Global Deception

Discussion in 'In the News' started by msirach, Jul 12, 2011.

  1. msirach

    msirach Well-Known Member

    [​IMG] Don't follow the Pied Piper

    [FIMG=LEFT][/FIMG]Chris Skates - CleanMPG - July 12, 2012

    This is a op-ed from an author and co-worker who tells the "other side" of the story. --Ed.

    Let’s say that you own a business. In our hypothetical case, we will make it a newspaper office. I am employed by your newspaper. One day I come to you and say that my family doctor says that I have Improper Temperature Regulation Syndrome (ITRS). You have never heard of this condition in your life but I continue to talk as if everyone has heard of it. I go on to explain that I intend to walk around in the work place from now on with a small digital thermometer attached to my lapel. Using that digital thermometer, I am going to constantly monitor the temperature in the studio. If the room temperature in the studio or office fluctuates by more than + or – 1 degree, I am going to sue you for everything you have as the owner of the paper because I have ITRS.

    There is some good news. If you will install a new state of the art heating and air-conditioning system (it just so happens that my brother-in-law sells them) then the room temperature will never waver from 68.75 degrees fahrenheit, which my doctor says is optimum for people with my condition. The new system will only cost two-hundred million dollars. The value of your entire paper is ten-million dollars.

    Would you as owner have concerns about this, or would you just rush out and borrow all the money you could get your hands on and install the new air-conditioner? If I were the owner, I would have some questions. I would ask the following:

    • Who is your doctor?
    • What medical reports or information can you provide regarding this condition you call improper temperature regulation syndrome?
    • Can you prove how this “condition” actually affects your health?
    • Assuming that your doctor, the condition, and the effects are all legitimate (which you, the station owner, don’t truly believe) ,what is the accuracy of this digital thermometer?
    • What if the thermometer is in top working order and the accuracy of this cheap little device is only + or – 3 degrees? Then how could you hold me to a + or – 1 degree standard for the room temperature?
    • Since the new air-conditioner you are demanding is so incredibly expensive, how do I know it will hold the room temperature as steady as you say it will?

    These are just a few sample questions. I am sure there would be many more if this were a real “emergency”. So why don’t we ask some of these same questions of the global warming true believers? Al Gore and company say that we must panic, and that we must completely alter (and likely devastate) our economy because the average temperature of earth is supposedly rising 1 degree centigrade on average. They base this on the aforementioned computer models, and they compare temperatures now with hundreds of years ago.
    If their basis for comparison is the average temperature in say the year 1300 AD, should we perhaps as how it is they think they know the temperature of anything to within + or – one degree from hundreds of years ago? Shouldn’t we demand to go over this data with a fine toothed comb before we totally alter our energy supply in this country? Furthermore, while we are at it, how accurate is the temperature data that they have from last week? Remember, we are talking in terms of “global” temperature. How many data points do we need before we can accurately say we know what the “global” temperature is?

    In our hypothetical case above, our potential plaintiff was going to wear a thermometer on his lapel. What if he had just run up some stairs? Could the heat from his body possibly affect how this cheap little thermometer read the temperature? Of course it would. Right now all over the world, weather stations monitor the air temperature around them. The data from these stations are fed into computer models that, those who believe in global warming (like the IPCC for example) use to determine the magnitude and the affects of climate change. (Let’s agree to interchange the descriptor “global warming” and “climate change” as “climate change” is simply a newer less politically damaged term for the same mythical phenomenon).

    Setting the dubious accuracy of the models themselves aside for now, what is the accuracy of these weather stations? Are these instruments properly and regularly calibrated? Are they sitting in locations that are representative of the actual temperature of the surrounding area? What if one of them is supposed to measure the temperature of the great prairie region of the West, yet the weather station itself is sitting in a concrete parking lot? Is that a representative sample? This sounds like a far fetched example but in point of fact, anomalies like this are not nearly as uncommon with this data as they should be.

    I have some latitude. I am not a politician. I am an author. As such, I can state my opinion unequivocally. In my opinion man made global warming or anthropogenic climate change, or whatever the loyalists want to call it this week, is complete and utter poppycock. I am not simply stating this opinion as a political conservative. I am stating it as a professional.

    I work in industry. In my job, I must monitor chemistry data and decide what chemical changes are affecting the process and how. I have done this for twenty-one years and I understand a little about evaluating data. Reading the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reports and looking at some of their data established the fallibility of creating an accurate computer model of something as complex as the climate evident. I emphatically reject the claim that man made activities are warming the planet.

    Conversely, I don’t believe we should do anything to limit our CO2 emissions. I certainly don’t believe we should rush to deprive ourselves of the inexpensive and reliable coal that provides so much of our energy in the country. Now if we want to “wean” ourselves off coal fueled power plants for other reasons, that is okay with me. I would suggest however, that we do it in a much more measured and realistic manner and in a much longer timeframe than currently being proposed by entities such as the United Nations.

