Update (3:45 pm)
I came across this interesting piece on global warming today. I thought I would post it in honor of the anonymous commenter on this post yesterday.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
You can read the column here.
Remember, don’t shoot the messenger. I didn’t write it, nor am I a climatologist.
Update: JD Ryan submits his refutation of this column (and its author) in the first comment on this post.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:33 pm
Your post proves that even someone highly credentialed can be dead wrong. And one who quotes the author of Jurassic Park as a resource in regards to his oft-discredited stance on global warming is hardly credible. And if you did some fact-checking, you’d find that Dr. Timothy Ball (the author) is an advisor to the organization, ‘Friends of Science’, an oil-industry backed organization. Here’s some info for you:
here,
here, and here.
From the first link above:
Few in the audience have any idea that Prof. Ball hasn’t published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years. They do not know that he has been paid to speak to federal MPs by a public-relations company that works for energy firms. Nor are they aware that his travel expenses are covered by a group supported by donors from the Alberta oil patch.
Most Canadians recognize, of course, that fossil-fuel businesses could lose large sums if the federal government moves to curtail greenhouse-gas emissions.
But they may not realize that by quietly backing the movement behind maverick figures such as Prof. Ball, the fuel industry – with its close ties to the party that brought Prime Minister Stephen Harper to power – is succeeding, bit by bit, in influencing both public opinion and Canadian policy on global warming, including the international Kyoto Accord.
I don’t know where you’re trying to go on this one, Charity, choose your battles wisely, for the facts don’t seem to support the naysayers. It doesn’t destroy your conservative credentials to believe in the severity of global warming, even if the remedies that will eventually occur are not to your philosophical likings.
Have a look at my McLaughry piece, to see the danger in Cheney-esque research. You’re doing the same thing he did. Don’t make me write a piece on you, you’re my buddy!
I’m sure your discomfort with it stems from the fact that some sort of behavior-changing mandates are eventually coming down the pipe. But if people were concerned about this and doing steps to remedy it on their own, they wouldn’t be necessary,now, would they?
We are fast approaching the saturation point in the public where global warming deniers are looking as clueless as flat-earthers.
February 6th, 2007 at 4:43 pm
You know, if you can’t admit that the earth is flat, that’s your problem.
(I’m kidding.)
I don’t see anywhere where I am saying that I do not think global warming is occurring or that man is not causing it.
I also posted that the Greens are showing a movie. Does that mean I am a Green or that I think the movie is true?
Thanks for the warning, though. I wouldn’t want to incur the wrath of JD Ryan.
(I’m just messing with you JD.)
February 6th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Charity, what other purpose, given your conservative leanings, would you have for posting that article in the first place? What service are you doing to point your readers to a global warming piece by an unprincipled industry hack that uses his credentials to promote misinformation? How is that helping the conservative cause other than to reinforce the perception that conservatives make a lot of stuff up in their avoidance of the truth?
More than a response to me about taking you to task, I’m interested in what you think of what I’ve pointed out to you. If you did some research, you’d find that a majority of the anti-global warming articles are either not peer-reviewed (a crucial part of scientific validity), and/or they have ties and funding from Big Oil. What do you think about that? I’m not being a smartass.. I’d like to know.
I’m just wondering why you would even waste time pointing to that piece? You gonna point to one of the many credible articles out there that supports how severe the global warming prob is? I’m not trying to bust your ass too hard… well , yes, I am. Stop promoting misinformation.
But I still luv ya.
February 6th, 2007 at 6:12 pm
“Charity, what other purpose, given your conservative leanings, would you have for posting that article in the first place?”
To spark a discussion.
“You gonna point to one of the many credible articles out there that supports how severe the global warming prob is?”
I didn’t realize it was necessary since every single news organization and almost every blog in the world already has.
The interesting thing is that you are proving the point he was making in the column – that any dissenting viewpoint is not to be considered, or at least civilly refuted. I mean, if this guy is wrong on the data, then he should be refuted point-by-point. It is not really convincing to just call him a puppet for Big Oil, especially since he already said that is what you would say.
