BS DuJour
Almost two-thirds of the world’s people say there must be urgent action to tackle global warming, a poll for the BBC World Service showed on Tuesday.
Overall, 65 percent of the 22,000 people polled in 21 countries said there was a need “to take major steps very soon” ranging from 91 percent in Spain to 37 percent in India.
In the United States, the world’s biggest emitter of climate changing carbon gases, 59 percent called for urgent action and in China, which builds a coal-fired power station every five days to feed its booming economy, it was 70 percent.
Like most bogus poll results, they don’t provide critical data like the questions asked, who exactly were they polling and how, etc. This is classic “manufacturing consent” tactics.
So, I went to the National Center for Atmospheric Research a few weeks ago and took personalized tour along with a number of actual power plant engineers and environmental planners for actual electric utilities. I thought I might shed some light as to how they came up with their predictions for their global warming models. Personally, it shed a lot of light on this whole situation. It was the research done at NCAR that provided the basis for the IPCC report that you detest so much.
First, some caveats. NCAR does not claim to have proof of man made global warming. All they can do is create more, and more accurate models and see how various inputs effect their model of Earths weather. Inputs range from Co2, volcanic eruptions, methane, increased sunshine, solar flares, melting ice caps, and the amount of concrete laid down every day. It even includes the cloud trails that airplanes leave (I forgot the name for those things.) and how many termites are living in the amazon. (termites are HUGE emitters of methane.) I also thought you should know that NCAR, in addition to having environmental scientist, also employ a many Astro/solar physicist as well.
So, they have this 2.1 teraflop super computer. Whereas most computers consume 125 to 150 kWh/year, the NCAR super computer consume 5MWh/year. That’s almost a whole neighborhood worth of power.
All of this power is used to run a super complicated model of the planets weather. Every day, they tweak and tweak the model so that they can some up with a more, and more accurate simulation of the planets weather. They test the accuracy of the model by running it independently and comparing it to the recorded weather over the past 200 years. And we are not talking the general temp of the planet, but weather in specific locations.
Currently, the model they are using is generally accurate within 3 degrees on a location by location basis when compared to the weather data we have collected over the past 200 years. Essentially, the model can compute within 3-5 degrees what the average temperature was for any place you have lived, for any week within the past 200 years.
With that, they surmised what were the major inputs that were most effecting weather. –And, there are thousands of things effecting our weather. No surprise there. But it was found that C02 was definitely pretty high on their list. So was methane. Models also showed that curbing these two molecules slowed down the pace of global warming and placed our global temperature much more inline with the rhythms of warming and cooling seen for the past 30 thousand years.
They admitted that no model is perfect. They are limited by only the knowledge of specific weather data from the last 200 years and very general weather data found from fossils for another 30k years. (interestingly enough, certain fossilized algae’s contain huge amounts of weather data) They don’t know what will happen when the ice caps melt. They have educated guesses, but, they have no frame of reference to verify them. SO they do not stand behind all the apocalypse talk that the environmental evangelicals like to preach since they do not have a reference point for a “global warming apocalypse”.
One more interesting note. We got to meet many of the scientists working on the models. They ranged drastically on their views of the situation. Most agreed that on first look at the data, increased emissions of CO2 was by far the most plausible explanation for global warming. However, many argued that it was more complicated and that things like the sun were the most important input because it catalyzed other reactions. Or that methane because some other complicated reason I cannot understand. There was a team of about 10 scientist were hired simply to disprove all the other scientists findings. In fact, it was their data, almost exclusively, that was used to make the movie refuting an Inconvenient Truth. (Its too early, I can’t come up with the name of the movie.) They all agreed that we are locked into a cycle of warming for the next couple of decades and that if we can do something now to start curbing this warming, it would probably be a good idea.
If this is really something you want to learn more about, Hud. The folks at ENCAR were pretty happy to show us around and answer questions. They are on the forefront of this research and it is their data that is being used as a political weapon to sell papers, get votes, scare rich people and possible create the largest tax burden ever seen in the US (carbon tax). It was nice to get some info from an original source as opposed to some website or new articles. They were very fair and they admitted everything they did or did not know and stood up very well to the environmental managers who put them to the test.
