Scientists used to believe the oldest trees on the planet were in North America with ages in the 5,000-year range.
Hooey, for a new discovery in Sweden has completely debunked this consensus, resulting in a total rewrite of climate history while bringing into serious question global warming theories espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore and his sycophant devotees.
Think green media members will be falling over themselves to report this new finding?
While you ponder, consider the evidence supplied by the British Telegraph Thursday (emphasis added):
The world's oldest tree has been found in Sweden, a tenacious spruce that first took root just after the end of the last ice age, more than 9,500 years ago.
The tree has rewritten the history of the climate in the region, revealing that it was much warmer at that time and the ice had disappeared earlier than thought. [...]
It had been thought that this region was still in the grip of the ice age but the tree shows it was much warmer, even than today, [Prof Leif Kullman at Umeå University] says.
“Spruces are the species that can best give us insight about climate change,” he says.
The summers 9,500 years ago were warmer than today, though there has been a rapid recent rise as a result of climate change that means modern climate is rapidly catching up.
Hmmm. So, as a result of this find, we now know that summers in Sweden were not only much warmer 9,500 years ago than the consensus view used to be, but ALSO warmer than today...even after all that awful carbon dioxide that man has released into the atmosphere in the past couple of centuries.
Yes, I'm sure media will be all over this story in the coming days...not!
*****Update: As a post facto aside, this find should also point out how irrelevant a "consensus" is as it pertains to science, for new discoveries are always debunking and challenging conventional wisdom.
Sadly, folks in the media, and climate alarmists looking to stifle debate, refuse to understand this inconvenient truth.
That said, energy and financial policies SHOULD NOT be based on supposedly consensus views of science for EXACTLY this reason, for a lot of time, money, and resources could be devoted to a "solution" to a "problem" which ends up NOT existing.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
I'm going to send this to my
April 17, 2008 - 10:45 ET by marpelI'm going to send this to my brother to see how he's going to explain this one away....he'll probably first look it up in Snopes...LOL
oops! Guess Al missed this
April 17, 2008 - 10:55 ET by bassndudeoops! Guess Al missed this one.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
I guess he'll have to use a
April 17, 2008 - 11:28 ET by FastEdhand saw to eliminate the evidence, knowing all the hydrocarbons emmitted by a chainsaw.
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
Aww man Liberals are just getting pounded recently.
April 17, 2008 - 10:55 ET by AJSHOPENot that I'm complaining. Anyone with any common sense would be embarassed by all of this if they believed all of this and were in the tank for Obama and Gore. There in lies the problem though. Those who buy this garbage and support Obama don't have common sense. Actually to take that a step further, liberals in general don't have common sense.
This global warming hoax and Obama's campaign should both have been history by now. Unfortunately neither is, which in turn supports my claim that liberals don't have common sense.
It won't last long
April 17, 2008 - 10:55 ET by CobraManI'm sure Al will hire some scientists, probably from Earth Liberation Front, to conduct global warming research in the area and cut down the trees to do a ring count study. No more trees, no more evidence. Problem solved.
..he'll put the tree in his
April 17, 2008 - 10:57 ET by tater..he'll put the tree in his lock box.
By justice a king gives stability to a land; but he who imposes heavy taxes ruins it. -Proverbs 29:4
Then we can get him for
April 17, 2008 - 10:57 ET by AJSHOPEThen we can get him for cutting down trees. I thought his company and his buddies were supposed to plant trees so the elitists can feel better about themselves when they are on their private jets?
Forest fire? ELF in
April 17, 2008 - 10:58 ET by bassndudeForest fire? ELF in action?
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
bassndude - Why don't we
April 17, 2008 - 12:22 ET by onlybeef42bassndude - Why don't we reduce CO2 admissions and club both? (the seal and the liberal). It would be the planet conscious thing to do.
Not seal, SeAL. We need the
April 17, 2008 - 12:38 ET by bassndudeNot seal, SeAL. We need the SeAL's, but if you like, we can club the baby seals and the libs. But we will breathe harder and produce more CO2.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
Algore
April 17, 2008 - 10:59 ET by iveseenitallAlgore just reacted to this. With a wave of his hand he said, "Nothing to see here, move along". The charlatan!
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
"these arn't the droids
April 17, 2008 - 15:41 ET by red_dragon311"these arn't the droids you'er looking for, you can go about your business...."
"As a news consumer, however, the word of an MSM journalist isn't good enough." - Dabird
Socialist Tree
April 17, 2008 - 11:08 ET by dboYou can tell that tree grows in Sweden. Looks like it has had 95% of it's branches taxed off.
The things man doesn't know
April 17, 2008 - 11:09 ET by 10ksnookerThe things man doesn't know about the planet dwarfs the things he pretends to know.
A number of people have
April 17, 2008 - 11:12 ET by danboA number of people have pointed to the problems in using trees as a guage for temperture. I suspect the warmers will finally see these problems. But only use it for this species. Not the cherry picked data Michael Mann used.
The treemometer.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
LOL Danbo. First time I've
April 17, 2008 - 11:23 ET by dboLOL Danbo. First time I've seen that. Is there a Hansen version standing beside a graph?
