'Man-induced' emissions are a scientific fact
When I tell people I am a meteorology student, there are normally two questions they ask. The first is what the weather will be like for their picnic/football game/party on the weekend. The second is usually about climate change.
I realize that most of the people reading this column will have already formed their own opinions about climate change.
If you’ve done the research, read the articles, heard all the facts from unbiased sources and made up your own mind then I applaud you. However, as with many topics, there are a lot of vocal people out there expressing opinions about climate change (on both sides) that show a lack of understanding of the facts and issues.
Our own congressman, Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., is an infamous global warming skeptic. However, that’s not necessarily a bad thing. As intellectuals, it is important to question what we are told. It is through questioning that we learn. However, I have to take issue with Sen. Inhofe’s remark that “man-induced global warming is an article of religious faith.”
This seems to imply that climate scientists are following blind faith in their predictions. Contrary to Inhofe’s statement, man-induced global warming is not an article of religious faith. It is scientifically proven, and is as much of a fact as gravity or evolution.
There are thousands of world-renowned scientists working in this arena. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is comprised of hundreds of scientists from across the globe who work to assess, in an objective and transparent manner, up-to-date scientific literature relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change.
The IPCC itself does not perform the research, which enables the organization to be objective in its reviews. It has released four full reports, the latest of which came out in 2007. The reports’ authors jointly received the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize for their efforts.
The U.K. Met Office offers a handy guide to the key facts on climate change on its Web site. The first fact: “Climate change is happening and humans are contributing to it.” That’s pretty plain language to me. There is incontrovertible evidence of this warming, and those who try and deny it are simply ignoring the facts.
The fifth fact: “If we continue emitting greenhouse gases this warming will continue and delaying action will make the problem more difficult to fix.” Personally, I’d consider that a warning.
I’ve previously heard several people espouse the opinion that it would be nice for the global temperatures to be a bit higher.
However, as anyone who has spent any time in Oklahoma can attest, the atmosphere is a complicated beast. What some people do not seem to realize is that global temperature changes have other consequences aside from melting of the polar ice caps. Climate change could lead to substantial changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation across the world, putting stress on water availability in some areas already susceptible to drought and severely increasing precipitation totals in other areas.
It is also important to note that many people fail to recognize the difference between weather and climate. Weather describes atmospheric conditions over a short time, and climate is how the atmosphere behaves over relatively long periods of time. Failure to understand this key difference can lead to people presenting arguments such as “climate change can’t be real — it just snowed at the end of March!”
Almost as misinformed as those who deny that our climate is changing are those who present the “We’re all going to die” doomsday scenario of climate change, or those who blame extreme weather events such as hurricanes and tornadoes on climate change.
There have been several studies on the possible effects of climate change on the frequency and strength of hurricanes, producing a variety of results.
A March 2008 paper by Kerry Emanuel of MIT suggested that hurricane frequency and intensity will not increase dramatically over the next 200 years. The general consensus in the scientific community is that this is an area with large uncertainty that needs further investigation. Similarly, the fourth IPCC report stated, “There is insufficient evidence to determine whether trends exist in... small scale phenomena such as tornadoes, hail, lightning and dust storms.”
As college students, it is our duty to educate ourselves about climate change using reputable sources. I wholeheartedly encourage all of you to read the executive report of the IPCC summary, available at www.ipcc.ch. Read it, consider the facts, then make up your own mind.
As someone who has made an effort to learn about climate change, I believe that it is time for each of us to start taking personal responsibility for limiting or reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
I hope many of you, once armed with all of the facts, will reach the same conclusion. Perhaps one day, Oklahoma may even elect senators and other lawmakers who share this view. Until then, the onus is on each of us to educate ourselves and the wider community.
Charlotte Wainwright is a meteorology graduate student.
Science disregarded in favor of scare tactics
I am not a scientist, nor do I pretend to be an expert on climatology, and I certainly am not an authority when it comes to global warming. However, I did what most rational people do when faced with this situation: I did research on the topic from people and organizations that are experts.
The argument does not center on whether or not the Earth is warming, but whether humans are major contributors to global warming. In case you were blissfully unaware, the idea that global warming is “settled science” or that there is a unified scientific consensus that says anthropomorphic global warming is a dire threat is patently false. In fact, a large portion of the scientific community counters that human contributions to global warming are insignificant in the broader picture.
