Marty Rosenzweig: Hoax of a hoax

Advertisement

I found Professor William Gray and senior fellow Patrick Michaels' exposure of the climate change hoax ("Experts dispute crisis," Aug. 30 Steamboat Pilot & Today) very interesting. Harvard wannabe Gray states things have been getting cooler in the last decade, and Michaels, four paragraphs later, says temperatures on Earth are increasing!

As the science of climate change (the initial term "global warming" was indeed misleading) evolves, there is major concern not for "increases in vegetation across the world," but for major shifts in climate. We first-worlders may be able to adapt, but there are many millions of people who may be exposed to negative changes in locally viable agriculture who cannot head to more hospitable terrain or order some rain gear online as the their local climate gets wetter.

I guess I wasn't really tuned into the argument that there will be many more heat-related deaths since Michaels is correct; by then the billions of folks without air conditioning will certainly have that option available - just like in Tampa, duh! Do the nonbelievers seriously argue that the peoples of the world can dump this much carbon emissions into the atmosphere without any affect? As John Muir wisely said, "When one tugs at a single thing in nature, he finds it attached to the rest of the world."

In December of 2008, Professor Gray predicted "a somewhat above-average Atlantic basin tropical cyclone season in 2009.We anticipate an above-average probability of United States major hurricane landfall," which he revised a few weeks ago (in the middle of the hurricane season) to a "below-average" chance for both. This is not to criticize Dr. Gray, but to point out that climate science is still in its infancy, and Michaels is arrogant when he asserts "check the facts and you'll win the argument." I can just see the headlines in the Pilot in 2209: "Earth passes climate tipping point." "Life on Earth doomed." "Gray claims he forgot he was working in Celsius, not Fahrenheit, in 2009." "Tells followers: 'Sorry, my bad. Maybe they're right (I mean, correct, we know they're right),'" and "Climate change is just something that happens which we don't and, more ominously, can't affect."

But see, here's the thing. Let's say we (very generously) allow that 25 percent of the knowledgeable scientists of the world agree with Gray and Michaels. That implies there's a 3-to-1 chance there will be potentially catastrophic change to our planet if the other 75 percent are correct. With those kind of odds, I'd vote for trying to do whatever we can to solve this global problem and, in all future elections, you should, too.

Blog shield deployed, fire away.

Marty Rosenzweig

Steamboat Springs

Comments

aichempty 4 years, 7 months ago

Marty,

Ah, I was wit' ya until the last paragraph.

Go to almost any period of time and almost any area of science and you will find that, just before there was a great discovery and definitive proof to the contrary, 99% or more of the scientists disagreed with the actual result.

Why do you suppose this is true? Easy. 100% of scientists study under other scientists who teach conventional wisdom and if you want a Ph.D. you'd better be able to parrot it back accurately.

It's also true that almost every research project fails to find the predicted result, but finds something else that's equally interesting in some cases. Blue dye from coal tar is an excellent example of such a discovery.

The Hubble Space Telescope has discovered billions of galaxies spread across 14 billion light years of distance, and they're all flying away from the center of the Universe at an increasing rate. Up until 1924 when Fred Hubble discovered that the smear on his photographic plate was actually another spiral galaxy (Andromeda) and postulated the existence of many other galaxies, our old Milky Way home galaxy was assumed to "be the Universe." The Universe had always been there, according to Einstein and his peers. Oh, and then Penzius and Wilson discovered the left over radiation from the Big Bang while looking for the source of static on satellite communications circuits, and conventional wisdom changed radically. There are still great unknowns to be solved about the Universe (dark matter and dark energy) plus other things which haven't been discovered yet.

So, your assertion that we have a 1 in 4 chance of not being in a period of climate change caused by human activity is flawed from first principles. Your logic is sound, however, historically and mathematically and statistically, it would not turn out to be true except by pure coincidence.

And coincidence is the problem with the current "proof" of man-made climate change. Several things are happening simultaneously which seem to be connected, but are not necessarily cause-and-effect phenomena. I think the most obvious is that people are assuming that the increasing human population and its demand for energy is causing climate change. There is an equally valid opinion that a warming climate has led to greater food production and that has supported the increase in human population.

When people with no real training or experience in science latch onto a popular idea and turn it into a system of belief (yes, like a religion) then crazy stuff happens. Hitler's Aryan race and the whole Nazi movement provide excellent examples of situations in which the populace went along with a flawed idea and caused immeasurable destruction and the loss of millions of lives.

(cont)

0

honestabe 4 years, 7 months ago

aich, are you really comparing the Nazis thinking to that of the majority of scientists? as a way of discrediting conventional scientific thinking? wow, i didnt think this debate could degenerate any further.

0

aichempty 4 years, 7 months ago

When I look out my window, I see a grove of Aspen trees that has flourished, spread, and grown over the past 15 years. I look a bit further and see dead pines on the next ridge. Is there a connection? Does death in one predict death in the other? Do dying pines somehow make aspens prosper? That's where we are with climate change. We know it's changing, but we don't know why, and the "obvious" causes may be the side effects of some other mechanism.

So, we have to keep looking and working to adapt, because no matter what happens, we don't control the population in the third world and they will do as they please, even if it kills them. Our drop in the bucket will make no difference in the long run, and too much monkeying around with things without knowing how it will turn out has an equal chance of being harmful rather than helpful.