If there isn't one for
April 17, 2008 - 13:45 ET by danboIf there isn't one for Hansen there should be. I just haven't seen it.
There is a new verb. Hansenize. Or to hansenize. To adjust or correct data in such a way that the adjusted or corrected data is less accurate than the error you adjusted for.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
Don't let Gavin off too easy
April 17, 2008 - 14:26 ET by dboI can think of a good noun and verb for Schmidt too. All you have to do is take a few letters away from his name.
You are overlooking the fact---
April 17, 2008 - 11:46 ET by misterbillYou are overlooking the fact---that most of the manufacturing plants 9500 years ago were in Asia. At that time the world was still changing from flat to oval. This resulted in the carbon layer hovering over Asia which was destroyed 9499 years ago by intense heat.
Misterbill's book of FACTUAL global warming.
PS It was NOT the lead in their drinking vessels that caused the Fall of the Han Dynasty! It was the heat!
*tears up ticket*
April 17, 2008 - 12:24 ET by Roger the ShrubberDammit, I had "bird flu" in the pool.
Look out for the tree-huggers, Noel.
April 17, 2008 - 11:50 ET by Gary HallLook out for the tree-huggers, Noel.
The Sweedish scientist, Nils-Axel Mörner, well known (to everyone but the press) for his studies and analysis showing that the alarmism over sea level rises is just a wee bit shrill, reported that a lone tree on the beach in the Maldives, evidence supporting that sea levels were falling there - not rising, was uprooted by a gang of Austrialian environmentalists. They sought to destroy the evidence to further the IPCC's political agenda.
This tree is in danger.
Gary
April 17, 2008 - 11:55 ET by Noel SheppardGary,
Yeah, I remember that -- for I actually wrote about it. :-) ns
How could you have missed it...
April 17, 2008 - 12:02 ET by Gary HallHow could you have missed it... after all, you're not on the MSM payroll. HA!
I knew that you'd written about it (and I'm certain that it was a monumental piece) - in fact, started to go searching for the link -- but NB's search mechanism is, well..
(;~>
Gary
April 17, 2008 - 12:37 ET by Noel SheppardGary,
Despite what the morons at DeSmogBlog think, I'm actually a spectacular Googler: http://newsbusters.o... :-) ns
Hmmmmm....for a planet
April 17, 2008 - 12:13 ET by mattmHmmmmm....for a planet that's supposedly billions of years old, it's funny that the oldest living things on earth, as far as they know, are in the 5 to 10 thousand year age range....
Please explain "All
April 17, 2008 - 12:27 ET by IgnatzJFahrquarPlease explain
"All generalizations are false, including this one.” Mark Twain
see below
April 17, 2008 - 13:07 ET by mattmsee below
Just wait till the msm
April 17, 2008 - 12:39 ET by FastEdstarts reporting about John McClains age, that tree will get buried faster than hill or barrys last "mistatement".
There is no sense in being stupid, if you can't prove it! - my dad V
National Geographics Take
April 17, 2008 - 12:38 ET by onlybeef42http://news.national...
Not a single word is said about the climate being warmer in the past.
PS - while your there be sure to check your global warming anxiety
"We’re all a little horror-stricken by the environmental problems we’re facing these days, but some of us weather the storm better than others. So what’s your eco anxiety level?"
http://www.thegreeng...
Reduce CO2 admissions club a seal and a liberal
That test sucks!!!
April 17, 2008 - 19:54 ET by RESTLESS 1The very first question made me queasy. "While watching "An Inconvenient truth"... What on earth makes them think I would EVER, EVER,EVER!!! watch that tripe? I didn't get mostly "A's", I got all "A's". That hasn't happened in a while.
Yes please Mattm. What would
April 17, 2008 - 12:38 ET by Jcon96Yes please Mattm. What would you expect to live longer? So if a 20,000 year old tree was found, what would that do to your assumptions? What about things that lived millons of years ago? Or do they not count because they are no longer alive?
One problem with much of
April 17, 2008 - 12:53 ET by onlybeef42One problem with much of the dating is that is based on radio-carbon half-lives. This assumes the breakdown of carbon has been unchanged from now to back then. Like global warming in these dates scientist have to make logical jumps. Those outside the 'contentious' in radio-carbon believe these numbers could be substantially incorrect.
Radioactive decay changes at a quantum level?
April 17, 2008 - 13:46 ET by CobraMan"This assumes the breakdown of carbon has been unchanged from now to back then."
Are you suggesting that radioactive decay, something that occurs at a quantum level, can actually change over time? That carbon 14, a radioactive atom (it’s unstable and it emits radiation as it decays, that’s why it’s radioactive), which is what is used to measure the age of carbon based life forms, actually decays at different rates according to different time periods? I would love to hear your explanation of that.