A major problem surrounding the global warming issue is that the science has been shoved aside in favor of sweeping scare tactics and propaganda. Take Al Gore’s documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth.” In the documentary, Gore uses the now infamous “hockey stick” graph promulgated by climatologist Michael Mann to show that global temperatures remained relatively steady for the last 2,000 years until the 1850s, when temperatures suddenly began to rise.
Gore declares, both in his book and in his movie, that this graph shows that anthropomorphic global warming is very real and that humans are to blame. However, other climatologists have refuted the “hockey stick” analogy by accusing Mann of falsifying data and ignoring long-term scientific approaches.
Key to this argument is the 1996 Woods Hole reconstruction of sea-surface temperature variance over the last 3,000 years, which suggests oscillating temperature variation. Examples show that sea surface temperatures have not been stable, but have in fact fluctuated by as much as 3 degrees Celsius.
Ice core samples taken in 2003 from Vostok, Antarctica, show oscillating temperatures over a much larger scale of 420,000 years.
The ice core samples indicate five distinct peaks and four valleys in Earth temperatures with variance of 10 degrees Celsius from peak to peak intervals of approximately 100,000 years, and that currently we are near a peak in the temperature cycle. Not once does Gore mention that the current temperature increases are in line with historic data – he merely asserts that humans are to blame.
Examples of both local warming and local cooling can be found on the same continent. Examples include melting ice and glacial calving in Antarctica as shown in “An Inconvenient Truth,” as well as the net increase in ice mass in Antarctica since 1970 to the tune of 43 million tons. The latter is not covered in the documentary, presumably because it weakens the argument.
One plausible explanation for global warming theorizes that solar irradiance is partly responsible for the shifts. The Naval Research Laboratory produced evidence in 2000 that variations in solar activity could possibly explain global warming. Data collected by atmospheric scientists conclude that solar variance is proportional to fluctuations in global mean temperatures.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an in-house arm of the United Nations, has declared that global temperatures have risen 0.6 degrees Celsius over the last century, and that humans — and more specifically their carbon dioxide output — are to blame.
The National Climatic Data Center reported in 2004 that the mean temperature of the Warth since 1880 was 13.9 degrees Celsius, with an error margin of 0.7 degrees Celsius. The increase reported by the IPCC falls well within this margin of error, and should serve as cause for alarmist skepticism.
Roger Pielke Sr., a retired climatologist from Colorado State University, former chief editor of The Journal of Atmospheric Sciences and an ardent believer in global warming, supports the position that the IPCC is overstating the effect humans have on global warming. He does not dispute that they are having an effect, just that human action is not leading to eventual Armageddon.
Pielke draws on temperature data gathered by the IPCC as well as other climatic institutions to suggest that 28 percent of recent warming is attributable to atmospheric carbon dioxide. The IPCC estimates that since 1880, there has been a 0.6 degree Celsius increase in mean global temperature, so the impact that carbon dioxide has had on that increase is about .17 of the total. Of this 17 percent, liberal estimates conclude that humans are directly responsible for about a quarter of that output. Conservative estimates are much less than that.
Pielke is a self-described believer in anthropogenic global warming, yet he concludes that increased carbon dioxide levels are nowhere near the cataclysmic planetary emergency levels, and man-made contributions to the levels of carbon dioxide are largely irrelevant.
It is shortsighted to declare anthropomorphic global warming as irrefutable fact without looking at long-term data on climate change. It is likely that humans contribute to global warming, but that the impact has been blown out of proportion. The real inconvenient truth is that fear mongering has replaced science in the global warming debate.
Joe Hunt is a history and economics senior.
The Oklahoma Daily is pleased to provide you the opportunity to share your thoughts about this article. We encourage lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask you refrain from using profanity or other offensive speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising, or straying from the topic at hand. To comment, you must be a registered user of OUDaily.com. Thanks for taking the time to offer your thoughts.
