Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
What temperature should the planet be?
Reading Richard Fulmer’s excellent post about Exxon being accused of holding illegal opinions on global warming reminded me of my response to my incredulous friends who just can’t believe that I don’t believe in science. My skepticism of the global warming issue produces such a strong response that I have developed a simple, reasonable set of questions to pose to my friends, which express my uncertainty:
- What do you think the correct temperature of the world is?
- Should that temperature always be the same, or is some variation acceptable (or even healthy)?
- Who gets to pick that temperature? Mosquitoes? Polar bears? Camels? Plankton? What’s best for one may not be ideal for another.
- Note that right now, we believe that it is cooler than it has been for 90% of the time since the last Ice Age. So it is likely to be getting warmer over the next few hundred years, if everything evens out statistically. This, of course, is presuming that we are not entering another Ice Age now, or if something else happens – hard to say. Would it be better if it got warmer, or if it got cooler? Are you sure?
- Also note that we have only been collecting satellite data on planet temperatures for the past couple decades. Our satellite data continues to improve, we think – it was of dubious accuracy in the beginning of the space age. Before that, we looked at a bunch of thermometers of varying accuracy in various locations and averaged them together somehow. So we’re judging climate trends which occur over the course of hundreds of millions of years based on 10-20 years’ worth of “data” which we think might be close to accurate. Until we improve it next year. The difference between that and pure guessing is not much.
- Do you think it’s likely that our understanding of climate science 100 years from now will be the same as it is now? Are we sure about all this? Remember that just 20-30 years ago we were certain that the next Ice Age was imminent. Perhaps we were right then. Perhaps we’re right now. Perhaps there’s some other possibility we haven’t thought of yet. All we know is that our 5-10 year models that we’ve done over the past several decades have all been no better than pure guessing – usually wrong. In my job as a doctor, I would not make a decision on patient care based on such inconsistent data. That’s not called settled science. That’s called malpractice.
- The primary source of energy on this planet is the Sun. Previous variations in temperatures have been mostly linked to changes in solar output. Will the output of the sun increase in the next 10 years? 100 years? 1,000 years? Or will it decrease? Are you sure?
- Are there any major volcanic eruptions scheduled in the next couple hundred years? If so, what impact will that have on the weather? Are you sure?
- The most potent greenhouse gas is not CO2 – not even close. We believe that the most potent greenhouse gas is, by far, water vapor. What factors control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere? We have no idea.
- So, suppose we figured out how to install a thermostat on the planet. And we could make it cooler if we decided it was too warm. Or warmer if we decided it was too cold. Should we do that? If so, who’s in charge of the thermostat? Are you sure? We’ve spent enormous amounts of time & energy “improving” our environment via importing Japanese Beetles, or moving snakes to change squirrel populations, or protecting forests by putting out small fires, etc – our record is dismal. There are always unforeseen variables. As it turns out, the complexity of our environment is close to infinite, like the arrogance of those who claim to understand it all.
- Should people, who currently can’t figure out which bathroom to use, be in control of the entire planet? Are you sure?
Once my friends understand my concerns, they generally will at least cut me a little slack. And if I persist in looking at the problem logically, my friends will generally change the subject. Which is fine with me. Because when it comes to climate science (ie, understanding the whole world), I don’t know what I’m talking about. And neither do they. That is one thing I am absolutely sure of.
Published in General
I come back to first principles on this topic: every scientific theory must be falsifiable — that is, there must be a way to prove the theory wrong. This is where global warming fails: if it’s hotter than normal, it’s global warming. If it’s cooler than normal, it’s because of global warming. In other words, “climate scientists” are pagan priests looking at entrails to “prove” the conclusion they want.
Excellent post.
I have had the same experience with many topics. When I speak with my liberal friends and family logically and ask questions about the subjects in which they’re so invested, they begin to realize that they really don’t know much about them. They begin to realize they are not using reason and are simply repeating what they’ve been told.
As a student of science, it always amazes me when those who never liked science in school and who are therefore ignorant of the scientific method, are so sure that mankind is causing a dreaded warming of the earth. They actually believe that if you don’t believe you are anti-science, not understanding that skepticism, not belief, is the hallmark of science. As I like to say, contrary to our president’s frequent ill-informed protestations, the very definition of science is that it is never “settled.”
A wise old scientist (a rare bird indeed) was asked if he thought world governments would ever work together to minimize the effects of man made global warming. His answer: Not likely but we will do what mankind has always done. We will adapt! I think that pretty well sums it up.
Precisely.
Or…is there any amount of money and human sacrifice that can be given to prevent that one degree C change?
Collectively, wealthy socialists acted through their privileged group called the Club of Rome. The Club was formed in 1968 at David Rockefeller’s estate in Bellagio, Italy. In their 1994 book The First Global Revolution Alexander King and Bertrand Schneider wrote.
“The common enemy of humanity is man. In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill. All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
Skepticism is the hallmark of science.
Belief is the hallmark of religion.
I believe that Jesus Christ is my savior. I can’t prove it. But I believe it to be true. That is religion.
I believe that statins reduce risk of heart attack. I CAN prove that – countless studies from all over the world have all shown much the same thing. We’re still arguing over details, and we are still doing countless studies on the topic, but the studies are very convincing. That is science.