I don't think so, I believe
April 17, 2008 - 14:35 ET by dscottI don't think so, I believe the issue is that the rate of C14 creation is variable and so this makes estimation of dates very tricky. So a 1000 year old tree is not absorbing C14 at a constant rate, so therefore they try to find some kind of independent date reference to start from like the soil layer which makes the C14 dating process relative to the layer it is found in. BTW-the C14 creation rate is dependent on the solar cycle.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
You may not be aware of this
April 17, 2008 - 14:50 ET by CobraManThis isn't just guessing here, there are proven methods of dating plant material accurately. You may not be aware of this, but the accuracy of radio-carbon dating has been verified by comparing known biological samples, like 5,000 year-old papyruses, who's age is know from the historic (written) record with carbon dating of those same samples. This is how the carbon14 decay rates were first determined.
There is a variance, but it's only in a range of a few decades for plant material less than 10,000 years old. How did they determine this? Easy, they tested samples that were shown to be 10,000 years old through other methods. I would say that the 9,000-year-old date is accurate within 20 to 30 years.
Many scientists, including those that believe in creation
April 17, 2008 - 16:33 ET by AJSHOPEMany scientists, including those that believe in creation agree that carbon dating is accurate up to about 10,000 years. Those same scientists, (including the ones that believe in evolution and the earth being millions of years old) agree that carbon dating can't really be used past 10,000 years.
Proven like Al Gore's Global Warming crisis
April 17, 2008 - 18:13 ET by onlybeef42First, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, one must assume the rate of decay of carbon-14 has remained constant
over the years.
iron isotopes have shown rates do vary
2nd faulty assumption is that the rate of carbon-14 formation has remained constant over the
years.
evil global warmers)
a flood, meteor, etc (change in vegetation)
Third, for carbon-14 dating to be accurate, the concentrations of carbon-14 and carbon-12 must have remained
constant in the atmosphere.
subterranean previously non-cosmic exposed substances to the surface
4th Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 must be at an equilibrium
5th ... Well I haven’t studied this in a while so here did a quick search a site I like and got an article in detail for you http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019. If you want more info just ask and there many who aren't part of the 'consensus'
Talk about faulty assumptions
April 18, 2008 - 15:46 ET by CobraManTalk about faulty assumptions. You keep making assumptions that the people who use radiocarbon dating tests haven't had independent verification of the accuracy of radiocarbon dating methods that they use to arrive at a conclusion as to the age of a given sample.
Have you forgotten, or are you purposely ignoring, that the accuracy of radiocarbon dating methods have been verified thought direct comparisons with other dating methods like using samples who age is known through the historical (written) records?
I see you are into making
April 18, 2008 - 17:08 ET by dscottI see you are into making assertions and are under the false assumption that C14 formation is constant, it's not, since you obviously haven't researched carbon 14 formation, I will educate you. http://www.jstor.org/pss/77824
Fluctuations of Atmospheric Carbon-14 Concentrations During the Past Century M. S. Baxter and A. Walton
http://physics.gmu.edu/~jevans/astr103/CourseNotes/sun_activity.html
We believe that the high-energy subatomic particles called cosmic rays>, moving randomly through the Galaxy, collide with the nucleus of nitrogen atoms (14N7) in our atmosphere, converting it to carbon 14. When the Sun is very active, the interplanetary magnetic field is strong, and Galactic cosmic rays are deflected away from the Earth. Thus high levels of carbon-14 in the Earth's atmosphere correspond to low levels of solar activity.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
All I did was make a simple
April 17, 2008 - 13:07 ET by mattmAll I did was make a simple observation about what seems to be an anomaly. If anything needs an explanation it's that anomaly, not my observation of it.
But, just to show I'm a nice guy, I'll answer your "questions" -
1. "If a 20,000 year old tree was found... A) I would question the assumptions and the calculations which set the age at 20,000 years, and B) 20,000 is alot less than 4,600,000,000, so the anomaly still exists.
2. What about things that lived millions of years ago? Or don't they count, since they are dead? A) There's no real proof of millions and billions of years...it's all based on assumption and speculation. B) Since my observation was in regard to living things, then yes, dead things don't count.
The only way that's an
April 17, 2008 - 22:27 ET by cleverpigThe only way that's an anomaly is if there is a reason to expect any living thing to remain alive for the entire history of the earth, which there isn't.
Good grief, the lengths to
April 18, 2008 - 11:15 ET by mattmGood grief, the lengths to which some of you people have to go to evade questions you can't answer.
A living thing wouldn't have to remain alive for the entire history of the earth to make an anomoly between the assumed "age" of life and the fact that, at best, the oldest known living thing is one hundredthousandths of a percent of that assumed age!
But by your omething must be
April 18, 2008 - 12:57 ET by Jcon96But by your omething must be alive to verify the age of the planet? Never mind reams of evidence of deceased remains millons of years old, the spurious claims that Carbon-14 varies through the ages (feel free to show evidence, anyone. And I do not mean Uranium (different Isotopes) or Iron. Carbon-14) That once a particular age is established, times before and after can be established. These are scientific claims, backed by reams of evidence. Not faith (and young earth theories are just that, faith based.) If you can show proof that dinosaurs existed 20,000 years ago, feel free. I do not think you will. That man and T-Rex were walking around together (and please, not the tired footprints in rock, that was shot down before it left the ground) The earth is billons of years old. Fact. The exact number of billions? Up for discussion.
