Thursday, November 05, 2009

Glenn Beck Debate on Global Warming

I'm on the global-warming-is-real side of the fence, and also on the what's-the-harm-if-we-take-precautions-anyway side. Whatever side you are on, you have to ask yourself the following questions:

1) What if the climate change deniers are wrong? If you are wrong, understand one thing, there is NO fixing Humpty Dumpty. It will lead to a fundamental change to civilisation as we know it, possibly the end of human existence
and the next mass extinction on this planet. If I'm wrong, I lose nothing and indeed gain by leaving a cleaner and greener planet for my children.

2) If you insist on denying it, it won't stop the growing momentum and consensus that climate change is real. Whatever your thoughts, the governments of the world ARE going to implement measures and they take their cues from experts so, does staying out of the fray and shouting from far over on your side of the fence that it "isn't true, it isn't true!" help you ... how? It's like boycotting an election and then complaining when the other parties form a new government you don't like.

Changes are coming so involve yourself to influence them. Whatever your beliefs, get involved in what changes take place or the wackos will do it for you. Somewhere in the middle is the truth. Whether climate change is real or not, whether it is as dire as they say, what IS real is that we cannot continue consuming resources at the pace we have as the global population heads towards 10 billion plus people.

As sure as night follows day, changes to the way we live are coming and I'd rather have moderates involved in the discussions than leave it to the fringes on both sides to decide the legislation.

I like John Bolton a lot and I'm with him in this debate although he doesn't get much chance to say anything.

20 Opinion(s):

FishEagle said...

At first I didn't understand why these graphs had any relevance to the 'climate change' debate. Just imagine how confused the average guy in the street must feel about it.

Linzden's data is saying that there was a rise in the global temperature over the past 20 years and also a corresponding rise in earth's radiation, implying the amount of greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere had no influence on the earth's temperature rise because the gasses would have reduced the radiation. But how do we know they didn't? And why was there a rise in the earth's temperature? Why weren't these points explored in the programme?

This is not a typical Glenn Beck presentation, which clearly explains the principles of the argument and then lets the audience decide for themselves. Frankly, it looked like he was trying to distract the viewers. It seems like he just expected viewers to rely on the scientist's conclusion's, which is...what? Climate change is a farce? How did we get there???

Well, Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services; his 1991 trip to testify before a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, and a speech he wrote, entitled "Global Warming: the Origin and Nature of Alleged Scientific Consensus," was underwritten by OPEC (Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Companies.) Lindzen has contributed to think tanks including the Cato Institute and the George C. Marshall Institute that have accepted money from ExxonMobil. With that in mind I certainly wouldn't rely only on his reputation! Glenn Beck, that was poorly done.

Great post, Dobes.

AMB said...

@Fisheagle - what about Al Gore - he's made MILLIONS talking this up and so has a lot of people out there who have their own agenda. It's up to us to try to sort through the fact and fiction. What if Lindzen is right? I'm not saying that everything about climate change (it's no longer referred to as global warming) is untrue, but you also have to look behind the obvious and see what's driving this.

Doberman said...

Something is causing climate change, something. What has changed in the past 10000 years to make that happen? Mankind learnt to mass burn fossil fuels. Ordinarily the planet could handle miniscule fluctuations, the seas absorb CO2, the trees, and return O etc etc. What else happened? The population of the earth in 1909 was 1.75 billion. It's since quadrupled.

Ok, what else? Hmm, the automobile was invented and from the Model T onwards led to tens of thousands to eventually most of the planet having gas guzzling, fossil-fuel burning, internal combustion, energy inefficient engines.

What else? Ah yes, we had to build more coal fired power stations to feed our energy needs?

What else? Mass production and consumption of disposal goods unseen in human history.

Let's see.

Would all of this activity for so many people have any effect on a planet whose eco-system is so fragile and unique in our solar system at least and probably in the Milky Way? Would all this crap spewing into the atmosphere affect a system that took 4 billion years to develop?

