Global Warming? Poppycock! Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 10:20 am Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
The cited article should be another nail in the coffin of "Global Warming".
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 12, 2011 at 7:23 pm
"Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has."
Posted by CO2, a resident of the Leland Manor/Garland Drive neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 6:57 am
The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is the equivalent of 4 people out of 10,000 in a stadium. Of those 4 people, about one arm's worth is possibly contributed by humans.
The largest "greenhouse gas" is water vapor.
Plants need both water vapor AND CO2 to grow. CO2 is plant food. When it increases, we get more plants, thus more food for animals, more food for us. More survival.
If it decreases, fewer plants. Follow the bouncing ball.
Now, connect some dots.
Do you honestly believe, in light of reality, we have anything to do whatsoever with changing our climate through CO2? And, if we did...( which we don't), wouldn't it be great if we could INCREASE the amount of food for the world?
hmmmm...think I will start trying to help the planet and increase my CO2 production. Time for an SUV
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 2:53 pm
Hooking up these attacks, mostly from the right-wing, Republican, industry supporters or continuing "growth" the subtext of Global Warming being wrong is that we can continue and even escalate what we are doing to the environment in every aspect.
The tone of the attack against Global Warming is anti-thought, the gut reaction is supposed to be something like - we spen 10 years hearing and thinking about Global Warming, and there is enough doubt, and no coherent action to come out of it that we should just chalk it up to noise, and wacko greedy scientists who want grant money, forget about the greedy industrialists who are destroying the environment ... Deep Water Horizon, Fracking for natural gas, destroying pristine land and using up all the water in northern Canada for tar sand oil extraction, etc.
In short, the symbolism of Global Warming being wrong, with the twisted symbolism of America, ie. the Korean War cap and the gun in the background is supposed to convince us that to think is to waste time. The only thing missing, so far as I looked was invoking socialism,
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 13, 2011 at 8:48 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
Hey, Nony, pay attention.
The article I cited was not opinion, it was fact. Argue, if you must, with those facts.
I lived in and through the Dust Bowl. The Dust Bowl was a disaster because we lacked the capital to modify our farming methods to accommodate the change in rainfall. Several equally dry spells since then have had far less effect because we had the capital to adjust and the knowledge to guide that adjustment.
For a while I was responsible for reporting the temperature at Trona, California. I am aware of the variables that affect temperature measurements. I am aware of the Urban Heat Island Correction Factors, a publication that started my suspicion of the Global Warming thesis. Even one "correction" to a temperature renders it less useful to establishing any trend, and these corrections were multiple and subjective. Historic temperatures inferred from oxygen bubbles in ice are hardly gold, even if they are accurate, and my experience with lab data tend to make me suspicious.
You rave about greedy industrialists, and yet you can suggest no better method of accumulating capital that the capitalist system, since capitalism is self correcting. Even your rage against greed is hollow, since it reflects back on you and your unwillingness to allow others to accumulate the capital needed for major undertakings.
Just think, Nony. What if you are wrong, and all the money spent to avoid Global Warning has been wasted? What if we need to go a different direction? And we don't have enough money to take a different direction?
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2011 at 12:31 pm
"Wally", Nony, is has the same number of letters as Anon, but it shows the genuineness of your rhetoric that you feel you must do that. And you are doing the same thing with your spun "facts".
It is the relevance and interpretation of facts that is important here, not just throwing what you call facts out there and telling us what you think it means. Because no human being can say they know. Even if someone did know, there is no way to prove or convince everyone else other than emotional appeals to believe it.
Whatever is the case with the "straw version" of Global Warming you are opposing there is nothing to be gained by constantly insulting the environment and putting more and more substances and garbage in it.
Watching our environment slipping away is the unspoken plan of your "denial", here in the US and then by example everywhere else.
Posted by Poppycock indeed, a resident of the Charleston Gardens neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2011 at 12:34 pm
Hey, Wally Korea--pay attention:
"The article I cited was not opinion, it was fact. Argue, if you must, with those facts."
You forestall any arguments against the argument by saying it is all a "fact".
"Just think, Nony. What if you are wrong, and all the money spent to avoid Global Warning has been wasted? What if we need to go a different direction? And we don't have enough money to take a different direction?"