Is this debate over?
April 17, 2008 - 12:41 ET by BacchusWell, the discovery proves that Mother Nature warms and cools the earth naturally but then we already knew that. I don't think it proves - or disproves - anything about man-made pollution, it's the affect that man has on the global climate that's at issue. Is man contributing in a material way to global warming (or global cooling)? Maybe, but what then? What is our agreed upon goal? Exactly what temperature works for everyone, and then, can we really control global temparature, effectively, to that degree. What if our efforts ignore Mother Nature? The data shows that the earth has been cooling (not warming) since 1998. Shouldn't we be concerned that by reducing CO2, it might trigger the next ice age? What if having too little CO2 in the atmosphere does that? Is this debate over? I don't think so.
Well, duh yeah, how else
April 17, 2008 - 13:21 ET by dscottWell, duh yeah, how else did anyone expect the sea level to rise some 450 ft to current day from the Ice Age? You had to have a heat wave to start the ball rolling and you had to have it for a long time to maintain the momentum.
Here's the inconvenient truth on Global Temperature and Ocean Levels glossed over by moron Al Gore who claimed the world was going to flood if we don't do anything, Ocean levels rise and fall based on the Global temperature and therefore every Global temperature has it's corresponding ocean level. The Ocean level was 18 inches higher than today during the Medieval Warming and 18 inches lower than today during the Little Ice Age. Basic critical thinking skills tells us that ocean level has fluctuated 36 inches since 1000 AD, and that's not counting any of the other previous warmings like the Roman Warming.
So did animals go into extinction during the Medieval Warming when the ocean was higher than today like the AGW people are claiming will happen?
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Temperance
April 17, 2008 - 13:55 ET by BrauWhile this tree does make a statement, one tree does not equal a global phenomenon, much less a national one. Trees don't give us a map of the weather or temperatures in anything other than the most basic terms: whether growing conditions were ideal (12-21ºC). Growth rings will diminish if it is too hot, cold, or too arid (not enough rain). Once growing, they can also survive very cold periods over a long time.
I am very pleased to see another piece of evidence in rebuttal to the present GW zealots, but this one is too easy to challenge by itself. I am reminded of a tree that was used by GW alarmists in support of the "hockey stick".
It's not just one tree
April 17, 2008 - 14:07 ET by CobraManIIt's not just a single tree; it's a stand of several trees from successive generations.
From the article:
"Prof Leif Kullman at Umeå University and colleagues found a cluster of around 20 spruces that are over 8,000 years old. The oldest tree, in Fulu Mountain, Dalarna (“the dales”), was dated by
carbon dating at a laboratory in Miami, Florida to 9,550 years old and
underneath the crown in the soil there were another three generations
of wood from the same clone, dating 375, 5,660 and 9,000 years old that
have the same genetic makeup."
Whether it's a single tree
April 17, 2008 - 15:06 ET by BrauWhether it's a single tree or a stand of 20 trees in a single geographical area makes no difference. It does however prove that this particular area was NOT glaciated as the GW theorists have asserted, so the temperature clearly could not have have been as cold as they have asserted it was.
What the warm-mongers refuse to admit
April 17, 2008 - 14:00 ET by CobraManHere's a rather inconvenient truth that Al Gore and the rest of the warm-mongers refuse to admit:
Mankind only emits a tiny fraction of the "greenhouse" gasses every year that is emitted naturally over the same time period. Since we only emit a tiny fraction of "greenhouse" gasses, our total contribution to the "greenhouse effect" and global warming can only be a tiny fraction of what occurs naturally every single year. Even if we eliminate all man-made gas emissions completely, it will only have a miniscule effect on global climate.
In other words, we really don't have much of an effect on global climate, no matter what Al says. No matter what we do, nature is still in control. So, warm-mongers, stop bitching about natural events like climate change and accept the fact that we're not Gods and we don't control nature, nature controls us.
Delicious find, Noel! Just
April 17, 2008 - 14:23 ET by wiwfDelicious find, Noel! Just add it in to the ever growing amount of counter-evidence to the "consensus!"
The Rocky Mountain Collegian: Illustrating Idiocy
As the high priest of stupidity...
April 17, 2008 - 17:29 ET by ExtirpaterMr. Gore does not like to be confused by incidental or unrelated factual misinterpretations..
The only "scientific agreement" that exists is of his own manufacture.
In the future, his errors should be called ALogGorisms.
More Global Warming
April 17, 2008 - 21:46 ET by hwm98264....."The summers 9,500 years ago were warmer than today, though there has been a rapid recent rise as a result of climate change that means modern climate is rapidly catching up." .....The writer of the Telegraph UK article couldn't resist putting his global warming pitch in the article. Where is the "rapid recent rise" in temperatures? This is not a factual statement. ....."modern climate" is catching up to what? There is absolutely no basis for making this statement. It is pure fantasy. .....The global warming alarmists never give up. hwm982xx April 17, 2008
"That said, energy and
April 17, 2008 - 22:31 ET by cleverpig"That said, energy and financial policies SHOULD NOT be based on
supposedly consensus views of science for EXACTLY this reason, for a
lot of time, money, and resources could be devoted to a "solution" to a
"problem" which ends up NOT existing."
