Is Global Warming a Leftist Urban Legend?

[Hazeleyes]

There is a nice warm feeling in the belief that the earth is capable of healing from any assualt that nothing bad will ever

happen. That we can continue to pursue policies that have their foundation in the idea that jobs trump the environment and that that is the way god made it when he gsve us dominion over the earth and everything on it. Its sad to find that as a species we still haven't matured enough to really understand the intercaonnectedness of all life that our actions will always result in a reaction and that the consequences of those actions are often unintended.

[August1991]

There is a nice warm feeling in the belief that the earth is capable of healing from any assualt that nothing bad will ever happen. That we can continue to pursue policies that have their foundation in the idea that jobs trump the environment and that that is the way god made it when he gsve us dominion over the earth and everything on it. Its sad to find that as a species we still haven't matured enough to really understand the intercaonnectedness of all life that our actions will always result in a reaction and that the consequences of those actions are often unintended.

And one could also argue, Hazel Eyes, that your view shows how humans are tremendously self-centred and filled with hubris. - As if in the grand scheme of things, humans matter at all.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eScDfYzMEEw

[Pliny]

about that ongoing from the U.S. political right/Republican war-on-science...

Science scorned: The anti-science strain pervading the right wing in the United States is the last thing the country needs in a time of economic challenge.

It isn't a war on science, Waldo. It's a war on pseudo-science and such organizations as CSICOP.

[waldo]

It isn't a war on science, Waldo. It's a war on pseudo-science and such organizations as CSICOP.

how so Pliny? Just how is it a U.S. (and Canadian) political right/U.S. Republican war on, as you say, "pseudo-science". Keep it light Pliny... no need for you to deliver one of your deep, deep reflections.

Koch Industries Tells Its 80,000 Employees: Global Warming Is A Hoax

The Koch Industries scions, the billionaire brothers Charles and David Koch, have not only polluted American politics with global warming denial, but also barraged their employees with right-wing, anti-science propaganda for years. Koch Industries is one of the largest private companies in the world, with about $100 billion in annual revenues and 80,000 employees. The Koch brothers are virulently right-wing ideologues who have spent decades attempting to prevent regulation of their toxic pollution — including oil refining, formaldehyde, and industrial agriculture — through a network of hard-right think tanks and astroturf groups.

Exploring the Wichita-based Koch Industries in-house newsletter, “Discovery,” the Wonk Room has found that Koch Industries propagandizes its own employees — from the Flint Hills Resources refining group to the Georgia Pacific paper consumer products giant — with global warming denialism. Koch’s corporate climate denial cites the very front groups that it funds, such as the American Council on Capital Formation, Heritage Foundation, the Heartland Institute, and the Institute for Energy Research.

In addition to climate denial, the Koch Industries newsletter — managed by Koch’s top propagandist Rich Fink — repeatedly asserts that any rule or regulation to limit pollution will destroy the economy and American freedom. Employees concerned about this assault on prosperity are encouraged to turn to Americans for Prosperity, Koch’s Astroturf organization that works to elect hard-right Republicans and dismantle progressive policies.

[bloodyminded]

Since the Koch brothers are right-wing, successful businessmen (proof of sober wisdom and high political acumen) get ready for Pliny's defense of them in three...two....one....

[Pliny]

how so Pliny? Just how is it a U.S. (and Canadian) political right/U.S. Republican war on, as you say, "pseudo-science". Keep it light Pliny... no need for you to deliver one of your deep, deep reflections.

Koch Industries Tells Its 80,000 Employees: Global Warming Is A Hoax

You sound as though you have never heard of Al Gore's "Convenient Hoax"?

[bush_cheney2004]

how so Pliny? Just how is it a U.S. (and Canadian) political right/U.S. Republican war on, as you say, "pseudo-science". Keep it light Pliny... no need for you to deliver one of your deep, deep reflections.

