming,... (Below threshold)
mag:

If there is global warming, I figured it was all of the baby boomers going thru menopause and having hot flashes.

According to Gallu... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
According to Gallup, a rising number of people believe global warming is exaggerated. I wonder how long it will be before a majority feel that way.

Blame for such skepticism can be ascribed to the internet's free flow of information. Al Gore's own invention is being used against his "the science is settled" propaganda.

Nothing raises the level of skepticism like peer reviewed published studies that call into question the role of CO2 in global warming. Here are just two recent examples.

This graph shows the mean relative temperature history of the earth (blue, cool; red, warm) over the past two millennia - adapted from Loehle and McCulloch (2008) - highlighting the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) and Little Ice Age (LIA), together with a concomitant history of the atmosphere's CO2 concentration (green).

This article explains the importance of a study that "use the oceans as a calorimeter to measure the radiative forcing variations associated with the solar cycle". Finding that "there are large variations in the oceanic heat content together with the 11-year solar cycle." In addition, Shaviv reports that the three independent data sets "consistently show that the oceans absorb and emit an order of magnitude more heat than could be expected from just the variations in the total solar irradiance," thus "implying," as he describes it, "the necessary existence of an amplification mechanism, although without pointing to which one."

Shaviv's paper doesn't reveal the smoking gun, but it does prove it's not CO2.

Obama's carbon tax is estimated to cost the average family about $1,300 a year in higher energy costs. It's the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S. and will stifle any hope of recovery. And for what? Nothing but to placate the environmentalist's religion. We'll have to wait until 2013 for the new President and Congress to repeal this nonsense and make restitution to those adversely and unjustly effected. Those that benefit from this tax will be expected to pay it back.

Of course you... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Of course you can be against pollution if you're against the AGW bullshit, Adrian. Why would you think otherwise? (Never mind - that was a rhetorical question...)

The air and water quality in the US has gotten amazingly better since the '50s, for all the screaming and shouting. The population's more than doubled, the number of cars has increased incredibly - but there's always going to be SOME pollution as long as we use IC engines and gas/coal power plants, or are even an industrialized society. (And I don't think anyone would like the wholesale death and disaster if we could no longer maintain that industrialization.) Improvements in sanitation systems and waste-water processing have rendered rivers much cleaner.

It's all a matter of incremental changes. We can reduce 80% fairly easily, we can get the next 10% with moderate effort, we can get the next 5% with great effort - and there comes a point where it's not cost effective to make further reductions until technology changes.

Now we've got to make sure as other countries get richer, they see the advantages of pollution controls also. Heck, if we could get CHINA to '50s levels that'd be a real improvement!

But hamstringing the world economy for 'climate change' - when the climate is constantly varying - is a fool's game. How many trillions should we spend, when we don't even know there's an actual problem and ALL of the climactic changes we're seeing may well be natural variations? (Especially when the computer models not only fail to predict PAST temperature performance, but those running them won't release the algorithims or data used to come up with their conclusions.)

If you don't belie... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
If you don't believe in Global Warming can you still be *against* pollution?

Sure, but if CO2 is not the cause of Global Warming than it's not pollution. On the other hand, if you think so-called greenhouse gases are the cause of Global Warming, then you must also believe water vapor is pollution as it's a far more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2.

No more back yard pools and water sprinklers. We'll also need a hydrogen cap and trade law. How's your hydrogen footprint?

Well, Mac, I know the water... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Well, Mac, I know the water system in this town's had near lethal levels of dihydrogen monoxide for literally decades - and I'm pretty sure my house piping is full of it!

Ban Dihydrogen Monoxide! Our survival as a species depends on it!

/sarc, if you hadn't guessed...

Woodsy Owl sez:Giv... (Below threshold)
Adrian Browne:

Woodsy Owl sez:

Give a hoot; don't pollute!