You are irrationally reactionary to this issue, as are a lot of people.
I happen to be concerned about our planet whether or not global warming is being caused by man. There are enough other good reasons to change the way we consume energy without turning this into such a contentious issue.
Unfortunately, this is becoming a partisan issue, with two sides, both demonizing the other. In the end, I don’t think that is going to accomplish as much as we need to accomplish.
February 6th, 2007 at 11:20 pm
It is only a partisan issue in the sense that the ones who stand to lose financially are on one side of the issue and those concerned about the well-being of the planet are on the other.
Charity, I am totally open to dissenting viewpoints… if they’re factually correct. In the case of this particular guy we’re talking about, what credibility does he have, considering all of the evidence pointing to his lack of credibility? People are entitled to their own opinions. They’re not entitled to their own set of facts, however.
How does the fact that ‘he anticipated I would say that’ (re: Big Oil) make it any less obvious, from a debating standpoint? The fact that he knew what my criticism was going to be was all the more telling, and it had nothing to do with the validity of my criticism. He’s heard it and anticipated it because it’s true.
This doesn’t have to be a partisan issue, unless one chooses to. One can be a total arch-conservative and still not have to look to bogus mouthpieces for the oil industry who use questionable science to make their case. Like I said before, I think most conservatives that do a have an issue with this stems from the fact that they’re not going to be able to continue doing what they’ve been doing to make money. Perhaps they feel discomfort at having to change their behavior because they have to. And when it comes down to rising sea levels, disappearing species, more severe weather and other environmental devastation and you weigh that against Exxon-Mobil’s bottom line or some shmoe’s right to drive a Hummer, what is really more important?
I’m not trying do be harsh here (if was going to I woulda saved that for our religion debate). It’s just that I don’t see the point in ’sparking discussion’ unless the discussion is about special interest groups who pay scientists to do their bidding, and continue to push a notion that the majority of scientists don’t believe is correct.
February 7th, 2007 at 11:04 am
“It is only a partisan issue in the sense that the ones who stand to lose financially are on one side of the issue and those concerned about the well-being of the planet are on the other.”
I disagree. It is a partisan issue for a couple of reasons (this is not an all inclusive list).
One, Al Gore, who is loathed on the right, is the spokesperson for this issue. It is seen by many as his attempt to regain national relevance for a future presidential run – a political stunt.
Two, any time someone on the right has questions about global warming, some asshole on the left makes the decision to spout off a bunch of anti-conservative swill, instead of informing and enlightening the person seeking knowledge.
Three, the behavior of politicians on the left has been to make this a partisan issue – vote for us, the Republicans don’t care about global warming. We’re all going to die if they are in office, blah, blah, blah.
People on both sides are making this a partisan thing. It’s not just about Republicans blindly supporting destroying the planet or that Democrats are all saints.
This issue has been turned into a political issue, with both sides wanting gains for their own team.
What does that accomplish?
You are completely naive if you think that every politician who supports doing something about global warming is doing it because they really care about the planet.
It’s all about politics.
Democrats support it because Republicans oppose it. Republicans oppose it because Democrats support it.
Meanwhile, there are common sense solutions that could easily gain support from politicians on both sides and the American people, but that doesn’t play into their political football game.
February 7th, 2007 at 6:47 pm
Whooo, you’re really stretching it here.. Gore is doing this because of political ambitions? Now, I know the cons don’t like him because he uses big words they can’t understand, but could you please provide some evidence to back up this assertion? Gore has a record of being out front on environmental issues. He didn’t start this yesterday.
Republicans oppose it because Dems support it? Uh, no, how bout Repubs oppose it because they’re in bed with the big companies responsible for much of the problem, and with anti-science Christianists who feel that it doesn’t matter becuse they’re all gonna get raptured up anyway. C’mon Charity. Gimme some real facts here.
