I have more than a few Tea Party adherents in my family who, prior to this summer, used to make a habit of sending me every little headline about how cold and snowy it was and how those “facts” proved that global warming was a fallacy being undone with each snowflake drifting down to earth. Oddly enough, they never sent me a single headline this summer about how unbelievably hot it was in the Northeast. I guess while I was bobbing around the bayous Louisiana they were reading the World Meteorological Organization’s Press Release No. 904 which came to the following conclusion: “The year 2010 is almost certain to rank in the top 3 warmest years since the beginning of instrumental climate records in 1850” and its byline: “2010 in the top three warmest years, 2001-2010, warmest 10-year period.” Well now, as if by magic, the spate of cold weather and overly abundant snowfall gripping the Northern Hemisphere has set off a new round of debate, doubt and denial as it relates to the changing climate.
Global Warming is not a hot button issue with me and I believe that the related science is still in the process of being validated. That along with the fact that some of the findings have been manipulated for political purposes makes for a situation where the jury is still out with the final verdict still in the process of being formulated. Likewise the same holds true for most of the counterarguments. However, none of the aforementioned takes away from the fact that there are discernable changes in the climate that cannot be denied. There is little reason to doubt that there have been major changes in the climate in the last 50+ years. To deny that is to make an argument contrary to historical fact. At 57 I can remember winters that were much different than they are now, at least around the Northeast where I grew up. One of the great misconceptions surrounding the global warming debate hinges around snowfall and temperatures. There is nothing inconsistent with the general theory of global warming where some regions will grow colder with increased amounts of snow fall while others see their climate grow warmer. It hinges in part on the changes in the ocean current, the jet stream and the Central Asian snow pack. Moreover what the opponents of global warming fail to realize in pointing out the increase in snowfall this year and last is that the debate about climate is about trends, not a snapshot of a series of weather events within a given winter or within several winters. Focusing on short term events instead of long term trends serves to undermine an opponent’s counter argument as it fails to account for the larger, longer term picture. It fails because climate is a long-term trend whereas weather is the short term manifestation of climate and to focus on a handful of weather events while ignoring the longer term trends is to invite a flaw into one’s analysis. That flaw ultimately leads to misconstrued and faulty conclusions.
Judah Cohen of Atmospheric and Environmental Research has recently published findings that effectively debunk the idea that the increased snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is inconsistent with the idea that the overall climate is warming. Quoting Dr. Cohen:” The not-so-obvious short answer is that the overall warming of the atmosphere is actually creating cold-weather extremes… Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling. And though it is well documented that the earth’s frozen areas are in retreat, evidence of thinning Arctic sea ice does not explain why the world’s major cities are having colder winters… As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased. The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere…That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century.” A further scientific elaboration on Dr. Cohen’s model and an assessment of its accuracy can be found in a National Science Foundation Special Report entitled “Predicting Seasonal Weather, A Special Report.”
Yet in contrast to the scientific findings that have been put forth from reputable organizations such as the National Science Foundation and Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a large element of the opposition’s argument seems to hinge upon conspiracy theories, an anti-intellectual bias or the preaching’s of that ever present claque of political entertainers who make their living on cable television masquerading as political analysts. Needless to say, it’s definitely a hot button issue among the Tea Party crowd to deny the climate changes that have taken place. John M. Broder in an article entitled “Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faith” detailed the extent to which members of the Tea Party Movement are willing to accept anything but science in their efforts to dispute the scientific data contained in those reports that postulate that the world’s climate is changing due to global warming. Quoting Broder: “Skepticism and outright denial of global warming are among the articles of faith of the Tea Party Movement… For some, it is a matter of religious conviction; for others, it is driven by distrust of those they call the elites. And for others still, efforts to address climate change are seen as a conspiracy to impose world government and a sweeping redistribution of wealth.” Citing a New York Times / CBS poll conducted in October, Broder showed the degree to which members of the Tea Party Movement differ from the general public on the issue of global warming. Tea Party Movement supporters are considerably more skeptical when it comes to the existence and effects of global warming than the American public generally. The survey found that only 14 percent of Tea Party supporters said that the problem of global warming was here and now versus 49 percent of the public at large. More than half of Tea Party supporters said that “global warming would have no serious effect at any time in the future, while only 15 percent of other Americans share that view” and, “8 percent of Tea Party adherents volunteered that they did not believe global warming exists at all, while only 1 percent of other respondents agreed.”
Broder links the sentiments of the Tea Party Movement’s opposition to global warming theories with other groups that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. He points out that the fossil fuel industries have spent $500 million dollars since 2009 on lobbying against climate change legislation, that they have funded “lavishly financed institutes to produce anti-global-warming studies” and “waged a concerted campaign to raise doubts about the science of global warming”, as well as “paid for Web sites to question the science.” At the same time the anti global warming rhetoric has been a staple on the talks shows of America’s preeminent political entertainers: Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and of course, Sarah Palin. Promoting anti-global warming skepticism has been a core tenet of right wing groups like Americans for Prosperity, and the Tea Party cash cow, Freedom Works.
