Today is the big day. It's the Environmental Pessimists version of a Star Wars Premiere. If Global Warming were a video game, there would be lines outside all the Wal-Marts. Today is the day that the UN sanctioned Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change (IPCC) releases it's Global Warming report. Gosh, I wonder what will be in it?Despite the anticlimactic leaks that have been circulated for the past month or so, I'd like to wager a guess: The Earth is going to warm, the oceans are going to rise, and humanity will be destroyed as plague famine and pestilence sweeps around the globe. Chiefly responsible for this Apocalypse is the United States, and unless our wealth is shared with the rest of the world, this dire scenario is inevitable. Americans will hang their heads in shame and wish they didn't live in a nation that as no regard for the rest of the world, before they fire up the SUV and take the kids to soccer practice.
Is it really scientific? The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the founding members of the IPCC actually
In a classic empty gesture, the French dimmed the Eiffel Tower for five minutes. Network news will rave about what a dramatic measure this is. Forget that the Eiffel Tower consumes roughly 20 megawatt hours per year and five minutes of illumination is 0.00017% of that. (There is even speculation that the energy to restart the bulbs consumes more energy than it takes to keep them lit for five minutes.) It isn't really going to do anything, other than make a dramatic news item. A more positive statement would be made if they stuck a windmill on top of the thing, and make the tower useful.
Meanwhile, the proposed solutions to Global Warming will be completely ignored. The UN, a power hungry gaggle of tyrants and dictators, will ask for the ability to regulate all CO2 emissions. The IPCC is generating fear, hoping that we give up our right to electricity Which means that they would have the power to regulate anything that causes those emissions. Which is essentially everything that humans do. It is astounding to me, that people who accuse President Bush, of using fear to coax Americans into sacrificing their rights, do not recognize that this report, is doing the same thing.
What should be noticed, is that if the IPCC gets their way, the Eiffel Tower would probably have to remain dark round the clock. And shut off those elevators. Because the only real solution to CO2 emissions, is to stop burning carbon. Since Carbon is necessary for close to 66% of our current electricity requirements, we would have to cut our electric usage by two thirds. You can forget electric cars.
Actually, forget about going anywhere. Since cars, trucks planes trains and boats all produce CO2. transportation would probably be completely shut down, and any form of travel forbidden. Home-heating, streetlights, and everything that makes America safe and comfortable would come under their scrutiny. Anybody who disputes this, ignores the propensity towards evil, common in dictators and tyrants. Would a tyrant who ordered a segment of his population to be chopped apart with machetes, think twice about banning American clothes dryers?
Even a bicycle emits CO2. Gasoline is essentially a carbohydrate, and produces the same amount of CO2 per calorie burned as sugar. Since the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible, riding a bicycle ten miles will produce the same amount of CO2 as driving a light moped. Animals also emit CO2 even when they're stationary, so if we give the UN the authority to regulate CO2, they then have the authority to regulate our every breath; and eventually the UN will be given authority over population growth.
Remember, when you see those photos of the Eiffel Tower blackened, that the people who commissioned the report will refuse to rest easy, until the whole world looks like that. Already we have the choice of whether we want to cut back or not, and the fact that we haven't is enormously frustrating for them.
North Korea is a respected member of the UN and satellite night photos of that country are startling. South Korea looks like an island floating off the coast of China, because North Korea is completely dark. Every light in North Korea turns off at 9PM local time. Since the pygmy pot bellied dictator who leads that nation is incapable of creating more electricity, his solution to the inequitywould be to curtail the South. It's the same urge that compels ugly girls to scratch the eyes of the pretty ones
Don't be fooled. The UN contains remnants of civilizations that once told us the future of the world was Global Communism, and it would produce more wealth than the earth had ever known. Evil tyrants never go away, they just find new Manifestos.
47 comments:
Hello! ;)
wow... what demented comments!
what do U think about it?
I couldn't agree more. In fact I've read much of what you have posted on your website and I admire your courage and determination to speak the truth in this dawning age of political repression (ie - I believe in your right to freedom of speech...so long as you agree with me).
As for your detractors, I've noticed they are almost always "Anonymous". Gotta love the folks with the intestinal fortitude to heckle from the crowd then hide behind the old lady with the big hat.
