Some people disliked yesterday's post. "How could you possibly give those climate-change skeptics a voice by describing their positions? They are simply wrong. The science is settled." It isn't settled. Not in the minds of about half of American voters.
Peter, I, for one, appreciate greatly your willingness to address both sides of this issue.
I used to be a rabid global warmist, up until I watched Gore's movie “inconvenient truth”. As a person who studied climatology, physics, geology, math thru calculus, chemistry, among other subjects, I saw so many misleading statements in that movie that I started investigating all the claims made by both sides.
I want to add that I’ve been a raging environmentalist/tree hugger since 1968. I was introduced to the environmental movement by a petroleum geologist at ARCO, where I had a summer job as a “junior geologist”, while majoring in that subject at Texas Tech.
Over the last 40 years, I’ve built several houses under PP&L's “super good cents” program. I’ve designed and built passive solar water heating systems. At my current, earth sheltered, home I also have two, 3000 watt solar electric systems, Tesla power walls, a 400% efficient ductless heat pump, and a 400% efficient geothermal HVAC system, and a state certified wood heater. I’m politically strongly progressive; I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for a Republican.
Ok, now that you know I’m not a right wing idiot, here are just a couple of things that make me somewhat skeptical. Gore, in his movie, showed a wall sized graph, showing co2 levels vs. temperature over the last few million years.
The two graph lines were obviously correlative to each other. What Gore conveniently failed to mention, tho, was that the rise in temperature always PRECEDED the rise in co2, by an average of about 800 years.
Even most (?) warmists generally admit this is true, and perform mental gymnastics trying to explain why the law of cause and effect doesn’t apply, in this situation.
Me? I believe that, when the earth warms, concurrently the ocean warms. It’s well known that warmer water can dissolve less co2 than colder water. Thus, as the ocean warms, it tends to lose co2, which of course results in increasing levels of that gas in the atmosphere.
I’m tempted to give other examples, eg the manipulation of data from the dust bowl days by NASA, (NOAH?), but this comment is ridiculously long already.
Bottom line, I am on the fence re co2 caused global warming. It certainly appears that we have a changing climate, but maybe it’s cause is something other than co2. Maybe it’s simply natural climate variability. I’ve seen no formulae comparing X° temperature to ppm co2, for one thing.
I’ve done my part; I am aware of innumerable warmists who have no solar power, no electricity-or even hybrid-vehicles, no passive home heating or cooling, no carpooling, etc. Admittedly, most warmists I know have taken advantage of energy trust of Oregon’s free L.E.D. light bulbs and free low flow shower heads. Woop woop.
Sad to say, I can also honestly state that most warmists I know base their beliefs on what they hear from others, as they have no education in climate or related studies.
From 2005 to 2018 when I was teaching Intro to Biology III (ecology and evolution) I would have more students walk out of my lecture on global warming causations and evidence than would walk out from my lectures on human evolution.
"Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts and I find it instructive that only a minority of the older, more-experienced scientists surveyed, ages 50 and above, said climate change presents a serious danger. Of those surveyed, it seems more-seasoned professionals have more-moderate opinions on the effects of climate change: their responses were more consistent with existing data, in contrast to the more-extreme, alarmist views of younger respondents.
“Just 44 percent of scientists over 50 years old believed climate change would reduce our standard of living in our lifetimes,” Watts said. “Further, just 38 percent were convinced severe weather events have increased.”
Watts' website is - per the website itself- "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change" https://wattsupwiththat.com/ Quotes submitted by Robert L. Guyer
Of course some voters do not grasp the important but technical and complex science behind CO2 and climate change. These are the same voters who also dispute evolution as scientific fact. Neither educated voters nor their organized Party should cow-tow to either of these ignorant groups, even if they are present in large numbers across our country.
There are two issues involved here and they can be conflated. The first is what the science says and the consensus among most scientists who study climatology. The second issue is to the degree the general public believes it. The latter often lags the former. Also, scientists are rarely definitive in their opinions; there is always more to learn and understand. This ambiguity can be manipulated by irresponsible spokespeople which in turn delays the general public from developing its own consensus.
Without comment on whether or not there is a "consensus" on the cause or impact of climate change, I have to say that using voter behavior to determine what people think about any particular issue is probably about as accurate as flipping a coin. I can't imagine too many GOP voters, in the modern America, filled in their circles or pulled a lever because they don't believe climate change is an existential threat. Nor, I expect, do you.
