Some food for thought on Global Warming: by George Will

[sooner n houston]

Is global warming debate getting overheated?

April 2, 2006

BY GEORGE WILL

So, ''the debate is over.'' Time magazine says so. Last week's cover story exhorted readers to ''Be Worried. Be Very Worried,'' and ABC News concurred in several stories. So did Montana's governor, speaking on ABC. And there was polling about global warming, gathered by Time and ABC in collaboration.

Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that 1 degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature. To take a person's temperature, you put a thermometer in an orifice, or under an arm. Taking the temperature of our churning planet, with its tectonic plates sliding around over a molten core, involves limited precision.

Why have Americans been dilatory about becoming as worried -- as very worried -- as Time and ABC think proper? An article on ABC's Web site wonders ominously, ''Was Confusion Over Global Warming a Con Job?'' It suggests there has been a misinformation campaign implying that scientists might not be unanimous, a campaign by big oil. And the coal industry. But speaking of coal . . .

Recently, Montana Gov. Brian Schweitzer flew with ABC's George Stephanopoulos over Glacier National Park's receding glaciers. But Schweitzer offered hope: Everyone, buy Montana coal. New technologies can, he said, burn it while removing carbon causes of global warming.

Stephanopoulos noted that such technologies are at least four years away and ''all the scientists'' say something must be done ''right now.''

While worrying about Montana's receding glaciers, Schweitzer, who is 50, should also worry about the fact that when he was 20 he was told to be worried, very worried, about global cooling. Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of ''extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.'' Science Digest (February 1973) reported that ''the world's climatologists are agreed'' that we must ''prepare for the next ice age.'' The Christian Science Monitor (''Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster than Even Experts Expect,'' Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers ''have begun to advance,'' ''growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter'' and ''the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool.'' Newsweek agreed (''The Cooling World,'' April 28, 1975) that meteorologists ''are almost unanimous'' that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said ''may mark the return to another ice age.''

In fact, the earth is always experiencing either warming or cooling. But suppose the scientists and their journalistic conduits, who today say they were so spectacularly wrong so recently, are now correct. Suppose the earth is warming and suppose the warming is caused by human activity. Are we sure there will be proportionate benefits from whatever climate change can be purchased at the cost of slowing economic growth and spending trillions? Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West -- must be bad? Or has the science-journalism complex decided that debate about these questions, too, is ''over''?

About the mystery that vexes ABC -- Why have Americans been slow to get in lock step concerning global warming? -- perhaps the ''problem'' is not big oil or big coal, both of which have discovered there is big money to be made from tax breaks and other subsidies justified in the name of combating carbon. Perhaps the problem is big crusading journalism.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/will/cst-edt-geo02.html

[Tear Down This Wall]

Forget about it, n Houston. People would have to use their brain to understand the scientists are not united on the global warming theory. It's much simpler for them to listen to junk science journalists and panic.

[OUDoc]

bump

[Stoop Dawg]

Are we sure the consequences of climate change -- remember, a thick sheet of ice once covered the Middle West -- must be bad?

This is the point I've tried to make before. Suppose global warming ultimately resulted in the extinction of the human race. Who says that is "bad", per se?

[OklahomaTuba]

Suppose global warming ultimately resulted in the extinction of the human race. Who says that is "bad", per se?

Hook 'em

According to UT academia, the extinction of the human race is a good thing.

[Stoop Dawg]

See? It's all about perception! ;)

[sooneron]

Here's my question. Will cites the temp of the "surface" as rising only 1% in the last century. It takes a ****load of heat to raise the avg temp of the crust. Isn't all weather dependent upon the ocean temps? I can't remember the numbers, but they have been on the increase. I only wonder about his line of thinking b/c water does cover 2/3's of the earth. (I know Roy Williams covers the rest!)

[JohnnyMack]

This is the point I've tried to make before. Suppose global warming ultimately resulted in the extinction of the human race. Who says that is "bad", per se?

It could. The question is whether or not we're responsible for global warming/climate shift or whether it's just a natural cycle we're subjected to. I haven't seen any evidence that says that it is absolutely 100% certain that the climate shift is due to human beings and their ways.

<sings Circle of Life>

[Grimey]

Global warming hysteria is just another vehicle for the left to use to usher in worldwide socialism.

[soonerscuba]

I realize that global warming is not absolute, but isn't the threat of pretending it doesn't exist offer worse consequences that assuming it does? And there are reasons beyond global warming that make cleaner energy a viable prospect.

[soonerscuba]

Global warming hysteria is just another vehicle for the left to use to usher in worldwide socialism.

We don't make the tin foils hats, we make them block U.N. mind control better. BASF.

[JohnnyMack]

And there are reasons beyond global warming that make cleaner energy a viable prospect.