You must be logged in to leave a comment. Log in | Register
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
@JJanowiak:
The following is an incomplete list of scientists that are skeptical that human activities are contributing to global warming:
Reid Bryson, PhD, former Professor Emeritus of Climatology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Ian Clark, PhD, University of Ottawa
David Douglas, PhD, University of Rochester and Fellow of the American Physical Society
William Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus at the Colorado State University and Director of the Tropical Meteorology Project
Marcel Leroux, PhD, Universite Jean Moulin
Harrisson Schmidt, PhD, former NASA astronaut, Chair of the NASA Advisory Council, and professor of engineering physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Jan Veizer, PhD, University of Ottawa
Willie Soon, PhD in astrophysics, Astrophysicist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Richard Lindzen, PhD, MIT and Member of the National Academy of Science
Dr. Joanne Simpson, PhD, first woman to earn a PhD in meteorology and formerly of the NASA Goddard Flight Center [Recently referred to by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr as "among the most preeminent scientists of the last 100 years"]
All of the above listed inviduals are just a few of the long list of scientists who do not accept the mainstream veiw of anthropogenic climate change. They work in respectable, if not prestigious, universities and research institutions and are published authors in scientific journals.
Are these your "pundits and corporate mouthpieces"?
If you are going to make these kinds of absurd claims, could you please back them up with FACTS. Please share with us your facts that back up your claims.
I'm worried that MSNBC, CNN, and BBC have told you that there are no credible scientists who reject anthropogenic global warming, and you have just ran with it as truth. It is not true. It is absurdly, patently false.
The fact is that there are many legitimate scientists who do not accept that human activities are causing our climate to warm.
BTW, I don't mistrust computer models due to their lack of sophistication. Unfortunately, the computer simulations are built on the assumption that anthropogenic global warming is happening and then presented as evidence that it is. The logic is circular and flawed. Computer models are useful for discussing different scenarios. However, they always have to be built with a set of assumptions about reality. They are virtually useless for proving the existence and extent of natural processes because the assumptions that go into the models already accept the occurrence of the phenomena in question. Don't you see how that is circular logic? You will find in the Russian universities that there is much greater skepticism about anthropogenic global warming. That is because the Russians don't use computer simulations nearly as much as we do in the west and rely instead on empirical data from the geologic record and astrophysics.
resmith 3 years, 1 month ago
I find it ironic that Charlotte, who clearly should know more about weather and climate than Joe, cites no data or statistics. She has simply quoted climate change rhetoric from "experts," whereas Joe, the Economics major, took the decidedly more scientific route. He went out of his way to cite empirical evidence in order to inform the readers.
It appears that Joe is definitely more concerned with the truth of the matter than Charlotte.
OUSooners 3 years, 1 month ago
Good article. I've read into this subject quite a bit and one thing seems to be clear: the Green Movement tends to be little more than people capitalizing on our guilt for polluting the planet. People are just in it to profit for themselves.
How many times have you seen a polar bear floating on a lone ice cap? I'm sure the answer is several. People associated with the organization using a polar bear want you to think that we are killing them. But the polar bear population is increasing, and has been for several years. Companies only chose the polar bear as a symbol because they are cute and want us to feel so sorry that we hand them our money.
And have you ever read about the size of Al Gore's house and how he only installed solar panels after it was exposed that he used 17x more energy to power his home than the average American?
Global Warming may be a reality, but as human nature has shown time and time again, most of the Climate Prophets are really Climate Profiteers.
TAG 3 years, 1 month ago
Good article. We need those that are on both sides so that the climate change bill introduced this week will spear head new investments for a clean future and provide a safety net to those in the middle and lower class. I feel well educated on the issue as well and the fact that 6.5 billion people can't effect the ozone, we did. 6.5 billion people effected acid rain as well. Can 6.5 billion people alter the climate of this planet. I will leave that up to you. As a Christian I feel that it is my duty to protect what has been given to us. I am no alarmist and I don't think climate change will be "the end of the world," but it is a serious matter that we have to take into consideration in everything we do and all the policies we make. America might finally catch up with Europe in being brilliant again or we will fall to the continued leadership of the fossil fuel industry and watch the summer of 2008 happen all over again. I think America understands that we can't continue the way we are and that changes are needed. I hope for collaboration among Americans and politicians to work together to make the right choices that have the fewest impacts on us while taking great leaps on human innovation and smart technologies of the future.