This is a very interesting statement, and begs the question: what should energy and financial policies be based on? Do we wait to make policies until we have all of the possible answers? How do we know when that is? Do we wait until 100% of the scientists agree? And if so, can you think of any subject on which 100% of scientists agree? Do we throw out science altogether and base our decision on fairy tales, or perhaps whatever our preconceived notions happen to be? Maybe we just never make policies at all, that would solve the problem!
I am really interested to know what metric you would use other than the consensus of truth among experts.
Consensus of truth? Whose concensus and whose truth?
April 17, 2008 - 23:08 ET by CobraMan"I am really interested to know what metric you would use other than the consensus of truth among experts."
How about using actual scientific study methods and applying reasoning to make policy decisions that are not based on what someone else has determined as "truth" and that also include considerations about what effect that policy will actually have on people and their life.
That means YEARS, sometimes DECADES, of studying, experimenting, debating, modeling, and then actually matching the results of this process with real world observations in the field. This is then followed by more studys, experiments modeling and debate as to what should be done and how it should be accomplished without adversely affecting everyone.
That's not happening in the global warming "debate." As Al and other have said for the last three years: The Science is settled, the debate over. That means that no more debate will be tolerated, all additional evidence that tends to cast doubt on the "concensus" are ignored, and anyone who disagrees with Al and his followers is branded a denier. The have already made the determinations as to what policies should be implemented without even including opposing points of view. Just how good is THAT metric for deciding policy, eh?
When it comes to “catastrophic climate change,“ Al and his supporters have made no real determinations as to just how their “solutions” will affect people in the long run. They have not even bothered to mention the possible long-term detrimental effects of their” solution” with people. Instead of allowing debate about the detrimental effects of their “solution,” they insist that there isn‘t any and that we should just blindly trust them without question. They have DEMANDED that everyone agree with them and do as they say, for the good of the world. How many times have people been lured to they’re own destruction by that particular “argument?” Far too many times, if you as me.
There are actual scientific
April 18, 2008 - 11:28 ET by cleverpigThere are actual scientific study methods being applied to the question of global warming every day. We have been studying it for decades. We've been modelling, matching, restudying and debating. The fact that you thgnk no one actually studies climate, they just talk about it, is an indication that Gore's crusade, though well intentioned, has done harm.
The problem is that there is always someone who will take any disagreement as an excuse not to act because they don't want to face a reality that involves economic hardship for them. When Gore said the debate is over, he didn't stop the science. Climate scientists didn't go home and take a vacation. He was saying that we have enough information to act despite continued uncertainties. At some point you have to make that decision, and they only way to do it short of waiting for a miracle of unanimity is to go with the consensus.
There is no reason to act.
April 18, 2008 - 13:04 ET by NL207There is no reason to act. The actual science is blatantly clear on this point.
No one has as yet demonstrated that anything man has done or is likely to do in the forseeable future will alter the climate of this planet outside its range of natural variation.
No one has as yet demonstrated that anything man has done or is likely to do in the forseeable future will cause any net harm to either the planet or its biosphere.
Ergo, this proposals for massive, tryrannical government intervention are just that, proposals for tyranny. They have no real basis beyond fascism.
Ouch, that gotta hurt!
April 18, 2008 - 17:07 ET by Roger the ShrubberOuch, that gotta hurt!
Roger
April 18, 2008 - 17:45 ET by cleverpigAnd you, I trust, will continue to fulfill the all-important role of "peanut gallery" while the substantive discussion continues around you. It's good for self esteem if everyone feels like they have something to contribute.
The force with which
April 18, 2008 - 17:43 ET by cleverpigThe force with which statements are made is unfortunately not a reliable indication of their truthfulness.
I generally dislike making people do time consuming research to back up arguments on the internet, since we presumably all have better things to do, but that sort of blatant disregard for reality demands evidence to back it up.
So, citations, please.
And don't just cut and paste PopTech's interminable list! Read something or a few things that support your argument and then direct me to it so I can evaluate it for myself. Again, I wouldn't normally ask for primary sources, but c'mon: no one has demonstarated man has done anything to harm the planet? That you've got to back up with actual research.
Wrong! You have to back
April 18, 2008 - 18:46 ET by NL207Wrong! You have to back up your fantastic claims that it WILL cause harm in order to invoke the use of Government force.
You and the rest who buy into this global warming as catastrophe claptrap act like a torte lawyer who is operating under a presumption of liability: The defendant is liable and must pay up until he proves he is not liable! This is contrary to all of the systems of Roman, English and American Law. It is even contrary to Napoleonic Code, the French system. It is simply un-American.
I defy you to demonstrate that Anthropogenic Global Warming is going to cause sufficient harm to the biosphere of this planet as to justify Global Fascism in its prevention.
Start linking or start slinking.
Whoa! Simmer down there,
April 19, 2008 - 03:04 ET by cleverpigWhoa! Simmer down there, no one is being unAmerican.
The reason I put the burden of proof on you is because your statements fly in the face of history. If you really need links about the hole in the ozone layer, I suppose I can go find them.
