Difference between revisions of "Global warming denialism"

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Reverted edits by Global Warming is a stupid myth created by Nazis to destroy freedom ([[User talk:Global Warming is a stupid myth created by Nazis to destroy fr)
(rewrite in progress)
Line 1: Line 1:
'''Global warming''' is the atmospheric consequence of the [[greenhouse effect]] resulting in the increase in the average temperature of the [[Earth]]. This atmospheric warming is vital to all life on earth; without it the planet would be as cold as the moon.
+
{{WiP}}
 +
Global warming is a liberal myth, and is due at least in part to liberals attempting to learn how to program computers.
  
The greenhouse effect interacts with other planet-wide influences such as the Milankovitch cycles in order to produce long term climate movements.  Many gases contribute to the greenhouse effect, some of the most important being water vapor, methane and carbon dioxide.
+
For example, Steve McIntyre deduced, and NASA later admitted, that NASA programmers had a Y2K bug in their source code.<ref>[http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html 1998 is no longer the hottest year]</ref>
The greenhouse effect theory is supported worldwide by many climatologists and scientists in general.
 
  
== Anthropogenic Climate Change ==
+
Steven McIntrye deserves rational wiki cudos for:
 +
:#Proving how the Mann "hockey stick" used in all Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was based on unsupportable data and methods.
 +
:#Proving how yearly temperature anomalies for the USA are based on data that had been processed incorrectly.
  
  
The phrase “global warming” is also used to refer to the rapid rise in temperatures the planet has experienced since the start of the Industrial Revolution. 
+
== See Also ==
 
 
In its simplest form, the argument for anthropogenic climate change goes as follows.
 
 
 
# The Earth's atmosphere keeps the planet much warmer than it would be without an atmosphere.<ref>http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/greenhouse_effect/01.html</ref>
 
# The main gases which contribute to this are carbon dioxide, methane and water vapor.<ref>http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html</ref>
 
# The ability of these gases to act as greenhouse gases can be shown in a laboratory.<ref>http://www.enviroliteracy.org/pdf/labge1.pdf</ref>
 
# The quantity of these greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased sharply since the Industrial Revolution, and their concentration continues to increase.<ref>http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html</ref>
 
# The concentration of these gases has increased as a consequence of human activity.<ref>http://www.eoearth.org/article/Global_warming</ref>
 
# The temperature of Earth's atmosphere has been increasing and continues to increase.<ref>http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf</ref> 
 
# The increase in global temperature correlates with the increases of greenhouse gases.<ref>http://www.desmogblog.com/nrc-exonerates-hockey-stick-graph-ending-mann-hunt-by-two-canadian-skeptics</ref><ref>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=7</ref><br /><br />Up to this point virtually all scientists are in agreement - including global warming skeptics who understand the science and the data<ref>http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2005-06-12-global-warming-cover_x.htm</ref>.  Consequently the skeptics need to somehow attack the final leg of the argument:<br /><br />
 
# As humanity has been increasing the quantity of global warming gases in the atmosphere, and as the temperature of the atmosphere has increased in line with these gases, then human activity is responsible for global warming.<ref>http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/</ref><ref>http://www.environmentaldefense.org/page.cfm?tagID=1011</ref>
 
 
 
The logical consequence of this blindingly obvious conclusion is that we should reduce the quantity of greenhouse gases which we pump into the atmosphere so as to reduce global warming.
 
 
 
== What's so bad about global warming? ==
 
''Main article [[Effects of global warming]]''
 
Global warming is "bad" for a number of reasons.
 
 
 
*'''A rise in sea level.''' Global warming will cause a sea level rise of  9 - 88 cm (3.5 – 34.6 inches).  This small rise would cause significant disruption to coastal communities.  If the whole Greenland ice sheet melted this would lead to a global rise of 7 m (23 ft).
 
*'''More active weather systems.''' More energy in the atmosphere will lead to more active weather systems, with more frequent and more violent storms.
 
*'''Disturbed rainfall patterns.''' Rainfall patterns will be significantly disrupted, with floods in some places and droughts in others.
 