Both science and religion have value. But we shouldn’t confuse the two. That is not just unhelpful, it is dangerous.
Many people believe man-made global warming to be true, although they can’t prove it. That is a religion, which is why it’s supporters get so upset when you challenge it.
In fact, I view much of modern leftism as a religion, which is why it’s so hard to discuss politics with leftists without profoundly offending them. If a simple discussion starts to seem like a holy war, that’s because, to them, it is.
Ok, now THIS post may be the most terrifying thing I’ve read on this thread.
As the old joke goes, liberals love people and hate humanity.
The video game industry says hi.
I think that, like dissent, it depends on which party holds the White House.
I love how this stereotype makes me laugh even as the vast majority of gamers I know are married with kids.
Really? The ones I try that with never begin to realize that.
I suspect that may be more due to your social circle than due to any actual distribution of gamers. When I was in college, I was a gamer and most of my gamer friends were unmarried. (I was an exception because I was married in my last year of college – but married to a gamer.) When I moved to Texas and my first “real” job, many of my new friends were gamers, and most were married. That was before we all had kids. Today all of us have adult children and few of my generation do that much gaming. All of our children are gamers and few are married.
Seawriter
Excellent questions! You captured several of the questions I’ve brought up. But your most basic question is something I never considered: What temperature should the planet be? Count me as one of the skeptical when it comes to any significant man-made contribution to the “measured” warmth.
LOL, yes, the Libs I talk to never realize it either.
I’ve actually seen advocates of this line of thinking go so far as to believe man should be wiped off the planet. They actually want to end human existence.
I say they should set the example by going first. Otherwise I will believe its a crisis when they behave as if it is a crisis.
Seawriter
This, plus natural events beyond our control, has caused the CO2 to reach 400 ppm (from around 350 ppm over half a century ago). Why are we so fixated on this minuscule fraction rather than the gasses in the remaining 99.96% of the atmosphere? Or solar activity, long term ocean oscillations, and other far more substantial but uncontrollable effects on climate?
Readers familiar with the progressive mindset already know the answer,
Especially since there is a natural control loop reducing CO2 when it increases. Higher levels of CO2 cause greater plant growth, which locks up the CO2. Plants are part of nature. Why do eco-freaks want to limit natural plant growth? Because it isn’t natural or because it does not fit their paradigm?
Seawriter
In that scenario, whenever the atmosphere expands in a given year it will be reported as evidence of climate change and when the atmosphere contracts it will be reported as evidence of climate change.
Perhaps when they think that poor people need more money, liberals could contribute their own money to charity, rather than taking money away from other people by force in the form of taxes. Perhaps if they like public schools, they could send their own kids there, but allow me to educate my children however I choose.
Hmmm… I’m starting to notice a pattern here…
Is your last name Lomborg, by any chance?
;-)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist
Why do you think so many of them own yachts the size of battleships?
They’re prepping for Waterworld.
Why has the atmospheric concentration of CO2 continued to increase over the past 140 years then? When does this natural control loop kick in?
It kicks in pretty much immediately. The increase is trivial, and within the normal variance of atmospheric CO2. Read A Climate of Crisis, which I reviewed on Ricochet a year back.
Seawriter
I tend to be very much a luke-warmer. The most basic elements of the science are rather clear and incontrovertible – namely that, all else equal, atmospheric CO2 does function as “greenhouse” gas. This can easily be proven in a simple experiment. Obviously, the problem that arises is what does “all else equal” mean in regards to the natural global climate system and associated cycles. Many folks here have touched on many of the issues, not only with natural variability of the climate system but the measurement problem itself…not to mention challenges with modeling such a complex system.
As for myself, I have a rhetorical trick with leftists that has had some success. After I hear them excoriating Exxon or conservatives (or whatever other bogeyman of the day that might strike their fancy) for their unconscionable self-interest, I ask the following question….”Ok, let’s assume you find out definitively tomorrow that climate change is not happening or is not something to be concerned about at all, which of your proposed solutions to the alleged problem would you then abandon?” 95% of the time, they don’t wan’t to abandon any of it. Which clarifies something we conservative know all too well about the left…their government focused solutions to “societal ills” aren’t about those “societal ills” at all…those are just used as justification for doing the things they already want to do.
None of the 3–sun, volcanoes, water vapor–are considered in any climate model. When I mention this fact to my global-warming-myth-believing friends, they stop talking. Thus, lowering the temperature of the atmosphere.
Not even in San Diego.
The increase is not trivial. Perhaps in regards to the composition of the entire atmosphere but not the increase in the CO2 portion. No doubt atmospheric CO2 concentrations have varied significantly over time and as I noted elsewhere I am firmly in the luke-warmer camp and by no means do I think there will be any sort of catastrophic outcome if we continue on our current course.
That said, the recent increase in CO2 atmospheric concentrations (somewhere in the range of 35-40%) is almost certainly a result of human activity and although biomass does soak up CO2, the natural control loop is not soaking it up at anything close to the rate at which it is being emitted.
This is not true. Water vapor is included in the models. One of the reasons why most models have a positive feedback loop with rising temps. Might want to stop saying that.