Monday Morning Truth Squad
And the nominees for most witless and uninformed assertion about the environment and climate change in a Sunday Tennessean op-ed this week are…
Bob Corker for his performance in “Return Cap-and-Trade Proceeds to People,” featuring this nugget: “No one can quantify how much of global warming is caused by natural cycles vs. man-made greenhouse emissions.”
Phil Valentine for his performance in “Earth Day Extremists were Wrong in the '70s, and Still Are” featuring this gem: “There is absolutely no evidence that carbon dioxide causes any kind of climate change.”
Let’s jump to some science, shall we?
Bob Corker’s assigned reading comes from the Pew Center for Global Climate Change:
How do we know that atmosphere increases in greenhouse gases are due to human activity? Some greenhouse gases, such as industrial halocarbons, are only made by humans, and thus their presence in the atmosphere can only be explained by human activity. Naturally occurring gases such as CO2 and CH4 are generated by natural processes such as plant and animal respiration and decomposition. However, scientists can quantify the various sources (both natural and human) of such gases and measure their contribution to atmospheric concentrations.
Phil Valentine’s assigned reading is the November 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change:
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic [greenhouse gas] concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years.
And the winner is … both of them! (And an honorable mention to The Tennessean for outstanding editorial oversight in the pursuit of scientific integrity.)
Comments
You are doing better than me, Bruce, because I cannot even force myself to read an entire Phil Valentine article. Ugh.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 09:43:45 AMBravo!
Since Barry evidently disagrees with Valentine's scholarly citation, it should definitely be ignored.
There. That settles it.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 10:22:55 AMI dunno, Steve Gill's claim that high gas prices are the Democrats' fault deserves at least one "witless and uninformed assertion" gold star.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 10:39:45 AMWhat's yall's carbon footprint. I know mine..its 333. I had it measured over at walmart. they said I coujld be arrested, but they'd let me slide this time.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 11:17:24 AMDo yall like fish sticks. I sure do.
Thankee
Henry
I'll go with Dr. Roy Spencer:
"You might be surprised to learn that there has never been a single scientific paper published which has ruled out natural climate variability for most of our current global-mean warmth. Not one.
Instead, since Mr. Carbon Dioxide was found at the scene of the crime — albeit without the murder weapon — there is no need to search for any other culprits or accomplices. The circumstantial evidence has convicted him. Even though Mr. Carbon Dioxide is necessary for life on Earth, we are now calling him derogatory names, like “pollutant.”"
[click for source]
Man-made global warming is a theory - not an established fact. None of the scientists who were involved in the IPCC report (or any of the rest of them) is the least bit capable of actually proving that man made CO2 emmissions have ever had any impact on global temperatures at all.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 11:33:06 AMI'll go with Dr. Roy Spencer
Sure, for scientific credibility you can't beat a guy who has written that "intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism" and that "If the public school system insists on teaching evolution as a theory of origins, in the view of many a religious activity, why is it discriminating against the only other theory of origins, intelligent design?" A guy who apparently doesn't grasp the meaning of scientific "theory" is certainly a good choice to sort out a scientific issue.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 12:53:18 PM"Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for University of Alabama in Huntsville. In the past, he served as Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama. Dr. Spencer is the recipient of NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific Achievement."
You can try and dismiss Spencer all you want. What you cannot do is prove that any other scientist whose views you happen to like better is any more of an authority on global warming than Spencer is.
"A guy who apparently doesn't grasp the meaning of scientific "theory" is certainly a good choice to sort out a scientific issue."
I'd say that Spencer grasps that a theory is just that - a theory regardless of whether it is preceded by the word "scientific" or not.
The only way to "sort out" any issue - "scientific" or otherwise is to provide absolute, definitive proof that can be unambiguously verified as being 100% accurate by measurement in the physical world.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 02:18:19 PMThat last one was me.
I forgot to type in my name before I hit "post".
Posted 04/21/2008 at 02:19:44 PMOh, really? For a second there, I thought it was some other blowhard.
Posted 04/21/2008 at 03:20:25 PMYawl's faith in the scientific authority of the UN is quaint. Sort of like Mark Twain's German, it deserves a spot in a museum all its own.
PS: It's getting warmer all over the N. Hemisphere. It's called spring. I predict it will continue to get warmer until about October, followed by cooling.
Posted 04/22/2008 at 06:57:15 PMIntelligent Design and the cultish Global Warming Carbon zealots have much in common. Little scientific proof, other agendas, particularly socialisma and fundamentlism.
I feel as I know the ID crowd, but the ECO quasi-religion is really more than I can bear.
Mommy, why are the polar bears dying?
Posted 04/22/2008 at 07:28:22 PMHere is a some info from an interview at National Review Online with Lawrence Solomon who wrote a book about global warming deniers regarding the U.N. IPCC:
"Solomon: The United Nations is a political body, not a scientific body, and it acts accordingly. In the case of global warming, the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, was given a mandate to search for man-made causes of climate change. The investigation of natural causes of climate change was outside its mandate. Not surprisingly, it neither searched for natural explanations for climate change nor found them."
"Solomon: No, the science in the U.N. reports was not peer reviewed, as it is usually understood. As some of my deniers point out in proper scientific peer reviews the identities of the peer reviewers are kept secret, so that they can be free to make critical comments about the science without fear of recrimination. In the U.N.’s peer review, the reviewers must identify themselves to the scientists they are critiquing, discouraging many from expressing themselves frankly. It gets worse than that, though.
In a normal peer-review process, the critiques from the reviewers are public. If a scientist decides to reject a critique, he must justify his refusal. In the U.N. peer-review process, the system is turned on its head. The scientists don’t need to explain themselves. They can ignore the criticisms and no one will be able to assess if the criticism was rejected for a valid reason. The U.N.’s version of peer review does not meet the standard of professional science."
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZmJjNWUyMzJlOTJmMDU0NzhjMTEzOWQxN2EwYzJhYTA=&w=MA==
Posted 04/23/2008 at 07:08:42 AM