To wit, you did not simply state that global warming was not a problem. You made the statement that nothing mankind is going to do could possibly hurt the planet. That is a ridiculous statement, doubts about AGW aside. If you misspoke and don't want to have to defend that statement, that's fine.
cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 03:17 ET by MrShyI saw the word "whoa" and thought, wow, Leon is still awake and online?
Then, I see it's not him but, alas, it's another liberal. You people with your oh-so cute "whoa's", "simmer down's", and the like.
Liberals. Rarely logical or fact-based, but guaranteed to be cute and, um, "clever".
* * * SOCKS THE CAT '08 * * *
For REAL Change
I don't think that urging a
April 19, 2008 - 03:49 ET by cleverpigI don't think that urging a more polite tone and objecting to insults is mutually exclusive to logical, fact-based argument. In fact, I think it's conducive.
In any case, I think even my bitterest opponents here would concede that my arguments are usually pretty substantive. I try to avoid random snotty comments, but I'm not perfect. Neither, apparently, are you :)
History? My statements
April 19, 2008 - 19:27 ET by NL207History? My statements fly in the face of history? What history? You haven't present one iota of history that supports your argument. Show me one scrap of proof that any warming climate change, human caused or otherwise, has caused any net harm to the biosphere on this planet, or for that matter has exceeded the range of natural variability on the planet.
Un-Amnerican. That's right. Socialists, Marxists, Fascists, Monarchists, Autocrats and all other Statists and their sympathizers are by definintion, un-American, that is, opponents of limited government. You support this international carbon trading nonsense, which is nothing short of Fascist control over global energy production. Un-American. There is no other word for it.
So far you have not produced the first reference to support any of your idiocy and colossal ignorance.
Now, I will show you a link the supports the notion that global cooling has done significant harm to the Humans on this planet at the time it occurred. Note too that this discusses the Little Ice Age, a time period your Global Warming heroes deny even existed. "Virtually absent from Mann’s record are the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, two widely accepted climate phenomena that demonstrate climate’s natural variability."
Once again point mine. you lose.
You didn't say warming
April 19, 2008 - 20:47 ET by cleverpigYou didn't say warming climate change, you said mankind can't hurt the planet. As I said earlier, if you just misspoke, I'll let you off the hook.
Based on the Scientific Method
April 18, 2008 - 02:27 ET by PopularTechIf you cannot apply the scientific method to supposed "science" then it is no such thing. I have yet to see the scientific method applied to AGW Theory. When you can do this get back to me.
"Consensus" is irrelevant in science all that matters is reproduceable results.
BTW there is no "Consensus" on AGW:
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
Did every liberal fail their science courses in high school and college? Have these courses been replaced with an Eco-Religion?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
"what should energy and
April 18, 2008 - 02:39 ET by NL207"what should energy and financial policies be based on"
Free markets. It is not the role of a limited government to usurp these decision-making powers of the people.
Absolutely correct NL, and
April 18, 2008 - 08:37 ET by dscottAbsolutely correct NL, and the question presupposes that "someone or government" should be making these decisions for the nation, which is the essence of Fascism. This is a "self" governing society where the full creativity of the individual is allowed to determine their own path or freely choose to follow someone else. What liberals and Statists always seem to miss is the multiplicity of choice leads to the efficacy of action. In time, through the debate of ideas, trial and error leading to efficacy, various energy solutions are chosen to fit the needs of the specific application. A centrally planned economy always attempts to use the cookie cutter approach to solving problems which in the end is the least efficacious approach to the specific application. Individual effort brings specific results, group effort brings generalized results, each has it's place.
Example, the government has written electric generation rules that favor the least efficent use of a limited natural resource. The most efficient use of natural gas is heating, cooking and certain industrial processes. Electricial generation is the least efficent means to use natural gas even though it is the most efficient compared to coal and oil. Hence the high price of electricity and natural gas. Why is that? Because when natural gas is used to make electricity, that electricity then is used to heat and cook by residences. If coal or oil was used to generate electricity, the people who heat and cook with electric (most of Florida) would be using the most efficient means of energy conversion. To use coal or oil to cook food or heat your home is the least efficient way to use that resource.
The electric car would be another good example of this, using natural gas to make electricity and then to charge the battery which then discharges to run the car. It would be more efficient to burn natural gas in the car using a conventional engine. This is why the electric car without nuclear power electric generation is a very bad idea.
Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008 Long Live the Empire! Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.
Two problems with this
April 18, 2008 - 11:45 ET by cleverpigTwo problems with this argument. One is that even your beloved free market is susceptible to cheating. It's the traditional tragedy of the commons.
Let's say for argument's sake that global warming was proven. Even though there are cheaper fuels, you and your country all decide that the best thing to do is use cleaner, more expensive energy because it will save money in the long run. Great choice. The country next door, however, doesn't. They release greenhouse gases all day and all night and your efforts are for nothing. You suffer the consequences of their actions. That's where the free market fails. Soemtimes there are important considerations other than economic ones, and the market is no help in guiding people to make the right choice.
Keep in mind I'm talking about a hypothetical case here where the right choice for long term health and viability is clear.