I remember when we were wor... (Below threshold)
MPR:

I remember when we were worried about a coming New Ice Age. Florida would have ice and snow year round and New York would have a glacier running down Broadway. Then the anti-industrial, environmental, anti-American wacko lobby came up with something that sounded plausible even though it couldn't quite be backed up with good science. Presto! "Green House Effect" Mann's Hockey Stick graph showed that by this time we would surely have us under water by now because of much higher temperatures globally. CO2 was the culprit. This could be used to slow down the American economy so the "playing field" could be leveled. Other countries could then catch up to America and it would be more "fair". Well, China and India ain't buyin' it. They of course, want to slow us down. Their economies were exploding and their industrialization needed power. Their work force also likes being warm in winter and cool in the summer with the benefits of refrigeration. I think that there are a lot of smart people in China and India. They could be convinced that a thick heavy cloud hanging over their cities that makes you choke, like a BBQ in your house, isn't good. The technology is there to burn fuels much more cleanly. But, to try and convince them that they are causing world wide climate mayhem with "lousy science". I think not. So with the argument that CO2 will kill us all if we don't stop. Not getting China and India to buy in, what's the point. One good volcanic eruption can spoil your whole century.

Yo Adrian, I'm still waitin... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Yo Adrian, I'm still waiting on that other law that will allow secret ballot elections if EFCA passes. You said there was another law, so name the law and prove it.

sorry for the highjack, everyone

You know what Adrian? You ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

You know what Adrian? You make an excellent point. Pollution is bad. I doubt you'd find more than a handful of people who are "pro-polution".

However you're playing a typical Marxist/Obama/Alinsky disingenuous semantic game here in this thread.

CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!!! It is an essential nutrient required for life to exist on Earth. It is fertilizer. (True, too much fertilizer can be poisionous, but atmosopheric CO2 is hundreds of times below that level.)

If you leftists want to destroy capitalism than just say so and try to do so honesly. Anthropgenic Global warming is simply a lie, or at best an extrememly weakly substanciated hypothesis.

You can eliminate pollution without ending capitolism which is your, Algore's, Obama's, et. al., ultimate goal.

Just be honest for a change. If the majority of the American voters also want to end capitolism then you'll win. If not you'll loose. Why are you, Barack, and the MSM so afraid of telling people the truth.

Once the government starts ... (Below threshold)
BluesHarper:

Once the government starts to tax something, regardless if they call it global warming or climate change, the taxes won't go away.

We shouldn't waste natural resources or pollute, with or without global warming or whatever they want to call it.

It's the taxing that bugs me. Will the taxes go strictly to allegedly save the planet or will the money magically show up in someone's pocket, other than yours or mine of course.

Marxist/Obama/Alinsky</b... (Below threshold)
hyperbolist:

Marxist/Obama/Alinsky

You forgot Stalin, Hirohito, Ted Bundy, and Bill Clinton in your Axis of Smelly Jerks.

Global warming, climate cha... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it, is not going to go away. Not only because the earth is not static, but changes over time but because NOW THERE IS MONEY IN IT!

Follow Gore, follow the money.

Wouldn't it be easier to si... (Below threshold)
bobdog:

Wouldn't it be easier to simply destroy the entire population of China with nuclear weapons?

It addresses the largest polluter on the planet, solves our global population problem, saves American jobs, and reduces our nuclear stockpile all in one fell swoop.

What leftwing retard wouldn't applaud the idea?

Those of us who really care... (Below threshold)

Those of us who really care about the environment (call us conservatives, shall we?) have supported nuclear power for decades. Clean, safe nuclear power could run our power grids, charge our hybrid cars, and cool the massive server farms that run this here Internet-thingie.

I live in Boulder, Colorado and there are plenty of well meaning sheep here who love nature and our beautiful world and vote Democrat because they can't be bothered to put any facts in their wooly little brains. These people are perfectly nice, but they allow themselves to be led around by leftists like Gore and Obama.

I wonder if we're the same species, at times. Why would anyone want to be nothing but a stupid sheep?

For anyone who doesn't thin... (Below threshold)

For anyone who doesn't think climate change is happening, just look at photos of Glacier National Park from twenty years ago compared to today.

20,000 year old glacial ice melted in 20 years. I don't need a scientific consensus to know when ice melts.


Way to beat that dead horse... (Below threshold)
abc:

Way to beat that dead horse. I have seen this post, or some facimile, over and over at wizbang. Like every time it snows somewhere. Never a counter post for record heat or aberrant weather, though.