Anyways, I hope this sheds some light on this debate.
Testify!
Posted by on 09/26 at 05:04 AMMy complaint isn’t with the argument that the earth is getting warmer, it’s with the argument that it’s man’s fault. I also don’t believe CO² is the boogie man they claim. But, whatever.
I am glad to hear there is a lot of diversity of opinion there, but that’s the way it should be. My biggest point about scientists is they’re often wrong. Things they think is the absolute truth become discredited notions in time. I have seen it happen over and over again in my life. So I am especially turned off when I hear shouting from the rooftops that something is an unassailable fact. Especially when the arguments are based on logical fallacies.
The biggest problem I have with GW hysteria is it is being used by politicians and would be power brokers, to get richer and more control over the masses. And considering that its largely based on computer models makes it even weaker. Nature has a way of making a mockery of such things.
A 200 year sample of something as complex as the climate is not enough. 200 years is like a couple seconds in the scope of the earth’s life.
But what we do know is this. The south pole isn’t melting at all. And that’s where the majority of the earth’s ice is.
The last time we had a major warming period, it was extremely beneficial to humanity. It’s also extremely beneficial to plant life.
So all this fear mongering is wrong and it’s dangerous.
Posted by on 09/26 at 06:42 AM“But what we do know is this. The south pole isn’t melting at all.”
Where DO you get your facts from? -Please look up the “Larsen B ice shelf” ... a ice shelf the size of Rhode Island collapsed in 3 (!) days.
Posted by on 09/27 at 10:43 AMI listed a whole bunch of stuff at the end of this post.
Also, read this:
Unlike the GW shills, I don’t make this stuff up.Posted by James Hudnall on 09/27 at 11:16 AMI should add, that as these articles point out, the tip of Antarctica, that sticks out is warming. The rest is not. So people like Gore who screech the poles are melting are wrong about the South Pole, which is where most of the world’s ice is. Only a tiny tip of that vast continent has warmed at all.
Posted by on 09/27 at 11:38 AMI reeeally can’t be bothered to read all that ... but are you saying the “Larsen Ice Shelf” hasn’t melted?
Posted by on 09/27 at 02:42 PMAnd by the way… :
“Like most bogus poll results, they don’t provide critical data like the questions asked, who exactly were they polling and how, etc. This is classic “manufacturing consent” tactics.”
Well, if you had bothered to go to BBC WORLD’s site, instead of just Reuters who reported about it, you would find a 25 page pdf with all the information on the poll.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/7010522.stmPosted by on 09/27 at 02:55 PMBob,
You can’t be bothered to read the cites I provide, but try to carry on with your claim anyway? How lefty of you.
As for the BBC poll, its meaningless. It doesn’t matter if they polled a bunch of people and got those results. The propaganda merchants have done a good job with global warming. Opinions does not mean its real. Close top a billion people believe in Hindu gods, another billion believe in the Koran. Catch my drift?
But I don’t think its accurate in any event. A lot of the questions were push polls questions. And they were designed to get the results they wanted.
Posted by on 09/27 at 03:09 PMJames -
“How lefty of you.”
You did the EXACT same thing when I pointed YOU towards some material a while back, so don’t even go there man! How righty of you!About the poll. First you bitch about not being given the background info on the poll, and now that you have been given that, you bitch about it not being useful. Come on ... This was not a report on weather GW is real or not, it’s a poll about the oppinion of the people of the world - they don’t claim to ve any thing else than that.
Posted by on 09/28 at 02:51 AMMy point about the poll is that it’s designed to get the results they wanted so they could then say, “See! The majority of people believe in GW! Why don’t you?”. Polls are often used as a tool of propaganda. It’s called “Manufacturing Consent”.
The BBC is one of the most biased news organizations around. Especially on this subject.
Posted by on 09/28 at 07:54 AM... and the anti-GW sites and organisations you quote from all day long are NOT biased?!?!?! Oh please ...
Posted by on 09/28 at 09:07 AMThe problem with your argument is the BBC is supposed to be a news site. They’re supposed to provide the other side to an argument for balance. When they fail to do that, as they regularly do, they become nothing more than an advocacy site.