The second problem is that even if we leave the decision up to each individual, you still have to pick a foundation for how you make your choice. So my question still stands: Even if the government isn't choosing for you, you are choosing for yourself whether or not to take global warming seriously, what do you use to make your decision if not the scientific consensus?
And if you will, take a little time to think about how much you rely on the scientific consensus in other matters. Ever been treated for a medical ailment? I guarantee, no matter what you did to get rid of that wart or survive that leukemia, I could find 10 doctors who think you did the wrong thing. We get "second opinions" because we are trying to find the consensus view of how we should take care of ourselves. Do you use homeopathic medicine? If not, it is probably because the scientific consensus doesn't yet think it's effective. It may be effective, and there are lots of reputable people who think so, but it hasn't yet passed the muster that the medical community requires to endorse it.
We put our trust in the scientific process all the time. It honestly confuses me why so many people refuse to do so in the case of global warming. The best thing about it? I trust that if we're completely wrong and global warming is total hooey, we'll figure it out. The system works, and we'll figure out the truth, probably before all of the catastrophic economic damage you guys bemoan has happened. We are seeing many more ambivalent articles these days. Noel is constantly posting his surprise that doubts are coming to the surface. He shouldn't be surprised! That's how our society works, we swing back and forth, a little too far in each direction to begin with, settling eventually somewhere in the middle. The problem is that the pendulum is never perfectly still, there's always something nudging it in one direction or another, so you can't wait for it to stop completely before you make a decision based on where it is.
Sorry, that was longer than I intended!
Total Nonsense and Confusion
April 18, 2008 - 12:37 ET by PopularTechConsensus is NOT science. Science has the scientific method applied to it and thus "proven" based on reproducible results. The same for any medical cure. Drugs and treatments go through EMPIRICAL testing before they are allowed to be used on humans.
Prove me wrong, please show me the drug that is medically approved for use on humans based solely on computer models.
You are confusing the expertise and knowledge of a doctor "practicing" medicine with the science of medicine, those are two VERY different things.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
You are right. We test
April 18, 2008 - 17:59 ET by cleverpigYou are right. We test things empirically when we can. However, climatology is a predictive science, so you can't test it in the traditional way.
Let's take a hypothetical. Imagine that global warming IS happening, but we haven't detected it yet. Some people are worried about it and ask you, a climate scientist, to determine whether or not it is true. How, other than creating models and matching them to real data, would you propose to figure out whether the earth is getting warmer and what the possible causes are?
And incidentally, the difference between doctors practicing medicine and the science of medicine is a great analogy for the difference between policy makers discussing climate and scientists studying it. I object strongly to the implication that science isn't being done, but I agree that it is being interpreted differently by different people.
Science is based on reproducible results
April 18, 2008 - 20:40 ET by PopularTechClimatology is the study of the climate. Prediction is just that. Many aspects of climatology can be tested the traditional way and we should only pay attention to these. But computer models based on incomplete and poorly understood climate physics are meaningless.
If something cannot be backed up by the scientific method and reproducible results in the real world then you cannot "figure it out" scientifically. Matching models to past data is simply an excercise in curve fitting and nothing more. In science it is important to be able to say "We don't know" when you don't and not pretend to as the modelers are trying to.
As any "reputable" doctor would only prescribe medical advice that is based on actual science so should the policy makers. The decision on what to do based on what we actually know scientifically and not on computer models is to do nothing since no threat exists in the real (not virtual) world and adapt if necessary.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
See, you're argument is
April 18, 2008 - 21:53 ET by cleverpigSee, you're argument is still that it's okay to do nothing because nothing is really happening. That is why I asked you to imagine a scenario in which global warming IS happening, and in order to stop it we need to be able to make reasonable predictions. We need to discover it.
So basically you are saying there is no way to stop this particular kind of problem, because we should never act until the catastrophe has already happened and we can examine hard data and know that it happened.
Hell, I hope you guys are right, in that case!
That makes no sense
April 18, 2008 - 22:33 ET by PopularTechHow are we supposed to know it is happening if we have not discovered it?
No I am saying all empirical evidence and science shows absolutely no catastrophe occuring or remotely likely to occur. Any attempted mitigation of what is likely to occur is futile regardless and energy can be better spent on any adaptation to future events (when they should occur since the climate will change naturally regardless).
I can say with extreme confidence that there is no evidence whatsoever of any sort of catastrophe happening now or in the future due to man-made CO2. Anyone who believes otherwise has absolutely ZERO science to back it up. The physical limits of the amount of IR "heat" CO2 can "trap" in the atmosphere does not change because alarmists want it to.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
So... you just don't want
April 19, 2008 - 02:59 ET by cleverpigSo... you just don't want to answer my hypothetical.
Okay then.
Not-getting-answered...
April 19, 2008 - 03:48 ET by sarcasmoIsn't exactly a new thing on this thread...
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.
I cannot answer an illogical question
April 19, 2008 - 08:21 ET by PopularTechFormulate a logical question and I will answer it.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
I feel like Rod Serling
April 19, 2008 - 08:59 ET by Jack BauerI feel like Rod Serling monologue opening a Twilight Zone episode..