Keep it up Tim, you've got yourself at least one fan ;)
They also take the most offense to his humor. He likes to skewer the Sacred Cows of the left, including Teachers, Vegetarians, and Environmentalists. That, coupled with his penchant for testing First Amendment boundaries, and the big fad that swept college campuses throughout the nineties called Political Correctness; is why you've probably never heard of him.
You know why you've never heard of me? It's a conspiracy on the part of the illuminati to keep the truth away from people. It certainly isn't because I'm a nobody...
You wrote "Even a bicycle emits CO2. Gasoline is essentially a carbohydrate, and produces the same amount of CO2 per calorie burned as sugar. Since the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible, riding a bicycle ten miles will produce the same amount of CO2 as driving a light moped." I am a chemistry professor- gasoline is in no way a carbohydrate. Moreover, riding a bicycle does not yield the same amount of CO2 as riding a light moped. Where do you find this stuff? Aside from that, your assertion that the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible is correct; but, it helps to know and understand them.
You wrote "Animals also emit CO2 even when they're stationary, so if we give the UN the authority to regulate CO2, they then have the authority to regulate our every breath; and eventually the UN will be given authority over population growth." Sometimes one needs to point out the obvious: we could give them the authority to regulate CO2 emissions only from combustion of fossil fuels. You can now, safely, breathe a sigh of relief.
Joe
I overlooked a point, your statement "Gasoline ... produces the same amount of CO2 per calorie burned as sugar ..." is also wrong. I repeat- where do you find this stuff?
Joe
Since the laws of thermodynamics are inflexible, riding a bicycle ten miles will produce the same amount of CO2 as driving a light moped.
Holy crap, I hope that was a joke.
Joe,
Glucose (a carbohydrate) is C6H12O6, Gasoline is C8H18.
Essentially the same (close enough for comedy).
there are 2870 Kilojoules per mole of sugar and 4140 for gasoline. There is rougly the same amount of CO2 produced per kilojoule from burning either (500 Kj per mole CO2)
Assuming a light moped is just a pedal bike with a gasoline motor, and both devices have roughly the same efficiency, conservation of energy mandates that the each will emit the same amount of CO2 over the same distance.
(Again, close enough for comedy)
As for limiting the reach of the United Nations. Please. There was a time when seat belt laws were proposed, that Lawmakers PROMISED that an unbuckled seat belt would NEVER be grounds for a pullover.
Glucose (a carbohydrate) is C6H12O6, Gasoline is C8H18.
Essentially the same (close enough for comedy).
So the complete absense of oxygen atoms in gasoline is nothing? And then there's the overall shape of the atoms. Octane (the one molecule in gasoline you mentioned) is a long chain of carbon atoms with hydrogen attached at every opening. Glucose, on the other hand, is a hexagon of 6 carbon, with the oxygen and hydrogen attached in a complicated fashion (there are actually multiple ways, and even just different arrangements react slightly differently).
Quite simply, despite both being organic, the two chemicals are nothing alike. It's like the difference between CO2 and CO. One is harmless (directly, not touching Global Warming here), the other will kill you. Those are not close enough for comedy.
ou write: "Those are not close enough for comedy."
It depends on what you find funny. Yes CO and CO2 are different, but they ARE both oxides of carbon. I didn't mean to imply that gasoline was edible. (Although drinking gasoline IS great comedy, I loved it when Daffy Duck used to do it.)
I just meant that it contained essentially the same stuff as sugar, and the Kilojoules released per mole CO2 were VERY similar. I would even go so far as to suggest that because of inefficiencies of the Human Body, an engine actually produces less CO2 per mile than a bicyclist.
Not to mention, if the bicyclist is a hippie, and the "fuel" of choice is standard vegan fare, the methane created would make bicycles environmental disasters.
H2O is water. H2O2 is hydrogen peroxide. H3O is a strong acid. Close enough for comedy. Especially if you drink one of 'em. Guess which one is more funny...
Does close enough for comedy mean nowhere near? Astronomically distant? Completely wrong?
• Joe,
You wrote “Glucose (a carbohydrate) is C6H12O6, Gasoline is C8H18.” If you don’t see a difference, I can’t help you.
