# Global Warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Cecil's Columns/Staff Reports\ **Created:** [April 7, 2006, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715 "2006-04-07T13:50:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 3:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/41 "2006-04-08T03:25:02Z")
> [@hawthorne](#): > > I thought this column was a steaming pile. I mean, “job exports”?? > > Most of the column is not even wrong. I couldn’t figure out what Cecil meant either. > [@Cecil Adams](#): > > The U.S., through its huge trade deficits and job exports, is now financing the industrialization of Asia… The mirror image of a trade deficit is a surplus in the asset account: if foreigner’s are selling us goods on net, they must be buying something else in exchange: that would be stocks, bonds or other assets. The US may be adding to demand for third world (and middle eastern) goods (and commodities), but it is sucking up the world’s savings in exchange. Put in another way, the Asian tigers financed the 2002-2005 US housing boom. “Job exports” is an equally odd expression; perhaps Cecil meant something like, “deindustrialization”. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 8:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/42 "2006-04-08T08:09:55Z")
> [@GM](#): > > So, in the three quotes about global warming you have supported the view that it will cause WWIII No, read carefully - that’s what the **Pentagon** thinks. _They’re_ your doomsayers. > [@](#): > > rising sea-levels to the point that terrorist actions are warranted No, read carefully - I said they muight _happen_, not that they’d be _warranted in my opinion_. > [@](#): > > and that the evaporation of methane will wipe out all life on earth. No, read carefully - I said there was a _possibility_ of that. (Less than 1% IMO, but that roulette’s still a little Russian for my liking. > [@](#): > > Hmmmmm, sounds pretty hysterical to me. IMO. I think that might be a ringing in your ears from having your fingers rammed in them so hard. > [@jeffrice](#): > > Oh, yeah, and then there was that chart. Now, I have a bachelor’s degree in journalism and a master’s in English lit – this chart makes no sense to me whatsoever. I’m sorry that you took such intellectually impoverished subjects that you didn’t learn how to understand simple graphs. The chart means that if we do _nothing_ about emissions, the CO2 concentration will rise to 750 ppm. For hundreds of millennia it was 280 ppm. The current concentration, which has caused warming of at least 1[sup]o[/sup]C, is still only 380 ppm, and rising by 3 ppm per year. Understand? > [@ITechGent](#): > > It overlooks the fact that the most abundant greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is water vapor (i.e clouds), not carbon dioxide. The earth is 2/3 water. Man has no impact on a global scale of the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. None whatsoever. Wayer vapour is still at the same concentration it was for millennia. Other, less powerful greenhouse gases, are 30% higher and rising. Do, learn to read. > [@Corner Case](#): > > Michael Crichton is an attention-seeking tool. > [@Punqo](#): > > To be fair, Cecil never answered the question about whether or not anthropogenic global warming is true or not. He does imply that it is true, though. However, people here seem to be missing his main point – that reducing emissions won’t change anything. To not answer the question is as serious an omission as in a question about evolution, IMO. And if reducing emissions won’t change anything, why bother with all this energy efficiency (in the Third _or_ First World) **at all**? His serious flaw here is that he thinks that we can start making things better when fossi fuels become scarce. If that point is reached, **the at ospheric concentration battle will _already have been lost_**. That he doesn’t even mention concentrations _at all_ beggars belief: he and his ghost writers seriously fucked up on this one. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/43 "2006-04-08T17:09:26Z")
SentientMeat, I think you need to read and consider your posts more carefully, IMO. You put that information out there on this board. You link to sites that support those views. You offer no negative opinions about them. Your posts indicate that you think it is right, not wrong. Now you backpeddle. Now you say that those posts were not meant as your serious opinion. But, you only said that after someone called you on it. Don’t trip as you backpeddle out the door. Bye-Bye. ---
**Author:** ![Hal\_Briston](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/a9a28c/32.png) [@Hal\_Briston](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hal_Briston)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/44 "2006-04-08T18:42:07Z")
> [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > Michael Crichton is not a scientist. He is a guy who makes money by writing alarming science fiction: “Andromeda Strain”, “Coma”, “Jurassic Park”, etc. You neglected to mention _State Of Fear_, in which he steps out of his science fiction element to adress this issue in an albeit dramatized, but fully annototed and cited manner. As a dramatic novel, it’s meandering and convoluted – but as an eye-opener to the politics of global warming scaremongering, it’s [quite a good read](http://www.michaelcrichton.net/fear/). ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 6:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/45 "2006-04-08T18:48:32Z")
