So it seems that practically every global warming conference keeps having to be cancelled due to snow but still the environmental alarmists persist that the world is heating up faster than a hot-pocket in a microwave.
And the fact that the world is not actually getting warmer, I thought, could one day pose a serious problem to their theories so I was wondering what they’d eventually say to explain away the actual real life static temperatures. But I must admit I didn’t see this one coming. Ready for it? Here it is.
Global warming is sleeping. Shhh.
Discovery is reporting:
For those who have endured this winter’s frigid temperatures and today’s heavy snowstorm in the Northeast, the concept of global warming may seem, well, almost wishful.
But climate is known to be variable — a cold winter, or a few strung together doesn’t mean the planet is cooling. Still, according to a new study, global warming may have hit a speed bump and could go into hiding for decades.
Earth’s climate continues to confound scientists. Following a 30-year trend of warming, global temperatures have flatlined since 2001 despite rising greenhouse gas concentrations, and a heat surplus that should have cranked up the planetary thermostat.
So it’s hiding. Global warming is all curled up and snoring away in hibernation but you are hereby warned to please not disturb it. Because when it wakes up…boy howdy will it be fierce.
Swanson thinks the trend could continue for up to 30 years. But he warned that it’s just a hiccup, and that humans’ penchant for spewing greenhouse gases will certainly come back to haunt us.
“When the climate kicks back out of this state, we’ll have explosive warming,” Swanson said. “Thirty years of greenhouse gas radiative forcing will still be there and then bang, the warming will return and be very aggressive.”
So it won’t be just plain old global warming it’ll be “EXPLOSIVE warming!” So you better listen to them now. Because the threat sounds really bad.
So it’ll be like a sequel to a really sucky movie where in the original the bad guy made a lot of threats about destroying the world but instead opted for a nap. But in the sequel he returns…Explosively. And this time he really means it.
March 5, 2009 at 1:52 am
Apropos of nothing, I drive a Prius.
March 5, 2009 at 2:21 am
See? It works both ways. Why would someone oppose lowering carbon emissions unless they had fully embraced a high-energy consumption lifestyle? Do you think that Dorothy Day, Saint Benedict, or Mother Theresa would defend that kind of consumerism?
Thought experiment: If energy is made significantly more expensive (as will almost certainly happen if/when governments put taxes or quotas on carbon emissions), will the poor be better off or worse off as a result?
March 5, 2009 at 4:19 am
Dutchman wrote, “The basic conclusions about global warming have been endorsed by the national academies of science of all major industrialized countries. All of them.
There is plenty of evidence for global warming, my question is: why do people choose to ignore it?”
Because A) all of the academies of sciences failed to use the scientific method in making conclusions about ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, and B) there is plenty of evidence of global cooling, my question is why do some people choose to ignore it?
Joe K
March 5, 2009 at 4:58 am
Who said anything about embracing a “high-energy consumption lifestyle?”
But that’s certainly what I see. My friends who accept global warming (and, admittedly, they are mostly secular lefties) don’t even own cars. They take the bus, ride bikes, keep their apartments under-heated, and don’t have hobbies that consume energy. It’s the ones with the SUV’s and vans, who live way out in Podunk, have huge houses, and energy intensive hobbies (e.g. snowmobiling) that discount the science. I don’t know anyone who breaks this pattern.
[A related phenomenon would be how the larger someone’s car, the more likely they were to support the Oil War. Before the war was utterly discredited, a survey of magnets and bumper stickers on cars in virtually any parking lot would have proven this assertion.]
Algore
Why the insulting, snarky disdain for Al Gore? The man is personally decent, has a long record of public service, made a pretty good documentary, and was a total gentleman about it when the Republican Supreme Court stole the election from him. Even if you disagree with his politics, I think you have to admit that he’s a class act.
Thought experiment: If energy is made significantly more expensive (as will almost certainly happen if/when governments put taxes or quotas on carbon emissions), will the poor be better off or worse off as a result?
Why not use the market to solve these problems? Issue carbon rations to everyone equally for them to either use or sell. That way the poor who need the energy can use it at reasonable cost, while those who can forgo it can sell their share at a profit. Wow! Conservation and economic justice all at once!
Because A) all of the academies of sciences failed to use the scientific method in making conclusions about ANTHROPOGENIC global warming, and B) there is plenty of evidence of global cooling, my question is why do some people choose to ignore it?