You wrote ”there are 2870 Kilojoules per mole of sugar and 4140 for gasoline. There is rougly the same amount of CO2 produced per kilojoule from burning either (500 Kj per mole CO2)” Your numbers are wrong. Where did you find them, and the other claims?
Yu wrote ”Assuming a light moped is just a pedal bike with a gasoline motor, and both devices have roughly the same efficiency, conservation of energy mandates that the each will emit the same amount of CO2 over the same distance.” Your assumptions are based in ignorance of mechanics. The moped and bicycle have different energy sources and efficiencies.
You wrote ”As for limiting the reach of the United Nations. Please. There was a time when seat belt laws were proposed, that Lawmakers PROMISED that an unbuckled seat belt would NEVER be grounds for a pullover.” Huh?? I think that’s close-enough for comedy.
I just meant that it contained essentially the same stuff as sugar, and the Kilojoules released per mole CO2 were VERY similar. I would even go so far as to suggest that because of inefficiencies of the Human Body, an engine actually produces less CO2 per mile than a bicyclist.
Ahh... I finally understand. When you say that it is "close enough for comedy", you really mean that it is "laughably wrong".
Gotcha.
Anonymus,
You wrote ”Your numbers are wrong."
There's a very good chance of that. I'm not a chemist. They were the most accurate I could find in the limited time I had to devote to the subject. I'd be more than happy to look at the correct numbers.
You also wrote ”Your assumptions are based in ignorance of mechanics. The moped and bicycle have different energy sources and efficiencies."
I already SAID you would have to assume the same efficiencies.( I also intuitively suspect, that the engine is more efficient than the human body.)
Energy source is irrelevant. Mass x Distance. Period.
Energy source is irrelevant. Mass x Distance. Period.
Please, sir. Stop the indignity! You're embarrassing yourself.
Those silly engineers who design mopeds might tell you that the efficiency of burning said fuel matters more than a little bit. The efficiency of turning that energy into motion matters more than a little bit. Friction of tires. Friction of pistons.
You have the high school physics right. But what they didn't mention in high school physics is that life is a little more complicated than moving blocks around in a gravity-less, frictionless, 100% energy conversion-into-motion vacuum.
Factician writes:
"Friction of tires. Friction of pistons."
For the third time now, I already said we would have to assume similar efficiencies.
Friction of tires is irrelevant, since they both have the same tires (When I say light moped I'm referring to those engines that bolt right on to regular bikes).
As for the friction of pistons, do you think that would be more or less than the friction of knees, hips anklles muscles and tendons? I suspect it's less, but as I said before, I'm assuming it's about the same.
You wrote "[I] also wrote ”Your assumptions are based in ignorance of mechanics. The moped and bicycle have different energy sources and efficiencies."
I already SAID you would have to assume the same efficiencies. ..."
Acknowledging your technological deficiencies does not mitigate the ignorance in your assumptions. The moped/bicycle efficiencies are not nearly the same- exactly how close do they have to be for humor? Whithin the same solar system? Again, where do you find your "information?"
Joe
I already said we would have to assume similar efficiencies.
I think that you are assuming that the efficiency is a minor component. I assure you, the efficiency of the system is the largest component. By assuming the efficiencies are the same, you are making a fundamental error, which makes your conclusion, erm, fundamentally wrong.
So again, "close enough for comedy" means "laughably wrong".
I already said we would have to assume similar efficiencies.
Sorry, I'm still laughing about this one. Assuming similar efficiencies, a bicyclist and a moped motor.
It's amazing that the cyclist's butt doesn't catch fire, what with all the inefficiency that he's got using glucose to make motion. I mean, that inefficiency goes to heat, right? So his ass ought to be as hot as a moped engine. Scalding! Or maybe you mean that the inefficiency gets lost as light. So his butt is shining a great big batman symbol up into the nighttime sky. Or that inefficiency is altering the proton content of molecules in his butt (meaning his butt is working as a nuclear reactor).
Factician writes:
"which makes your conclusion, erm, fundamentally wrong"
Okay then you tell me: What is the difference in CO2 output per mile, between a Moped and a Bicycle?
If there really is a vast difference between the emissions of a bike and a moped I'd LOVE to know what it is.
Please, enlighten me!
I know that's not how science works, but this wasn't a scientific thesis.