All this begs a number of questions: If there is such a compelling body of scientific knowledge that disproves the theory of global warming, then why not just stick with the science and forgo the political theatrics? Why spend millions of dollars on lobbying and public relations to discredit the theory of global warming by raising doubts when you could just produce objective hard science results that point to the contrary? Surely the advocates of global warming theory were set back last
summer when it was found that several scientists in England had fiddled with scientific findings for political reasons. That having happened, wouldn’t those who oppose global warming theory been better served by a counterargument based on facts at a time when their opponent’s integrity was in question? Or, conversely is their counterargument better served by the image of doubters poking around among snowdrifts with their yardsticks in some unscientific attempt to dispute actual scientific findings? Why do the doubters engage in deflection by saying that the argument surrounding global warming is really Marxist wealth redistribution disguised as science when the scientific reports don’t include any mention of politics and policy? Perhaps someone should clue these opponents in to the fact that we live in an age dominated by science and technology and that any disputing of hard science is not likely to come about via conspiracy theories, unsupported skepticism or Biblical quotes that address man’s relationship with the natural world within which he exists.
Steven J. Gulitti
12/28/10
<
p>Huh?
<
p>And if you’re going to post stuff you understand incompletely all over the Internet with no links, with lots of “Look at me! Look at me!” tags, and with paragraphs numbering 337 and 357 words, at least indicate you’re crossposting.
You complain about putting links and references at the bottom of a post and now you clammor for the very thing you had complained about. If that’s not stupidity on stilts what is?
<
p>Now here are your sources:
<
p>Sources:
<
p>World Meteorological Organization’s Press Release No. 904
<
p>http://www.wmo.int/pages/media… Predicting
<
p>Seasonal Weather, A Special Report
<
p>http://www.nsf.gov/news/specia…
<
p>Bundle Up, It’s Global Warming
<
p>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12…
<
p>Atmospheric and Environmental Research: In the News
<
p> http://www.aer.com/news/inTheN…
<
p>IPCC Official: “Climate Policy Is Redistributing The World’s Wealth”
<
p>http://thegwpf.org/ipcc-news/1…
<
p>Climate Change Doubt Is Tea Party Article of Faithhttp://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/21/us/politics/21climate.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
<
p>BTW, I am still waiting for you to show me where cross posting is not allowed on this site, seeing as you still have your undies all bunched up about that.
realize that BMG is an online community, not just a place to post your well-written, but meandering, thoughts on global warming.
<
p>If you want people to read your stuff, develop your ethos.
Do what you’re doing (i.e., follow up your posts with comments), but also give a nod to the norms here (i.e., embedded links and perhaps shorter posts). Your writing style is good, but your tone is more that of a columnist than a conversationalist.
Thanks for the constructive criticism, it’s a welcome change from the persistent pissing and whining of a certain someone who acts as if the BMG was their personal website and who subsequently tends to be ignored.
<
p>One of the things I find lacking in the BMG format is that there is no feature that alerts one to the fact that someone has commented on your article. Thus when you are busy a comment may go unnoticed for several days. Several of the other sites that I post on contain this feature so it’s easy to keep up with comments and as such, those sites get most of my attention, for reasons of an economy of effort if nothing else.
<
p>You talk about embedded links, do you mean source references or links to other blogs. While a certain someone seems to make a big “to do” about cross posting, several others who post here have said that it’s not important to refer to the fact that the post appears on other blogs as to their minds it is immaterial. Thus is this the concern of a few or is it the policy of the site itself to mention that a post has been cross posted? I have yet to get a definitive answer on that.
<
p>As far as my tone being that of a columnist, well it is what it is and that’s not going to change.
<
p>Again, thanks for your insight and analysis.
<
p>Cheers and Happy New Year
<
p>SJG
That’s the point. You only seem to care about your “articles”. BMG is more than that.
One can read about it here.
<
p>Note the embedded link. It’s not at the bottom of my comment! Amazing, no?
<
p>Here’s another embedded link for you: how to format posts. You might also want to spend some time with an HTML tutorial. If you’re going to embark on the vanity project of spreading your “writings” all over the Internet, you might learn the basic language of the Internet.
“with lots of “Look at me! Look at me!” tags”
<
p>I am long past the “look at me stage”, if I was ever there to start with. Why you ask? Well my articles have appeared as by lines on the following venues, among others:
<
p>1. Huffington Post
<
p>2. The Washington Post
<
p>3. The Times of India
<
p>4. The South East Asian Times
<
p>5. The Wharton School of Business Journal.
<
p>I am still waiting for you to show me where on this site one is required to note that the article posted has appeared on other sites. Not for nothing but what does it matter?