Students: Please notice the clever reference to an American firm and political party for solid credibility. Canada is just as relevant to this point, as Koch's Flint Hills Resourcse refines a lot of the dirty tar sands oil exported to the USA.

But as always, it is better to lead with the "U.S." association and reference for more brownie points in Canada.

... now back to the action.

[Hazeleyes]

Students: Please notice the clever reference to an American firm and political party for solid credibility. Canada is just as relevant to this point, as Koch's Flint Hills Resourcse refines a lot of the dirty tar sands oil exported to the USA.

But as always, it is better to lead with the "U.S." association and reference for more brownie points in Canada.

... now back to the action.

The Columbia ice fields in the Canadian rockies have shrunk noticible in my lifetime. The glaciers in the rockiers are significantly smaller. The artic ice sheet is thinner. Greenland is calfing more iceburgs and the north west passage is open. Now you can deny all these observerable facts but then you will be taking yourself out of the discussion of "what ten". That when we talk about surviving the environmental change.

Edited September 12, 2010 by Hazeleyes

[bush_cheney2004]

The Columbia ice fields in the Canadian rockies have shrunk noticible in my lifetime. The glaciers in the rockiers are significantly smaller. The artic ice sheet is thinner. Greenland is calfing more iceburgs and the north west passage is open. Now you can deny all these observerable facts but then you will be taking yourself out of the discussion of "what ten". That when we talk about surviving the environmental change.

I am not denying anything, and welcome such changes be they natural or "anthropogenic". I am ambivalent when it comes to tree huggers battling the production of BTUs. Adapt or die, just as always.

[jbg]

The Columbia ice fields in the Canadian rockies Rockies have shrunk noticible noticeably in my lifetime. The glaciers in the rockiers Rockies are significantly smaller. The artic Arctic ice sheet is thinner. Greenland is calfing calving more iceburgs icebergs and the north west passage Northwest Passage is open. Now you can deny all these observerable facts but then you will be taking yourself out of the discussion of "what ten" "what then"?. That when we talk about surviving the environmental change. (not a sentence).

Unless Canadian has different spelling and grammar rules, I have significantly aided your post. That being said, climate is cyclical. I am sure each of these phenomena has reversed itself or will shortly reverse itself, at least for the next thirty (30) years. Edited September 12, 2010 by jbg

[Pliny]

The Columbia ice fields in the Canadian rockies have shrunk noticible in my lifetime. The glaciers in the rockiers are significantly smaller. The artic ice sheet is thinner. Greenland is calfing more iceburgs and the north west passage is open. Now you can deny all these observerable facts but then you will be taking yourself out of the discussion of "what ten". That when we talk about surviving the environmental change.

Yes. No one is denying anything that is plainly observable. The argument, for me, is whether or not global warming has proven to be anthropogenic. The theory is that it is but I do not believe that has been conclusively proven. There simply is not enough data over time to prove it.

AND...

As long as politicians are using the data for the primary purpose of establishing tax policy, increasing their tax base and redistributing wealth all of which will not contribute an iota to the reduction of global warming I will doubt it.

Besides it is not like we are going to continue to not advance whatsoever and continue to consume energy at the rate we do. There is a long period for change or adaptation. Most models are projecting based upon current energy uses and patterns of use which, if had been used and extrapolated during the age when we were using coal would have predicted the end of the world by now. The fact is that new technologies reduced the use of coal and/or improved it's use. We no longer use it directly for home heating which made London a pollution hell in the early 1800's.

[wyly]

In Canada these days it's easy to suspect our right wing is anti-science in general. Time and time again the Conservative party has eschewed expert advice in favour of it's own ideological, moral and thinly disguised religious biases. Criminologists, economists, statisticians etc are routinely ignored and left to the attack dogs of partisanship and ideology.

