An interesting post by Tom Nelson
(This post was written to respond to Don’s Twitter question here)
Don, off the top of my head, here are some things I believe:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas
2. Greenhouse gases have a warming effect
3. Human activity has caused atmospheric CO2 to increase over the last 100+ years
4. The Earth warmed during the 20th century
5. Global sea levels rose about 7.5 inches since 1901
Continued below the fold
6. We can’t burn fossil fuels forever without running out
7. Alternative energy research is a good thing
8. Energy efficiency is a good thing
9. Destroying the environment is a bad thing
10. I want the best, safest world possible for future generationsSome things I don’t believe:
11. The Earth is a more dangerous place at 61F than at 59F.
12. Carbon dioxide taxes can prevent bad weather
13. Increased CO2 causes droughtIf the hard evidence supported the idea that trace CO2 is dangerous, I would be fighting very hard ON YOUR SIDE.
Anthony Watts adds
I would add these to “Some things I don’t believeâ€:
14. Global warming/climate change causes severe weather (There’s no proven link.)
15. “Ocean acidification†as a claimed byproduct of increased CO2 (It is not a significant problem).
15. Michael Mann (on anything).
16. Various explanations for “the pauseâ€:
Let me note regarding #3 that, yes, Man has contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, but that addition is small. For #4, yes, it has warmed, but the majority of the warmth is mostly natural. #5, sea rise is well within the average, and, really, if this was a big warm period, should be much, much higher. That’s the way averages work.
Let me also note things I believe
- Methane is a much more potent GHG than CO2, and we should look for non-economic destructive ways to reduce the output
- Farming is actually one of the biggest global issues for GHG output, but, deal with it, because people need to eat
- Land use and the urban island effect (UHI) are two of the biggest causes of the perceived rise in global temps
- An increase of 1.4F since 1850 is much ado about nothing
- Clean air is good, but CO2 is not a pollutant
- Energy efficiency is good, but not at the expense of increasing the control a centralized, unresponsive, non-listening, tyrannical government implements
- We should stop pissing taxpayer money away on alternative energy projects and focus more on research to create ones that will work, will not jack up energy costs (which leads to price increases on everything else), and do not take up giant swaths of the countryside
- Warmists should get off their asses and practice what they preach
Things I don’t believe (in addition to what Tom and Anthony wrote)
- That this issue has anything to do with science: it’s pure politics
- That we’re Dooooooooomed!
- That the world will see a temp rise of 2C by the end of the 21st Century
- That Warmists will ever practice what they preach
- That warming causes cold and snow
- That everything, from hot to cold to wet to dry to drought to flood to earthquakes to volcanoes to racism to war to etc and so on, are caused by a slight increase in atmospheric CO2
- Warmist computer models
- Warmist prognostication
- That Warmists will ever come to their senses, because this political issues is too important a way to push their “nice fascism”
Now I’ll sit back and listen to Warmists tell me I’m wrong, I’m lying to you, I’m misrepresenting, etc, all while refusing to give up their own fossil fuels usage and go carbon neutral.
“Let me note regarding #3 that, yes, Man has contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, but that addition is small.”
That’s not accurate. The amount of CO2 we have added and will add to the atmosphere is quite large. We will have doubled it (+100%) in the near future. Only the percent of the atmosphere that is CO2 is and will stay small.
The only question is, “Will it have a positive or a negative effect upon mankind?” I believe the effect will be ever so slightly positive, but I’m a part time farmer so I might be biased. I’m also a chemical engineer, and almost everything I do creates CO2, so the bias increases :).
A good question to ask is, “Is mankind better off now than it was in 1860 when CO2 levels were at their lowest point?” Yes. Yes we are.
Thank you Captain for this succinct and direct list. This is a great list and polished up, would make a great side bar on your site. Thanks for putting up with all the nasty comments your site generates. Blick
You’re right about being wrong, lying and misrepresenting, etc.
Deniers talk a lot about what they believe, but not what they understand.
Let me use a denier tactic on you: At what concentration does atmospheric CO2 become a problem? Do you think a century at 500 ppm will cause warming? How about 1000 ppm? If a century at 1000 ppm causes runaway warming – how do you propose to solve that problem?