    Looking back at our hypothetical case above, we as a society have barely explored any of those types of questions. Instead, the vast majority of the media, Hollywood, and far too many of our government leaders have just accepted climate change as a fact and as an eminent and highly dangerous threat.

    If the ambiguity of the data and the computer models don’t disturb you enough to make you a fellow “denier” (a terrible pejorative term for folks like me who refuse to run off the cliff with the rest of the lemmings, a term coined by Gore and company who selected it for its ties to the immoral “deniers” that the holocaust occurred), then just take a look at who else is in favor of the United States punishing itself for supposedly warming the planet. Some officials of the Soviet Union, followers of Osama Bin Laden, and the North Koreans, are all for the US signing a treaty that would force us to severely curb or eliminate coal fueled power plants and in recent months have made strong public statements accordingly.

    The dubious science, the associations of our enemies, and the groupthink mentality surrounding climate change and the proposed regulations that stem from it, should make all of us pause. As a society, we need to step back, take a deep breath, and take some additional time to examine this issue.

    Chris Skates is a Plant Chemistry Supervisor and Author of the new , critically acclaimed, novel, Going Green: For Some It Has Nothing To Do With The Environment, a novel with a Western Kentucky setting. His role as author has allowed him to be dircetly involved in the climate change debate with United Nations members. The novel has been endorsed by Dr. Roy W. Spencer and The Heritage Foundation among others and is available through bookstores and Amazon.
  2. ksstathead

    ksstathead Moderator

    Wow. Allow me to disagree unequivocally. Just because the models are complex does not make the science untrue.
  3. Pavel4

    Pavel4 Well-Known Member

    The situation, with the observations surrounding "Climate Change/ Global warming", comes down to probabilities. Is it more probable that the changes on this planet are driven, to a substantial level, by deforestation, decreased ocean photosynthesis and uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels or not?
    If one has children and believes in action rather than hyperbole, then it is wise to slow the fuel use of coal, petroleum and natural gas.
    Further, the day will come when the easy supplies of these hydrocarbons will dry up and so, again, it makes sense to act now - put that solar hot water system on your roof, retire your gas guzzler, stop unnecessary (Air, Automobile) travel. And plant a roof garden...

    If Mr. Skates is wrong, who (not just H. sapiens) and how many suffer; if Al Gore (and the earlier alarm bell ringers) are wrong, fewer will suffer for a shorter period of time.

    This discussion mirrors the one over Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. While there is plenty of argument about the mechanism(s) of species change, there is now no credible argument about the fact of Evolution itself. At some point (1970/1980s?) enough evidence had been accrued to show Evolution to be reality - the same will be the case with the climate dynamics of this planet. It is long past time to take sides, it is time to personally act.

    PS: Unexpected hopeful note: just read a report that our star is entering a period of lower activity which could counteract man's influence on our climate. If this is true and if I were a religious person, this could be interpreted as 'Divine Intervention.'
  4. booferama

    booferama He who posts articles

    I'm not sure where to start with how wrong this is. It's hard to engage with, given how general the arguments are. "I don't know about you, but I've read the IPCC, and I don't believe it." How can one argue with that? Officials of the Soviet Union (which no longer exists), some followers of OBL, and the North Koreans support limiting CO2 and penalizing the US. Therefore, climate change isn't man made. Is that actually an argument?
  5. Jough96Accord

    Jough96Accord 1996 Honda Accord 2.2l 5spd

    Well, except for maybe eyeballs... And bugs that are sightless and look like leaves... Or animals that live at the bottom of the ocean and are bright red.
  6. OriEri

    OriEri David

    While we can use various observables to fairly accurately estimate global temperatures historically, historical solar insolation is harder to know. We do not have a long enough accurate record here to spot much of any trend.

    Mr. Skates does not have much of an argument. And anthropogenic or not, it is pretty simple physics to understand that more CO2 means less IR flux out of the Earth and a higher equilibrium temperature. Whether this is due to the action of man or otherwise, it is a problem and burning things will make it worse.
  7. jpleong

    jpleong Well-Known Member

    The same kind of arguments have been used AD NAUSEAM to defend corporate and personal greed. Think Pacific Gas & Electric (the subject of the Erin Brokovitch movie), the Exxon-Valdez oil spill, BPA in plexiglass, etc...

    We still have that today where the rush to make money trumps forward thinking about the impact that stupid things like hydro-fraking, predatory lending, and neutering sound regulatory practices can have on each person, this country, and the world as a whole.

    Someone, please tell me, when did "Conservatives" (those who are listed as having endorsed this author) abdicate their responsibility to "conserve?"

    My parents are REAL conservatives. Save money, save money, save money is the moto I grew up with but they buy CFLs, HE washing machines, small cars, and the like because it conserves... They don't buy-in to this waste gas, waste money, screw people because-we-can mentality that seems to permeate through a particular segment of loudly-speaking people.