The effect on the public is predictable, a loss of faith and confidence in yet another institution, like the police, religion, and certainly the government itself.

conservatives by nature are extremely self-centered they do not like change that may force them out of their comfort zone... they are not progressive thinkers that worry about unborn generations...they live in the here and now and anything that may disrupt their style of life or may hinder their profit margin is to be resisted at all costs...

and it's normal behaviour for that segment of the population but they have no business running a government because they are scientifically stupid and have zero vision for the future...

[Keepitsimple]

conservatives by nature are extremely self-centered they do not like change that may force them out of their comfort zone... they are not progressive thinkers that worry about unborn generations...they live in the here and now and anything that may disrupt their style of life or may hinder their profit margin is to be resisted at all costs...

and it's normal behaviour for that segment of the population but they have no business running a government because they are scientifically stupid and have zero vision for the future...

.....and Wyly gets the Grand Prize for demonstrating the mindset of those "Progressive Thinkers".

[waldo]

how so Pliny? Just how is it a U.S. (and Canadian) political right/U.S. Republican war on, as you say, "pseudo-science". Keep it light Pliny... no need for you to deliver one of your deep, deep reflections.

Koch Industries Tells Its 80,000 Employees: Global Warming Is A Hoax

You sound as though you have never heard of Al Gore's "Convenient Hoax"?

I won't bother to, yet again, dredge up my favourite post that shows your absolute fixation with your 'Pope Gore'... but really, Pliny - yours is a fanciful obsession with someone who had a fleeting moment of prominence; to someone who, today, really isn't a commanding presence in the ongoing discussion/review, whether policy, politics or science based. It's really quite telling when denialists... for denialists sake... reach for the easy go-to Gore. You/they are obviously are out of your/their element in even attempting to discuss the fundamentals... so, you/they resort to juvenile labeling and attacks - cause that's all ya got!

[waldo]

conservatives by nature are extremely self-centered they do not like change that may force them out of their comfort zone... they are not progressive thinkers that worry about unborn generations...they live in the here and now and anything that may disrupt their style of life or may hinder their profit margin is to be resisted at all costs...

and it's normal behaviour for that segment of the population but they have no business running a government because they are scientifically stupid and have zero vision for the future...

Bad science: Global-warming deniers are a liability to the conservative cause

In the case of global warming, this dissonance is especially traumatic for many conservatives, because they have based their whole worldview on the idea that unfettered capitalism — and the asphalt-paved, gas-guzzling consumer culture it has spawned — is synonymous with both personal fulfillment and human advancement. The global-warming hypothesis challenges that fundamental dogma, perhaps fatally.

The appropriate intellectual response to that challenge — finding a way to balance human consumption with responsible environmental stewardship — is complicated and difficult. It will require developing new technologies, balancing carbon-abatement programs against other (more cost-effective) life-saving projects such as disease-prevention, and — yes — possibly increasing the economic cost of carbon-fuel usage through some form of direct or indirect taxation. It is one of the most important debates of our time. Yet many conservatives have made themselves irrelevant in it by simply cupping their hands over their ears and screaming out imprecations against Al Gore... see MLW's Pliny!

Rants and slogans may help conservatives deal with the emotional problem of cognitive dissonance. But they aren’t the building blocks of a serious ideological movement. And the impulse toward denialism must be fought if conservatism is to prosper in a century when environmental issues will assume an ever greater profile on this increasingly hot, parched, crowded planet. Otherwise, the movement will come to be defined — and discredited — by its noisiest cranks and conspirators.

[waldo]

Unless Canadian has different spelling and grammar rules, I have significantly aided your post. That being said, climate is cyclical. I am sure each of these phenomena has reversed itself or will shortly reverse itself, at least for the next thirty (30) years.

notwithstanding your asshat spelling Nazi routine... as has been your repeated pattern, when challenged, you fail to substantiate your claims (your certainties). Let's see you substantiate your certainty over 30 year cyclical reversals for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentions... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage...