This is an opinion site, so I have my own positions on issues. The “anti-GW” cites that I offer are usually from scientists who give actual stats to back up their position.
The BBC just makes statements like “scientists say the world is ending Thursday if we don’t stop Global Warming”
There’s a huge difference.
You seem to think emotional arguments have the same weight as factual ones. And I disagree.
Posted by James Hudnall on 09/28 at 01:28 PMYou’re wrong.
Mostly, and I can’t really say “always” because it’s a huge network, they do provide “links” to the articles they write about, where one can read up on the material - maybe you have to search for it, but it’s there… (mostly)
”... that I offer are usually from scientists who give ...”
Is this where I quote YOU from a while back, and go something like this: “Scientist? Now I KNOW it’s BS!” ?! Funny how “your” scientiests are always credible! Hmmmm ....For the life of me I can’t understand why you are unable to see that YOU are doing the exact same thing that you claim all the “lefties” and “pro-GW” and so on ... Where the heck is your objectivity???
“You seem to think emotional arguments have the same weight as factual ones.”
What are you talking about ... ?Posted by on 09/28 at 05:02 PMBob, I explained myself already. More than once, to be frank.
This is a blog. These are my personal opinions. I give my reasons for why I have them. You are free to disagree or not. But this is not a news site. I am not pretending to be objective. I never have. I am complaining about the media failing to provide different sides of an argument because, in their case, they have a social responsibility to prove whatever they are trying to say. Not lecture us.
The BBC gives links, yes. So do I. But they often give only links to sites that support their arguments. I can do that because this is a blog. I link to other blogs or articles for more detail on what I am writing about.
You obviously have a hard time with sarcasm because you often take what I say literally half the time. The “Scientists” quote you mention was explained to you because you didn’t get it. And it seems you still don’t.
And here’s what gets me, you act all outraged by this. Haven’t you seen a blog before? Are you unaware that blogs are people’s opinions?
Posted by on 09/28 at 08:01 PMAbout the sarcasm thing - look it up in a dictionary, because I think you might not grasp the meaning of it. Secondly, it is a really bad idea to use sarcasm on the internet, or any other written form of communication, because sarcasm isn’t just about the words being said, it’s also about the tone of voice someoen says it in, and even bodylanguage - and you can’t show that on a blog.
I belive that objectivity is a responserbility of all humans to exhibit. If you can’t be objective, don’t speak. And before you go all “you are not objective either”, let me tell you, I have given you a lot of benifit of doubt… Because of your oppinions on various issues, I have read a ton of stuff to get a clearer picture. Links that you have provided, and not. I belive that’s what it means to be objective - getting info from both sides ... and I have a feeling that you don’t do that.
And about blogs ... I have been reading/writing blogs for years. And of course they are peoples opinions, that’s why blogs can’t be taken serious - also the reason why all the blogs I have bookmarked are in a folder called “comic relief”.
Posted by on 09/29 at 02:29 AMps: see if you can find the sarcasm in the above post
Posted by on 09/29 at 02:45 AMBob,
You have this talent for projecting your insecurities about yourself on me (and I assume others). The fact that you need to keep attacking my positions, when you know we don’t agree on some issues, is really your way of defending your idealism. The difference between you and I, is flexibility.
I am flexible, if the other side provides valid, logical arguments. As I keep pointing out, the reason I dismiss the things you hold so dear, is they are based on emotional arguments and logical fallacies. Or, in the case of the BBC, one sided rationales.
PS. If you think blogs aren’t taken seriously why do you feel compelled to keep arguing with me? (sarcasm alert)
Posted by on 09/29 at 08:12 AMYou’re flexible? Okay, when was the last time you had to realise that you had been wrong about something ... just curious.
Why I keep comming back? As I said, it’s under my “comic relief” bookmarks ... I just find this place so damn funny.
Sarcasm off/on/off/on ... ?
Posted by on 09/29 at 08:53 AMYou’re only fooling yourself
Posted by James Hudnall on 09/29 at 09:18 AMSure ...
Posted by on 09/29 at 10:58 AM
Next entry: Hansen Busted Again
Previous entry: Dem Paranoia Booster