dargus 3 years, 1 month ago
Dio, I don't think Mr. Hunt is a Fox News/conservative media zombie. His articles always take a libertarian view, no surprise he is head of the libertarian club, and that often intersects with what those in the conservative media support. Unfortunately, in general, the conservative media seems to only take a libertarian view when it is ideologically convenient for them (i.e. economic and Christian freedom). I wouldn't mind living in the country Mr. Hunt envisions, but the real problem is it is a vastly different one than the one we live in now, and considering the political and social climates his views don't sound very pragmatic. If we actually took up Mr. Hunt's agenda, we'd probably end up with much less social freedom due to the alliances that would have to be formed to accomplish it. With only two choices in this country, you get either social or economic freedom. If you want both, you have to talk to Dr. Paul.
nabeckw 3 years, 1 month ago
The only thing I have to say is: leave the country. Almost every other country in the world overwhelming accepts the science behind it. In the US, however, we have President Bush cutting NASA's funding for the weather satellite program aimed at gauging global climate change. It's all political, and that's the most depressing aspect of all.
Fox News is no place to have a discussion about global warming. Reading the data for one's self is. TV owns most American's worldview, and I think that's why people in the US are so ignorant about the issue.
And by the way, most people I've come across are extremely ignorant about global warming. I wonder if the people on here are spouting talking points, or if they've read it themselves.
JJanowiak 3 years, 1 month ago
Again, a glowing endorsement of anti-science and cherry-picking of "facts" by the Daily's conservative staff in opposition to scientific consensus. You're really pulling a fast one on them, aren't you!
libertarian 3 years, 1 month ago
Excellent job again Joe. However, "anthropogenic" and "anthropomorphic" are in fact very different. I think most normal people can overlook the slip-up because your article clearly demonstrates that you did real research in an effort to write a column that seems wildly outside your normal scope.
As far as those who think Mr. Hunt has an agenda to promote, I would direct you to his past columns. It is plainly evident from reading them that he is not promoting any established agenda, but rather that he truly marches to the beat of his own drummer.
I said it last week and I'll say it again: It is very refreshing to read a column written by a person who actually cares enough to do appropriate research. Kudos.
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
I am not going to argue for or against anthropogenic global warming. There is no way to address all the complexitites on this forum.
The point I want to make is that, as a scientist, I must protest when anyone - especially politicians - declare the debate to be closed. That is completely inappropriate and extremely dangerous. We must not allow science to be hijacked and used to pursue an ideological agenda. Anytime a politician or bureaucrat tells you that the time for scientific debate and discussion are over, warning lights should start flashing in your mind.
Global warming is an extremely complex issue. It is true that the negative impacts from failing to act could be profound. However, let us be honest and balanced. The negative impacts from taking unnecessary actions that could cost trillions in a short period of time are equally profound. As such, every voice - including the voices of skepticism and dissent - must be heard.
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
@JJanowiak:
Can you please provide an example of where Mr. Hunt is "cherry-picking" facts?
I'm not suggesting that your assessment is incorrect. I'm just wondering if you could provide some facts to counter Mr. Hunt (or if you are just going to rely on ad hominem to make your point). If you can't, your comment is just a hollow, knee-jerk accusation.
I must also ask the question, where would science be today if nobody stood up to concensus? By its very nature, concensus has generally been a drag on the development of knowledge and the promulgation of new ideas. Can't you understand that science would never advance if sceintists had to constantly stop and run through a checklist to make sure that they were staying within the boundaries set by concensus? Science is advanced by the destruction of concensus, not in its affirmation.
dave_shrugged 3 years, 1 month ago
Wow. Do you ever wonder how the Daily gets these people to write what they know will be an unpopular point on a topic? My guess would be that they ask them to.
I am amused how every article that Joe Hunt writes turns into "that crazy, right-wing, nutjob is at it again" fest.
I, personally, respect those who can play "devil's advocate" for any topic in order to get people to think about the issue.
Nice writing by both authors.
RogerG 3 years, 1 month ago
Libertarians are rare and most posturing as libertarians are really disenchanted conservatives. They love the government in the bedroom to legislate who can have choice or not or who can sleep with home but claim to be for LESS government and LESS intrusion. When will they have principles like Ron Paul really? Ron Paul opposed the war period. Does this guy? did this guy speak out again non-discretionary spending under Bush which was the biggest increase in govt spending since LBJ? Was he on record on this?