This was a warning against what could happen if we give the UN the right to regulate all CO2 emissions. I made the comparason only as a reminder that even the environment-friendly bicycle emits greenhouse gas. It was written by a layman for laymen.
I did not set out to prove that there is no difference between a bicycle and a Moped. That's just a little side point you all have decided to pick apart. One paragraph out of ten, on whch the crux of the argument does not rest.
I still stand by the conclusion, that giving the UN the power to regulate CO2 emissions, is dangerous to Liberty.
And in that one paragraaph in question:
The opening line is correct, as is the closing.
I will admit, Gasoline is not a Carbohydrate, and Riding a bike ten miles will not produce the SAME amount of CO2. It should have read a similar amount."
There. Retraction submitted. Happy everybody?
Ok, one paragraph down, 9 to go ;)
Who more than weathermen would know that you can't make an accurate 100 year weather forecast, like these IPCC eggheads claim to do. Heck, most forecasters couldn't give you an accurate 7 day outlook if their life depended on it.
Can anyone spot what is egregiously wrong with this statement?
If I say that I can tell you how many women will get breast cancer in the U.S. this year, but I can't tell you which ones will get cancer, does that make my prediction wrong?
As an overall assessment of the blog entry, when every paragraph is littered with fundamental errors of fact or errors of logic, it makes the whole piece rather difficult to take seriously.
"Eggheads?" "Eggheads?" You actually used the fucking word "EGGHEADS?" This frees me, I think, to use the word "retard," as in "Tim Slagle is laughable, and a retard who uses slang nicked from anti-intellectual doucherockets circa 1962."
RE: most forecasters couldn't give you an accurate 7 day outlook if their life depended on it.
That, sir, was a joke. Plain and simple. It does nothing to support the statement that the WMO retracted their support of the IPCC, and retracting it will not change the theme of the paragraph.
(I also have doubts when anybody makes a prediction that they won't be around to verify.)
"you actually used the fucking word "EGGHEADS?"
Yes I did. It conjures up great images: like Mr. Freeze, Dr. Evil, Oddjob, and a host of other villians. (I actually think there was a Batman villian named Egghead).
It's how I picture the IPCC. Power hungry bureaucrats who hate America, and want to take over the world. Excuse my comedic license.
"Power hungry bureaucrats who hate America, and want to take over the world."
You're not a comedian. You're a fucking cartoon.
Ron writes: "You're a fucking cartoon."
I Like Cartoons!
(Mebee thats cos I'm a RETARD!)
Boy, this little post from February has certainly sprouted some legs.
Let's put this to rest with some chemistry:
First, glucose is a carbohydrate and octane (the main part of gasoline) is a hydrocarbon. Yes, there's a term for each family, but an ad hominem attack on Tim's ignorance of chemistry vocabulary doesn't address the validity of the argument.
Second, the heat of combustion of octane (which I'm assuming is what you mean by energy content) is actually closer to 5500 kJ/mole. Your value for glucose is close enough. So the energy content per mole of CO2 for pure octane is about 1.5 times that of glucose (50% larger). If we take 87 octane gasoline, the gasoline would generate 25% more energy per mole of CO2.
Knowing that, now let's turn to what everybody's been arguing about here without doing some SIMPLE MATH. Would the moped or the cyclist create more CO2 emissions over the same 10 mile distance? To answer that, we need to know how much energy is required by each for that distance.
A crude estimate for the cyclist would be around 500 kCal (food calories). That's about how much energy a 175 lb man would burn by cycling at a slow pace (~10 mph) in an hour. 500 kCal = 2100 kJ, which yields about 4.4 mol CO2.
For the moped: A decent moped gets an amazing 120 miles per gallon. 10 miles would be 0.083 gallons, which is 0.32 L. The energy content of gasoline is 34.8 MJ/L, giving us 11 MJ, or 11000 kJ. Remembering that we get 8 mol CO2 per 5500 kJ (there's about a 10% error here since we're not using pure octane), giving us 16 mol CO2.
So... as a rough estimate (I didn't lower the gas mileage of the moped to adjust for the weight of the rider), the moped would generate about 3.5 times the amount of CO2 as the cyclist. Is that significant? You decide. Just remember that 3.5 is probably the best return you'll get. You switch to a motorcycle or a car and now you're talking about 10 or 15 times the amount of CO2 as the cyclist.
