Global Warming Is An Issue, Not A Crusade
Posted: Thursday, December 20, 2007
by James Smith
The problem with the true believer is that an issue becomes black and white. There is no room for discussion. The true believer is right and if you do not agree with him/her, you are dead wrong. The fact is the true believer is not satisfied just with the knowledge that they are right. They need you to acknowledge that they are right as well. They need to convert you. There can be no dissension. There can be no discourse. Facts do not really matter if they do not fit into the true believer's argument.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said: Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do.
In fact, the United Nations reports that global warming is "unequivocal". It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia's largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.
The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."
According to the United Nations true believers, global warming is "unequivocal" and the world scientists "have spoken clearly and with one voice". There is no discussion. There is no dissent. All knowledgeable people now have been converted to this crusade. The reality, of course, is that global warming consensus is not the case in the scientific community.
Indeed for the Nobel winning United Nations panel (IPCC) and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, fundamental problems with their global warming argument have already started to appear. As true believers in their global warming crusade, they will probably rationalize or ignore all facts that do not advance the cause. For the rest of us, as objective observers of the issue of global warming, the following facts should be carefully considered.
Global warming was supposed to cause frequent and violent hurricanes. The fact is that neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S.. Since the mid 19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly now for the last nine years.
In fact , 2007 provides anecdotal evidence that the Earth is, in effect, cooling. Antarctica is getting colder. Snow fell for the first time in Buenos Aires since 1918. Australia had the coldest June in its history this year. It snowed in South Africa for the first time in 15 years. South America experienced one of its coldest winters in the last three decades.
In fact, the entire southern hemisphere experienced bitter cold weather in 2007. The Canadian government has just warned that this winter is likely to be its coldest in at least 15 years. Already, this winter has been very cold in many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere as well.
We have heard about global warming causing the rapidly melting Arctic Ice Cap in the last several years. In fact, advocates of man made global warming point to the rapidly melting Arctic ice as a sign that global warming is occurring even faster than expected.
However, the facts as reported by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California last month indicate a quite different conclusion. The melting of the Arctic sea ice in this study has nothing to do with global warming. It was a natural phenomenon caused by unusual winds and atmospheric pressure.
The project studied trends in Arctic Sea Ice using satellite data , computer models and buoy observations of sea ice drift. The conclusion of the study was as follows: "The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century".
Global warming proponents have pointed out that records showed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the United States. Several of the years surrounding 1998 were very warm and near the record as well. It certainly appeared that the climate was warming due to these historical records. However, it has just been discovered that the records were erroneous. A Canadian blogger named Steve McIntyre audited the NASA records and found errors. When he reported his findings to NASA scientists, they conducted a review that showed he was correct.
This led NASA to recently revise the data published on its website. The errors change the historical facts concerning the global warming argument. The hottest year in the United States is no longer 1998, but 1934. 2001 is no longer in the Top Ten. Instead, four of the top ten hottest years are in the 1930s.
Global warming is an issue that needs to be looked at objectively. It is an issue for rational discourse concerning science and facts. However, it has become a crusade for environmental true believers. Despite the United Nations rhetoric, scientists do not speak with "one voice" and man-made global warming is not "unequivocal".
The danger in blindly following the United Nations global warming crusaders is that we become far removed from the facts of the issue. Indeed, these same United Nations true believers could one day be wearing winter coats in tropical Bali asking Gaia, (the goddess of nature), for increased global warming. Such perversity happens when an issue becomes a crusade.
James William Smith has worked in senior management positions for some of the largest financial services firms in the United States for the last twenty five years. He has also provided business consulting support for insurance organizations and start up businesses. Mr. Smith has a Bachelor of Science Degree from Boston College. He enjoys writing articles on political, national, and world events. Visit his website at http://www.eworldvu.com
This Article has been viewed 289 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsJames, Once again you are going down this road. The issue of "beliefs" is for those who get their religious and political ideology mixed with "fact." There is not a bonifide scientist out there who does not provide sound evidence that global warming exists. I provided you with a list of various scientific communities that support global warming. This has nothing to do with the United Nations. This country, on this issue, is an embarassment to the world. This a money driven issue to protect the oil industry and political ideology. There is no discussion on this issue because it is like trying to debate creationism vs. evolution. You can't mix beliefs with scientific fact. Let's move on and clean up the environment for God's sake!James, you stated in your comment "There is not a bonifide scientist out there who does not provide sound evidence that global warming exists". Here is todays news: The Senate Committee on Environment and public works released a report with this headline: " Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007". Like i said in my article, you can not have this discussion with true believers. You can have no discourse, facts do not matter. Its a real shame. Global warming is an issue not a crusade.
Please! Mr. Inhofe gave his politically right wing speech on Fox News to try to muddy the waters about man-made global warming. He said, "God is still up there" and all of this is "due to the sun." The IPCC with thousands of scientists from over 120 countries have weighed in. Many are currently meeting in Paris to complete work on a global warming treaty. As I said, this is merely an ideological bunch of nonsense - "it's all about Hollywood elitists, etc." The report you site will prove to be worthless. No major media outlet will take it seriously. Stick with the facts not political or religious ideology.
James, So let me see if I understand your position. You believe that the United Nations is correct in saying that "all scientists speak with one voice" and that man made global warming is "unequivocal". Next, You believe that the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on global warming and there is no longer any debate on this issue in the scientific community? Just a couple of questions 1. Do you find the United Nations effective as an organization? 2. What facts would you have to discover to change your mind on your position on man made global warming.?
