Global Warming Is An Issue, Not A Crusade
Wednesday, December 19, 2007 at 08:25PM 
The problem with the true believer is that an issue becomes black and white. There is no room for discussion. The true believer is right and if you do not agree with him/her, you are dead wrong. The fact is the true believer is not satisfied just with the knowledge that they are right. They need you to acknowledge that they are right as well. They need to convert you. There can be no dissension. There can be no discourse. Facts do not really matter if they do not fit into the true believer's argument.
In extreme and violent terms we have seen this behavior manifest itself throughout history. The Crusades and the misguided horrors of Nazi Germany in the Second World War are examples. Today the violent true believer mentality can be seen in the extreme elements of Islam.The true believer mentality also exists in less dramatic and more subtle ways throughout our society. It can be seen in ethnic, racial or gender discrimination. It can be seen in religious intolerance. Unfortunately, it was also be seen in the United Nations sponsored climate change event in Bali in December 2007.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) panel's chairman, Rajendra Pachauri, said: Climate change imperils "the most precious treasures of our planet," and the effects are "so severe and so sweeping that only urgent global action will do.
In fact, the United Nations reports that global warming is "unequivocal". It estimates that as early as the year 2020 between 75 and 250 million people in Africa will suffer water shortages. It goes on to state that residents of Asia's largest cities will be at great risk of river and coastal flooding. Europeans can expect extensive species loss. North Americans will experience longer and hotter heat waves and greater competition for water.
The world's scientists have spoken clearly and with one voice," UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, "I expect the world's policy makers to do the same."
According to the United Nations true believers, global warming is "unequivocal" and the world scientists "have spoken clearly and with one voice". There is no discussion. There is no dissent. All knowledgeable people now have been converted to this crusade. The reality, of course, is that global warming consensus is not the case in the scientific community. ( See article: The Secret Scientific Debate On Global Warming ).
Indeed for the Nobel winning United Nations panel (IPCC) and Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, fundamental problems with their global warming argument have already started to appear. As true believers in their global warming crusade, they will probably rationalize or ignore all facts that do not advance the cause. For the rest of us, as objective observers of the issue of global warming, the following facts should be carefully considered.
Global warming was supposed to cause frequent and violent hurricanes. The fact is that neither the intensity nor the frequency of hurricanes has increased. The 2007 season was the third quietest since 1966. In 2006 not a single hurricane made landfall in the U.S..
Since the mid 19th century, the mean global temperature has increased by 0.7 degrees Celsius. This slight warming is not unusual, and lies well within the range of natural variation. Carbon dioxide continues to increase in the atmosphere, but the mean planetary temperature hasn't increased significantly now for the last nine years.
In fact , 2007 provides anecdotal evidence that the Earth is, in effect, cooling. Antarctica is getting colder. Snow fell for the first time in Buenos Aires since 1918. Australia had the coldest June in its history this year. It snowed in South Africa for the first time in 15 years. South America experienced one of its coldest winters in the last three decades.
The truth is that the entire southern hemisphere experienced bitter cold weather in 2007. In addition, the Canadian government has just warned that this winter is likely to be its coldest in at least 15 years. Already, this winter has been very cold in many other parts of the Northern Hemisphere as well.
We have heard about global warming causing the rapidly melting Arctic Ice Cap in the last several years. In fact, advocates of man made global warming point to the rapidly melting Arctic ice as a sign that global warming is occurring even faster than expected.
However, the facts as reported by NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California last month indicate a quite different conclusion. The melting of the Arctic sea ice in this study has nothing to do with global warming. It was a natural phenomenon caused by unusual winds and atmospheric pressure.
The project studied trends in Arctic Sea Ice using satellite data , computer models and buoy observations of sea ice drift. The conclusion of the study was as follows: "The rapid decline in winter perennial ice the past two years was caused by unusual winds. Unusual atmospheric conditions set up wind patterns that compressed the sea ice, loaded it into the Transpolar Drift Stream, and then sped its flow out of the Arctic. When that sea ice reached lower latitudes, it rapidly melted in the warmer waters. The winds causing this trend in ice reduction were set up by an unusual pattern of atmospheric pressure that began at the beginning of this century".
Global warming proponents have pointed out that records showed that 1998 was the hottest year on record in the United States. Several of the years surrounding 1998 were very warm and near the record as well. It certainly appeared that the climate was warming due to these historical records. However, it has just been discovered that the records were erroneous. A Canadian blogger named Steve McIntyre audited the NASA records and found errors. When he reported his findings to NASA scientists, they conducted a review that showed he was correct.
This led NASA to recently revise the data published on its website. The errors change the historical facts concerning the global warming argument. The hottest year in the United States is no longer 1998, but 1934. 2001 is no longer in the Top Ten. Instead, four of the top ten hottest years are in the 1930s.
