climate burn


This post probably seems unnecessary, but I’m addressing global warming skeptics and deniers, not you, Mr. or Ms. Ideal Blog Reader who always agrees with me and has an angelic halo.

Here’s my thesis: People who claim to know more than every climate organization in the world (and deny that humans are accelerating global warming) have a difficult time explaining how they gained this exceptional knowledge. I started out a bit skeptical myself but now it’s settled science. Only the details are debated. When I say “settled,” I mean that every major environmental science and climate organization in the world is onboard. If you want a long list, go to this Wikipedia page.There are references sourcing the data. As is often mentioned, 97% of climate scientist agree on this. Verify it at the collection of surveys here.

Science is designed to stop us from fooling ourselves. Despite personal biases, cover-ups, and faulty data; over time the truth comes out. It comes out due to repetition of experiments, review of experimental design and outcomes, and mounting evidence. If you aren’t sure about a claim, wait a few decades and see where the self-correcting methods of science lead over the long term. That’s where we are now with global warming – 20 years down the road.

Often people who deny the evidence are actually opposed to regulation of industry for ideological reasons. They bring out “experts” who are not climate scientists because they know that only a tiny minority of climate scientists doubt global warming. That’s why we read people quoting the late Michael Crichton, science fiction author and M.D., who falsely believed that consensus has no place in science. Why do we read strenuous objections from places like the Wall Street Journal editorial pages instead of The Journal of Atmospheric Chemistry or Environmental Earth Sciences? Because the former doesn’t have to back up what it’s saying.

Speaking of the WSG, it recently featured an editorial by a physicist, a very smart man. He is not a climate scientist, and doesn’t offer a compelling case as to why he knows better than the world’s entire community of climate researchers. Read some actual experts in the field commenting on his editorial here. I want to see the evidence in the form of NASA, NOAA, and similar organizations in Europe, Asia, and everywhere else begin to change their current opinions on this matter.

If ideology isn’t behind most of the denial of global warming, why do people keeping bringing out tired old objections that have been thoroughly answered over and over again? Example: “Water vapor is the most powerful greenhouse gas, so how can CO2 be a big deal?”  If you search on “water vapor and climate change,” it’s easy to find the answer. Here’s a link to a short explanation by the American Chemical Society. It sounds like desperation when these objections keep popping up.

Meanwhile, outside of the U.S. and maybe Australia, most of the world’s governments have accepted it and moved past whether it’s happening and are now considering policies to mitigate the effects of global warming. Europe, China, Japan, and most industrial nations accept reality. By the way, the Pentagon acknowledges global warming and its destabilizing effects on the world.

Corporations are not experts in climate change, but they will take realistic look at the evidence if their profits are at stake. That’s why insurance companies accept the reality. Why would an insurance company “bet” on global warming consequences? Nike and Coca-Cola have acknowledged the economic damage caused by global warming and are taking steps to mitigate the causes. Air France, Hewlett-Packard, Black & Decker, MicrosoftNestles,  Sony – these companies have board-level management on climate change planning. They are making substantive changes in corporate strategy and spending, not superficial PR moves.

Human caused, accelerating global warming is real and will have a real and negative effect on your children and grandchildren. People who claim to know better than every climate organization in the world have a difficult time explaining how they gained this exceptional knowledge. It’s no wonder.


5 thoughts on “climate burn

  1. When the truth is pleasent there are many takers and when its grim there are many deniers.
    The next step is even more difficult. Having accepted the truth we need to make big changes.
    I will get in my small car and point an accusing finger at my neighbours juice eater. I will fly on holiday to Spain and criticise those globe trotters. Accusations will fly around blame will be bounced off me onto who ever I can pinhole . Meanwhile the stew will brew and the rats will get ready for their day of come back.

  2. Your argument does not take on any of the specifics of either Crichton’s talk, nor of the WSJ editorial. And in your own way you make Michael Crichton’s point: this debate is political, not scientific. You are simply saying that you are right because more people think your way. This isn’t how science works; this is how sales and politics work.

    • dangblog

      The WSJ article – I provided a link to a place where actual climate scientists explain where the article is wrong or misleading on specific points. I can provide more such links if you’re interested.

      Crichton – I agree that science is not done by vote or popularity, but by observation, experiment, and evidence. And when good evidence piles up to such an extent that most scientists agree where the evidence points – that’s consensus. Go ahead and dig into it and you’ll find a solid foundation of research and results, not a popularity contest.

      That’s where the global warming deniers fail – where is the preponderance of evidence backing them up? Nowhere.

  3. yacman

    The Crichton talk that is being referred to, is really just a long ramble of Straw Man arguments. He seems to think that SETI, Second-hand smoke, and, of all things, the Drake equation, are somehow relevant to global climate change. I think that he is trying to foster the argument that scientists have been wrong before, therefore they must be wrong about AGW. Furthermore, this source is 11 years old. One wonders whether the mounting evidence would have convinced even skeptics like Crichton. But, since he’s dead, it is impossible to know. Skepticism is a good thing, but obvious evidence should not be ignored.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s