But imagine a scenario in which "global warming" has nothing to do with what those puny creatures, known as mankind, do or do not do. (Not too difficult as that happens to be the reality!)
Now youi're imaging that scenario... why on earth would you tax people, cripple your economy, punish consumers, and punish energy companies all based on nothing?
Imagine a scenario in which a rogue nation, who we will call Iran, develops ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons capable of reaching the United States... and is a far greater threat to mankind than "global warming."
Why would you worry about "global warming" which, in fact, may actually benefit people anyway and ignore this other, more pressing, threat.
Imagine... no that's enough imagining.
Cleverpig
April 19, 2008 - 13:22 ET by RESTLESS 1It seems to me that the climate science is at a very early stage of development compared to other sciences. Does it ever occur to anybody that that studying climate with computer aids is at such a young point it it's existence, that a hearty skepticism should not only be tolerated, but encouraged? I mean, computers have only been around for what, 40-50 years or so? Climate modeling what, 30 years or so? I don't see how, given all of the variables and unknowns inherent to how the climate works, anyone could say for certain that we are having any more than a miniscule effect on the climate, much less, encourage economy crippling policies on so little data.
"climatology is a
April 19, 2008 - 20:31 ET by NL207"climatology is a predictive science"
And so is Palmistry. So far, I see they have about the same accuracy. Nothing these clowns have predicted so far has come to pass. Why do you believe in them? Do you believe in the Carnival Fortune Teller too? Or would you prefer to hire a rainmaker in the event of a drought? Charlatans all.
That you would compare medical science to climatatological witchcraft shows your gross ignorance about science. The differences are vast. The Scientific method consists of three phases: Observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Climatologists are, by the very nature of what they are studying, unable to executed controlled experiments. Why? Because it is impossible for them to design experiments. Humans cannot control the weather or the climate, except for the evil Dick Cheney and his weather control machine, of course. Medical Science demands extremely controlled experiments. There is always in every reputable medical scince I have ever seen, at least one and usually several carefully designed experiments involving variable groups and at least one control group, the classic "sugar pill" group. Do I need to explain this?
These Climate Scientists are unable to completely apply the scientific method to climate systems. Consequently, they can and do make gross errors, errors that would never be tolerated in Medical Science. Their bogus predictions are part and parcel of this. If you want to compate Climatologists to Medical Scientist then you must include a new subgroup under "Doctors" called "Witch Doctors".
"that even your beloved
April 18, 2008 - 12:52 ET by NL207"that even your beloved free market is susceptible to cheating"
Implying that you believe the governement is not?!? The government is actually worse than free markets for two reasons:
(1) Economic miscalculations are corrected immediately and ruthlessly by free markets. Those who have erred are compelled by financial necessity to desist from the inefficient behavior. The Government merely use force and threats of force to "make it work", even if 'it' makes no economic sense. Witness the current government generated ethanol fiasco. Corn-based ethanol fuel is economic madness, but that does not stop government from subsidizing it at the expense of others via the application of force or threats of force.
(2) Human nature being what it is, government officals are no more or less corrupt than the society they live in. Given this reality, government officials will on more occasions than you will admit, accept bribes, kickbacks and payoffs, as inducements to MISUSE the force invested in them to compel market behaviors financially beneficial to the payers of these illicit emoluments. the key here is government compulsion backed up by threats of force. None of this is possible without it. A truly free market does not contain these elements of violence based coercion.
In the interests of brevity, I will spare your other equally fallacious arguments the pole-axe.
I'm not saying that
April 18, 2008 - 17:50 ET by cleverpigI'm not saying that governments are not fallible. But economic efficiencies have nothing to say about this issue! The free market is inherently short-sighted and economically-minded. It cannot regulate an issue like clean air.
And our government has many complicated procedures built into it to prevent abuse. Is it perfect? No. But the free market alone can only punish economic failure, and without a government (or a vengeful mob, I suppose, if you prefer that sort of solution) you cannot protect common resources.
It's not government that protects resources.
April 18, 2008 - 18:07 ET by sarcasmoIt's property rights & private property in general, even though schools teach the opposite. There would be no tigers in India today if there had been no hyperwealthy Indians long ago. Same kind of thing is true for a variety of national parks and pieces of wilderness in this country, which the government tries to take credit for while often caring for them poorly. Owners have an interest in clean, productive property, because that's the most valuable kind. All pollution is, in the end, the same crime -- trespassing.
Private property in something like air is, of course, impossible. The ideal way to punish a mass trespass like air pollution would be a class action lawsuit in the court system. IMO the legal system (and especially that particular aspect of it) is too corrupted and screwed up to do those right these days, which means we're likely to see richer lawyers and more pollution.
But there's also hope. With technology like GPS, the idea of private property ownership of parts of the oceans' water column & sea floor might soon be possible. This rescue of a truly tragic commons is something unimaginable only a generation ago. But only if the good guys win the upcoming "greed" debate can we hope for a capitalist & therefore permanent allignment of interests for protection of the marine environment.
JMR
The tax & spend drug war looks racist in the real world.