Global warming is an issue that needs to be looked at objectively. It is an issue for rational discourse concerning science and facts. However, it has become a crusade for environmental true believers. Despite the United Nations rhetoric, scientists do not speak with "one voice" and man-made global warming is not "unequivocal".
The danger in blindly following the United Nations global warming crusaders is that we become far removed from the facts of the issue. Indeed, these same United Nations true believers could one day be wearing winter coats in tropical Bali asking Gaia, (the goddess of nature), for increased global warming. Such perversity happens when an issue becomes a crusade.
Reader Comments (14)
Great article James, and I appreciate it. I've written a number of articles on this subject but none as well researched and organized as this one. You are absolutely correct about the firm believers. There is no possibility that they are wrong. I read an article recently where some are now saying that the sun may save us from the horrific global warming because of the present sunspot activity. Of course, they won't acknowledge that dozens of leading scientists have been trying to tell them that all along.
James,
Once again you are going down this road. The issue of "beliefs" is for those who get their religious and political ideology mixed with "fact." There is not a bonifide scientist out there who does not provide sound evidence that global warming exists. I provided you with a list of various scientific communities that support global warming. This has nothing to do with the United Nations. This country, on this issue, is an embarassment to the world. This a money driven issue to protect the oil industry and political ideology. There is no discussion on this issue because it is like trying to debate creationism vs. evolution. You can't mix beliefs with scientific fact. Let's move on and clean up the environment for God's sake!
Response To: James Krehbiel: James, you stated in your comment "There is not a bonifide scientist out there who does not provide sound evidence that global warming exists". Here is todays news: The Senate Committee on Environment and public works released a report with this headline: " Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007".
Like i said in my article, you can not have this discussion with true believers. You can have no discourse, facts do not matter. Its a real shame. Global warming is an issue not a crusade.
Nice article. It amazes me how so many people have jumped on Al Gore's bandwagon. I am not a scientist, and I don't automatically believe things because a scientist says I should. But that same science has been telling me all my life that the earth goes through all sorts of weather cycles... ice ages, hot spells, all by itself. I don't think humans are capable of causing the horrendous changes that are attributed to our activity lately, and I think this warming trend, if there really is one, will play out into the hand of an eventual cooling trend, as it always has.
Gene: "I am not a scientist...I don't automatically believe things because a scientist says I should...But that same science has been telling me all my life that...I don't think humans are capable...."
I see. Your opinion is more valid than that of 2500 scientists worldwide that research and review this issue, and more valid than every major scientific organization that supports IPCC findings.
Gene: "I think this warming trend, if there really is one, will play out into the hand of an eventual cooling trend, as it always has."
Oh, I see. Thousands of the world's scientists missed that part about natural cycles. Maybe you should write the IPCC and tell them that they left out that very important variable. I'm sure they never thought of it.
I'll present you with the same challenge that I've presented all global warming deniers. Produce one major scientific organization that disputes IPCC - just one. As for your opinion, that and $5 will buy me a nice cup of joe at Starbucks.
Scientists... gee, don't these guys get PAID somewhere along the line? Colleges and all other science producers get money for their science. None of them work for nothing. It's in their best interest to promote a scientific crisis that THEY can solve. The whole debate will change once the money starts rolling out to find a "cure". All those who don't get a piece of the $$$ pie will come up with a new crisis. You'll never lose your $5 bet because every major scientific organization is waiting in line for the money window to open. Maybe you should write to the IPCC and see if they'll hire you to be their pitchman. You're very convincing. As for your 2500 scientists world-wide... they had us worrying about global cooling in the 1960's.
But let's say there really is a crisis. What do we do about it? How much money should we throw at it? Several years ago there was a big uproar about the vanishing rain forests... the trees that remove CO2 from the atmosphere. Remember that? Well, the chain saws have been running ever since but we never hear about that anymore. Could it be that some of this CO2 induced warming could have been prevented or slowed down? If so, why hasn't it been? This is not new science we're talking about here.
Response to Steve B: The IPCC is a United Nations panel. It has nearly 3000 members and most of the members are not scientists. Many are government appointees that have no background in science at all. Many of the the scientists on the panel do not agree with the findings of the panel in which they are on. Some of these scientists have filed suit against the United Nations for not allowing them to leave the panel and for using their names in the document. I would not hold up the IPCC as an esteemed scientific body.
If you want to find dispute with the IPCC global warming findings:
The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public released a report today as titled: "U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007 :Senate Report Debunks "Consensus".
In the article on the "Secret Scientific Debate on Global Warming" which can be found on this website in the International section. The article references a petition signed by over 19000 scientists as follows: In fact, 19,000 scientists have signed a petition that states: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
So that is 19400 scientists that can be documented that do not agree with the IPCC and there are scientists that are on the panel that do not agree with the conclusions of the panel they are on.