> [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > Amongst the scientists who specialize in related fields, there is no debate. Interesting statement. Totally wrong, tho. I can tell you from the standpoint of oceanography that there is rather a lot of debate on the subject from “how much of an impact do anthropomorphic greenhouse emmisions have on the environment” to “what is the accuracy of climatology models and how reliable are they?” I work in the area of air-sea exchange (heat and gas). I can tell you that there is A LOT of uncertainty in any climatology models because we still do not have a clear grasp of this basic process. Remember all of those horror stories about how humans are making hurricanes worse? (Time, etc.) Funny thing; those studies did not have have _any_ direct measurements of air-sea fluxes during or immediately after a hurricane. All of their conclusions were based on a certain rate of flux. There will be a paper (actually two, one data and one analysis) published shortly (been approved, waiting for print) which has the first set of data of such fluxes ever taken. This data casts major doubt on the conclusions of our influence on hurricanes. Now, before I get the proverbial “cite?” I have to say 1.) not yet printed and 2.) even when printed, I highly doubt that linking to it will be as easy as linking to Wiki. When I have confirmation of the date of publication (and, sorry, the journal - not my paper, forgot), I will repost. I just wanted to point out that there is _not_ concensus on this this aspect of the topic of anthropomorphic sources of greenhouse gases and their impact on the environment. Oh, and I do want to add one more thing: **Cecil?** We get it. You don’t like Bush or the Iraq war. _I_ don’t like Bush or the Iraq war, either, but what was the point of that little bit of random Bush-bashing? I know that your articles rely on snarky-sarcastic humor, but really. The “screwed the pooch” comment was off-topic and unnecessary. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/46 "2006-04-08T20:53:17Z")
> [@jeffrice](#): > > …let me quote from my own area of expertise: Hamlet, speaking of his mother, “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” (Scene III, Act 2, Line 209.) You gotta’ read the line in context, though. Nitpick: Gertrude says that, about the Queen in _The Murder of Gonzago._ Please work on that reading comprehension thing. ---
**Author:** ![omarsidd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/c77e96/32.png) [@omarsidd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/omarsidd)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/47 "2006-04-08T21:24:51Z")
Cecil may be smart, but an economist he’s not. Russia is a bad example and its ability to meet Kyoto goals is vastly different from first world countries. Many or most E.U. nations, which have not experienced economic crashes, are on their way to meeting Kyoto goals if they have not already. Economic growth does NOT equal “driving SUVs”. Yeah, sea levels will rise and storms will destroy all manner of things, but “it doesn’t matter”? I’m guessing Cecil votes republican, or doesn’t understand the issue. Perhaps both. On this issue, he’s clueless. ---
**Author:** ![SlowMindThinking](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/dc4da7/32.png) [@SlowMindThinking](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SlowMindThinking)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/48 "2006-04-08T22:43:05Z")
> [@JustAnotherGeek](#): > > Interesting statement. Totally wrong, tho. > > I can tell you from the standpoint of oceanography that there is rather a lot of debate on the subject from “how much of an impact do anthropomorphic greenhouse emmisions have on the environment” to “what is the accuracy of climatology models and how reliable are they?” > … > . JustAnotherGeek, have you read the thread I linked? It references a study of over 900 abstracts all of which either agree, or take no position on, the IPCC consensus. Obviously there is debate over how particular mechanisms work, and over the accuracy of the models, or the IPCC position would be more accurate than 1.5 to 6 C. I will stand by my position that there is no debate as to the existence of global warming, there is only debate as to the magnitude and the long term effects. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [April 8, 2006, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/49 "2006-04-08T23:30:44Z")
> [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > JustAnotherGeek, have you read the thread I linked? It references a study of over 900 abstracts all of which either agree, or take no position on, the IPCC consensus. Obviously there is debate over how particular mechanisms work, and over the accuracy of the models, or the IPCC position would be more accurate than 1.5 to 6 C. I will stand by my position that there is no debate as to the existence of global warming, there is only debate as to the magnitude and the long term effects. Apparently the hole in the sand your head is in only contains articles from the IPCC. I suggest pulling your head out and understanding that the consensus BS is only there for propoganda purposes to get political support. It is working really well, to their credit, with all the people with their heads in the sand. BTW, that study has been proven to be bunk. Oh, I forgot, all you need for proof is 5 people, with similar credentials, standing around saying the same thing. lol. As you pointed out, no one, and I mean no one, is arguing that global warming is occuring. But, since the debate/research about the magnitude of the human induced CO2 is not done, it could very well be proven that its influence is negligible. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/50 "2006-04-09T00:00:54Z")
SlowMindThinking, Here are some very interesting links to articles discussing the consensus BS: [Richard S. Lindzen](http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/264.pdf) Every IPCC toadies favorite punching bag. [TCS](http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=011205C) Watchout the IPCC fans might faint from the free trade and libertarian views in that link. [Pielke Jr.](http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000765) Enjoy the fire your strawman is producing right now. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/51 "2006-04-09T00:16:24Z")
Sorry about not being complete but I couldn’t pass this one up SlowMindThinking. Dr. Lindzen apparently saw you coming so he wrote this just for you: > [@](#): > > With respect to science, consensus is often a sop to scientific illiteracy. After all, if what you are told is alleged to be supported by all scientists, then why do you have bother to understand it? You can simply go back to treating it as a matter of religious belief, and you never have to defend this belief except to claim that you are supported by all scientists except for a handful of corrupted heretics. [link](http://www.marshall.org/pdf/materials/264.pdf) ---
**Author:** ![JustAnotherGeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/58f4c7/32.png) [@JustAnotherGeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JustAnotherGeek)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 1:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/52 "2006-04-09T01:51:27Z")
> [@SlowMindThinking](#): > > JustAnotherGeek, have you read the thread I linked? It references a study of over 900 abstracts all of which either agree, or take no position on, the IPCC consensus. Obviously there is debate over how particular mechanisms work, and over the accuracy of the models, or the IPCC position would be more accurate than 1.5 to 6 C. I will stand by my position that there is no debate as to the existence of global warming, there is only debate as to the magnitude and the long term effects. No, but I read the link you seemed to be guiding people towards. You are quite correct in the statement that “there is no debate as to the existence of global warming.” The fact that Earth has been in a warming trend for the past ~15,000 years is not something that I have ever heard debated. The point of my post was that there is a serious amount of debate over the impact of humans on the climate. Positions range from “no discernible impact” to “OH MY GOD WE’RE ALL GOING TO DIE!” Some of the very real reasons why there is such a wide range of views on the subject are: [ul] [li]Our reliable data sets are quite small (compared to the time-frame of climate change).[/li][li]Our long term data sets are not as reliable as our short term. (There are always ‘hand-waving arguments’ whenever indirect data is collected.)[/li][li]We do not yet understand all of the basic processes involved (see my earlier post).[/li][li]Our computer modelling capabilities are still unable to completely model all relevant parameters over a large yet detailed topography.[/li][li]etc.[/li][/ul] My point is not to say that humans have no impact on the environment; all I am saying is that there is rather a lot of debate on the subject and that there really is no such thing as the concensus of all scientists working on this topic (or related ones). ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 11:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/53 "2006-04-09T11:32:32Z")
> [@GM](#): > > SentientMeat, > > I think you need to read and consider your posts more carefully, IMO. I think you need to burn your strawmen, and learn to read. Even your Pielke fellow isn’t an ACC denier: > [@Pielke's Resignation Letter](#): > > I have consistently written on the complex nature of Earth’s climate system, and the diverse types of anthropogenic climate forcings and significant human effect on climate. ---
**Author:** ![GreyMatters](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a9a28c/32.png) [@GreyMatters](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GreyMatters)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/54 "2006-04-09T16:37:55Z")
Sorry SentientMeat, You brought in the global doom info and didn’t deny it or even make a joke of it. You supported it. I do not have a strawman on this issue. Secondly, not once have I denied that the earth is warming up. I also didn’t claim Pielke said it either. My posts are clear. Your logic is at fault. ---
**Author:** ![SentientMeat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/43a26b/32.png) [@SentientMeat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SentientMeat)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/55 "2006-04-09T18:02:42Z")
I _support_ global doom? Now you’re just being silly. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/56 "2006-04-09T18:11:29Z")
Correct me if I’m wrong here (I know you will :)) but isn’t Cecil’s point that Kyoto is the worst of both worlds because not only does it put the brakes on an economy but it is basically worthless in cutting CO2 as well? > [@](#): > > 5.2 percent below 1990 levels This is what Cecil says Kyoto hopes to accomplish. Here is a paragraph from [Factchecker](http://www.factcheck.org/article382.html) on the subject: > [@](#): > > It’s not clear what this would accomplish, however, even if a majority of Americans began following such advice. Many scientists say far more drastic reductions in emissions are needed. A Dutch report cited by sponsors says, for example, “Industrialized countries will need to reduce their emissions by 15-30% below 1990 levels in 2020.” > > Dissenters argue that drastic changes are not worth the effort. Michaels summarizes this point of view in a recent web post: > > ``` > Michaels : Atmospheric carbon dioxide emissions are going to continue to grow until major technological advancements take place—advancements that are, at the very least, decades away. So whether or not the climate changes we are observing now are reversible is a non-issue. There is nothing substantive that can be done about it anyway. > > ``` So, when Cecil says “Answer: Beats me. But you know what? It doesn’t matter even if they are.” he is basically acknowledging that in order to make a REAL difference we would essentially have to gut the entire world economy. Not aprox 5% reduction in 1990’s emmissions but 15%…or maybe 20%…or maybe 30%! Not go with Kyoto, which is difficult but attainable (though as he noted not even all our green Euro brethren are able to meet the goals set), but to go far beyond Kyoto…which, as he says “Ain’t gonna happen, as even Kyoto’s fans are beginning to concede.”. While I agree with many that I wish Cecil had been able to go into greater detail, I think that his position on this issue is completely logical and in keeping with his past positions. IOW he is being realistic here…he knows that humans (as well as other factors) are slowly warming the earth. To paraphrase from a book I enjoyed, if a man is stumbling and about to fall on broken glass is it better to put your hands out and catch the fall (and get cut up pretty badly in the effort) or to run faster? My interperetation of Cecil’s article is…its better to run. -XT ---
**Author:** ![rowrrbazzle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rowrrbazzle/32/414_2.png) [@rowrrbazzle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rowrrbazzle)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/57 "2006-04-09T19:32:19Z")
This is from a Newsweek article. > [@](#): > > The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it… > > Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed…might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality. The article is from 1975. Its title: _The Cooling World_. Republished [here](http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112828-5298r.htm). ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [April 9, 2006, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/58 "2006-04-09T21:53:44Z")
Anyone taking Crichton seriously is extremely misinformed. See [this debunking](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74) of State of Confusion. Even judging from his single quote in this thread, the man knows nothing of science. Science IS consensus. A study alone means very little. That website ([http://www.realclimate.org](http://www.realclimate.org)) is a great source of information. It’s written by actual scientists. Basically, the way I see it is that this is a political issue, not a scientific one. Scientists studying the issue are in agreement (I can provide cites if necessary). Also, Cecil’s viewpoint seems wrong. We could destroy much of the third world while helping only some of it. Tropical islands, for example, will be pretty much destroyed if we do what Cecil is advocating. Famines will also increase, as well as natural disasters. This will hit the third world extremely hard. His suggested course of action, is very risky. ---
**Author:** ![saoirse](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5daacb/32.png) [@saoirse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/saoirse)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/59 "2006-04-10T02:08:27Z")
> [@rowrrbazzle](#): > > This is from a Newsweek article.The article is from 1975. Its title: _The Cooling World_. Republished [here](http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20060402-112828-5298r.htm). I noticed that nowhere in the article did they give any possible cause for cooling. They didn’t offer any mechanism that was acting on the climate. The meteorolgoists were basing their predictions entirely on observation. They also didn’t recommend the government do anything about cooling, except to stockpile food. I am glad I got to read that, though. I’d heard about these assertions being made in the 70s and I never came across any of them until now. I was pretty young in 1975, but I had older siblings, who wouldn’t have passed up a chance like that to scare the crap out of me. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [April 10, 2006, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715/60 "2006-04-10T02:50:18Z")
The global cooling myth is explained here: [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/](http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/) Short version: It really was a product of the popular press, with very little science or scientific consensus to back it up. It is, in other words, completely different than today’s situation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/global-warming/351715.md?page=4)