What if you are wrong?
BTW, why do you have the habit of not responding to people who disagree with you by their correct names? Is this part of the Walter Wallis way of dealing with those that disagree with you
Posted by Anon., a resident of the Crescent Park neighborhood, on Feb 14, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Second ... what you refer to as "fact" is the the Wall St. Journal OPINION page, and it is based on supercomputer calculations plugging in numbers from the past ... funny how you can accept numbers from the past and cast doubt on the metrics of the present.
Posted by Celsius, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2011 at 11:53 am
The linked WSJ editorial does not state that global warming does not exist. The editorial refers to a NOAA study indicating that extreme weather events have not increased since 1871, even though CO2 levels have increased. Glabal warming is no the same thing as an increase in extreme weather events. Global warming is pretty well established. The causation of global warming by CO2 increases is far less certain. Is it worth the cost of investig in redcuing CO2 emissions? Who knows? I thing the coming fresh water shortage is much bigger problem for the immediate future.
Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of the Midtown neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2011 at 2:07 pm Walter_E_Wallis is a member (registered user) of Palo Alto Online
You are right, Celsius. The Warmies themselves have changed from warming to change, and so my criticism stands.
As for the fresh water shortage, when 90% of our water is allowed to go to the sea undisturbed, it is a shortage of intent rather than of necessity. Just the Auburn and the Round Valley dams would put us way ahead of the curve. As nice as "native" fish are, farmed fish can successfully substitute.
Posted by not Wallis, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 15, 2011 at 5:30 pm
The article you cite is written by a member of the WSJ editorial staff. Not by a professional scientist. The article has not passed through the cauldron of peer review; it was published verbatim. The article contains so many faulty facts, and fractured reasoning, that it transcends journalism, and enters the realm of fantasy.
WSJ has one purpose: sell newspapers to its readers. The WSJ editorial staff has decided most of its readers are so stupid about scientific fundamentals, that fantasies such as this can be passed off as fact, and the readership will never question it.
Congratulations on fulfilling their expectations.
BTW, the reason I resort to ad hominem means, and outright calumny, is because I'm tired of trying to explain the truth to people like you. It's just not possible to have a rationale conversation on the issue.
So, most frankly of all: please stop the selfish and self-serving posting of drivel like this, which does nothing to advance the debate. Instead, try posting references to articles in the archival, refereed scientific literature. They would be much more helpful.
(And now for Walter's predictable response... wait for it...)
Posted by not Wallis, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2011 at 10:26 am
Again: the WSJ is not a scientific journal article. Every item in this piece is lifted verbatim, not from a journal article, but from an anti-whatever-you-want-to-call-it blog. Not exactly an unbiased source. Therefore, your reliance upon the WSJ as a source of 'fact' is like a house built on air.
Walter attacks the fundamental science of climate change. Please do not confound the matter, by adding the further confounding element of human causation. Furthermore: you also cite a magazine, not a refereed scientific journal, which picks and chooses from the handful of data supporting its pre-determined position ('Skeptic Magazine' says it all), and is not even a decent piece of journalism, insofar as it fails to provide even a smidge of balance. Not even Fox is that blatant.
I can give both of you plenty of hard-science references, pro and con. At the end of the day, however, you will only want to read the con papers. Because those are the only ones which support your own pre-determined position. Your minds are closed. And, you seek, not to open other minds, but to close them, too.
Which is why this whole thread is nothing but a selfish, time-wasting exercise, on the part of Mr. Wallis.
Posted by not Wallis, a resident of the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood, on Feb 16, 2011 at 10:35 am
I should add: the article you cite *does* get at some of the problems of anthropenic global warming/human causation. Modeling is at the heart of the problem of prediction, and why IMO IPCC is not on solid ground in its Summary for Policy Makers when it comes to projections of future climate change. The author is not unreasonable.
The article, however, is not balanced, which is poor journalism.
Mr. Wallis, however, is not attacking prediction of the future. He's attacking the basic science findings of the past. And a WSJ article, based on right-wing climate blogs, which limits its scope to the last 150 years or so, is simply completely off-base.