RogerG 3 years, 1 month ago
I found this from a Libertarian candidate's positions on issues. "the only moral solution is free trade and open immigration - that is, open borders, entailing an abolition of the INS, Border Patrol, and U.S. Customs"
No self respecting nation has open borders period. we are great because of immigration, but t o allow unfettered immigration means we risk losing our identity. Libertarians say they want that?
conscientizacao 3 years, 1 month ago
Thank you Joe Hunt for assuring us that we should not expect any "anthropomorphic" climate change! I'm so happy to hear that the world's hurricanes won't start looking like people and our glaciers won't be angry with us for causing them to melt.
Now if only the Daily could have a debate about anthropogenic climate change...
Kudos to the Daily editors as well for these pearls of wisdom.
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
@JJanowiak:
Just to be clear, I am not defending the premise of Hunt's commentary.
I lean slightly toward skepticism at this time, mainly due to the many pitfalls involved with computer simulations of complex natural systems. However, I am not taking a firm position on anthropogenic global warming.
My argument is against the politicization of science and placing too much emphasis on concensus.
I am worried that certain elements are manipulating fear of environmental calamity to force the American people to accept a greater level of government control and taxation that they otherwise would never be willing to consider. The Left was highly critical of Bush and Cheney for using fear of terrorism to push their agenda. I agree with that criticism while also criticizing the Left for using environmental fear to push an agenda.
I hope that our President listens to both sides of this debate and arrives at decisions that are more cool-headed and balanced than the direction that Al Gore et al are pushing us. Unfortunately, his comments that the time for debate is over are not encouraging. In fact, the idea that our President would declare that we are not to debate, question, and challenge one of the most profoundly important scientific questions of our time is extremely disheartening.
I hope that scientists will continue to debate, question, and challenge the concensus view.
JJanowiak 3 years, 1 month ago
dwalker2006: Well, just going off wikipedia, there is significantly more controversy about Hunt's point about solar irradiance than he suggests. It's even described as "generally considered unlikely" - you can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_va... . I don't really have the scientific chops to interpret the 2003 Vostok cores (neither does Hunt), but I'm suspicious of his claim about projections based on a 420,000 year model extracted from a tiny. That said, I also didn't find any info from a credible source based on a google search that the cores undermine the mainstream consensus on global warming.
It's just, here's what it do: I'm all for a more cool-headed appraisal of global warming, but something in Hunt's tone (and a lot of conservative critics) sounds totally loaded. I'm probably as alienated as you are at the kind of Gore-ish alarmism echoed by OUr Earth, but come on, don't you ever get the feeling that there's more going on? They would never admit it, but I suspect a lot of conservatives exploit the obvious target of Gore and other political figures to drive a wedge in the public's perception of the scientific debate on global warming when the scientific discussion is more nuanced than both they and Gore understand.
And anyway, Obama has said that he's going to return science to it's rightful place, and this presumably entails him giving a more robust ear to scientific advisers who properly understand what's going on, Gore not among them.
Bottom line: I think Hunt uses Gore as an easy target, but the tone of his piece leaves me with the vibe that he doesn't really think human-exacerbated global warming is occurring despite his overtures. You can feel free to disagree, but I see some major agenda.
JJanowiak 3 years, 1 month ago
Well, I guess the broader question is this: doesn't anyone else get the "I have a not-so-subtly-hidden agenda behind the seemingly reasonable articles I write" vibe from Joe Hunt's articles? I mean, he isn't nearly as bad as Matt "Bimonthly Assault on Journalism" Felty but there are some, ahem, tone issues going on in his pieces.
JJanowiak 3 years, 1 month ago
dwalker: No, but if you want me to draw up a list of scientists who support anthropogenic global warming, you can guess whose list is going to be longer. I think you know exactly the kind of people I'm talking about, though.
This is probably something you'll disagree with, but I think laypeople should, as a rule, defer to mainstream science when weighing their views. For you to put up this list and present it as anything other than a small minority of scientists is disingenuous, as is your suggestion that there's some kind of media conspiracy going on. Of course there are credible scientists that disagree with global warming and I hope they keep doing their work, but I'll stick with the majority.
dargus 3 years, 1 month ago
"to allow unfettered immigration means we risk losing our identity. Libertarians say they want that?"