[waldo]

Besides it is not like we are going to continue to not advance whatsoever and continue to consume energy at the rate we do. There is a long period for change or adaptation. Most models are projecting based upon current energy uses and patterns of use which, if had been used and extrapolated during the age when we were using coal would have predicted the end of the world by now. The fact is that new technologies reduced the use of coal and/or improved it's use. We no longer use it directly for home heating which made London a pollution hell in the early 1800's.

change or adaption to what? You've just stated you don't believe 'global warming' has been proven to be anthropogenic in cause... so... what does your suggested change or adaption presume to deal with, presume to account for?

one of your past favoured reaches has been to blindly mouth off about "models" - care to step-up and substantiate this your latest... mouth off... which models - specifically.

[waldo]

Harper Conservatives muzzling federal scientists:

The Harper government has tightened the muzzle on federal scientists, going so far as to control when and what they can say about floods at the end of the last ice age.

Natural Resources Canada scientists were told this spring they need “pre-approval” from Minister Christian Paradis’ office to speak with national and international journalists. Their “media lines” also need ministerial approval, say documents obtained by Postmedia News through access-to-information legislation.

The documents say the “new” rules went into force in March and reveal how they apply to not only to contentious issues including the oilsands, but benign subjects such as floods that occurred 13,000 years ago.

They also give a glimpse of how Canadians are being cut off from scientists whose work is financed by taxpayers, critics say, and is often of significant public interest — be it about fish stocks, genetically modified crops or mercury pollution in the Athabasca River.

“It’s Orwellian,” says Andrew Weaver, a climatologist at University of Victoria. The public, he says, has a right to know what federal scientists are discovering and learning.

Environment Canada and Health Canada now tightly control media access to researchers and orchestrate interviews that are approved. Environment Canada has even produced “media lines” for federal scientists to stick to when discussing climate studies they have co-authored with Weaver and are based on research paid for through his university grants.

“There is no question that there is an orchestrated campaign at the federal level to make sure that their scientists can’t communicate to the public about what they do,” says Weaver, adding that the crackdown is seriously undermining morale in federal labs. “Science is about generating new knowledge and communicating it to others.”

The control and micro-management points to a high level of “science illiteracy” in the upper ranks of the federal government, he says, and “incredible disrespect” for both the researchers and the taxpayers footing the government’s multi-billion-dollar science bill.

“The sad reality is that these guys in Ottawa think federal scientists work for them,” says Weaver. “They don’t, they work for the people of Canada.

“This is science funded by Canada for the public good,” he says. “It is not science funded to produce briefing notes for ministers so they can get elected in the next federal campaign.”

[jbg]

notwithstanding your asshat spelling Nazi routine...

I was trying to improve the Board's quality. A Grade 3 education at least should be a requirement.

as has been your repeated pattern, when challenged, you fail to substantiate your claims (your certainties). Let's see you substantiate your certainty over 30 year cyclical reversals for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentions... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage...

Generally speaking there is something called a Pacific Decadal Oscillation ("PDO"). The most recent "warm phases" of the PDO ran from about 1917-1947 and 1977 through either, and this is a matter of dispute, 1998 or 2007. I go with the "2007" camp for reasons I'll explain. The most recent "cold phases" ran from 1947-1977 and, again, either 1998 or 2007 and continuing. Generally speaking the "warm phases" accentuate and make more common and stronger "El Niños" and make less common and weaker "La Niñas". Cold phases do the opposite.

Warm phases don't totally banish strong La Niñas and cold phases don't totally banish strong El Niños. For example, in 1972-3 and 2009-early 2010 we had strong El Niños. These were, however, extremely brief and culminated in sharp, deep plunges into moderate to strong La Niñas. That is the reason that both the summers of 1973 and 2010 featured extreme heat and droughtiness in the U.S. Northeast. 1988 featured a strong La Niña. Again, being out of "character" it was extremely short by La Niña standards. La Niñas are typically multi-year events and that one ran from May 1988 through around July 1989. By contrast during the 1950's a Niña ran from early 1952 to late 1952, went briefly to neutral, then ran from May 1954 through summer 1956.