Your first question is loaded. However, I will answer it. The United Nations does the best job they can. There are pitfalls and the United States is one of them. By the way, I have perused your blogs and find them quite interesting. We criticized the UN and then we unilaterally went to war in Iraq after lying to the world body about our motives. That doesn't bode well for this country, especially since we owe the UN millions and use the excuse of the ineffectiveness of the charter which we have contributed to disrespecting. With regards to your second question, if the following bodies have second thoughts... Let me reiterate: The American Geophysical Union, The American Meteorolgical Society, The Amercian Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Academy of Sciences, the Climate Change Program,and the George W. Bush Coordinating Agency I would reconsider. By the way, what happened to your hot news about late breaking changes in the global warming issue posted on the website? I can't seem to find it tonight. I have a couple of questions. What governing body would you propose that we use other than the UN? Did you think that the President of Columbia University conducted himself appropriately? Did the Bush Administration try to thwart efforts of the scientific community to spread the word about global warming?I agree with you on the war in Iraq. I dont think it was wise to go in either. However, there were many countries that went in with us as well. It appears to be a failure of our leadership and intelligence agencies but that is another issue for another day. The Un does the best job they can? Do you think they are effective or not? You say that you would reconsider if those agencies listed above changed their mind. Fair enough. However hundreds of scientists from those very agencies have raised the flag on the IPCC conclusions. Even scientists within the IPCC do not believe their own panels report. If scientists within the agencies disagree with the findings of the agencies that they work for - is the scientific community speaking with one voice? Is not the credibility of those who say that in question? The 400 prominent scientists that disagree about man made global warming are named in a report released on December 20, 2007 by the U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works. Some of these same scientist wrote a letter to the United Nations in Bali last week to highlight their opposition to the conclusions of the IPCC. Your question about a governing body other than the U.N implies that the UN is a governing body today. If it is we are all in big trouble. I dont believe that a world governing body will ever be effective. It certainly has not proven effective to date. The UN should probably become a disaster relief agency for the world. Do you think the UN should be constructed to have a military and be an enforcement agency for the security council? The President of Iran should not have been invited to speak at Columbia based on the treatment he recieved when he got there. The President of Iran rarely conducts himself properly. The Bush crew probably did try to thwart efforts of the scientific community on global warming, it would not surprise me. Thanks for you response to my questions. Jim
James, I thought you wanted dialogue. I answered your questions, how about mine?
James Smith, good, insightful article. I recently read a book by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear" which tackles this very issue. It is a fiction book written with real "facts" about the world's climate. He even uses footnotes on the pages to tell exactly where he got his information. If you get the chance, check it out if you haven't already. I tend to agree with your article here. I remember when I was in school in the late 70's my science teachers saying we were going into a new ice age! Of course, that didn't happen. After the bad hurricanes in 2005 that destroyed New Orleans, I listened to weather "experts" saying how this was going to be the norm from now on due to global warming. As you state in your article, the last two hurricane seasons were very mild. Weather people cannot accurately predict what the weather's going to be like 8 days from now, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years from now. There should be an open debate and there definately are two sides to the global warming story. However, James Krehbiel proves your point about "true believers" not accepting any other view but their own. To James Krehbiel: I applaud your passion for this issue and agree we should work to clean up our environment. However, I believe Mr. Smith does not disagree that there is a warming trend, just that there are two sides to this story and both sides should be given its due course. In reading your comments to Mr. Smith, you are proving him right by disregarding everything in his article. Thanks to both of you for this lively debate!
James Carrick, Michael Crichton's book, The State of Fear is exactly what it is, science fiction. No one in the scientific community is taking his "facts" seriously. In fact he has been mocked for his exaggerated claims. The Brookings Institute wrote a review which clearly puts this book where it belongs, in the realm of fiction. I DO NOT prove any point. I am not a believer in global warming. I am merely trusting the scientific consensus of climate change that has been well established by the scientific community. There are those who would like to stir up this issue after the fact for ideological and political reasons. I am not one of them. I am merely reflecting what the majority of the major scientific community have concluded. It is interesting that you brought up Michael Crichton's name. You could have done better than that! There are opinions, beliefs, theories, hypothesis and then there is FACT. The scientific facts were thwarted by the Bush Administration until they had no choice but to accept reality or face on-gong global embarrassment.
This last comment was not supposed to be annonymous. It was directed to James Carrick's comments.
To James Krehbiel: I mention Crichton's book because A) Its plot runs along the lines of the debate on this article and B) I recently read the book so it is fresh in my mind. I don't think Crichton is anymore an expert on global warming because he wrote "State Of Fear" than Al Gore is because he did "AN Inconveinient Truth"! You mention the Brookings Institute review of Crichton's book which I looked up and read. You are correct that they denounce the book as nonsense. But I also found an article by the Heartland Institute that backs up Crichton's book. So you have two differing views, one for the validity of Crichton's book, one against. You state to James Smith that "bonafide" scientists agree on global warming. Does that mean that the scientists that disagree are not "bonafide"? And how do you define bonafide? Meaning that only scientists that agree with your view are bonafide? I feel there is room for discussion. I do agree with you that many scientists think there is a global warming threat and that man is responsible for it. But there are also many that don't agree with that view. And all of them are good, respected scientists. I don't think there is a global warming catastrophe. I'm certainly no expert, just a regular Joe with an opinion. And like many times before, my opinion could very well be wrong! Thanks James for your comments!
It is of course always interesting to hear pros and cons, and consider carefully any cons in this matter as well. But again, without presenting the arguments that speak so strongly in favor of man-caused global warming hypotheses, the cons simply lack the background. The sceintific consensus of which James Krehbiel writes is a real one and very critically achieved with tens of thousands of sceptical minds testing it. Please. Thanks God you have poeple who try to find holes in explanations, because in this way they get better. But to confuse objections and possible shortcoming of the explanation with its being simply wrong, is not helpful.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.