And that doesn't take into account the fact that the person riding the moped would be emitting CO2 while riding....
For both sides of the argument here:
Tim, you shouldn't be as flippant with the facts if you don't know them or don't want to take the time to work them out. That being said, you weren't writing a scientific paper, so you don't need to be held to as high a standard. However, when you stray from comedy and try to talk policy and science, don't get touchy if you're asked to truly prove things.
For the nitpickers: Tim is right in that you weren't really addressing the overall issue in his post, which was the possible effectiveness of the Kyoto protocol and whether the US or UN has the right to regulate CO2 emissions. You instead chose to attack his lack of scientific knowledge. While he did intend for the science to back him up, it was only one part of his argument. Deconstructing that one detail doesn't invalidate his other arguments.
THAT BEING SAID, I do disagree with him. We give up some of our freedoms all the time to the government in exchange for security, convenience, and public health. I personally would agree with letting the government regulate our lifestyle to reduce CO2 emissions just as they regulate lots of things. That just means that we disagree; not that he's wrong.
I have asked you where you get your information about the connection of sugar to gasoline, the energy cotnent of gasoline the energy contents of the two fuels, the relative efficiency of mopeds vs bicycles, and things I have probablby forgoten.
You reply "RE: most forecasters couldn't give you an accurate 7 day outlook if their life depended on it.
That, sir, was a joke. Plain and simple. It does nothing to support the statement that the WMO retracted their support of the IPCC, and retracting it will not change the theme of the paragraph.
(I also have doubts when anybody makes a prediction that they won't be around to verify.)"
Did you walk to work, or bring your lunch? BTW, that's a joke, plain and simple- a nonsequiter.
You have not supported any of your assertions that I have questioned.
I hope, for your sake, your act is funny.
Joe
Harry,
Thanks.
That, sir, was a joke. Plain and simple. It does nothing to support the statement that the WMO retracted their support of the IPCC, and retracting it will not change the theme of the paragraph.
So that I needn't waste my time deconstructing every factoid and argument you list, perhaps you could do me the favor of pointing me towards the valid points you make so I can focus my energy there. Otherwise I can just continue to poke holes in every argument you've made here, and have you respond to each hole, "It's just a flesh wound!". Or rather "that was just for comedic value, it's not an important point".
Factician Writes:
"I needn't waste my time deconstructing every factoid and argument"
Well that would be a suggestion...
If you have anything really important to do, your time might be better served elsewhere. Why not go count some sunflower seeds for a while?
Not certain why you found it necessary in the first place. You didn't like it, obviously, but it was just meant as an opinion piece. Some who've read it over the past five months actually DID find it a little amusing. Not one of my best, but adequate. (I personally like "Pluto Demoted" much better; if you want something to REALLY get upset over; there's also "The Real Story of Chicken Little" if perchance you have kids just like you, who might want to take a shot at me.)
Incidently, since I put this up, there HAS been talk about the UN regulating meat production, so I wasn't too far off base with my speculations here.
Myself, I'm done for the day. I'm gonna grab a Blatz.
If you have anything really important to do, your time might be better served elsewhere.
You're absolutely right. I'll take that as a concession that you're totally full of s*@t and that you're conceding that your arguments are worthless.
Thank you for being honest, I appreciate it. It's a relatively rare commodity on the internets. I will spend my time somewhere where I can have more of an effect.
Best of luck, sir!
Factician writes: "'ll take that as a concession that you're totally full of s*@t and that you're conceding that your arguments are worthless."
No take that as a consession, that I wanted to log off and have a beer. And that I also thought it would be fun to make you stay up all night, hitting the refresh button, to see if I took the bait.
Where were we? Oh yeah, whether the meteoroligist crack was meant to be a fact. Here's a similar joke (an old one):
Tipper Gore wrecked the Prius today, she misjudged the distance. Turns out, Al had been telling her that four inches is a foot, for years!
The events of the accident might be true, and perhaps Al DOES exaggerate the size of the little prince. (It looked like he used a sock in that Rolling Stone photo back in 2000.) But that doesn't mean I wanted you to think Tipper was really so stupid, she did not know the difference between four inches and a foot.