"I found this from a Libertarian candidate's positions on issues."
RogerG, your claim is a bit flawed. Finding one libertarian who claims an open border is a good idea, does not mean all libertarians believe that. If your level of evidence for an entire group's beliefs is the opinion of one member of that group, then most large groups believe crazy things.
JJanowiak 3 years, 1 month ago
dwalker: Then we basically agree. It's just that I see the real debate revolving about the political answers to global warming rather than challenging the idea that humans aren't contributing to some degree to climate change. In fact, I don't really see how it's possible to not believe that all the tons of CO2 and other gases that we pump into the atmosphere have SOME kind of negative impact on the planet; even in the worse case hypothetical, i.e. scientific consensus is completely wrong and humans have no impact on the climate, shouldn't we try to limit emissions because they're bad anyway?
So what if the computer models are off? If anthropogenic climate change isn't as progressing as swiftly as computer models claim, shouldn't we see this as an opportunity to head off the eventual "crisis" that will surely come?
I think Obama is right to say that the public understanding of the climate change debate is over - most scientists are arguing about specifics and I doubt you'll find many credible ones that reject the idea of anthropogenic climate change, just pundits and corporate mouthpieces.
As for the whole scientific consensus thing, it should be taken on a case-by-case basis. There's obviously a scientific consensus that the theory of evolution is correct; when somebody says they challenge that consensus, everyone immediately and correctly assumes that person is a creationist. Theoretical physics and predicting Oklahoma weather, not so much. I admit that anthropogenic climate change is one of those issues on the cusp of what should be considered "settled" - we may be wrong about intensity of it but surely not about its existence - but Obama's science advisers should listen carefully to the scientific dialogue about its particulars.
Honestly, I think Gore has had a useful and important role in the public awareness of climate change, but the doomsday vibe he gives off and the fact that Republicans just don't like him limits his effectiveness as an advocate for popular science. It would be nice if someone else would step up to the plate, but you know that people will always moan and complain about popular science.
TAG 3 years, 1 month ago
Interesting comments y'all. This shows a great understanding into the difference of views which is great to see. Unfortunately science will always be skewed due to policy makers, but thats why nothing gets done in Washington in the first place on any issue. Climate change and policy will always be integrated I think, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. We are about to see a power shift in America and a reinventing of our cities. Some of the emerging ideas to create green spaces in L.A. to decrease culture barriers and social classes and to promote economic growth are only one of many ideas that New Orleans, Buffalo, Chicago, New York, Greensburg, OKC/Norman/Edmond, Phoenix, Denver, Seattle, and Raleigh are brewing up to make their cities more sustainable. As they continue to make the little steps it will be interesting to see how it all develops. Placing the arguments aside about climate change, and seeing these cities place investments in such projects to create a better city is amazing. I am excited to see where all these new things go. I know no one will get along in this process, but thats okay. God Bless
RogerG 3 years, 1 month ago
Wow an experts panel. Isn't this the same Economics major who shouted about Obama's budget and expenditure after being deaf dumb and mute for 8 years with unparalleled non-defence related discretionary spending, false wars costing over a trillion dollars now giving his expert opinion on global climate change? 95% of world's scientists including those of christian faith have agreed on human impact; They may not agree on solutions but at least we cannot say 95% of world's brains are some liberal atheists. While the article was very good, the Conservative in my opinion has zero credibility because he never expressed any balanced opinions in the past on Bush, his trillion dollars per year deficit, his trillion dollar war and the abysmal record in Afghanistan. OF course we live in state where probably more people think the earth was made 6000 years ago and it is flat and that burning people who disagreed with the bible was ok.
RogerG 3 years, 1 month ago
Joe Hunt should do detailed study of Ronald Reagan arming and training Terrorists in Afghanistan and study HISTORY of conflict better and than becoming the Phil Gramm of OU. PEerhaps his conservative colleagues are clueless about how Reagan called Usama and his tribe freedom fighters and gave them billions of our tax dollars? History? how about history of the Vietnam war? Agent Orange, rape and mylai? or Ok history? I enjoy his readings but he should try to enlighten himself on history first.