YES. Yes to all of the above. How anyone can believe that the earth can sustain this abuse by this cancerous organism called the human race much longer is beyond me. What will happen? Earth will become uninhabitable and the balance of nature will be restored. We only exist because the earth's climate has been stable enough for only a very short period to allow humans to evolve. Dinosaurs lived on earth for hundreds of millions of years and even that powerful creature couldn't survive a calamity. Indeed the several mass extinctions in earth's history proves that earth keeps pressing the reset button. Usually it is earth doing it and it would have but humanity has come on the scene and has fast forwarded to the end of the movie.

Once we get to the end, it's the end. Maybe in another million years once earth returns to its normal balance, maybe the raccoons will do a better job of guarding the earth.

FishEagle said...

@ AMB,"but you also have to look behind the obvious and see what's driving this."

I work in an environmental field and I've been active in the outdoors my whole life. I've just posted something along the lines on this point - those of us that are in the outdoors get to SEE the impacts. That's what makes it so much more ludicrous to hear about all the theories about why suddenly this is becoming such a big political issue. It's only becoming a political issue NOW because nobody wanted to venture into the mine field of the politics! Gore was the ONLY ONE brave enough to do it. I don't agree with most of his democratic political views but because of this issue alone, he is my hero!

Al Gore is a partner in Kleiner Perkins, who has invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. Gore's response? "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge." Every cent that Gore made from his movie, book and investments in renewable energy has gone to non-profit organizations.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/05/new-york-time-al-gore-carbon-billionaire-not-fox-news/

I agree that one must look at all the different view points and make a decision for ourselves. That's why I spent the time trying to figure out what the Linzden's graphs meant. My point is that there was no context provided for the graphs - NONE. It's just not Beck's open and honest style to do that. I'm still genuinely interested to follow up on these points though, to see how the pieces in the puzzle fit together.

Anonymous said...

@Fisheagle, I am glad that to see you “still genuinely interested to follow up on these points though, to see how the pieces in the puzzle fit together.” I hope that you will be objective about it.
The article that you posted is hardly based on science, and is merely a collective bunch of opinions from people who spend more time outdoors, probably driving gas guzzling 4x4’s. Fact is that I am also an outdoor warrior, and I also noticed a change in the climate. For those who lived in Joburg in the 70’s, you will remember that you could set your watch to the 4pm afternoon summer thunderstorm. Climate change is a reality. The big question is whether it is part of the natural cycle, or if it is due to human activity. Personally, I subscribe to the viewpoint that solar activity (sun spots or flares) seem to correlate with global warming trends more than anything else, but I don’t rule out that there could be a combination of other factors.
You asked: “Why weren't these points explored in the programme?”
Well, that was a mere 10min clip from a 50 min program, and even in that time one can hardly scratch the surface on a subject of this complexity. For those interested, the whole program can be viewed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CploccKJERY&feature=related
Incidentally, Glenn Beck has done numerous programs on GW, even before he joined Fox, some of which are listed on Youtube.
If you want to question the credibility of Lindzen, why don’t you do the same with John Holgren (one of Al Gore’s top scientists), who predicted 30 years ago that we were entering an enormous ice age with huge ice sheets building up on Antarctica. The ice breaking off the edge would create such enormous tidal waves that would wipe out half of the world’s population. Incidentally, he is now the ‘climate change czar’ in the White House, and he is propagating to introduce a population police (like in china, where the bureaucrats dictate how many children you can have).
I don’t know if he also had anything to do with the fact that Gore exaggerated the CO2 emissions to a figure almost seven fold of what it actually is.
FE, I challenge you to withhold your temptation to make Al Gore your hero, until he has risen to the challenge to debate Lord Monckton (the dude interviewed by Glenn Beck) on international TV with regards to this issue. If he doesn’t rise to the challenge, he pretty much knows that he is standing on thin ice (no pun intended). If he does rise to the challenge, I believe that he truly believes in his cause, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that he is right.

You said: ” That's what makes it so much more ludicrous to hear about all the theories about why suddenly this is becoming such a big political issue. It's only becoming a political issue NOW because nobody wanted to venture into the mine field of the politics!”
Put it this way, IF GW is not a result of human activity, the 'theory' was created for a political purpose, whose implications I hope you will find in your quest “to see how the pieces in the puzzle fit together” (hint: watch the complete GB program, link is supplied above).

