Connect with us on Facebook!
Subscribe.
Follow us on Twitter!
Make us your home page!
Authors, sign in!Cautionary note: If you believe President Obama was really born in Kenya, or you take the car to a cardiologist to grind the engine valves, or think a chemist knows the latest about nuclear physics, stop reading this. It'll just hurt your head.
A long time ago I began to suspect ordinary folks are, on average, pretty dumb about a whole lot of things. (No, not you or me--those other guys.) Nothing much since then has changed my mind.
Face it, even for those who read widely and do their best, the days of the Renaissance Man (or woman) are over. And a credentialed expert speaking in his or her field is one thing; a weed scientist holding forth on oceanography or podiatry is another. The old saw that specialists know more and more about less and less is worth a prominent place among your refrigerator magnet wisdom. Also, keep in your noodle the political maxim that advises us to "follow the money." In deciding what to think about global warming, all that is important.
Published last year, the book True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society
In 2004 Oreskes testified to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, then chaired by Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) -- who ever since has worked relentlessly to discredit Oreskes. Of course, Inhofe's biggest contributor is the oil and gas industry -- close to half a million bucks in just this election cycle. (Opensecrets.org) Maybe he's just a really nice guy and not beholden to people who give him lots of money and have skin in the game. You can make your own judgment.
I e-mailed Oreskes to inquire whether the case for man-caused global warming had weakened in six years. No, she said,
"The scientific evidence for man-made global warming has only become stronger since 2003. AR4 of the IPCC [the latest report by the group] uses the word 'unequivocal.' ... The science shows that 'most' of the observed warming is caused by human activities, mostly greenhouse gases, and to a lesser extent land use changes. The science also shows that the warming would have been worse but for the role of atmospheric dust, which mostly has a cooling effect."Oreskes is finishing a book to be published next year by Bloomsbury, "Fighting Facts," which deals with nay-sayers. I'll recommend it sight unseen.
Few readers are aware that we have two IPPC climate scientists here in Kansas. Both are Nobel Prize winners -- Chuck Rice at Kansas State, and Johannes Feddema at KU. Rice was a lead author on the 4th Report from IPCC. Feddema was cited in earlier reports and contributed to the 4th.
I spoke to Rice on Tuesday. Yes, he said, there is a strong consensus that climate change is real, and is largely human-caused. Rice prefers the term climate change because effects may vary from area to area--even as the average temperature of the entire planet rises. Recent data suggests that's happening at an even faster pace than previously predicted. This March, both Rice and Oreskes attended a meeting in Copenhagen organized by the International association of Research Universities (Yale University was a co-sponsor.) A keynote speaker, Danish Prime Minister Rasmussen, once a skeptic, recanted and has pledged to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Europe by 80 percent. The debate now is not about major conclusions, but details of pace and place.
KU's Johannes Feddema is currently more worried about ongoing changes in the Arctic region, but last October, along with Nathaniel Brunsell, and student assistants he released a 10 page report about our region, entitled Climate Change in Kansas.
The science is complex. Some areas may even experience short-term cooling, but by 2100 or sooner Kansas will experience higher overall temperatures and more summer heat waves. Winters will have fewer days below freezing, insects may thrive, and plant, animal and human diseases increase. To the good, we'll fire up the furnace less, but use the air-conditioner more. Overall precipitation will stay about the same but distribution patterns will be less predictable. We'll see decreased snowfall, but more intense storms, and more flooding. Western Kansas will get drier, soil evaporation rates will increase and demands on water supply will grow. Eastern Kansas will be both warmer and wetter.
Science is always open to peer-review and correction. Climate scientists may be all wet and the detractors correct. But me, I'll take the climatologists' research over the fossil fuel industry, their quid pro quo politicians, the privatizing anti-regulators, or those devout souls who are sure good behavior brings rain and sin brings drought. Of course, we could also ask Joe the Plumber.
(Footnote: My thanks also to Prof. John Harrington Jr. at K-State for his help.)
Published June 5, 2009 by Bob Hooper |
Permalink
| Tags:
Books
Climate Change
Energy
Global Warming
Kansas
Comments (13)
Just the words "By Bob Hooper" is enough to hurt my head.
Why don't you mention what the other part of the scientific community believes in?
That the minuscule temperature increases we've seen over the years is due to increased solar activity which runs on an 11 year cycle?
How do you explain extreme global warming during the middle of the dinosaur age?
Sorry sir, but today's so-called man-made global warming IS a hoax.
Political environmentalism run-amok!
Posted by t-dect
|
June 5, 2009 2:52 PM
Posted on June 5, 2009 14:52
Well put, Bob. I think that things are--in a way--even worse than people generally think. Climate change is occurring because of the pollutants that are already in the atmosphere. Cutting down on the rate of adding pollution is a good start, but even if we add no more pollution to the atmosphere, the pollution that is already in the atmosphere will continue to fuel the climate change processes that have begun.
Posted by Paul Faber
|
June 5, 2009 7:08 PM
Posted on June 5, 2009 19:08
t-dect (aka g.p.)
Climate scientists take the solar cycle into account. It is a 12 year cycle. My sources tell me that solar power has actually decreased over the last 6 years, and has tended to diminish the heating effect somewhat. However, solar activity is projected to increase over the next six years. There is always another "part" of the scientific community, but the part actively doing climate research are in agreement.