That’s right — all of the world’s most prestigious academes of science are wrong, and Joe K knows better! Aside from bought-and-paid-for scientists working for the energy companies, do you have any sources for that?
March 5, 2009 at 5:35 am
Why not use the market to solve these problems? Issue carbon rations to everyone equally for them to either use or sell. That way the poor who need the energy can use it at reasonable cost, while those who can forgo it can sell their share at a profit. Wow! Conservation and economic justice all at once!
My first thought is because that would be a massive and inappropriate intrusion of government into people’s lives.
But even if I accept, for the sake of argument, that it is the proper role of government to mandate such a carbon-rationing scheme, it still is not that simple. You make it sound as if each person owns his own self-contained power plant, and doesn’t use any energy from outside sources, whether directly or indirectly.
But in fact, many of the effects of higher energy costs would be indirect. For example, rationing of CO2 emissions would mean that energy would be more expensive for farmers, and thus the cost of food would be driven up. And if the cost of food went up by 10%, or 25%, or 50%, who would be affected the most?
The answer is that the rich would barely notice such an increase, but it would be devastating to the poor. And that’s just one example. There most likely would be quite a few similar indirect negative consequences of increased energy costs, throughout the economy.
In other words, no matter how you distribute the carbon credits, the fact that you are rationing carbon emissions at all means that the supply of energy generated by fossil fuels would be artificially constrained. Other sources of energy no doubt would partially replace this lost supply of fossil fuel energy, but these other sources of energy would carry a higher cost, and thus the decreased supply of cheaper energy would cause energy prices to go up across the board.
March 5, 2009 at 5:37 am
Dutchman,
your first question of why Trad Catholics question the ‘reality of global warming,’ I’d guess that many “Trad Catholics” (your words) are rational thinkers in line of philosophers St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Augustine. Many of us have ‘tested’ our faith with evidence and more importantly philosophically sound reasoning. We’ve also tested the alternatives of atheism and other religions and have found Catholicism the most reasonable and/or the alternatives with illogical premises or conclusions.
So if a conclusion employs faulty logic or has faulty premise, then we cannot support it. If the available data indicates a viable alternative conclusion, or if there exists data that contradicts the proposed conclusion, then we cannot support it. Supporting a faulty conclusion would require a ‘leap of faith,’ which is precisely what these national science academies have done.
Back in 1990s with global temps rising, researchers were able to convince the populace of the causal nature of CO2 with global warming using anecdotal evidence of greenhouse gases– without adhering to the scientific method. Remember, the crisis was so bad that the world didn’t have time… so the tax funded dollars rushed i to save the world from impending disaster.
This same greenhouse gas model does a poor job in demonstrating why we’ve had global cooling for the past 7-11 years (depending on which global metrics are used).
Joe K
March 5, 2009 at 6:25 am
Dutchman wrote, “That’s right — all of the world’s most prestigious academes of science are wrong, and Joe K knows better!”
To view data on global average temps, please go to directly to original data sources: HadCRUT in the UK, NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Univ. of Alabama and Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa. These four metrics are arguably the best independent and comprehensive sources of data there are regarding “global averages.” However, since each metric has a different/specific method of collecting data then there is some latitude on how to define ‘overall average global’ temperatures, but the point is that all four metrics arrive at same conclusion. If you are technically-minded I encourage you to study the data yourself.
Joe K
March 5, 2009 at 7:19 am
My first thought is because that would be a massive and inappropriate intrusion of government into people’s lives.
Unless, of course, we face a truly massive problem, n’est-ce pas? And isn’t it the role of government to undertake the truly massive tasks in society (e.g. fighting wars, building road networks, controlling epidemics, protecting the environment, etc.)?
In other words, no matter how you distribute the carbon credits, the fact that you are rationing carbon emissions at all means that the supply of energy generated by fossil fuels would be artificially constrained.
Right, now you understand. The idea is to constrain carbon emissions, and government has to do it because the market won’t.
If you are technically-minded I encourage you to study the data yourself.
No, Joe, I’m not a meteorologist and I’m not going to play that game. I would no more trust my guess about interpreting the data than I would reading my own EKG. The question here is not what the data are, but what they mean and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the international group of scientists charged with reviewing, validating and summarizing the latest research, concluded that the warming of the climate system is unequivocal. They stated that it is 90 percent certain that human-generated greenhouse gases account for most of the warming in the past 50 years.