*'''Acidification of the oceans.''' The ocean has a limited capacity to dissolve carbon dioxide before it ceases to absorb any more, thus leading to further warming.  This would also cause great damage to fish stocks. 
 
*'''Tipping points/feedback loops.''' There are many possible tipping points and feedback loops. For instance, if global warming causes the northern permafrost to melt this will release vast amounts of methane, which would make the problem much worse.
 
*'''Spread of tropical diseases.''' As northern latitudes become warmer, previously rare tropical diseases will gain a foothold there.
 
*'''Disruption of ocean currents.''' The disruption of ocean currents could shut down the Gulf Steam with unpredictable consequences.
 
*'''Habitat loss or change faster than animals can adapt.''' Temperature zones will move north and south (depending on the hemisphere) too quickly for animals to follow or adapt to new habitats.  The loss of polar habitats will leave animals such as polar bears with no place to go. 
 
*'''Loss of mountain glaciers exacerbating summer droughts.''' Mountain glaciers act as natural reservoirs, releasing water which falls as snow in the winter during the summer. The loss of these glaciers will lead to floods in winter and droughts in the summer.
 
 
 
== Entrenched Interests and Global Warming Deniers ==
 
There are many entrenched interests - such as oil companies and oil producing nations - who would stand to lose a lot of money if action were taken to reduce the amount of carbon dioxide dumped into the atmosphere, as this would imply a reduction in the use of fossil fuels such as oil.  Consequently, they have spent a vast amount of money<ref>http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?ContentID=4870</ref> in an effort to discredit the science behind man-made global warming, and encourage global warming [[denialism]] <ref>http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2007/10/al_gore_and_the_attack_of_the.php</ref>.  ExxonMobil has been one of the prime movers and a recent Greenpeace report stated:
 
 
 
"ExxonMobil’s campaign to fund “think tanks” and organizations that spread misinformation about the science and policies of global warming is now widely known. The company’s multimillion dollar campaign has undoubtedly contributed to public confusion and government inaction on global warming over the past decade." <ref>http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/assets/binaries/exxon-secrets-analysis-of-fun</ref>
 
 
 
Greenpeace is still monitoring ExxonMobil's attempts to distort public opinion in this area as can be seen in their website [http://www.exxonsecrets.org exxonsecrets] dedicated to exposing the company's nefarious activities.
 
 
 
The disinformation campaign is similar to that embarked on by the tobacco companies who wished to persuade people that cigarettes were healthy<ref>http://www.grist.org/comments/soapbox/2004/02/03/smoke/</ref>, and the campaigns carried out by the oil companies when they wished to continue adding lead to petrol.
 
 
 
As a result of the actions of Exxon and others, many wacky [[Global warming conspiracy theory|global warming conspiracy theories]] have been invented. These [[conspiracy theory|conspiracy theories]] vary from the weird to the humorous.
 
 
 
== Hierarchy of Global Warming Denier Rationalizations. ==
 
 
Global warming deniers and the associated vested interest groups have found it necessary to defend and abandon the following series of ideas as scientific information has become more compelling. Depending on their depth of understanding of the subject, deniers may be at any of the following stages:
 
 
 
# Global warming isn’t happening<ref>http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015</ref> - so we don’t have to do anything.
 
# Global warming is happening, but it’s not caused by humanity - so we don’t have to do anything.
 
# Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, but it may be a good thing<ref>http://www.conspiracycafe.net/board_forum/index.php?s=68cae45fdb0e14f9d98976f8c7ffc0eb&showtopic=281&pid=74002&st=228&#entry74002</ref> - so we don’t have to do anything.
 
# Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but China isn’t doing anything - so we don’t have to do anything.
 
# Global warming is happening, it is caused by humanity, it is a bad thing, but even if China does something it’s too late for us to do anything and it would cost us money - so we don’t have to do anything.
 
# (There is an hypothesized sixth step, "Global warming was happening, it was caused by humanity, it is a very bad thing and previous governments should have done something.")
 
 
 
When debating global warming skeptics, it is wise to establish beforehand where they are on the above rationalizing scale - otherwise you can waste a lot of time proving the wrong point.  It may be similar to arguing with someone you think is a [[Young earth creationism|YEC]], only to find out that he holds some other idea such as [[Old Earth Creationism|OEC]].
 