<
p>BTW, have you got your undies unwound yet or are they still up in bunches?
“And if you’re going to post stuff you understand incompletely all over the Internet with no links”
<
p>Do you claim to have a definitive and comprehensive grasp on everything that you post and comment on? I would seriously doubt that you yourself would make such preposterous a claim.
<
p>You seem to have a fundamental problem with a guy exercising his right of free speech. Is this your personal site or is it a “public common”?
<
p>I think I was pretty upfront about the fact that global warming was not a “hot button” issue of mine but that doesn’t mean that I have to be an “expert” to comment on the topic. After all this is a blog, it’s not the official organ of the National Science Foundation or the Royal Academy of Science. See how that works?
This upfront part of your essay made disinclined to read the rest of it, though I did skim it.
<
p>First, I’m curious how a process that will in all likelihood displace hundreds of millions of people, as it began doing several years ago, is not a ‘hot button issue’ of yours. There are other catastrophic consequences of our massive infusion of Carbon into the environment.
<
p>If by “the related science” you mean the research supporting anthropomorphic climate change, I don’t think you’re correct that it is still being validated. The vast, overwhelming majority of climate specialists have accepted it as reality. The deniers and those questioning its validity are almost all in the camp of the non-reality-based. Here is a website that specializes in answering all questions about climate change, using the best science available. They have addressed all of the smokescreens, misrepresentations, and misinterpretations put out by the ‘climate skeptics.’
<
p>When you say “some of the findings have been manipulated for political purposes,” I assume you’re talking about the emails purloined from the University of East Anglia CRU. Your characterization of the ‘manipulations’ is wrong. Here, from the above-linked climate scientist Website, is an early and comprehensive explanation of why it is wrong. That many people continue to think there was some nefarious intent in the techniques applied to the data in question speaks more to their gullibility than to the validity of the research.
<
p>The misunderstandings evident in the bit quoted above really undermine whatever point the rest of your very long post may have. Relying on business journals and selected newspaper accounts for your information will remove you at least a couple of steps too far from the science to make you a credible commenter on the topic.
When I say that global warming is not a hot button issue with me, what I am saying is that it’s not something I spend as much time focusing on compared to other issues and events. I am not for a moment saying that global warming is not a critical isse, it’s not just at the top of my list of things I comment on.
<
p>As to the validation of the science, I still think that there is more to be done. For instance, I was watching something on PBS a while ago and they cited core samples taken from Greenland that showed the earth’s climate being hotter than it is today from a time period that predated industrialization so with findings like that to consider, I still think we are in the process of learning as to what are the totality of factors influencing the climate change that we are seeing. No doubt industrialization is playing a significant role, that is undeniable. As a matter of fact I just came across this site which I have yet to have the time to read: Skeptical Science http://www.skepticalscience.com/, which challenges the skeptisism of the denial crowd.
<
p>”When you say “some of the findings have been manipulated for political purposes,” I assume you’re talking about the emails purloined from the University of East Anglia CRU.” Yes that is correct. Whatever the circumstances, this sort of press does not help the cause of those who are concerned about global warming. It does however aid the skeptics.
<
p>
Thanks for the links provided in your comment.
Perhaps now you could read some of them.
<
p>
Ice-core samples from Greenland could only show that Greenland’s climate was warmer during some period. Greenland is not the planet. If PBS was actually arguing that the samples showed the Earth was warmer, I am disappointed but not especially surprised. Again, TV is not a reliable source of scientific information.
To which I’d add, this blog has a number of commentators who know a lot more about climate science than Steven J. Gulitti does. That, by the way, is why I don’t write posts at BMG on climate change.
<
p>If you are going to crosspost, please do us the courtesy of making it good, well-written material.
<
p>Otherwise, you are no more than a graffiti vandal running around trying to gain attention for yourself.
The fact that I am not an expert on Global Warming does not mean I can’t exercise my right of free speech on the topic and on this forum. As I have told you in the past, if you don’t like my style of writing then don’t reads my posts. After all this isn’t your personal blog site.
<
p>As far as your constant bleating about my style, apparently not everyone here feels the way you do. To wit:”Your writing style is good, but your tone is more that of a columnist than a conversationalist.”
Suggestion: Don’t write about constitutional law, either.
Why, that’s my next hot topic!
none of your topics are hot.
you don’t own your own property. You pay for, then get a “deed” saying the last guy who owned it quit his claim to it to you for X dollars along with which bank holds the mortgage on it. So then the government can threated you by telling slip and fall artists everywhere how to cash in easily cause you didn’t shovel.
<
p>And no I don’t see how a Bernie Madoff Carbon Trading Fund will do anything for the enviornment other than legitimize funding for the decades old geo-engineering chemtrails effort, the UN agenda 21 eugenics effort or the Codex alimentarius de-population effort.