Likewise, I always suspect, that anybody who claims to see the future is a charletan. And I think that meteorologists are continually confounded by weather patterns that don't agree with historic models, and probbably use dart boards for that "seven day" outlook that Networks demand, and they know is impossible.
It doesn't negate the fact, that the World Meteorological Organization, a founding member of the IPCC, refused to sign onto the report; because the IPCC abandoned the Science, in pursuit of the Sensational.
That is the issue you should REALLY be looking into. Not whether I know proper chemical names, or whether my estimate of efficiencies were off 300%.
It doesn't negate the fact, that the World Meteorological Organization, a founding member of the IPCC, refused to sign onto the report; because the IPCC abandoned the Science, in pursuit of the Sensational.
Thank you for identifying the key point in your argument. I would like to look into it, but I can find no reference to it. Can you put up a reference, please?
It's right in the article:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
Among other criticism:
"Though there is evidence both for and against the existence of a detectable anthropogenic signal in the tropical cyclone climate record to date, no firm conclusion can be made on this point."
Which, at the time I wrote this article, greatly conflicted with the IPCC assesment.
As far as I can see from this article, and your responses in the comments, your argument boils down to:
"If we assume incorrect efficiencies for different types of energy sources, and ignore the differences between wildly different types of chemicals, and we generally ignore or avoid any evidence that has anything to do with reality, it would be funny/comedic to assume that global warming theory is a load of crap."
Is this approximately correct?
M writes:
"Is this approximately correct?"
Oh please.
For those of you who can't get over my comparison of gasoline to carbohydrates (and you wonder why you have a reputation for being anti social?) Let me outline the argument presented here, minus the jokes and sloppy science.
1) The IPCC Report is due
2) The conclusion will probably be: "Apocalypse eminent, America to most blame."
3) The WMO already disputes any projected increase in Hurricane Activity, but journalists will continue to blame Katrina on Global Warming.
4) The French dimmed the Eiffel Tower
5) Nobody wants to talk about solutions, because they're oppressive. Instead, they are generating fear, in hopes we forfeit some basic rights. (Just like the Left accused the President of doing with terrorism).
6) 66% of electricity used in the US is carbon based. In order to stop all CO2 production tomorrow we would need to cut electricity use by that amount.
a. There is a good chance, the Eiffel Tower might have to remain dark all the time.
b. All transportation would need to stop as well
c. even bicycles
7) Because we breathe out CO2, population controls might fall under the same regulations.
8) Many seats on the UN are controlled by evil, ruthless dictators. Given the power to regulate America into the Stone Age, they wouldn't think twice about abusing it.
9) North Korea is ruled by one of these tyrants, and at night they're as dark as the Eiffel tower. If he can't get his lights turned on, he would be content just to turn his neighbor's off.
10) These tyrants are still bent on world domination.
I do not think that means what you think it means...
Hmmm... So, debating a particular point of the IPCC report is the same as not signing on to the IPCC report? The IPCC report covers *a lot* of ground. They are not disagreeing with much of it. And their disagreement is a small one (whether an increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes are or might be a result of global warming). Is that what you mean by "refusing to sign on?".
You're saying that because they disagree on a detail about what one of the consequences of global warming will be, that they disagree that global warming is happening and is caused by CO2 emissions. Do you really stand by that? If so, you're either being dishonest, or intentionally obtuse.
Creationists use a similar tactic. Because evolutionary biologists still argue about details of the theory of evolution, that means that they don't agree that the theory of evolution is true. It's sort of sad (and at least a little bit dishonest).
So, given that your main point was incorrect, does that mean you'll write a retraction of this entire post?
Factician writes: "Creationists use a similar tactic"
Good idea! Why argue with me, when there's a perfectly good straw man to kick around!
So you admit that evolution is a theory, yes? But most scientists accept it as true. So should we pass some laws, based on evolutionary theory? I mean come on, shouldn't we be more concerned about the course of evolution 100 years from now? What about future generations? Just a few small sacrifices made today...
Can we get back on topic now?
I ask again, given that your main point was incorrect, that the WMO didn't "fail to sign on" to the IPCC report, does that mean you'll write a retraction of this entire post?
Factician writes: "given that your main point was incorrect"
I hold fast to my main point, that the UN is populated by Tyrants, who are using fear of Global Warming, to encourage Americans, to sign over rights.