 
 
The Global warming skeptics have, however, raised a number of more scientific arguments which are mentioned below.
 
 
 
==Claims by global warming denialists==
 
 
 
=== NASA and the Y2K bug ===
 
Steve McIntyre deduced, and NASA recently admitted, that NASA programmers had a Y2K bug in their source code that processes temperature data. This bug introduced a 0.02 percent change in the temperature data that has been corrected. Before this correction 1998 was the listed as the hottest year recorded but this difference was statistically non-significant with the second place year 1934. With the correction 1934 becomes the hottest year but it is still statistically non-significant. 1934 was a period of intense drought in the United States, as it was during the Dust Bowl years in the Great Depression. The change does not effect the ''global'' temperature only the United States.
 
 
 
The old temperature series data for the U.S. was as follows:
 
 
 
<center>[[Image:Gissusold.png]]</center>
 
 
 
With the correction it changes to:
 
 
 
<center>[[Image:Gissusnew.png]]</center>
 
 
 
 
 
Denialists jumped on the bandwagon in regards to this shift making many grandiose claims that it invalidates all of the data that proves this has been the hottest decade in recorded history. This is not the case, it makes a minor change that does not change the decade averages or the global averages. It takes one year during an intense drought in the United States and moves it up non-significantly.
 
===Glacier retreat calculations===
 
Scientists have found DNA from ancient animals in an ice layer of Greenland, 1.2 miles beneath the surface.<ref>"[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5834/111 Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland]"</ref>  Since this study indicates that the ice layer survived the last interglacial, it has led to speculation that the ice caps may be able to also withstand global warming.  <ref name="boston">[http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/07/06/greenland_ice_yields_hope_on_climate/ Greenland ice yields hope on climate]</ref> However, the main author of the study dismissed suggestions that his team's data indicated that sea levels would not rise to predicated levels, saying that "during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by 5-6m, but this must have come from other sources additional to the Greenland ice cap, such as Antarctic ice. I would anticipate that as the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels."<ref>[http://www.nerc.ac.uk/press/releases/2007/25-greenland.asp Greenland's ancient forests shed light on stability of ice sheet]</ref> Another scientist pointed out that it may not be reasonable to extrapolate the study's results to our current situation, because the temperature changes in previous interglacials occurred at a much slower pace.<ref name="boston" /> Coincidentally, this article provides evidence that the world is at least 120,000 years old, which flies in the face of creationists who claim the earth is 6000 years old.
 
 
 
===Nature generates more CO<sub>2</sub> than man===
 
 
 
It is true that natural sources of CO<sub>2</sub> release represent a much higher percentage of CO<sub>2</sub> output, natural carbon "sinks" that take up that CO<sub>2</sub> balance it out. The amount of CO<sub>2</sub>in the atmosphere has been relatively constant for hundreds of thousands of years due to output and input being equal. What man is doing is burning and releasing sources of CO<sub>2</sub> without adding additional carbon sinks. We are actually removing carbon sinks. This means the net amount of CO<sub>2</sub> is increasing over time due to our involvement even though our total output is less than natural sources.
 
 
 
One of the interesting things is that the natural outputs of CO<sub>2</sub> and the man made outputs are chemically different. Fossil fuel burning outputs CO<sub>2</sub> that has more C14 and C13 than does natural sources. Using tree ring dating it can be shown that C14 containing CO<sub>2</sub> has been responsible for most of the CO<sub>2</sub> increase up until the 1940s when the atomic bomb negated our ability to use that test. But C13 testing confirmed the C14 testing and showed that fossil fuel burning is the number one contributor to the increase in the CO<sub>2</sub> amount in the atmosphere.
 
 
 
Clearly it is human caused burning of fossil fuels responsible.
 
 
 
===CO<sub>2</sub> levels lag behind temperature increases===
 
 
 
There have been several major changes in the earth's climate over its 4.5 billion year history. These have includes spectacular effects such as the [[wp:snowball earth |snowball earth]] and have also included periods of intense global warming. These periods of warming and cooling all have a range of causes mostly involving positive feed back loops, such as ice reflecting the sun back to space causing more ice, reflecting more sun. The warming had similar positive feed back loops, initially it could be caused by one of many factors but eventually the warming increased the levels of CO<sub>2</sub> which then caused even more warming. The fact that CO<sub>2</sub> level increases have not been responsible for the start of a 100 percent of all global warming events on the planet does not negate the fact that CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere does cause warming.
 