Like what?

http://democraticleader.house.gov/MM/ANWR.jpg

[sooneron]

I realize that global warming is not absolute, but isn't the threat of pretending it doesn't exist offer worse consequences that assuming it does? And there are reasons beyond global warming that make cleaner energy a viable prospect.
Shut up dude! It is simply not happening! Please stop trying to panic the good citizens, you commie bastard! There is no way that mankind could have and effect on the environment in a detrimental way! Cease your propaganda . Nothing to see here.....




















http://www.dillinghamsoftware.com/IMAGES%5Csmokestacks.jpg

[FaninAma]

Global warming is a direct consequence of the increase in the number of Mexican food restaurants which in turn has caused a massive increase in human flatulence. I think we could solve this problem by staying away from Taco Bueno.

[mdklatt]

George Will: STFU about global warning. Anybody else who doesn't know **** about climatology: STFU about global warming. All your political aggrandizing is part of the problem.


Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening

Forget what Americans or anybody else thinks. All you need to know is that the glaciers and arctic tundra think global warming is happening, and they don't have a bull**** agenda to push. When **** starts melting that has never melted before in our lifetimes, that's global warming. What is so hard to understand about that? You can be skeptical about what is causing this global warming, and how long it will last, and what the effects will be, but to deny that it is happening at this point is idiocy. "[M]argin of error" my ***. George Will should stick to being a baseball diletente.

[Grimey]

We don't make the tin foils hats, we make them block U.N. mind control better. BASF.

lol. whatever you say

[JohnnyMack]

I think we could solve this problem by staying away from Taco Bueno.

:mad:

http://www.soonerfans.com/forums/images/reputation/reputation_neg.gif

[Stoop Dawg]

Shut up dude! It is simply not happening! Please stop trying to panic the good citizens, you commie bastard! There is no way that mankind could have and effect on the environment in a detrimental way! Cease your propaganda . Nothing to see here.....

The dinosaurs probably thought the world would be cold, dead rock after they were gone too.

I, for one, believe that the dolphins are simply biding their time. Once we humans exterminate ourselves it'll be their turn to rise up and rule the world for several thousand years.

[Howzit]

When the intensity of emotional conviviction subsides, a man who is in the habit of reasoning will search for logical grounds in favor of the belief which he finds in himself.

- Bertrand Russell

[handcrafted]

George Will: STFU about global warning. Anybody else who doesn't know **** about climatology: STFU about global warming. All your political aggrandizing is part of the problem.



Forget what Americans or anybody else thinks. All you need to know is that the glaciers and arctic tundra think global warming is happening, and they don't have a bull**** agenda to push. When **** starts melting that has never melted before in our lifetimes, that's global warming. What is so hard to understand about that? You can be skeptical about what is causing this global warming, and how long it will last, and what the effects will be, but to deny that it is happening at this point is idiocy. "[M]argin of error" my ***. George Will should stick to being a baseball diletente.

Ok, MD. Tell us why the earth was cooling in the 1970s and we were threatened with a new ice age, and then tell us why the earth is heating up rapidly now, when we've had all this environmental legislation in place for the past 30 years.

[mdklatt]

Here's my question. Will cites the temp of the "surface" as rising only 1% in the last century. It takes a ****load of heat to raise the avg temp of the crust.

We're talking about warming in the lower atmosphere, not the crust. The "skin temperature" does have an effect on air temperature, but not as much radiative effects (i.e. greenhouse gasses).



Isn't all weather dependent upon the ocean temps? I can't remember the numbers, but they have been on the increase. I only wonder about his line of thinking b/c water does cover 2/3's of the earth.

Pretty much. The heat capacity of the oceans is ginormous, and this heat drives oceanic and atmospheric circulation.

[Stoop Dawg]

I saw The Day After Tomorrow and let me tell you, this **** is serious!

[OklahomaTuba]

No doubt the earth changes temperature, and no doubt that humans have an impact, but how in the hell does science not know that perhaps this isn't natural to have mini cycles inbetween the larger cycles? They have only been recording this data for how long???

[sooneron]

I saw The Day After Tomorrow and let me tell you, this **** is serious!
Yeah, but those wolves were fake as ****!

[handcrafted]

And lest I be accused of loving dirty air and dirty water (like most of us conservatives get accused of being), lemme say that I'm all for cheap clean renewable energy, I really hate petroleum fuels for several reasons, but global warming isn't one of them.

I want a solid clean energy source because I hate pollution in general, because it's ugly. And I hate breathing fumes. And I no longer want to be dependent on foreign oil from countries we may have to fight a war with fairly soon. In fact, I hate that the USA is dependent on *any* other country for *anything*.

There's a lot of energy sources that can be developed if we could put our best minds and money toward them. Nuclear (fusion hopefully one day). Solar. Wind. Geothermal. Tidal. The list goes on.