Peter, I, for one, appreciate greatly your willingness to address both sides of this issue.
I used to be a rabid global warmist, up until I watched Gore's movie “inconvenient truth”. As a person who studied climatology, physics, geology, math thru calculus, chemistry, among other subjects, I saw so many misleading statements in that movie that I started investigating all the claims made by both sides.
I want to add that I’ve been a raging environmentalist/tree hugger since 1968. I was introduced to the environmental movement by a petroleum geologist at ARCO, where I had a summer job as a “junior geologist”, while majoring in that subject at Texas Tech.
Over the last 40 years, I’ve built several houses under PP&L's “super good cents” program. I’ve designed and built passive solar water heating systems. At my current, earth sheltered, home I also have two, 3000 watt solar electric systems, Tesla power walls, a 400% efficient ductless heat pump, and a 400% efficient geothermal HVAC system, and a state certified wood heater. I’m politically strongly progressive; I don’t believe I’ve ever voted for a Republican.
Ok, now that you know I’m not a right wing idiot, here are just a couple of things that make me somewhat skeptical. Gore, in his movie, showed a wall sized graph, showing co2 levels vs. temperature over the last few million years.
The two graph lines were obviously correlative to each other. What Gore conveniently failed to mention, tho, was that the rise in temperature always PRECEDED the rise in co2, by an average of about 800 years.
Even most (?) warmists generally admit this is true, and perform mental gymnastics trying to explain why the law of cause and effect doesn’t apply, in this situation.
Me? I believe that, when the earth warms, concurrently the ocean warms. It’s well known that warmer water can dissolve less co2 than colder water. Thus, as the ocean warms, it tends to lose co2, which of course results in increasing levels of that gas in the atmosphere.
I’m tempted to give other examples, eg the manipulation of data from the dust bowl days by NASA, (NOAH?), but this comment is ridiculously long already.
Bottom line, I am on the fence re co2 caused global warming. It certainly appears that we have a changing climate, but maybe it’s cause is something other than co2. Maybe it’s simply natural climate variability. I’ve seen no formulae comparing X° temperature to ppm co2, for one thing.
I’ve done my part; I am aware of innumerable warmists who have no solar power, no electricity-or even hybrid-vehicles, no passive home heating or cooling, no carpooling, etc. Admittedly, most warmists I know have taken advantage of energy trust of Oregon’s free L.E.D. light bulbs and free low flow shower heads. Woop woop.
Sad to say, I can also honestly state that most warmists I know base their beliefs on what they hear from others, as they have no education in climate or related studies.
From 2005 to 2018 when I was teaching Intro to Biology III (ecology and evolution) I would have more students walk out of my lecture on global warming causations and evidence than would walk out from my lectures on human evolution.
"Heartland Senior Fellow Anthony Watts and I find it instructive that only a minority of the older, more-experienced scientists surveyed, ages 50 and above, said climate change presents a serious danger. Of those surveyed, it seems more-seasoned professionals have more-moderate opinions on the effects of climate change: their responses were more consistent with existing data, in contrast to the more-extreme, alarmist views of younger respondents.
“Just 44 percent of scientists over 50 years old believed climate change would reduce our standard of living in our lifetimes,” Watts said. “Further, just 38 percent were convinced severe weather events have increased.”
Watts' website is - per the website itself- "The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change" https://wattsupwiththat.com/ Quotes submitted by Robert L. Guyer
Of course some voters do not grasp the important but technical and complex science behind CO2 and climate change. These are the same voters who also dispute evolution as scientific fact. Neither educated voters nor their organized Party should cow-tow to either of these ignorant groups, even if they are present in large numbers across our country.
There are two issues involved here and they can be conflated. The first is what the science says and the consensus among most scientists who study climatology. The second issue is to the degree the general public believes it. The latter often lags the former. Also, scientists are rarely definitive in their opinions; there is always more to learn and understand. This ambiguity can be manipulated by irresponsible spokespeople which in turn delays the general public from developing its own consensus.
Without comment on whether or not there is a "consensus" on the cause or impact of climate change, I have to say that using voter behavior to determine what people think about any particular issue is probably about as accurate as flipping a coin. I can't imagine too many GOP voters, in the modern America, filled in their circles or pulled a lever because they don't believe climate change is an existential threat. Nor, I expect, do you.