While La Niñas may trigger Northeast U.S. heat waves, they create chilly conditions in the Pacific, on the West Coast, and in Alaska. Further, while El Niños may on occasion trigger severe Northeast U.S. cold and snow (witness last winter, 1976-7 and 1977-8) they tend to chew up the Arctic ice pack (thus the pictures of stranded polar bears). On balance El Niños favor global warming, La Niñas global cooling.

I have no proof on what the next thirty years hold; do check back with me then.

[Keepitsimple]

I have no proof on what the next thirty years hold; do check back with me then.

Aren't the IPCC models proof enough?

[waldo]

notwithstanding your asshat spelling Nazi routine... as has been your repeated pattern, when challenged, you fail to substantiate your claims (your certainties). Let's see you substantiate your certainty over 30 year cyclical reversals for the highlight points Hazeleyes mentions... glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice-free Northwest Passage...

Generally speaking there is something called a Pacific Decadal Oscillation ("PDO").

I have no proof on what the next thirty years hold; do check back with me then.

if the PDO is what you're holding up as "proof"... let's be clear... are you suggesting that the PDO, by definition an oscillating temperature pattern, is responsible for the accepted long-term warming trend... you do accept the long-term warming trend, right? Notwithstanding the PDOs oscillating pattern, one would expect you should be able to show a PDO warming trend coincident with long-term temperature trending, right? You should be able to show that, right?

equally, there's just something about it's name... that there 'Pacific' reference... as a climate phenomena found primarily in the North Pacific. Perhaps you could extend upon just how that 'locality' translates into a global affect, one particularly targeted towards your initial post on this subject (i.e. the references to glacier retreats, Arctic ice extent/volume, Greenland ice-sheet loss, projected ice=free NW Passage, etc.).

actually... you've touted the PDO previously in other more 'technically oriented' climate change related threads... you failed to substantiate your earlier PDO related claim as well. Perhaps rather than send this thread on a tangent, why not take this point up within one of those other threads. Let's leave this thread for the purposes of honing in on the political right/Conservative/Republican failings - hey?

[gutb]

Global Warming is real, the data is overwhelmingly in favour of a warming effect, and the prevailing anthropological cause theories are solid. The disconnect happens when people try and pretend a scientific topic is a political one. Politics is the battle over slices of the pie, science is the exploration of reality using observable facts to form reproducible theories to describe how something works. Data gathered from weather balloons and glacier samples cannot be effected by a political debate -- unless, people falsify the data to support a political debate; to believe the science is wrong at this stage is to believe in a large international conspiracy.

In addition, no one in this thread has probably even bothered to so much as read the wikipedia article on the subject; the current model shows a warming of 1.33 degrees F, mostly caused by human activity. The "nightmare" scenarios climate change researchers conduct actually come up with fairly mild "disasters", nothing that would endanger human life on Earth. We should conduct our affairs to preserve usable land and ensure good conditions for our agriculture, but it will be dealt with in due time; our system of civilization only has a "debate" over it because people don't have control over their own wealth.

[PIK]

GW is a scam, climate change is real. And if you think planting a tree is going to save the wolrd I have a bunch to sell you. Yes we are polluting the planet ,but because of this GW scam, the eye has been taken off the ball for what is really happening. All we have to do is clean up behind us, govermnet or even worse ,people like gore and suzuki that are or have become very rich over this , is the problem. We have nuclear subs rotting away in russia, which will do a hell of a lot more damage to this planet ,then cow farts.PCB dumps all over this country left behind by the america military and probably ours, so much to do, but we are going at it the wrong way.

[waldo]

GW is a scam, climate change is real.

please take your Conservative war on science to the (new) appropriate thread - thanks!

[PIK]

please take your Conservative war on science to the (new) appropriate thread - thanks!

LOL