Your first question of why Trad Catholics question the ‘reality of global warming
That’s still my question and a lot of pseudo-scholastic philosophizing won’t make it go away. Every philosophy has its blind spots and the wise man knows that he is not immune from this. Take consumerism. My leftie buddies condemn material consumerism, while being blind to the excesses of sexual consumerism. Contrariwise, I hear homily after homily against sexual consumerism, yet nary a word against materialism. Conservatives rail against abortion while ignoring issues of social justice. Liberals rightly point up economic inequities without ever conceding that even in a perfectly just society there will be people too lazy to succeed.
And these biases make sense to me. Liberals think that man can be perfected, so they embrace idealistic notions of what is possible. Conservatives are all too aware of man’s fallen nature, so they give up on trying to fix anything. And the two perspectives reflect these basic assumptions.
But why Traditional Catholics, who presumably want to leave a habitable world and an intact civilization to their children, simply ignore the very existence of this problem baffles me.
March 5, 2009 at 3:47 pm
Dutchman wrote, “That’s still my question and a lot of pseudo-scholastic philosophizing won’t make it go away. Every philosophy has its blind spots and the wise man knows that he is not immune from this.”
Sound logic has no blind spots. Period.
It’s difficult to have meaningful discussion about global average temps if your replies consist of ad hominem attacks. Take a look at the data– takes perhaps 2-3 hours to get a decent overview.
I’ll pray for you.
Joe K
March 5, 2009 at 5:38 pm
My friends who accept global warming (and, admittedly, they are mostly secular lefties) don’t even own cars. They take the bus, ride bikes, keep their apartments under-heated, and don’t have hobbies that consume energy. It’s the ones with the SUV’s and vans, who live way out in Podunk, have huge houses, and energy intensive hobbies (e.g. snowmobiling) that discount the science. I don’t know anyone who breaks this pattern.
I’m not particularly persuaded by anecdotal evidence, but if you are, here’s mine: I’m a fairly traditional Catholic. I own a car, but I take the bus almost every day to work, and rarely drive. I keep my apartment around 60 overnight and when I’m not home, around 64 when I am home, even though the winters where I live are brutal. My hobbies consume very little energy. And yet, I’m suspicious, if not of the science behind global warming, then of the use to which it has been put: ice caps and polar bears are more important than human beings? Bullsh*t.
Why the insulting, snarky disdain for Al Gore? The man is personally decent, has a long record of public service, made a pretty good documentary, and was a total gentleman about it when the Republican Supreme Court stole the election from him. Even if you disagree with his politics, I think you have to admit that he’s a class act.
I don’t have to admit any such thing. Again, as I say above, I hardly consider anyone a class act who thinks protecting ice caps and animals is more important than the unborn. NOTE: I am not saying our attitude toward the earth should be “rape and pillage.” I am saying that I am deeply suspicious of anyone who uses a “the sky is falling” take on global warming/climate change/whatever you want to call it to promote “family planning.”
March 5, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Take a look at the data– takes perhaps 2-3 hours to get a decent overview.
Yeah, two or three hours to get an overview, and a Ph.D. in meteorology to understand the problem. Unlike you, however, I don’t already have the Ph.D., sorry.
Sound logic has no blind spots. Period.
Well, that must be the problem right there. You have perfect knowledge and faultless reasoning, while I am a mere mortal. Obviously, rather than waste time with pointless discussion, we should just turn all the world’s problems over to you. If you don’t mind, I’m going to write the Swedish Academy and have them give you a comprehensive Nobel Prize (encompassing all five categories) once and for all, so that they can never be bothered awarding one again to lesser mortals. Shall we set up an altar to your perfect knowledge? Should you be anointed with oil, or is it death for mortals to look upon you? Perhaps you should write a book: “Sound Logic with Key to the Scriptures.” You might even be asked on Oprah. Sorry to have bothered your Lordship — won’t do it again.
I’ll pray for you.
Oh, thank you, thank you! I was so afraid you were going to smite me with your Sound Logic and cast me into the pit of everlasting ignorance. But, of course ad hominem attacks are beneath the purview of one so exalted.
March 6, 2009 at 4:23 am
Go Didigo, go!