I've worked in a number of industries, and have seen them consistently avoid making small, easy changes that would benefit the environment. I've also witness corner-cutting at the cost of the environment (even had to call the DEP once), also for minor savings. So I have a hard time feeling bad when industry is held to reasonable standards. No, don't hamstring the economy, but let's raise the standards to something better than the free-pass we have now.

I'd argue that reducing pollution is always a good idea - there needs to be some cost-benefit analysis, however. CO2 may or may not be a pollutant, depending on your definition. All I know is, human population is growing and plant population is declining. Let me know how you do breathing CO2.

Hyper, after 50 days of Oba... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

Hyper, after 50 days of Obama, I'm beginning to think Clinton wasn't so bad. At least not in comparison.

Stalin does fit into the group quite well, but Hirohito and Bundy don't. It has nothing to do with the smell however, just their ideology and worldview.

Oh, I get it-- you're following Saul's rules, too.

LOL @16. As Adrian would ... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

LOL @16. As Adrian would say: even if you don't believe in war can't you still support carbon offsets?

Nice to see you using globa... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Nice to see you using global change instead of Global warming. I bet that you condemn those who use a localize event as proof against global warming but then you use one localize event as absolute proof of global warming.

"I don't need a scientif... (Below threshold)
P. Bunyan:

"I don't need a scientific consensus to know when ice melts."

I suppose that logic could make sense to a moron who had no clue that those glaciers have been "meliting" for at least hundreds of years E.J., but what about all the glaciers that are growing?

When it comes to c... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:
When it comes to climate change, simple actions can make huge differences and Commit21 leverages social media to influence networks of friends, family, and co-workers.

Being there's now strong scientific evidence that ocean temperatures follow the cycles of solar activity, what simple actions do you do? Do you sacrifice animals or people to the Sun to appease it?

P. Bunyan You get... (Below threshold)
914:

P. Bunyan

You get the idea (if You have no political/monetary gain at stake ) that while ice melts in one place it is building up at the same time somewhere else. Unless You happen to be a control freak, than it is essential to promote the crisis to control the masses.

Jlawson,W... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

Jlawson,

Well, Mac, I know the water system in this town's had near lethal levels of dihydrogen monoxide for literally decades - and I'm pretty sure my house piping is full of it!

Move out now! Each year in the United States alone Dihydrogen Monoxide is responsible for over 3,300 deaths and another 6,000 injuries requiring hospitalization. The Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division's FAQ page has the following information:

Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) is a colorless and odorless chemical compound, also referred to by some as Dihydrogen Oxide, Hydrogen Hydroxide, Hydronium Hydroxide, or simply Hydric acid. Its basis is the highly reactive hydroxyl radical, a species shown to mutate DNA, denature proteins, disrupt cell membranes, and chemically alter critical neurotransmitters. The atomic components of DHMO are found in a number of caustic, explosive and poisonous compounds such as Sulfuric Acid, Nitroglycerine and Ethyl Alcohol.

If your pipes break while they contain Dihydrogen Monoxide your home will be contaminated requiring your family to move out and costing thousands of dollars to clean up. Even though millions of homes have the same problem the Obama administration isn't doing anything to help.

PILDOWN MAN,THE HITLER DIAR... (Below threshold)
SPURWING PLOVER:

PILDOWN MAN,THE HITLER DIARIES,AL CAPNES VUALTS and GLOBAL WARMING the biggist fruads ever play upon the world

I thought I was a conservat... (Below threshold)
abc:

I thought I was a conservative, but if that's what all of you are, the definition has obviously changed to something closer to the liberal's caricature of the affiliation. You obviously don't care about our environment, taking a five-year-old's point of view on the world - "he has it, so why can't I?"

Yes, let's not be a world leader in pollution control, instead let's point to third world nations and bitch that if they don't do it, why should we? We'll just continue to lead in per capita waste, pollution, etc.

Not like green industry couldn't help replace all the failing industries the gov't is trying to prop up for another year until the money runs out (and leadership there could aid in our exports imbalance as the rest of the world is even more green-happy). But no, let's throw money at GM and allow them to pollute even more so they can crank out more shitty cars no one wants.