 
 
===It has been hotter in the past so it is just cyclical===
 
While it is true that there have been cyclical patterns of temperature changes through out our planet's history, this does not mean that causes are unknown, unknowable, or all the same. [[Science]] and the application of the [[scientific method]] is a great method for working out cause/effect relationships. Scientists have managed to link several warming and cooling cycles in the geologic history to specific causes. They have also shown that the modern warming is due to an increase in the levels of CO<sub>2</sub> and other greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, which is itself caused by the added output of humans burning fossil fuels and destroying carbon sinks.
 
 
 
The existance of previous warming cycles does not negate the seriousness of the current one. These previous cycles destroyed a great deal of life on the planet, and if similar effects occurred today they would probably destroy all of human civilization, along with the humanity that created it. This does mean that the earth itself will survive, but that no denialist would be around to gloat.
 
 
 
===Global warming has more to do with the sun than the earth===
 
 
 
Changes in the sun have not been shown to provide a significant change to the earth's climate. There has not been any significant change in the total energy output of the sun since we have started measuring it, and no changes in the sun or sun phenomenon correlate with increased temperatures. One thing that can change is small perturbations in the orbit of the earth that draw the planet closer or further from the sun. These perturbations might be linked to the ''start'' of several of the major climate changes in the geologic history of the earth. However, the actual change in temperature due to these orbital changes is small and the large scale changes are due to feed back loops localized to earth pushing things in one direction or another.
 
 
 
There is no evidence that such an orbital shift is happening now, but even if it has, it can only explain a very small percentage of the increase in global temperature. The main cause is an increase in atmospheric CO<sub>2</sub> levels, which are increasing due to humans burning fossil fuel and destroying carbon sinks.
 
 
 
===Mars and Pluto are warming too===
 
 
 
Many of the planets and moons in our solar system are big enough and geologically active enough to have both an atmosphere and a climate. In any given system there will be some planets increasing in temperature and some decreasing in temperature. This is due to changes in the localized climate, just as it is with earth. The causes are different for each planet and have little to no bearing on each other. The localized cause of climate warming on the planet earth is the increase levels of CO<sub>2</sub> in the atmosphere being caused by humans burning fossil fuels and destroying carbon sinks.
 
 
 
===Using anecdotal evidence===
 
The argument "Wow, it's really fucking cold today! Global warming, my ass!" to argue that "global warming" misues numerical data, as even without global warming, there are fluctuations in local temperatures.  Global warming refers to an overall average increase in temperatures of air and water.  Additionally, global warming will result in some local areas that cool despite the global average increasing.
 
 
 
===Conservapedia===
 
 
 
{| width=100% cellspacing=10
 
|-
 
| width=45% valign=top |
 
 
 
<h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#c0c0c0;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Conservapedia</h2>
 
| width=45% valign=top | <h2 style="margin:0;background-color:#c0c0c0;font-size:135%;font-weight:bold;border:1px solid #000000;text-align:center;color:#f6f7ff;padding:0.2em 0.4em;">Reality</h2>
 
|-
 
| colspan="2" |
 
==<center>Consensus = liberal conspiracy ?</center>==
 
|-
 
| valign="top" |Richard Lindzen wrote in 1992,
 
 
 
<blockquote>Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far). <ref>http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv15n2/reg15n2g.html</ref> </blockquote>
 
 
 
Oddly enough, even though 82% of US climate scientists refused to support the global warming theory then, liberal activists were already claiming a scientific consensus for Anthropogenic global warming. (It's hard to understand how 18 percent credence in any global warming translates into "consensus" support for human-caused global warming.)
 