According to scientific measurements that you probably don’t “believe in”, atmospheric CO2 has stayed between 180 ppm (during “ice ages”) and 280 ppm (interglacial periods). This is not to imply that the CO2 changes caused either. Humans burning fossil fuels (coal, oil, gas) have increased the CO2 concentration to 400 ppm and at the current rate of burning will reach 1000 ppm by 2100.
You typed: “Man has contributed to the rise in atmospheric CO2, but that addition is small.” — This is patently false. The data are very clear on this point. Neither the addition, nor man’s component of the addition are small. The increase from 280 ppm to 400 ppm is large. Almost all of the increase comes from man’s burning fossil fuels.
“For #4, yes, it has warmed, but the majority of the warmth is mostly natural.’ — This is your opinion, with no evidence to support it. What natural process is responsible for the warming?
“If”. Considering that the Earth’s CO2 level was above 1000ppm for most of the last 550 million years, and there was no runaway warming, your hysteria is unfounded.
Well, it is not problem, but my solution is to pass a law requiring all who believe in AGW to go completely carbon neutral. No more fossil fueled trips, no more air conditioning, heating, refrigerators, only buy local, grow your own food, etc.
Yet Warmists will not give up their own fossil fuels usage. Strange, eh? As for 1000ppm by 2100, do you often look in crystal balls? Anyhow, despite lowered CO2 levels, the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than it is today. How do you account for that Fact?
The same ones that have been at play for billions of years. What evidence do you have that 100% proves that it is mostly/solely mankind’s output of CO2 that is causing the current warm period? And, since you believe this, why are you not out telling your fellow Believers to go carbon neutral?
How do you explain a pause of 17 years and 8 months despite rising CO2 levels? How do you explain a decrease in global temps from the 40’s to 70’s, despite rising CO2 levels? How do you explain 95% of computer models failing to predict the Pause?
At what concentration does atmospheric CO2 become a problem? You tell me. CO2 has a history, and it’s all downhill…
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
“At what concentration does atmospheric CO2 become a problem? Do you think a century at 500 ppm will cause warming?”
It’s a fallacious worry. Even 1 million PPM (aka 100%) CO2 will not cause runaway warming. It’d make it awful hard to breathe of course, so I’m not hoping for it…
I wish people from the Church of Global Warming like Jeff here would do a little science themselves instead of searching for theories from fellow doom and gloomers’ writings on the net. OF COURSE they’re going to say “we’re all going to die”. That’s what armageddonists do. It’s what they’ve always done. You don’t have to be like that if you don’t want to Jeffrey. You don’t have to be so negative. So anti-human. You’re choosing this path.
Kevin do you really think you have a better grasp of science than the US Navy ? Can you explain to us why UV and infrared radiation behave differently in our atmosphere?
Jeffery and John have anger issues — don’t trust them with guns.
Blick are you packing heat right now ? Do you ever? I haven’t held a gun since I stopped shooting upland birds back in the 80’s
I guess you’re right. All those 25C average global temps hundreds of millions of years ago didn’t inconvenience humankind at all.
What were those natural processes that caused the changes in the Earth’s climates for the past billions of years?
Changes in orbit, asteroids smashing into the Earth, supervolcanoes, changes in greenhouse gases, changes in insolation… so which of these is causing the Earth to warm now?
The current rapid warming is unprecedented in the history of human civilization.
The so-called Medieval warm period was not warmer than today.
There is no pause in warming. I’ve explained several times how the measured surface temperature varies because of El Ninos, La Ninas, volcanoes, aerosols etc. The Earth’s surface and its oceans are warming steadily. 95% of the models have not failed, you just continue to recycle Dr. Spencer’s misleading graph.
” my solution is to pass a law requiring all who believe in AGW to go completely carbon neutral.” — Typical right-wing fascist response. The theory of AGW is not something one “believes in” but is a scientifically verified process to be understood.
Blick,
I have many, many guns. But it seems to be conservatives and white supremacists who go around shooting innocents.
Well John, the US Navy is a thing, not a person. So yes, I can factually tell you that I understand science better than the US Navy. Or any other non-person. I do it for a living, in fact.
“Can you explain to us why UV and infrared radiation behave differently in our atmosphere?”