I really can't figure out why any initiative for pollution controls, alternative energy, etc. are constantly tarred and feathered with the same brush as global warming. Yes, the politicians like to tie the two together to fool the masses. But do you really want to live downwind of a coal power plant, or really any factory's emissions? Do you all live in the backwoods and therefore don't see the widespread pollution we create? I live outside New York, and the air is often barely breathable. Are you feeling threatened because you like to drive Hummers? Do you really believe that mankind has no effect on climate?

I don't give a shit if it's part of a natural cycle or not, the earth can cycle right out of our comfort zone and adjust us right off its surface (see: dinosaurs). For us to continue doing things that exacerbate the situation is stupid. Maybe you can argue about CO2. How about pollution deposition on the glaciers darkening them and allowing them to absorb the heat they had been reflecting back into the atmosphere, increasing their melt rates? Doubt a couple volcanoes could do that without our help.

I don't think that we should cripple our economy or industry in order to achieve better pollution control. I also think that industry estimates of costs of the initiatives are hugely inflated to drum up support such as is shown in these comments. If you really can't make your product without polluting heavily, maybe the cost to the people downwind/stream of you outweighs the value of your product to society. Do we need another snuggy or koosh ball, clapper, or other crap that we churn out constantly? Are those products worth breathing one more iota of pollution?

MacLorry - WTF? Nice interpretation of data to back your story, but one look at that graph you linked could also suggest that, without all that CO2, we'd still be in the little ice age. Data is data, but its interpretation is subjective, as you prove. Oh, and is that rise in CO2 a natural event, or could it be a product of humanity starting with the industrial revolution? Shucks, that couldn't be, man is so small and the world is so big.

I'm done arguing this topic, with Jay T's departure the level of dialogue at wizbang has dropped like the economy. No thoughtful discussion, just a pile-on of smug idiots not willing to hear any other opinion than their own. Just as bad as the global warming nuts. To those about to pounce on me: I hope you live near a coast, let's see how you feel about pollution control when the ocean rises (please, refute that the oceans are rising) to your doorstep or an out-of-season hurricane sucks you out to sea. Your "industry-trumps-everything" attitude gives conservatives a bad name.

abc,MacLo... (Below threshold)
Mac Lorry:

abc,

MacLorry - WTF? Nice interpretation of data to back your story, but one look at that graph you linked could also suggest that, without all that CO2, we'd still be in the little ice age. Data is data, but its interpretation is subjective, as you prove.

The graph shows that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are substantially independent of the temperature. You have to limit your view to just the last 10% of the graph to draw the conclusion you did. And you complain about other's being short sighted. If, as you say the interpretation of data is subjective, like it were art, then science is useless.

Science is not static. The second study I linked shows that the Sun rather than CO2 is the primary driver of climate change. In fact, a survey of scientific papers in 2007 showed that the majority did not support the IPCC's conclusions. If you are swayed by a consensus of scientists then you should know that the majority of scientists now oppose the IPCC's conclusions.

please, refute that the oceans are rising

Sea level has been rising for thousands of years. The rate of increase fluctuates with the activity of the Sun and has decreased since 2005. Please, demonstrate that sea level is linked to CO2.

If you really can't make your product without polluting heavily, maybe the cost to the people downwind/stream of you outweighs the value of your product to society. Do we need another snugly or Kosho ball, clapper, or other crap that we churn out constantly? Are those products worth breathing one more iota of pollution?

We are not talking about pollution, we are talking about CO2. Even though science is showing the links between climate and CO2 are minimal, you call it pollution. If greenhouse gases are pollution, then water vapor is by far the biggest offender. Just think of the pollution you are breathing when you take a shower. Yes it's silly, but so is calling CO2 pollution silly. Without CO2 all plants would die, and without plants all animal life would die. Only the ignorant call CO2 pollution.

Modern society can't exist without a cheap supply of energy. We are talking about the food you stuff in your face, the clean water you drink, the warm or cool home you live in, the very infrastructure of our world. I would like a law that shuts off the electricity and NG to all the homes of environmentalists. Maybe after living in the cold and the dark for a while they would take their head out of their ass.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy