Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis?

[GaryC 7]

John McCain, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton all promise massive new regulations that will cost trillions of dollars to combat global warming. McCain says that it will be his first task if he wins the presidency. After consulting with Al Gore, Obama feels the problem is so imminent that it is not even really possible to wait until he becomes president.

Ironically, this political unanimity is occurring as global temperatures have been cooling dramatically over the last decade.

Global temperatures have now largely eliminated most of the one degree Celsius warming that had previously occurred over the last 100 years. Hundreds of climate scientists have warned that there is not significant man-made global warming.

A conference in New York on Monday and Tuesday this week will bring 100 scientists together to warn that the there is no man-made global warming crisis.

Yet, we just keep on piling on more and more regulations without asking hard questions about whether they are justified.

New mileage per gallon regulations were signed into law last year that will mandate cars get 35 MPG. The rules will make us poorer, forcing people to buy products that aren’t otherwise the best suited for them. More people will die because lighter cars are less safe, but we are told this is all worth it largely because of global warming.

But much of what gets passed is arbitrary. Was there anything scientific about picking 35 MPG instead of, say, 30 MPG other than the desire to do more? And how do these regulations fit in with all the gasoline taxes we have that are already reducing gas use?

To see if all this makes any sense there are really four questions that all have to be answered "yes."

1) Are global temperatures rising? Surely, they were rising from the late 1970s to 1998, but "there has been no net global warming since 1998." Indeed, the more recent numbers show that there is now evidence of significant cooling.

2) But supposing that the answer to the first question is "yes," is mankind responsible for a significant and noticeable portion of an increase in temperatures? Mankind is responsible for just a fraction of one percent of the effect from greenhouse gases, and greenhouse gases are not responsible for most of what causes warming (e.g., the Sun).

Over 100 leading climate scientists from around the world signed a letter in December stating: "significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming."

In December a list was also released of another 400 scientists who questioned the general notion of significant manmade global warming.

3) If the answer to both preceding questions is "yes," is an increase temperature changes "bad"? That answer is hardly obvious.

Even the UN’s original draft stated that an increase in temperature of up to two degrees Celsius would be good for many regions of the globe. Higher temperatures could increase ocean levels by between seven inches and two feet over the next 100 years.

Although some blame global warming for seemingly everything, according to others higher temperatures will increase the amount of land that we can use to grow food, it will improve people's health, and increase biological diversity.

4) Finally, let's assume that the answer to all three previous questions is "yes." Does that mean we need more regulations and taxes? No, that is still not clear.

If we believe that man-made global warming is “bad,” we still don’t want to eliminate all carbon emissions. Having no cars, no air conditioning, or no electricity would presumably be much worse than anything people are claiming from global warming.

You want to pick a tax that just discourages carbon emissions to the point where the cost of global warming is greater than that of cutting emissions.

Too little of a tax can be “bad” because we would produce greenhouse gases when their costs were greater than the benefits. But too much of a tax also makes us poorer because we won’t be getting the benefits from cars or electricity even when the benefits exceed the costs that they would produce from global warming.

What is often ignored in the debate over global warming is that we already have very substantial taxes on gasoline, averaging 46 cents per gallon in the US. Even if one believes that gasoline use should be restricted to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, the question is whether our taxes are already restricting use "too much" or "not enough.” But simply saying that carbon dioxide emissions are bad isn’t enough.

In fact, William Nordhaus, an economics professor at Yale and former member of President Carter’s Council of Economic Advisors, puts the “right” level of gasoline taxes at around 10 cents a gallon today, reaching 16 cents per gallon in 2015. Nordhaus’ analysis assumes that the answers to the first three questions are “yes.” If anything, while gasoline taxes are partially used for such things as building roads, it seems quite plausible that, even accepting Nordhaus’ assumptions, current gasoline taxes are much too high to deal with the harm from global warming.

However good the intentions, the debate over global warming is much more complicated than simply saying that the world is getting warmer. It is too bad that these questions won’t be getting a real debate this election. The irony is that those who sell themselves as being so caring aren't careful enough to investigate the impact of their regulations.

John Lott is the author of Freedomnomics and a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,334682,00.html

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Global warming is 99% politics and 1% science. Why else have Al Gore as a spokesman?

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Global warming is 99% politics and 1% science. Why else have Al Gore as a spokesman?

That's kind of misleading. You left the business portion out. Al Gore is all about profiting from global warming. How else could he afford all of those barrels of fossil fuels that his personal jet burns?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Climate science: Sceptical about bias

Unravelling the sceptics

[GaryC 7]

The tide is beginning to turn. In a few years the idea of man-made global warming will be tossed aside like the idea of the next ice age was forgotten in the 80's.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Discounting the idea that scientific methods will undoubtedly get more precise? Many theories are reevaluated or refined as the means of measurement become more sophisticated.

As it stands - I'll say it again. I'm not sure how anyone can claim with authority to pass final sweeping judgement on an entire branch of science, and an entire field of scientific research. Its not something I feel comfortable (or qualified) to do.

If all you need to do is find articles on the internet - there are plenty to go around. Its a pretty bad evaluative tool, in that respect.

Edited March 4, 2008 by Number 6

[GaryC 7]

Discounting the idea that scientific methods will undoubtedly get more precise? Many theories are reevaluated or

As it stands - I'll say it again. I'm not sure how anyone can claim with authority to pass sweeping judgement on an entire branch of science, and an entire field of scientific research. Its not something I feel comfortable (or qualified) to do.

If all you need to do is find articles on the internet - there are plenty to go around. Its a pretty bad evaluative tool, in that respect.

