Youth Rally For Change In Energy, Climate And Economic Policy. Washington, March 2, 2009: Activists hold signs as they participate in the Power Shift '09 rally on the West Lawn of the U.S. Capitol March 2, 2009 in Washington, DC. Youth activists called for urgent congressional actions on climate change, energy and the economy. Photo by Alex Wong / Getty Images
Investigator Grover Winthrop composed a handy "in-a-nutshell study sheet" for scientists who are confused by the great debate about global warming. Winthrop writes: "People tell me there's a debate about global warming. Yet these days I don't meet any competent scientists who see it as a debate. So here—for my colleagues—is a guide to what people mean when they tell us there is a debate:
- Global warming is not happening; and
- It causes no problems; and
- It's not caused by human engineering; and
- Whatever problems it causes are easily solved by engineering.
"What we are seeing here," enthuses Winthrop, "is the birth of some new kind of logic. It's fascinating."
Investigator Daniele Ramos, too, has been fascinated by reports that there is a debate. She alerts us to a simple tool she uses to analyze the debaters' arguments. Ramos writes:
"The arguments I've heard and read (saying there's no global warming problem) nearly always have a very low F/R ratio. The F/R ratio—the 'Facts-to-Rage ratio'—was invented (I think) by the journalist Josh Marshall. As soon as I find myself in a discussion with someone whose argument has a very low F/R ratio, I relax and simply enjoy the spectacle. It does wonders for my stress level."
Comments
Mammals require oxygen to survive, and the percentage of oxygen in our atmosphere is over 20%. All plant life (trees, grass, flowers, grains, vegetables, and so on) likewise requires carbon dioxide to survive. Are you aware the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere is well under 1/2 of ONE percent? It is measured in PARTS PER MILLION. And you seriously think this trace amount of a gas vital to every form of plant life is the single biggest cause for warming of the planet? More important than the sun, sunspots, gravitational pull, solar rays, ocean currents, and so on COMBINED.
Is that reasonable?? Or are you simply agenda-driven?
Why is global warming the only settled science? Why do they get upset when their facts are challenged? Why are questions about their theory answered with accusations and negative labels. If the best meteorologists in the world can’t correctly predict next week’s temperatures, how can they estimate what temps will be 50 years from now? If this were a religion—as some have hypothesized—then it’s no wonder they treat their doubters as heretics.
CO2 is our friend and we are at a historical low. At 800 ppm, plants thrive. Why try to curtail this era of CO2 prosperity? CO2 is not our enemy… find a new one. Plant Killers!
I think a really telling point to be made is that Sarah Palin, current reigning leader of the conservative movement (except of course for Rush Limbaugh), believes in global warming because she sees the effects right in her backyard. They are inescapable for people living in the arctic regions; and if you in the lower latitudes don’t know it now you will in the next decade.
What I want to know is why are most conservatives so resistant to spending R&D to find out what we can do to deal with the current and coming effects. Are you simply hoping that if you hold your breath it will turn out okay? You all gripe about saddling your children with debt; what about saddling your children with the effects of extended droughts, increasingly stronger storms, rising water levels, fewer animal species and on and on and on. Guess that’s their problem?
If Liberals were really serious about energy efficiency they’d get Congress to change the Law of Gravity so that cars were lighter and so use less fuel. But they won’t do that for exactly the same reason they won’t legislate global warming out of existence.
Carbon is essential … we are carbon based life forms as trees … just as a quick point trees are made up of cirra 50% carbon … higher amounts of carbon mean more trees and plants and thus produce more oxygen … its a win win situation.
Carbon capture will be the solution, all the CO2 can be converted to diamonds and we can all be rich, a win-win situation
Anyone can download temperature data and plot it themselves. I suggest HadCRUT because it is an AGW supporting source rather than a skeptical source. If you don’t smooth the data excessively, you will see that it has been cooling since before 2004.
You can download sunspot data too. During the period from around 1945 until around 2000, solar activity was higher than at any time since around 1794 except for a few years around 1840. The global warming “crisis” has been from around 1980 until around 2004. That was during and immediately following 50+ years of unusually high solar activity. That was a much more likely cause of the warming trend than CO2.
When you really start to dig, you will find that there is very little hard evidence to support the belief that the 1980-2004 warming was caused by a slight increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
And when it turns out that a drastic downturn in solar activity is producing global cooling then what?
one good thing with the economic downturn is that there will be less CO2 emissions and lets hope a downturn in global worming
Had to bring up Sara Palin? Sure she can see whatever she likes in her backyard, but warming’s been going on (and off) for much longer than the current attention…and probably will continue. The native villages being eroded on the coast…that’s never happened before because it’s only been now that these previously nomadic hutner gathering natives have lived in settlements (for the missionary’s churches and other “benefits” of society…y’know).
And don’t think conservatives don’t want to spend on research…they do, but what kind? To falsify the global warming theories…as they should be, that being the telltail sign that theory is correct) instead of just funding yet another model building experiment designed to show it does what we think it should, or going out cherry picking nice research that shows exactly what you think it should with an interpretation designed to continue the research grant. We have enough of those. Let’s fund fusion energy projects and get to the other side of this issue of CO2. Oh..and if you think an industrial and economic slowdown will help the planet, think of where all the 1st generation urban dwellers in the developing world go when they loose their jobs…back home to the village where they now start cutting,netting,collecting…whatever it takes to stay alive in ever greater numbers.
If we want our civilization to survive, really, we’d be researching fusion, space industry and modern high population ecosystem limitations. it’s raining soup, and we don’t have a bucket.
so where are you go live in the coming ice age