Sure. It’s because of the atmosphere itself. More specifically, it’s because of the photons impinging upon the atoms in our atmosphere. You need to understand that light, whether UV or infrared, or any other color in the EM spectrum is just light. But the things it hits can have very different effects on it. It could hit a molecule or atom that is ‘black’ to it (imagine an 8 ball), and the photon gets absorbed and transformed into heat. Other molecules are clear to it (imagine glass) and the photon passes right through. Still others, sometimes called ‘white bodies’, immediately reflect the photon back in the general direction it came from (think of a cue ball with the light reflecting off of it).
That’s enough for now. Class dismissed John.
And who the heck is Tom Nelson and why should we be concerned with what he twits?
” all while refusing to give up their own fossil fuels usage and go carbon neutral.”
Teach, did you miss my comment a while back where I listed the CO2 emissions/capita for many US states? It turns out blue states emit much, much less CO2/capita than do conservative states. So it seems that liberals consume less fossil fuel and emit much less CO2. Doesn’t that evidence completely refute your argument?
The IRS is proposing taxing employee perks as income. I propose they tax the travel expenses and conference fees for global warming conferences at a flat tax of 50%, the proceeds to go to alternate energy research.
Hey, something Jeffrey said was actually true. Blue states, mostly urban, actually do create less CO2 per person than red states.
Why do you think this is so? Is it only because red states are primarily producers and blue states are primarily consumers? Sure, that’s part of it. But another, possibly larger part is that red states are often huge. It takes a hellofa lot more energy to move something from Boise, ID to Iowa than it does to move something from NYC to Weschester county.
And the final reason is, WE DON’T CARE ABOUT CO2 PRODUCTION. We’re not afraid of that bugaboo, Jeff. We like making people’s lives better. We don’t worry that the predictors of imminent death forecast doom. We’re going to keep making lives better, despite your nihilism.
Hey, this is a really good thread. Thanks Teach!
Jeffery and John, It is mentally ill and emotionally ill people that shoot up gunfree zones. Nothing to do with politics — right or wrong. Its people angry with their lives, and gangs and drug cartels and criminals that tend to shoot people. Cool your anger jets you two.
Kelvin is telling you all another lie. The blue states are actually MORE productive/capita than red states. CA, NY, NJ, MA etc >> MS, AL, LA, TN, KY etc. Do you really think WV is larger than CA??
Of course you don’t care about CO2, because you’re ignorant. But you do not have to stay that way. Teach evidently DOES care about CO2 since he accuses liberals of generating so much of it. In fact it’s the only argument he ever makes concerning the theory of global warming.
Tell me Kiven, do you consider abortion to be murder?
You’re confused, Jeff. I was talking about production of physical goods. You’re talking about GDP. They are completely different animals. The blue states, particularly the northeast coast, consume quite a bit more than they produce. To be fair, California does in fact produce quite a bit. I don’t actually know if it consumes more than it produces, so I’m willing to leave it out of the calculation.
“Of course you don’t care about CO2, because you’re ignorant.”
Haha. You sound like Michael Jackson :). Are you pretty sure I’m ignorant? I’ve shown more knowledge of science in this single thread than you ever have in all of your months of trolling here.
*sigh* It looks like you’re going to continue to choose to be a pessimist about mankind. Oh well. I tried. We each have our paths to follow.
Well Kev, GDP is measurable, as is population. I’m sure you have data to support your nebulous claim about “production of physical goods”.
You seem to take being revealed as ignorant on climate change and CO2 as an insult. It isn’t. We’re all ignorant on many things. But bragging about it, popular in some circles, sets a poor example.
Identifying serious threats and finding solutions is not being a “pessimist about mankind”, but is quite the opposite. Condemning future generations to certain misery out of willful ignorance, greed and hubris IS being a “pessimist about mankind”. We are not helpless pawns subject to the whims of gods and magic.
J” Rapid warming is unprecedented.” Total BS, because there’s no way to know that. But, if so, please show us all 100 year records of comparable data for the last 4billion years. Your desperation is showing, again, as you continually try to perpetuate this lie.
I didn’t take you calling me ignorant as an insult. I took it as a joke. Like when a kid tries to teach about something he clearly does not understand.