JohnThinkwright 3 years, 1 month ago
Warning. Do not seal dry ice into a regular glass jar. It can pressurize to, maybe, 50 psi. Then it can rupture and cause injury. Plastic soda bottle is OK. Glass soda bottle, if designed for pressure use, is OK, but not as safe as plastic. Most plastic bottles are made of PET (polyethylene terephthalate). They, PET bottles, are very strong, and if they do rupture, it will occur lengthwise via a split side, and no sharp fragments will be released
dio 3 years, 1 month ago
@Joe "(...) the net increase in ice mass in Antarctica since 1970 to the tune of 43 million tons". Sources? Is it during the Summer, the Winter or all year round? By the way, IPCC's data is now five years old. UN's Bonn Climate Change Talks (29 March-08 April 2009) with the most up-to-date data actually confirms that the current trend is worse than the worst scenario of IPCC in 2005.
It is a good thing you cite some figures, Joe, but you got them wrong. Global temperatures have increased by 0.75 °C (1.35 °F) relative to the period 1860–1900, and all climate models unambiguously indicate that the warming since 1975 is dominated by man-made greenhouse gas emissions. (Wikipedia and http://unfccc.int/2860.php)
JJanowiak is right, you are cheery-picking your data from outdated sources and one single guy with nuanced opinions. Good job, Joe, bad faith as usual... Awww, and anthropo... "morphic" climate change? I must say it really ruins what was left of your credibility. You should write some more about Biden being a racist like last time...
@OUSooners "But the polar bear population is increasing, and has been for several years." Riiiiiiiiiight. From the US Fish & Wildlife Service: "World wide, polar bear populations remain relatively stable." (http://alaska.fws.gov/fisheries/mmm/polarbear/pbmain.htm)
libertarian 3 years, 1 month ago
RogerG:
You sound clueless, possibly even ignorant. It's easy to tell the guy is a libertarian. How? Well the first clue would be to follow my previous advice and read his past columns. If that's too difficult for you, Student Life lists him as the President of OU Libertarians...seems like you would be well served to actually know some facts before insulting a man.
dio 3 years, 1 month ago
@libertarian "As far as those who think Mr. Hunt has an agenda to promote, I would direct you to his past columns. It is plainly evident from reading them that he is not promoting any established agenda, but rather that he truly marches to the beat of his own drummer."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! That is certainly a drummer emblazoned with the Fixed News logo. I DID read his past columns...
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
@JJanowiak:
"No, but if you want me to draw up a list of scientists who support anthropogenic global warming, you can guess whose list is going to be longer."
Who cares which list is longer? It couldn't be more irrelevant. Science is not democratic. My whole point is that concensus is not necessarily a good thing, or even desireable, in science.
Alfred Wegener was a geologist who lived from 1880-1930. During his career, he proposed the theory of plate tectonics and continental drift. Wegener's ideas were attacked by the concensus of his day which regarded his theories as trash. Virtually the entire geologic community rejected his ideas. He was persecuted and ostracized to the point that he even contemplated suicide. People in his profession treated him like a 'flat-earther', well outside the mainstream. Today, his theory of plate tectonics is a standard part of the curriculum in any undergrad geology course. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after Wegener's death that the concensus was soundly defeated. All those scientists were completely wrong, and one man, Alfred Wegner, was right. Concensus in politics is great; concensus in science is virtually worthless.
The above situation is not an aberration in the history of science. It is those people on the outside of the 'mainstream' that often make the greatest contributions to science.
"For you to put up this list and present it as anything other than a small minority of scientists is disingenuous"
I never indicated that skeptics are the majority. You are putting words in my mouth. However, I ardently maintain my position that skeptics are not the tiny minority that the mainstream media and many liberal political elites have made them out to be. It is the argument that "climate skeptics" are a tiny minority of people outside the mainstream of climate science that is in fact highly dishonest.
Furthermore, I have never suggested that there is a media conspiracy. However, we all know that the media feeds on public fear, often blowing things grossly out of all sane proportion in order to sell stories. We saw this after 9/11 and in the subsequent run-up to the Iraq War.