The point you wish to make central: "The World Meteorological Organization (WMO), one of the founding members of the IPCC actually disputes the report."
Was completely accurate at the time I wrote this article. In fact, there is suggestion that their steadfast refusal to sign onto the report forced the hand of the IPCC to correct the language.
So no, I don't see a need to retract anything other than my Bicycle Blunders, which I already did.
Ah, I understand. You're shifting goalposts. Earlier you pointed me towards the point that the WMO didn't sign on as your main point. That is not true, (whether it was true at the time you wrote the original post is irrelevant) so rather than back off, you shift goalposts to: The meanies at the U.N. are conspiring against the U.S.
So, let's see, we've demolished your argument that global warming isn't happening, we've demolished your argument that there is a disagreement between the IPCC and the WMO. So now you're arguing that we just shouldn't do anything about global warming just to spite the meanies at the U.N.
You sir, are a grade A, class I conspiracy theorist. I've got a cat with a tinfoil hat for you, if you'd like it.
Good luck, sir:
http://i52.photobucket.com/albums/g24/bouwerieboy/catInTinfoil.jpg
Factician writes: “Earlier you pointed me towards the point that the WMO didn't sign on as your main point.”
No, that was the main point of the paragraph. I told you then it wasn’t the key point of the article. And at the time I wrote it, it was true.
Further you write: “we've demolished your argument that global warming isn't happening,”
Please show me where I said that Global Warming isn’t happening. You are arguing with the Straw Man again.
even further: “we've demolished your argument that there is a disagreement between the IPCC and the WMO.”
No. There WAS disagreement. Check out the link to Prometheus.
And finally: Yes. I believe the UN has ulterior motives. That was the whole original idea behind this post. Read back through the comments, and you’ll see that I’ve never wavered from it.
Feel free to try and disprove that thesis.
Factician was right to point out that the "Statement on Tropical Cyclones and Climate Change" debates the certainty behind the claim that global warming would increase the frequency and strength of cyclones. It doesn't call the IPCC Assessment "bad science" or "sensationalism"; it simply says that some debate still remains.
A few things should be noted from the comprehensive statement, which is linked for your browsing pleasure from the GFDL article:
"7. It is also well established observationally that over the past several decades the sea surface temperatures over most tropical ocean basins have increased in magnitude by between 0.25-0.5 degrees C."
"8. It is well accepted by most researchers within the field of climate science that the most likely primary cause of the observed increase of global mean surface temperature is a long term increase in greenhouse gas concentrations. It is likely that most tropical ocean basins have warmed significantly due to this same cause."
"18. Given the consistency between high resolution global models, regional hurricane models and MPI theories, it is likely that some increase in tropical cyclone intensity will occur if the climate continues to warm."
"27. Despite the diversity of research opinions on this issue it is agreed that if there has been a recent increase in tropical cyclone activity that is largely anthropogenic in origin, then humanity is faced with a substantial and unanticipated threat."
I threw in that last quote just to show that these folks were willing to dabble in conjecture. It should be pointed that the statement was a consensus between 125 cyclone experts from the WMO International Workshop on Tropical Cyclones in November 2006.
So yes, they do say that there is some debate about whether global warming is primarily caused by man and about the degree of consensus in the whole debate. But they do agree the global warming is occuring, and that CO2 levels has something to do with it.
Tim, again, you should not be so cavalier in your statements, especially since you have the time to do the research before you type. I would be willing to say that some of your claims smack of sensationalism themselves.
Getting to your political arguments, I would agree that there are many countries that would love for America to have to scale back on its standard of living. Heck, I believe we should, too. Many - no, MOST - of those countries are NOT run by "tyrants". Do you consider most of Europe to be run by tyrants? And even if curtailing CO2 emissions fell within the desires of North Korea, that has nothing to do with whether global warming is real. That's not a logical argument.
And to claim that CO2 regulation would lead to population controls seems silly, in a conspiracy theory sort of way. Please point out at least one legitimate policy source that calls for population control in order to directly combat global warming.