Anonymous said...

correction on the youtube link : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-tCA5R0sWs

Anonymous said...

It is not about denying climate change. Climate change is a fact. What is in contest is that CARBON is at fault. It is actually a fundamental building block of life, but guess what, the large corporations are lining up to tax everyone that leaves a carbon footprint. Where will it end, being taxed for breathing????

Fact is that climate change is real, but carbon is not the sole culprit. Their are worse pollutants, but strangely enough Gore and gang only focusses on those that he can make money from.

FishEagle said...

@Anon 10:46. I did not say that I posted a scientific article (??).

Research by A. Eichelor (Senior Scientist at the Switzerland's Paul Scherrer Institute) shows that CO2 - and not the sun - is significantly correlated with temperature since 1850. I can provide the link to the study, alhtough one has to subscribe to access it.

Sorry, but I don't have the same reverence for Monckton's understanding of the climate change issues that you have. He's a politician for heaven's sake! Gore has been involved with this debate for the last 30 years and he's presented the scientific information to the world. In my book, that makes him my hero - period. From here it is up to the scientists to battle it out and refine the details in the debate, which is actually happening thanks to Gore.

Thanks for the link. I'll have a look when I get a moment.

Anonymous said...

Climate change, yes, global warming I'm not so sure about.

I won't deny climate changes, we have proof of that in the form of ice age evidence.

On the global warming front though, to want to draw up a prediction of long term change based on short term historical data is at best a extremely long shot.

If we influence the long term weather I'm not sure of, I think that is being very egotistical. Ye, we can outfish the sea, pollute the water etc, but adding any significant amount of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere to affect the climate I think is a bit over the top. Contributing 1% of the 0.3% CO2 in the air around us does not amount to much.

It's very much like the fallacy that trees are carbon soakers. Yes they do absorb more than they give off while alive, but once they die all the co2 is released again, so no gain. Trees are actually an extremely small player in co2 absorption, sea algae is the real big player here.

AMB said...

@FE - sorry, just wanted to point out to you that Al Gore is ALSO a politician. And thanks Anon - I support your view 100%. I watched the whole episode when it went out live and it made a lot of sense. And, as you rightly say, Al Gore hasn't taken the challenge to debate this issue so it makes him a coward in my eyes.

Anonymous said...

FishEagle said... “This is not a typical Glenn Beck presentation…. It seems like he just expected viewers to rely on the scientist's conclusion's, which is...what? Climate change is a farce? How did we get there???”

maybe you should see the whole episode. Maybe climate change DUE TO HUMAN ACTIVITY is a farce.

You expressed your disappointment with GB, because he doesn’t subscribe to your point of view? Then you should look what another admiree of yours (and mine) has to say on this subject: http://townhall.com/columnists/CharlesKrauthammer/2008/05/31/environmentalists_pick_up_where_communists_left_off


FishEagle said... “Well, Lindzen charged oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services;…”

Your source that you manipulated actually starts off like this:
“According to Ross Gelbspan in a 1995 article in Harper's Magazine, Lindzen "... charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services…”

So we are moving from an allegation to a fact? And even if it is fact, why would it nullify the results of decades worth of his research?

I went on find out more about Ross Gelbspan and Harper’s Magazine…

Ross Gelbspan is an American writer and activist… and his allegations re Lindzen have been described as a "slander" and as "libelous."

Ross Gelbspan‘s book ‘Boiling Point’ was the subject of the lead review in the Sunday New York Times Book Review. That review was written by former Vice President Al Gore
Harper’s Magazine’s essay "Tentacles of rage: The Republican propaganda mill, a brief history," published in the September 2004 issue, Lewis H. Lapham fictionalized his reportage of the 2004 Republican National Convention, WHICH HAD YET TO OCCUR!!!
The March 2006 issue contained the Celia Farber reportage, Out of Control: AIDS and the Corruption of Medical Science, presenting Peter Duesberg's theory that HIV does not cause AIDS. It was strongly criticized by AIDS scientists, the Columbia Journalism Review, and others, as inaccurate and for promoting a scientifically-discredited theory. The Treatment Action Campaign, a South African organization working for greater popular access to HIV treatments, posted a response by eight researchers documenting more than fifty errors in the article.