Sorry your head hurts, but not particularly surprised. Maybe it's the echo? (How's the weather in Bakersfield?)
Here's a site that may offer a palliative,but admittedly not a cure, for your discomfort-- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11462
Posted by bob hooper
|
June 5, 2009 9:49 PM
Posted on June 5, 2009 21:49
Ya know, it's kind of curious. Scientist all over the globe are carefully monitoring, taking notes, and sharing data when it comes to global temperature fluctuations. And the only loud mouth out there causing a hysteria is an old washed up, has been, buffoon of an ex-vice president Al Gore, lecturing to all of us that we need to start buy stupid hybrid cars and paint our roofs white, for starters. Anybody out there who is stupid enough to believe his bullshit is a fool.
And Bob, after reading your lame post I took some acetaminophen and now feel fine, proof that my head is not empty with an echo.
Also, the weather here is Bakersfield today was perfect. A high temp. of 78--20 degrees cooler than normal for early June. Further proof that global warming is for the fool-hearted.
Posted by t-dect
|
June 6, 2009 1:35 AM
Posted on June 6, 2009 01:35
Yeah, good catch Bob! You must be a rocket scientist on the side.
"Maybe it's the echo?"
Personal slams? Maybe you need to give Hooper the same warning, P.J.
No don't, Bob's little zingers and one-liners is always good for a laugh around this household. It's dull without them.
Posted by t-dect
|
June 6, 2009 3:01 PM
Posted on June 6, 2009 15:01
Bob, I found some good sources for your "No Hoax (Part III)" continuation series.
Climate Confusion: How Global Warming Hysteria Leads to Bad Science, Pandering Politicians and Misguided Policies that Hurt the Poor (Hardcover)
by Roy Spencer (Author).
Also:
The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them (Hardcover)
by Iain Murray (Author).
And maybe:
Red Hot Lies: How Global Warming Alarmists Use Threats, Fraud, and Deception to Keep You Misinformed (Hardcover)
by Christopher C. Horner (Author).
Can't wait for part III!
Posted by t-dect
|
June 6, 2009 6:50 PM
Posted on June 6, 2009 18:50
Oh, PJ, thanks but it wasn't really much of a catch---waaay too dinky to take home and clean. I'll just toss the little booger back in the puddle.
Best way is just to ignore 'em jigglin' the ol' bobber, which is what I'll do with the next lil' greggie. He's just fussin' with the bait anyways. Ain't got the heft to pull it under.
Posted by bob hooper
|
June 6, 2009 11:14 PM
Posted on June 6, 2009 23:14
Ooohh Mr. Bob! Come on, let's be real.
You couldn't ignore me if you tried.
Good night. For now.
Posted by t-dect
|
June 7, 2009 1:35 AM
Posted on June 7, 2009 01:35
Current non-scientist global warming skeptics remind me of the many who, a generation ago, were skeptical about the cigarette smoking / lung cancer connection for as long as possible. In both cases, the only things practically at stake were pleasure and money. Yet in the smoking case most skeptics held on to their disbelief until not a single scientist could come up with a new, barely plausible skeptical rationale to sell to the corporate interests involved. We're very close to that point as regards global warming, or whatever we should call it.
Too bad American skeptical energy is not put to better use. Where was it, for instance, when people with no relevant credentials at all told us, citing no credible evidence at all, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and that Iraq had something to do with 9/11? Where is it, now, when former Bush administration officials tell us, without offering any evidence at all, that they saved many American lives by violating domestic and international law?
Posted by Peter Tramel
|
June 7, 2009 6:10 AM
Posted on June 7, 2009 06:10
Conclusion of my last comment: it seems to me like too many people demand 99.9% certainty when it comes to reasons for making mild lifestyle sacrifices, but they are satisfied with >5% certainty when it comes to torturing or killing people they will never know.
Posted by Peter Tramel
|
June 7, 2009 6:18 AM
Posted on June 7, 2009 06:18
Peter, thanks for the on target comments. Good science is always open to peer review, and is considered "falsifiable" subject to evidence.
Global warming deniers and propagandists generally fit into one or more of these camps (often overlapping): 1) anti-regulatory capitalists, 2) the fossil fuels industry and related groups, the right-wing think tanks, and 3)religious fundamentalists for whom only God controls the weather.
greggie-perch works for Occidental Petroleum. The three authors offered up--Murray, Horner,and Spencer--have been examined by sourcewatch.com.
Posted by bob hooper
|
June 7, 2009 3:38 PM
Posted on June 7, 2009 15:38
Cigarette smoking/lung cancer. Pleasure and money. Iraq. Weapons of mass destruction. 9/11. The Bush Administration. International law. Torture.
What. In. The. World. Does all that have to do with whether or not man-made global warming is with us?
Today's global warming hysteria is all about Al Gore, politics, and control of the masses. Period dot.
I have lived in the same city for over 51 years now, in a part of the country well known for extremely oppressive heat waves. And I can tell you that the heat waves back in the 1960's were worse than they are today.
With my life experiences and the conflict with the scientific data I've seen so far, I am anything but convinced.
Posted by t-dect
|
June 8, 2009 1:21 AM
Posted on June 8, 2009 01:21
This was a good blog post.
Posted by Zola Jones
|
June 8, 2009 4:35 PM
Posted on June 8, 2009 16:35