Both Sides Of The Manmade Global Warming Argument

Post from a good friend blog follower: - see previous posts on this subject

My experience in this issue is something very close to what I do. In the 80's there was a concern in an opening of the ozone layer on the poles. It would cause an increase of UV radiation that was very harmful to all living creatures. It was a little different time politically, but the world got together an adopted the Montreal Protocols restricting CFC's (refrigerant). To remind you, Im an A/C contractor. Today, no one hears about it anymore. Because the scientists identified it and the world acted. Got to note that there was a lot of skeptics at the time. Don't hear from them now. Funny how that happens. A total success in my mind!

So Climate Change, Global Warming or whatever one want to call it, is a bigger issue. The economic ramifications are significant! I've looked at both sides. Underlining my assessment is that there are 7B humans on the earth now, 10B at the end of this century and maybe 14B at the end of the next.

To me it comes down to the classic issue of risk. What is the probability of each particular scenario and what are the consequences of being wrong and not acting. So people say it's 97% that it's an issue. Maybe they're wrong, It might be 80% or 65%. Are there 35% of the experts that think in the same way as Dr. Lindzen? I don't see any evidence of that. So to me there is a high probability there is a problem. Next is the consequences of any move forward. My concern is not about the planet. The planet will be around for billions of years. It's about the humans. We are the weak one here. Isn't  it better for us to stay in the realm of the known then journey into the unknown? 

As far as the coal industry, it's a buggy wip! Or the print media. There will be many more clean energy jobs than coal jobs.

I think we need to have a Descartes, "I think, therefore I am" moment! Maybe if we start at the basics, we might find out where we diverge.

Question:

What 3 things made America great? I'll give you my 3 first and elaborate later.

40% its People

30% its geography
30% its Government

Please understand  that I'm only a thoughtful American and don't spend hours of engaging in personal political discourse. I have way to0 many Republican friends.

I do enjoy our exchange of ideas!

 

My Reply:

 

I remember well the CFC issue. My father was in the A/C business for 44 years. The science in that issue was based on hard evidence – a no brainer - no political overtones – no human sacrifice – no job losses and most important, a specific, viable alternative was available – albeit more expensive. This was not an ideological issue - the science was obvious and we had to make the change.

We are in violent agreement on trying to find the cause of global warming. It is happening. We all want to protect the environment for the benefit of future generations and therefore must constantly examine and then minimize the odds of human caused destruction to our planet. Who in the world would not agree with that? What divides us is our ideology and the unwillingness of the believers to actually answer the following legitimate questions.

1. What is the actual foundation of the manmade global warming believers’ incessant reference to – “the “science” (key word) is settled because 97% of the world’s climatologists believe that the primary cause of the miniscule temperature rise is human related.”? Leaving aside the absolute impossibility of reliably polling 100% of the world’s climatologists, this is a preposterous statement because there is no “science” i.e. no scientific facts that support their beliefs. In fact, both sides agree – there is no scientific evidence to support either side of the argument – manmade CO2, El Nino, La Nina, increased solar flaring – whatever. This is all about trying to construct credible models by both sides that can be used to predict the cause of global warming. In fact, the 97% of climatologists’ predictions have been consistently wrong!!!! (See next point)
2. Is it reasonable to question the credibility of the current doom and gloom predictions (a “global warming apocalypse”) coming from the very same people (Gore, Hanson, the UN, 97% of the scientists – whoever) whose previous predictions of doom and gloom have been so drastically overstated and so dead wrong?
3. What purpose is served by those government leaders and politicians who tout the likelihood of a global warming apocalypse, in: a) openly blocking ALL legitimate dissent coming from reputable, accomplished scientists who question the predictions; b) openly and incessantly demeaning the motives of reputable, accomplished scientists who have an opinion that disagrees with the so called 97%? Is there any room in this for legitimate minority dissent that just might be correct?
4. Both sides agree that the predicted temperature rise – from all causes, will be in the range of 2 degrees F in the next 100 years. So, what productive purpose is served by the plethora of politicians who consistently deride the credibility of reputable scientists (such as Lindzen) who dare to question these dire predictions resulting from such a small temperature rise – calling them “deniers” – “members of the flat earth society” and the like?
5. Given the devastating human impact of banning coal fired power plants that now provide 33% of total US power produced, isn’t this factor enough to warrant a thorough, transparent examination of the scientific facts as opposed to relying on a consensus and opinions as a basis for the dire predictions? Is it time to convene a Presidential panel of scientists and economists equally representing both sides of this argument?  (No way this will  happen on Obama’s or Clinton’s watch – making my key point – this is all about the pursuit of ideology – not about the pursuit of truth.)

Your reference to the coal industry as the “buggy whip” and predictions of “more clean energy jobs than coal jobs” has no foundation in fact. I will leave aside the liberal blindness and negative bias toward the well-being of a dedicated white blue collar working class in favor of supporting the huge political funding that comes from the liberal West Coast white, rich guy, elitist class who have been lucky enough to have been insulated from the devastation of losing their jobs. It is a fact that coal country – West Virginia and Kentucky were once democratic strongholds until the huge amount of money flowing into the DNC from the progressive rich overcame the interests of the working class. The important point;  it is impossible to extrapolate the current miniscule growth in number of jobs created by solar and wind into a factual basis for your statement. In fact, large deployment of solar and wind farms are in decline. In fact, there is mounting environmental resistance to solar and wind based energy sources based on the obvious – wind farms deface the countryside; wind and large solar farms are killing birds. Finally, there is zero historical evidence that government subsidies in the form of tax breaks for technology introductions such as solar and wind have ever had an influence in inducing wide spread change. There is no better example of this than ethanol – once predicted to have a huge positive impact on the environment and a major job producing engine. In fact, government subsidies for ethanol have created a source of funding of corporate welfare; profits for a small numbere of large farm corn growers; funding of a few farm state incumbent politicians; a miniscule number of jobs in a few rural states; and no hard evidence of a net positive impact on the environment. What is the truthful answer to the legitimate question - is excessive use of ground water to produce ethanol a real problem in consuming our most precious asset? – Do environmentalists factor in this issue in claiming the benefits of ethanol?

Your reference to Lindzen – a credible, accomplished scientist, as a skeptic - and your questioning the source of his funding speaks volumes about where your side is on all of the above. Most global warming believers characterize legitimate scientists who dare to have developed a different scientific hypothesis to explain climate change and the cause of global warning as“skeptics” - influenced by evil energy company sources of their funding. In the minds of progressives, these folks can’t possibly be simple human beings and earnest scientists who care about the environment – insisting that previous false predictions and historical causes of warming other than mankind be factored into the basis of the current predictions and temper the ideological bias of progressive politicians and the liberal media.