To be fair, I do agree with two of your points:
1. A lot of bad (mostly left wing) journalists do still try to link Katrina or other individual storms to global warming. And those journalists are wrong and should be called on the carpet for it. But there are good journalists (some of whom are left wing) that refute that. Chris Mooney has dealt with this many times on his blog, The Intersection. Even Al Gore has said he does not mean to say Katrina was directly caused by global warming.
2. Yes, most people (Al Gore included in this group this time) do resort to some level of fear mongering instead of talking about possible drastic solutions. It's a bad tactic, but it still does not address the validity of the global warming argument. Nor does it exclude the fact that if global warming is occurring, then we should do what we can to lessen its effects.
Harry,
Thanks for being patient with me. To be honest, this post is so old I almost forgot I put it up here. So trying to piece together exactly what was going on between the WMO an the IPCC at the time has ben a bit of a challenge. To the best of my recollection, this WMO report was quite a departure to the previous IPCC report, and although the language was gentle, it flew in the face of what Trenberth was telling the reporters at the time. As you pointed out, many in the media (including Al Gore) are still giving out information directly contrary to it.
And I’ve never claimed to be anything BUT sensational. I’ve often billed myself, as the SENSATIONAL Tim Slagle.
And there are 143 member nations of the UN. Count how many nations you can name that are stable Democracies, (that wouldn’t enjoy a little filthy lucre from the US in the form of carbon substitution money). Less than 50? That’s why I say MOST are tyranical.
Especially the pot-bellied Dictator of North Korea. Who would vote against the US, every time, just for the sake of voting against the US. And I never said, Global Warming wasn't real. I've said it is not a real threat, that it is inevitable and unpreventable; but never unreal.
And finally, for those residents of the future who haven’t been reading both blogs, and thought I sloughed off that last challenge, I give you the most recent UN world Population report:
Beside linking hurricanes and tornado frequency to Climate Change, there is this irresistible tid-bit:
“If policymakers could reduce the intensity of population growth, they would have more time to address existing needs while preparing to deal with future increases in urban population.”
That’s a nice way to put it, don’t you think?
Okay, that "Sensational Tim Slagle" crack was funny. I guess you can now say that others have now pegged you as sensational.
Just because a country is not a stable democracy doesn't mean it's tyranical. But that's besides point. If you disagree with North Korea voting for somthing simply because they don't like the United States, then by similar argument, you should have a problem with being against something just because North Korea likes it, which is one of your arguments.
Thank you for referencing the UN World Population Report. At least you're trying. However, I wouldn't say the report is recommending overt population control to combat global warming.
First, the quote you gave is simply a statement of fact. If man is causing some degree of climate change, then reducing the population growth rate would slow the process down and would give more time to address needs.
Second, the paragraphs following that statement inside the report (pp. 70-71) state fairly clearly that they do not recommend direct regulation of (urban) population growth. They recommend indirectly impacting population growth through improving the health and educational opportunities for women. By reducing the desire and need to have large families, they contend that women will choose to have smaller families. They do not wish to take away the reproductive rights of a family.
So even though the organization admits that the number of people has an impact on the amount of global warming (which is a reasonable statement if one concedes that global warming results at least partially from manmade causes), they do not recommend strict population growth controls. So... this report... I don't think it means which you think it means.
you write: "So... this report... I don't think it means which you think it means. "
It didn’t state directly that population must be controlled to curb Global Warming, but it suggests that Global Warming is exacerbated by increased population of Urban areas, and suggests that governments must do more to encourage populations to self control. I believe China did something very similar towards the end of the last century.
It probably doesn’t fulfill your request of hard evidence that the United Nations has it’s mind set on population control, but such goals are not always broadcast loudly or clearly. Quite often such decisions are made in secret, as they were in the Soviet ruled Ukraine, or Khmer Rogue held Cambodia. Maybe I’m just a conspiracy case, but I get nervous anytime a governing body starts talking about the need to slow population growth.
I doubt you could point to one time in history, where State run population control, didn’t result in heinous rights violations, and human suffering. The mere mention of Climate Change and Population Control in the same document, assures me that my suspicion is warranted.
But since you believe Governments are empowered, to request individual sacrifice, in search of a greater good, you are bound to look at that document differently than I would.
i honestly enjoy all your writing style, very exciting,
don't give up and also keep posting considering the fact that it just simply well worth to read it,
excited to look over more of your well written articles, stunning day ;)
Post a Comment