No worries. You’re probably right. We probably are dooming future certain misery. It’s what we’ve always done. I mean, remember how we doomed them by creating acid rain? Then we doomed them again by cutting down the rainforest, starving us all of oxygen. And of course we doomed us all by using nuclear power. And then we doomed the world by killing whales. Do any of these end of the world stories sound familiar?
There’s plenty more, dating all the way back to the stone age when we doomed the world by not praying to the right volcano god. There will always be armageddonists. It’s important not to take them too seriously. Like I’m not taking you seriously.
As I said, I’d like to help you get out of that way of living. It sounds… frightening. But I don’t know how.
Now you’re just being silly. I appreciate your faux concern, though.
Acid rain was greatly reduced by human intervention – a cap and trade system on sulfate and NOx emissions. Not sure anyone of note claimed we were doomed from acid rain; but surely it’s a problem with a solution.
Hole in the ozone? Human interventions again. It was and is a problem, but getting better.
Why do you think it beneficial to eliminate the tropical rain forests? They DO generate oxygen and they DO eliminate CO2. Again, eliminating the rain forests adds to our problems.
You actually may make a good point regarding nuclear power. Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not withstanding, nuclear power can and should replace some of the coal sourced energy. A big concern, of course, was allowing fissionable material into the hands of bad actors – note the conservative objections to Iran generating nuclear power.
What do have against whales? Again, what is so beneficial about killing all the whales? Are humans really better off with no whales or rain forests? And who said we were doomed if we kill all the whales?
So, here’s the point. Global warming from our burning of fossil fuels will not destroy the Earth, even with a 10C increase in average surface temperatures. What it will do, is make life miserable for the 10 billion or so humans who will occupy the planet in a century or so. Maybe that doesn’t concern you. It does me.
“You actually may make a good point regarding nuclear power. Fukushima, Three Mile Island and Chernobyl not withstanding, nuclear power can and should replace some of the coal sourced energy.”
That’s not what I intended to imply. I don’t believe nuclear energy should replace coal or anything else. I’m saying it should be ever-increasingly added to the mix. The lives of everyone on the planet are made immeasurably better by energy, so ALL forms of energy creation should be pursued. By maximizing energy production, we maximize our possibilities as a species. I do appreciate your noting that the roughly zero people killed by the three greatest problems we’ve had with nuclear reactors are not a major cause for concern. It’s a major energy source that, if abandoned, would harm us all greatly.
My concern for you is not false, Jeff. It’s certainly not selfless. It’s selfish in fact. You are part of a machine that harms humanity with your doom and gloom. I am part of that humanity, and I don’t like to see it damaged. We need energy. A lot more than we are producing now. Cutting that flow harms us. It harms the poor more than the rich, but in the end it harms us all. I hate to see that occur because someone predicts the end of the world upon every advancement of mankind.
Sure it’s selfish. Very selfish. But selfish for a thing that you are a part of, so hopefully that makes it a bit better.
Even with the armageddonists, it was a very fun thread. Maybe BECAUSE of them. But I have to go now :(. You get the last word.
Come over to the light, Jeffrey! And remember, light is created by… energy :).
jl,
You’ve misquoted me again!
Here’s what I wrote, “The current rapid warming is unprecedented in the history of human civilization.”
Here’s what you claim I wrote, “Rapid warming is unprecedented.â€
So your concern about what happened 4 billion years ago is irrelevant. You’re moving the goalposts. For the whole of human existence the global temperature has been between 6C cooler than now (ice ages) and the current high. It’s certain the Earth will continue to warm if we keep rapidly adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere. Certain.
Human civilizations are only 12,000 years old or so, not 4 billion years old as you claim. Humankind is hardly more than a million years old. You do understand those key points, don’t you? 4 billion years ago the Earth warmed rapidly when large asteroids slammed into it. Has that happened the past 100 years? Subtle wobbles in the Earth orbit appear to trigger the end of a glacial period, with gradual warming sustained by receding ice fields and CO2 increases. Have scientists found those wobbles in the orbit the past 100 years? The Earth is warming now because of CO2 added to the atmosphere, not magic.
So show me where in the Holocene temperature record where the estimated average surface temperature jumped over 1 degree F in 100 years and I’ll concede your point. I may be wrong.