Steve, I think that you owe Gene $5 at Starbucks.
Please! Mr. Inhofe gave his politically right wing speech on Fox News to try to muddy the waters about man-made global warming. He said, "God is still up there" and all of this is "due to the sun." The IPCC with thousands of scientists from over 120 countries have weighed in. Many are currently meeting in Paris to complete work on a global warming treaty. As I said, this is merely an ideological bunch of nonsense - "it's all about Hollywood elitists, etc." The report you site will prove to be worthless. No major media outlet will take it seriously. Stick with the facts not political or religious ideology.
James, So let me see if I understand your position. You believe that the United Nations is correct in saying that "all scientists speak with one voice" and that man made global warming is "unequivocal". Next, You believe that the entire scientific community has reached a consensus on global warming and there is no longer any debate on this issue in the scientific community?
Just a couple of questions
1. Do you find the United Nations effective as an organization?
2. What facts would you have to discover to change your mind on your position on man made global warming.?
James: "The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public released a report...."
One scientific organization, James - not Inhofe's hoaxtra BS.
James: "In fact, 19,000 scientists have signed a petition that states...."
ROFLMAO!!!!!!!!!! More BS from you. That fake petition has been around since the early 2000s and has been debunked over and over. Don't you ever read anyting new - or maybe from real scientific sources? For information on this fake petition, see:
Oregon Institute of Science and Malarkey
The Oregon Institute - isn't that the one that is associated with S. Fred Singer - you know the guy, who also shilled for the tobacco companies when they were denying that smoking causes cancer? Or am I thinking of the Hudson Institute? Oh well, they're pretty much the same.
"Steve, I think that you owe Gene $5 at Starbucks."
Wrong, James. And you should do some real research instead of relying on right-wing, ideological websites for your information.
Good article James. It looks like you have found some of the crusaders you were talking about...
James Smith, good, insightful article. I recently read a book by Michael Crichton called "State Of Fear" which tackles this very issue. It is a fiction book written with real "facts" about the world's climate. He even uses footnotes on the pages to tell exactly where he got his information. If you get the chance, check it out if you haven't already. I tend to agree with your article here. I remember when I was in school in the late 70's my science teachers saying we were going into a new ice age! Of course, that didn't happen. After the bad hurricanes in 2005 that destroyed New Orleans, I listened to weather "experts" saying how this was going to be the norm from now on due to global warming. As you state in your article, the last two hurricane seasons were very mild. Weather people cannot accurately predict what the weather's going to be like 8 days from now, let alone 20, 30 or 50 years from now. There should be an open debate and there definately are two sides to the global warming story. However, James Krehbiel proves your point about "true believers" not accepting any other view but their own.
To James Krehbiel: I applaud your passion for this issue and agree we should work to clean up our environment. However, I believe Mr. Smith does not disagree that there is a warming trend, just that there are two sides to this story and both sides should be given its due course. In reading your comments to Mr. Smith, you are proving him right by disregarding everything in his article.
Thanks to both of you for this lively debate!
Response to J. Krehbiel: I agree with you on the war in Iraq. I dont think it was wise to go in either. However, there were many countries that went in with us as well. It appears to be a failure of our leadership and intelligence agencies but that is another issue for another day. The Un does the best job they can? Do you think they are effective or not?
You say that you would reconsider if those agencies listed above changed their mind. Fair enough. However hundreds of scientists from those very agencies have raised the flag on the IPCC conclusions. Even scientists within the IPCC do not believe their own panels report.
If scientists within the agencies disagree with the findings of the agencies that they work for - is the scientific community speaking with one voice? Is not the credibility of those who say that in question?
The 400 prominent scientists that disagree about man made global warming are named in a report released on December 20, 2007 by the U.S. Senate Commitee on Environment and Public Works. Some of these same scientist wrote a letter to the United Nations in Bali last week to highlight their opposition to the conclusions of the IPCC.
Your question about a governing body other than the U.N implies that the UN is a governing body today. If it is we are all in big trouble. I dont believe that a world governing body will ever be effective. It certainly has not proven effective to date. The UN should probably become a disaster relief agency for the world. Do you think the UN should be constructed to have a military and be an enforcement agency for the security council?
The President of Iran should not have been invited to speak at Columbia based on the treatment he recieved when he got there. The President of Iran rarely conducts himself properly. The Bush crew probably did try to thwart efforts of the scientific community on global warming, it would not surprise me. Thanks for you response to my questions. Jim
James,
Have you looked at the article posted on MSNBC today regarding CO2 emissions in the state of Texas? It's a Newsweek article by Matthew Phillips. jamespkrehbiel