Time will tell. Man made global warming is a hoax. It will fall beside the tracks soon and the same people will find a new global crisis to rally behind.

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

Discounting the idea that scientific methods will undoubtedly get more precise? Many theories are reevaluated or

As it stands - I'll say it again. I'm not sure how anyone can claim with authority to pass sweeping judgement on an entire branch of science, and an entire field of scientific research. Its not something I feel comfortable (or qualified) to do.

If all you need to do is find articles on the internet - there are plenty to go around. Its a pretty bad evaluative tool, in that respect.

Yep yep. The media is full of non-experts offering expert opinions. My biggest problem is that there are obvious political forces at work on both sides, so the entire argument gets muddied.

I have personally searched the list of weather monitoring stations and can tell you that many of them have parking lots around them, which would cause a significant temperature rise to be recorded.

[Heracles 417]

The tide is beginning to turn. In a few years the idea of man-made global warming will be tossed aside like the idea of the next ice age was forgotten in the 80's.

Certain people are simply biased and do not want to hear anybody else's view. If someone's view or research on global warming is that it is not being caused by humans then they automatically assume it must be funded by big bad corporations or they are an idiot.

Such an attitude is almost as dumb as the people who burn down homes to save the earth..

Edited March 4, 2008 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

I have personally searched the list of weather monitoring stations and can tell you that many of them have parking lots around them, which would cause a significant temperature rise to be recorded.

[SteveLaura 0]

The tide is beginning to turn. In a few years the idea of man-made global warming will be tossed aside like the idea of the next ice age was forgotten in the 80's.

Global Cooling

Global cooling in general can refer to a cooling of the Earth. More specifically, it refers to a conjecture during the 1970s of imminent cooling of the Earth's surface and atmosphere along with a posited commencement of glaciation. This hypothesis never had significant scientific support, but gained temporary popular attention due to press reports following a better understanding of ice age cycles and a slight downward trend of temperatures from the 1940s to the early 1970s...

By the time the idea of global cooling reached the public press in the mid-1970s, the temperature trend had stopped going down, and there was concern in the climatological community about carbon dioxide's effects...

The idea that ice ages cycles were predictable appears to have become conflated with the idea that another one was due "soon" - perhaps because much of this study was done by geologists, who use "soon" to refer to periods of centuries to tens of millennia or more. A strict application of the Milankovitch theory does not allow the prediction of a "rapid" ice age onset (rapid being anything under a century or two) since the fastest orbital period is about 20,000 years...

Concern peaked in the early 1970s, partly because of the cooling trend then apparent (a cooling period began in 1945, and two decades of a cooling trend suggested a trough had been reached after several decades of warming), and partly because much less was then known about world climate and causes of ice ages. Although there was a cooling trend then, it should be realised that climate scientists were perfectly well aware that predictions based on this trend were not possible - because the trend was poorly studied and not understood. However in the popular press the possibility of cooling was reported generally without the caveats present in the scientific reports...

"Judging from the record of the past interglacial ages, the present time of high temperatures should be drawing to an end ... leading into the next glacial age. However, it is possible, or even likely, than human interference has already altered the environment so much that the climatic pattern of the near future will follow a different path". . .

As the NAS report indicates, scientific knowledge regarding climate change was more uncertain than it is today. At the time that Rasool and Schneider wrote their 1971 paper, climatologists had not yet recognized the significance of greenhouse gases other than water vapor and carbon dioxide, such as methane, nitrous oxide and chlorofluorocarbons. Early in that decade, carbon dioxide was the only widely studied human-influenced greenhouse gas. The attention drawn to atmospheric gases in the 1970s stimulated many discoveries in future decades.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The tide is beginning to turn. In a few years the idea of man-made global warming will be tossed aside like the idea of the next ice age was forgotten in the 80's.

Certain people are simply biased and do not want to hear anybody else's view. If someone's view or research on global warming is that it is not being caused by humans then they automatically assume it must be funded by big bad corporations or they are an idiot.

Such an attitude is almost as dumb as the people who burn down homes to save the earth..

The problem is quoting articles - doesn't amount to an authoritative view of the current state of an entire branch of scientific research.

Of course I'm talking to the wrong person here - who picks up on sensationalist news headlines and jumps to the conclusion that they represent new and disturbing changes in social behaviour, when in reality they can prove no such thing - except through vague references that life was so much better when they were 5 years old and too young and naiive to follow the news..

[AnewKINDofFEELIN 0]

I have personally searched the list of weather monitoring stations and can tell you that many of them have parking lots around them, which would cause a significant temperature rise to be recorded.

That's actually one of the better ones.

Here is a properly placed station:

Here are some that are not-so-properly placed:

[Heracles 417]

Of course I'm talking to the wrong person here - who picks up on sensationalist news headlines and jumps to the conclusion that they represent new and disturbing changes in social behaviour, when in reality they can prove no such thing - except through vague references that life was so much better when they were 5 years old and too young and naiive to follow the news..

Does that also apply to someone who is in their 80's and 90's? Or does their opinion not count.

I never realized that personal observation is a no no. I guess I better go back to high school and rewrite the science books to conform to #6 and Ph's standards of reasoning. While I am at it I will throw out centuries worth of 'scientific' discoveries which started off as a simple observation.

PS What research should I provide that is up to 'your' standards?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Proving that human-influenced global warming is fake, or not, is not something that can be done, convincingly, with news articles.

Its an opinion - nothing more.

Besides - GW isn't something that a person can actually talk about through personal observation, unless its "gee, its a lot colder/warmer nowadays than it was years ago". Hardly scientific.