‘Anytime sometne on the right has questions?’… ok, please, once again, give me some examples. There is a difference between ‘having questions’ and denying the phenomenon, which is a consensus in the scientific community. AND the majority of the people ‘questioning’ have close financial ties to Big Oil. That doesn’t put up a red flag for you?
Was that idiot you referred to in the article ‘questioning’ or spreading misinformation? The man hasn’t published a peer-reviewed paper in 14 years. Is that because what he’s spouting would not stand up to serious scientific scrutiny? When Sen. Inhofe says global warming is a communist plot, what basis is he giving me to take him seriously? certainly not his big financial backers in the oil industry.
Once again, you’re giving these silly little black/white either/or answers. The fact that the ‘right sees Al Gore as’ is irrelevant. The right has also seen WMD’s, compared Bush to Churchill, and listens to Jerry Falwell, so their capacity for critical thinking is not exactly exemplary.
What are some of the common sense solutions you’re proposing? Am I off the mark in guessing that NONE of them involve mandating anything?
I really want to debate you on this Charity, you just need to offer better arguments than a FOX news pundit would. C’mon, girl. Give me some facts.
February 7th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I don’t have the time to justify my opinion right now, but I will come back to this very soon (hopefully tomorrow).
In the meantime, I did a quick search on the net and I found this. Feel free to share your thoughts.
February 8th, 2007 at 12:55 am
I think you’d both really enjoy this video about techniques the shady P.R. industry uses to influence public opinion: Toxic Sludge Is Good For You
The P.R. industry is one of the fastest growing in America and their strategies go way, way deeper than having front groups like “friends of science” bribe scientists.
I Haven’t actually watched this doc yet but the old bookby the same name is excellent.
February 8th, 2007 at 11:35 am
That was a good article, I didn’t find much to disagree with, and to be honest I do think that the upside to global warming (if there is one) is that it is a wakeup call to humanity that we can’t keep doing things the way we do. And perhaps, when it’s coming from pundits and such, it is alarmist. But, for example, that latest report that came out in Paris, (last week), coming from a huge body of world scientists, needs to be listened to. That said, on the specific thing we’ve been talking abut (the spread of misinformation by industry paid p.r. hacks), nothing has really changed. I’m still interested in your responses to my last post…This had me tossin’ and a turnin’ last night… Grrrrr…. Can’t we just go back to religion?
February 8th, 2007 at 2:09 pm
“This had me tossin’ and a turnin’ last night… “
Ha! I’m glad that I’m not the only one who does that!
I do not have the time/energy to get into this too much right now, since everyone here, including me, is fighting some virus right now. But I will come back to it.
That comment was mostly based on my own observations of how I have seen regular, everyday, non-political-junkie people react to the global warming issue.
People who did not want Gore for President, are reluctant to see his movie.
I am not saying that he did get into this for political reasons, but there are people who think that and it keeps them from taking it seriously.
As for conservatives asking questions, I was not talking about “experts” like the guy who wrote that column. I mean lay people. Regular folks. I have asked questions before and been totally slammed, called names, made fun of, insulted, and had assumptions made about me that are not true. Yeah, way to win me over.
I DO care about the earth. I am concerned about the way we are polluting it. I also have a level of skepticism over anything that is being used as a political tool. I have had questions. Aren’t we supposed to question authority? Anytime I had a question, I was called a bunch of names by some self-righteous liberal. That in and of itself makes me want to go out and buy a Hummer just so I can idle it in front of their house.
For your information, where I found that column was on an unrelated message board where people who are not necessarily politically involved were trying to sort the issue out for themselves. Unfortunately, such people rarely can find someone willing to work through that and answer the questions because by now most people have chosen sides and are well on their way into demonizing the other side.
Like you do.
When I said I posted this to spark a discussion, I did not mean that I think this guy is right in his view of global warming, but that I knew it would spark a discussion in the comments. (And it did – wow, she is right!)
I’ll comment more later with come common sense solutions.