 
 
 
 
| valign="top" |Note that a full citation for the poll isn't given by Lindzen; perhaps this is because he intentionally lied about its results..? Despite the identical claims of Rush Limbaugh and George Will, the Gallup poll in question found that a majority (66%) of the 400 scientists questioned believed in human-caused global warming, while 23% were undecided and only 10% disagreed.  <ref>[http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=3120&printer_friendly=1 In Denial on Climate Change]</ref> The San Francisco Chronicle published a correction from Gallup regarding this: "Most scientists involved in research in this area do believe human-induced global warming is occurring now."<ref>[http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-globalwarming.htm Myth: Humans are not causing global warming.]</ref> The fairly significant minority in this poll who ''did'' doubt human-induced global warming were likely borne of the relative scarcity of convincing evidence for it in 1991.<ref>[http://www.trumpington.co.uk/green/ The Debate on Radio 4]</ref>
 
 
 
|-
 
| colspan="2" |
 
==<center>Are the Himalayan glaciers retreating?</center>==
 
|-
 
| valign="top" |
 
Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame." <ref>[http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/450392,CST-EDT-REF30b.article Alarmist global warming claims melt under scientific scrutiny] (The author of this article is a member of [http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=41 The Heartland Institute])</ref>
 
 
 
| valign="top" |In typical fashion, Conservapedia omits the [http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129 wide body of evidence] that glaciers are retreating worldwide in favour of mentioning an expanding anomaly. [http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2FJCLI3860.1 Fowlera and Archer (2006)] is the study Conservapedia's source is referring to. It says,
 
<blockquote>"Temperature data for seven instrumental records in the Karakoram and Hindu Kush Mountains of the Upper Indus Basin (UIB) have been analyzed for seasonal and annual trends over the period 1961–2000 and compared with neighboring mountain regions and the Indian subcontinent. '''Strong contrasts are found between the behavior of winter and summer temperatures and between maximum and minimum temperatures.''' Winter mean and maximum temperature show significant increases while mean and minimum summer temperatures show consistent decline. ... '''This divergence commenced around the middle of the twentieth century and is thought to result from changes in large-scale circulation patterns and feedback processes associated with the Indian monsoon.''' The observed downward trend in summer temperature and runoff is consistent with '''the observed thickening and expansion of ''Karakoram glaciers'', in contrast to widespread decay and retreat in the ''eastern Himalayas.'' This suggests that the ''western Himalayas'' are showing a different response to global warming than other parts of the globe.'''"</blockquote>
 
 
 
This study clearly does not contradict Gore's assertion; in fact the authors ''reaffirm'' it in the abstract! (Other studies ignored by Conservapedia have likewise confirmed Gore's claim.<ref>[http://assets.panda.org/downloads/himalayaglaciersreport2005.pdf An Overview of Glaciers, Glacier Retreat, and Subsequent Impacts in Nepal, India and China]</ref><ref>[http://www.ias.ac.in/currsci/jan102001/87.pdf Geomorphological evidences of retreat of the Gangotri glacier and its characteristics]</ref>)
 
|}
 
 
 
 
 
== External links ==
 
 
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit.org].
 
*[http://www.climateaudit.org/ Climate Audit.org].
*[http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.txt NASA Data]
 
 
===Global Warming Deniers===
 
*[http://www.cei.org/ Competitive Enterprise Institute]
 
*[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sGKvDNdJNA "Carbon: We call it life"]
 
 
==References==
 
<references />
 
  
[[Category:Science]][[Category:Climatology]]
+
== Referneces ==
 +
<references/>

Revision as of 07:14, 9 December 2007

Traffic cone.png Under Construction:
This article is currently receiving a major revamp. Please do not edit it while this template is up. However, feel free to offer input on the talk page.
If this template is up for more than a few weeks without activity, you may remove it.

Global warming is a liberal myth, and is due at least in part to liberals attempting to learn how to program computers.

For example, Steve McIntyre deduced, and NASA later admitted, that NASA programmers had a Y2K bug in their source code.[1]

Steven McIntrye deserves rational wiki cudos for:

  1. Proving how the Mann "hockey stick" used in all Gore's movie, An Inconvenient Truth, was based on unsupportable data and methods.
  2. Proving how yearly temperature anomalies for the USA are based on data that had been processed incorrectly.


See Also

Referneces

  1. 1998 is no longer the hottest year