  8. PaleMelanesian

    PaleMelanesian Beat the System Staff Member

  9. phoebeisis

    phoebeisis Well-Known Member

    It IS VERY HARD to measure average atm temp.
    No question about that.
    HOWEVER it is pretty easy to measure average atm CO2 and ocean CO2.
    CO2 absorbs "heat energy" that is given off by the earth-energy that would otherwise just speed off into space.
    Are the folks on the "not caused by CO2 camp" saying the CO2 isn't rising?
    Why wouldn't increased CO2 raise temps??
    Seems like that is the basic question folks should address.
    Yes solar activity might be more important- but nothing we can do about that energy source(well we could put something into space to reflect it, but I don't picture anyone being foolish enough to do that)
  10. Earthling

    Earthling Trying to be kind to Mother Earth

    Two words:

    receding glaciers.
    I saw them in person in Alaska many years ago, before "Global warming/climate change" became a popular term.

    Look at how far glaciers there and elsewhere have receded and tell me something isn't going on.

  11. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Super Moderator Staff Member

    The question is not whether it's affected. The issue is how much. Without feedback the anthropogenic change in CO2 level wouldn't cause a significant change in temperature* (at least in the short term: we do have a billion years to go).

    Earth is too complex to calculate the exact effect so computer models are used to try to work out the feedback.

    Skeptics and deniers question the models. Poorly educated ones complain that it's just computer modeling, more educated ones point to other historical data or question data sets and assumptions underlying the models; some others argue that there is significant warming but it isn't due to greenhouse gases.

    The good news is that in 30 years time there should be enough data to eliminate some of the more basic arguments about cycles.

    * Feel free to correct me here.
  12. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    Science should be based on facts, theories should be rated on how well they predict.. models can easily be validated by using historical data, then you can assume their predictions will be on also. Too much fudging of results and data to trust climate models right now.. perhaps in 5 years.

    AGW has been left wing mantra for many years now, that is enough to double my doubts about it.
  13. herm

    herm Well-Known Member

    Glaciers are always on the move, its either caused by AGW, God or just the way global climate works.. take your pick. :smilingface (52):
  14. ItsNotAboutTheMoney

    ItsNotAboutTheMoney Super Moderator Staff Member

    Actually, that's not really true. Trying to determine the historical record is a significant part of the science.

    The fact that politics interferes with science and that people allows their view of the science to be clouded by the politics is a much larger problem.
  15. booferama

    booferama He who posts articles

    I'm curious what fudging of the models there has been.

    Real Climate has a good FAQ about models in two parts (Part I & Part II). They've also evaluated how previous models have done.

    As for AGW as liberal dogma, a number of prominent conservatives accepted it until the Republican base kept swerving rightward. Of course, basing one's ideas on what politicians think is usually a bad track to follow.
  16. Earthling

    Earthling Trying to be kind to Mother Earth

    You take your pick; I've already picked mine: rising CO2 levels.

    That's a reason that explains what is going on.

    If you have a better reason, explain it and prove it. CO2 is proof enough for me.

  17. NeilBlanchard

    NeilBlanchard Well-Known Member

    Anthropogenic global climate change is quite real. As the folks living in Norfolk, VA and the Navy about the rising ocean level. The ocean is more acidic (due to absorbing carbon dioxide with then converts to carbolic acid), and this is having all sorts of effects. Methane is now escaping from melting tundra -- so called permafrost is not very permanent after all! Global long term average temperature is higher than 150 years ago. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have increased at an accelerating rate since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. More intense droughts and storms have been occurring all around the Earth. The US military planners have recognized AGCC as the most significant threat to society.

    The laws of chemistry and physics don't pay attention to anybody's beliefs or politics or wishes.

    Our economy is a subset of the environment. The cost of doing nothing is far greater than changing our carbon fuel consumption.
  18. Kurz

    Kurz Well-Known Member

    You are making an assumption it'll cost more if temperature goes up.
    Every time there was a warm period we as a species benefited from it.
    Better crops, We were more Productive...

    Perhaps the fact we had more ways to observe the weather is how we are noticing all these natural events.

    There have been a few papers postulating that CO2 levels are increasing because of the Oceans release CO2 when the temperature increases.
  19. dr61

    dr61 Well-Known Member

    "Al Gore and company say that we must panic, and that we must completely alter...". Of course Mr. Gore never said any such thing. These are the usual fabrications of the fossil fuel-funded denialist industry.

    If anthropogenic greenhouse gases are not significant forcing agents of current climate change, then peer-reviewed scientific studies need to present a case for what is. The deniers have utterly failed to do this.
  20. booferama

    booferama He who posts articles

    This seems relevant to the discussion, particularly to the authority of AGW denial:


Share This Page