[mdklatt]

Ok, MD. Tell us why the earth was cooling in the 1970s and we were threatened with a new ice age, and then tell us why the earth is heating up rapidly now, when we've had all this environmental legislation in place for the past 30 years.

Well, if you believe that human-generated CO2 is the main cause behind global warming, CO2 levels have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution despite environmental legislation. Even if CO2 levels had gone down, there is a lot of inertia to overcome. If you believe that increased solar output is causing the warming--there is evidence of global warming on Mars, too--then envioronmental laws aren't going to do dick.

Do you deny that melting glaciers mean the planet is getting warmer--i.e., are you dumb?

[handcrafted]

Well, if you believe that human-generated CO2 is the main cause behind global warming, CO2 levels have been increasing since the beginning of the industrial revolution despite environmental legislation. Even if CO2 levels had gone down, there is a lot of inertia to overcome. If you believe that increased solar output is causing the warming--there is evidence of global warming on Mars, too--then envioronmental laws aren't going to do dick.

Do you deny that melting glaciers mean the planet is getting warmer--i.e., are you dumb?

Sheesh, ask an honest question...

All I said was, 30 years ago the planet was cooling so fast that we were looking at a new ice age. Now, the exact opposite is happening despite the fact that our air is supposedly cleaner now.

I'm no meteorologist or geologist. But I have friends who are both. And they tell me that things are indeed happening. Glacial ice is melting. The "ozone hole" at the south pole is expanding. However, they also tell me that it is not conclusive as to what's causing it. It could be us. It could be a natural phenomenon. It could be a normal planetary cycle. The earth cooled off a whole bunch back in the Middle Ages, and then warmed back up again about 400 years later. No industrial revolution then.

Or, the whole thing could be due to cow farts.

[Grimey]

Or, the whole thing could be due to cow farts.

or volcanoes, or increased solar activity, or natural cycles... Yet, the most popular solution proposed is basically a global tax, a way to redistribute the wealth of industrialized countries.

[mdklatt]

All I said was, 30 years ago the planet was cooling so fast that we were looking at a new ice age. Now, the exact opposite is happening despite the fact that our air is supposedly cleaner now.


The air in some places is cleaner. Globally, it is not. The rapidly industrializing third world is the largest source of pollution now, and yet the Kyoto Protocol places the least stringent requirements on them.



I'm no meteorologist or geologist. But I have friends who are both. And they tell me that things are indeed happening. Glacial ice is melting. The "ozone hole" at the south pole is expanding. However, they also tell me that it is not conclusive as to what's causing it. It could be us. It could be a natural phenomenon. It could be a normal planetary cycle.


This gets lost in the shuffle when all the political bull**** gets involved. Because of partisan *********gery, global warming has become Global Warming. The tree huggers blame everything on human activity-- including the fact that solar output is higher than normal, apparently. On the other hand, the right-wingers deny any warming at all. I guess they think the glaciers are melting because there's salt in the ocean. :rolleyes:




The earth cooled off a whole bunch back in the Middle Ages, and then warmed back up again 100 years later. No industrial revolution then.


We know that CO2 concentrations have been increasing due to the Industrial Revolution. We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. When you plug the increased CO2 levels over the past hundred years into a climate model you get the temperature increase of the past hundred years, which is pretty compelling. However, climate models are far from comprehensive.

Regardless, what does it hurt to assume that global warming is anthropogenic and take reasonable steps to decrease our CO2 emissions? It makes even more sense when you realize that the main culprit--oil--is also a central factor in the ****ed-upness of the Middle East, the War on Terror, and the volatility of our economy.

[handcrafted]

The air in some places is cleaner. Globally, it is not. The rapidly industrializing third world is the largest source of pollution now, and yet the Kyoto Protocol places the least stringent requirements on them.


I wouldn't count on that changing. It's in vogue to suck up to African nations and other such economies and give them a pass, for fear that the Kyoto protocols would damage their newfound prosperity. For those of us in modern nations, we be screwed.

[Tear Down This Wall]

The Kyoto Protocol is missing it's main ingredient - billions of dollars blackmailed from the U.S. government coffers. Sweet monkey tuesdays, ya'll, not even Billy Clinton would sign that piece of whale shat!

[Osce0la]

All I know is it was 50 degrees outside my house like 2 weeks ago, and last week (and into this week) it has been in the high 70's/low 80's...Be afraid people...Be very afraid...

[Stoop Dawg]

Regardless, what does it hurt to assume that global warming is anthropogenic and take reasonable steps to decrease our CO2 emissions?

Why? We already know how the Earth ends and it ain't because of global warming. I say we trash this place before the party ends!!

[mdklatt]

Why? We already know how the Earth ends and it ain't because of global warming. I say we trash this place before the party ends!!

A clarification: When I say "we" I don't mean "me". I'm completely selfish and don't give a damn about future generations. :texan:

[Penguin]

One word: Ebola.