I am going to go out on a limb and make a prediction. In the next few years, we are not going to see the warming predicted by the computer models. I think you are going to see many more climatologists realize that it is perhaps unwise to rely so heavily on computer simulations. I suspect we're going to start seeing some 'jumping ship' in the climatological community.
I hope that the politicians can take a cue.
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
Are we talking about Libertarians as a general political group or the Liberatarian Party? I have found that there is a distinction.
The official platform of the Libertarian Party is 100% open borders with no controls of any kind. The party argues that people have a fundamental liberty to move around without restriction. You can find the platform on their website.
I would agree with the previous post that many Libertarians are actually disenchanted conservatives looking for a different home than the GOP. This is just a personal observation based on interactions with many people that I have met that call themselves Libertarians. Many of them don't understand libertarianism at all.
dio 3 years, 1 month ago
I do not think the political affiliation of Mr. Hunt matters in the end. He can re-brand himself whatever he wants, he is still basically singing the same song as the right wing. After reading his libertarian columns for a while, you can definitely find out that his opinions are on the same tune with the conservatives. If you disagree with this statement, then please read what he wrote during the presidential campaign.
In any case, what matters the most is not his political agenda (after all we all expect him to be that way) but the general hypocrisy and bad faith that characterizes his columns. After following elections in over ten countries, I have to say that this behavior is typical of any politician (left or right). If he ever runs for politics, I predict that he will have a fantastic success. Good luck, Mr. Hunt.
JohnThinkwright 3 years, 1 month ago
It was Karl R. Popper who gave the world the definition of Science and Scientific Statements. His book 'The Logic of Scientific Discovery,' is largely devoted to defining what science is, and what it is not. The following statement: The earth is presently undergoing an open-ended warming trend, is not a scientific statement. Why?, you ask. Well, Popper said that a 'scientific statement' had to be falsifiable, i.e., It has to be amenable to checking. The above statement,The earth is presently undergoing an open-ended warming trend, is not amenable to checking. It cannot be proved or disproved; therefore, it is not on solid scientific ground.----JWThinkwright. Please Google 'Bye-Bye Sweet Liberty,'then click on 'book' and read Chapter 17. Environmentalism.
thedude 3 years, 1 month ago
Joe Hunt, you know...Arguing that mankind isn't causing a warming trend in our climate is kind of like having sex with yourself...sure it probably feels good but you're certainly not going to scoring any points. But Joe you totally look like the kind of guy that thinks these things and thats great b/c I'm totally the kind of guy that takes amusement and laughs at how dumb people like you can be.
OK, life changing moment for you...People(humans, just incase you got confused) create carbon dioxide, through generating and using energy and breathing. Here's the cool part. Forget completely that we generate and use energy, we just breath, still creating carbon dioxide. Ok now, what I want you to do is go purchase some dry ice from wal-mart and put a small chunck in an air tight jar, insert a thermometer and tighten the lid. Take a separate jar and simply insert the thermometer and tighten the lid. What I want you to do is put both of these jars in a window seal that gets regular sun light. What I want you to notice is that the jar with CO2 will have a higher temp after the same exposure to the sun. more CO2 = higher temps So, just the fact that an animal of our size existing in the numbers that we do and that our pop. is constantly increasing, creates a pretty significant increase in CO2 just through natural causes(7billion people). Now lets think about this. We produce more CO2 in one year through energy production/consumption than every living organism on the planet has produced over the last 10 years(maybe more). The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level observed over the past 220,000 years. We are releasing massive amounts of CO2 that have been stored in the form of fossil fuels for millions of years. Think about it!!!! Not to discredit any of the scientists listed who are critics of global warming but..oh wtf am I saying of course I'm discrediting them, what are they thinking!? What does gravity cause me to fall up stairs now?
dwalker2006 3 years, 1 month ago
Thanks, but when it comes to a comprehensive understanding of the global carbon cycle and its impact on climate, I'll stick with someone who is the first female meteorology professor, a NASA scientist, and one of the most prominent climate scientists of recent generations over "thedude". No offense.
The two jars paradigm is cute but infantile. To say it is overly simplistic is like saying Mr. Hunt leans to the Right. There is more to global climate than the presence of carbon dioxide. There are processes that operate in the global climate system that aren't present in the two jars.
Google: Pacific heat vent