We already know that we can put a spacecraft on Mars that will use sunlight, hydrogen from water and CO2 in the Martian atmosphere to produce rocket fuel for a return trip.

We should look at CO2 as a resource, and move away from fossil petroleum and coal to a "methane from CO2" approach that would actually reduce the CO2 in the air over time. Basically, we would recycle CO2 into methane and oxygen, burn the methane in hybrid vehicles that would produce only CO2 and water, and then do it again, over and over, using sunlight for the power source. If we can do it on Mars on a small scale, we can do it on Earth on a large scale. If we're going to spend the money to reduce CO2 and cripple our economy, then why not use a system that produces energy, reduces CO2 in the long run and helps to free us from foreign oil?

Because people are too busy running in circles about the problem with no viable solution except deprivation in this country. Think again. There are other ways.

0

aichempty 4 years, 7 months ago

Abe,

I was making an example of what happens when people subscribe to a system of beliefs. It's the same with Mormons, Baptists, Catholics, Liberals, Conservatives and Broncos fans.

This bull$#!+ term "majority of scientists" has no credibility. List the names, who they work for, where their funding comes from, and what their results actually say and you will see that it comes down to opinon. The majority of scientists who are stating an opinion are doing just that -- stating an opinion. Einstein's opinion was that the Universe had "always" existed. He rejected the Big Bang theory. Ooops . . .

It is a stone-cold fact that this country is moving to energy efficiency and conservation. Why? It's CHEAPER! The recession has cut our CO2 emissions because fuel has gotten so expensive. There is already a "corrective" mechanism in place, and it's called "not being able to afford fuel."

Just as fuel was once so cheap we didn't need to insulate our houses, and that changed so that I've got R-48 in my attic to save money on heating, the move away from fossil fuel is already happening.

Global warming is a (pun intended) hot-button issue. It's political. In reality, saving money by reducing fuel consumption should be the goal, and CO2 would take care of itself.

The climate change rhetoric is only a method to get people to vote one way or another. Some people will be swayed by the arguments and vote for people who support it. It's just politics.

Thank God that we don't have people in charge of the government who object to vaccinations and blood transfusions on religious grounds. That would be as crazy as what's happening with climate change.

Yes, the climate is changing. No, the United States cannot solve it alone. No, we cannot force the rest of the world to go along with us.

If we simply do what's best for our own economy and move to alternate energy as a cost savings measure, and impose conservation goals where it makes sense (like, shut down the lights in Las Vegas until they convert to LEDs), it will do much more to reduce CO2 than anything else we could attempt.

If it costs money, it won't be supported. If it saves money, it will. That's what we have to realize.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

Here's your hoax Marty.

"Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574346610120524166.html

So we should just get in line like a bunch of sheeple and pass the Cap and Tax act which will destroy the US economy while our own money is going into the very oil programs that supposedly create C02 and AGW? NOT! I am all for pollution control but not a hypocritical policy which will do nothing for the globe but will only succeed in taking down this country. China and India, among other nations, are laughing there way to the bank at our expense.

0

StopTheBrutalChemtrails 4 years, 7 months ago

CO2 is NOT toxic, in fact, all plant life on this planet must have CO2 in order to exist, the more the better. no amount of CO2 that we humans can produce can cause the planet to heat up, CO on the other hand is very toxic, perhaps some of you are confused about this fact.

0

StopTheBrutalChemtrails 4 years, 7 months ago

It is not increased CO2 levels that make the earth warmer, the earth getting warmer is what causes increases in CO2 levels, which will not hurt anything, it will just make plants happier. The carbon tax is a joke, an underhanded way for the elitists who run this planet to fleece the sheep of our hard earned money. Say no to the criminal climate bill.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

Climate of Fear Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence. http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110008220

Lets see how long it takes on this forum.

0

Fred Duckels 4 years, 7 months ago

Aich, I was going to put my two cents in but it looks like you have it covered, hold down the fort.

0

StopTheBrutalChemtrails 4 years, 7 months ago

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish every month, has shown no statistically-significant "global warming" for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino expected in the coming months will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.

More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world's oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade "global warming" must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the "official" theory that "global
warming" will happen on anything other than a minute scale.

- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC's estimates in half right there.

Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.

Take a hike, global warming alarmists.

0

StopTheBrutalChemtrails 4 years, 7 months ago

Apparently Mr. Rosenzweig believes that his millions and millions of dollars and his elite degrees make him immune to being lied to by the corporate media. Don't fall for it Mr. Rosenzweig, even with all that money, you just might end up in a FEMA camp.

0

StopTheBrutalChemtrails 4 years, 7 months ago

ALL of the other planets in our solar system are heating up,too, OH MY GOD we're ruining the entire solar system with our deadly CO2!!! We must all produce more tanks of CO2 for our pepsi so we can drink ourselves to death, THAT will save the planets!! No wait, I got it, let's make it so everyone has to pay me to produce CO2, that way we might still have just as much of it ,but I'll be rich!! woopeee I'm gonna be rich! No limits on production of the toxic evil planet killing gas, make as much as you want, but make sure you pay your taxes.

0

seeuski 4 years, 7 months ago

Stop mimicking Al Gore, that's not nice.LOL.

0

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.