For me it is clear that Harper’s is a far left leaning magazine that pushes a political agenda and has a history manipulating ‘science’ to promote their leftist agenda.

Anonymous said...

I wasn’t going to bring it up, but you say that you work in an environmental field. My career is on the technical side of scientific instruments (specialised in gas and other liquid analysers and chromatographs), the very thing that scientists and researchers use to measure things. My insight in the application of my career subjects should surely dilute your authority on this subject? Just asking…
You said: “I agree that one must look at all the different view points [you did, did you?] and make a decision for ourselves. [Like the truth is relative?? It’s a lie, or it’s the truth. Black or white] That's why I spent the time trying to figure out what the Linzden's graphs meant. My point is that there was no context provided for the graphs – NONE”
I know exactly why you didn’t find no context for the graphs: because you were busy editing questionable allegations from a fraudulent magazines as uncovered in my last comment.
You said: “Research shows that CO2 - and not the sun - is significantly correlated with temperature since 1850.”
The way one measures the degree of greenhouse effect (of which CO2 makes up a tiny fraction) from outside the atmosphere. One needs to measure the radiation from the sun, and compare the results on earth’s reflection from space (to factor in earth’s surface absorption) or simultaneous readings on earth. In 1850 they hardly had a mercury thermometer, let alone the unfiltered variable of the heat source, namely the sun (measured from space).
You said: “Monckton's a politician for heaven's sake! Gore has been involved with this debate for the last 30 years….”
Ermmm, excuse me; Monckton got as far as being adviser to Thatcher. Gore was VP in the US of A. Why the double standards?
You are on record as having denied my invitation to watch this scientific argument with the words: “Thanks for the link but I don't have time…”
I again urge you to watch this video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related
for your own benefit (the sooner you do it, the less you will ‘maak jou naam “Tottie”’.

@ AMB , thanks for your support ;o) it tells me that my efforts are not in vain!

FishEagle said...

@Anon 8.23. Glenn Beck did not explain the graphs very well. That is a fact. Maybe you can tell me the significance of the graphs?

FishEagle said...

Anon 8.31.

"My insight in the application of my career subjects should surely dilute your authority on this subject? Just asking…"

Response: You don't even know what I do. HOW CAN YOU EVEN ASK ME SUCH A THING?

"Why the double standards?"

Response: No double standards!!!!!!!!! My point is that Gore - yes, a politician - brought together the scientists and the general public in a discussion about global warming when everyone else was too chicken shit to do it. I don't have anything against politicians!!! I have a thing against politicians DEBATING SCIENCE.

This is something you need to graps because you are making your name 'tottie.' I wish it was all a bunch of hogwash. But my gut tells me that it is all true, which is the consequence of having spent a lot of time in the outdoors pursuing my interets, having an environmental career and having read about the topic on the web. But I'M NO EXPERT and I never said so!! Get that into your thick skull. I don't have ANY promblem if someone shows me that my thought process regarding this issue is wrong. On the other hand, I have shown your thought process to be flawed on numerous occassions.

The methods that were used to determine whether CO2 is correlated with temperature are outlined in the publication. See
http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/

Islandshark said...

I wonder how much the climate is affected by this heated debate...

FishEagle said...

@Islandshark - LOL. Thanks for making me laugh!

h said...

@FishEagle

It seems to me you have made up your mind about who your hero is and what you believe. When you are paying higher prices for meat, eggs, milk and all the other things being 'carbon taxed' because they are 'pollutants', i hope you feel you are playing your part in saving the earth.

Now, before you retort and bite my head off, just consider what real-world decline in pollution Al's proposed carbon tax is going to have.

Like i said in previous posts, i believe that the earth is undergoing changes. Whether they are man-made, is still (for me) debatable and something yet to be proven. However, i do know that they want money for reparations because of something they have yet to prove.

Taxing and making money is going to do squat for the environment, we need real changes on the ground and real policies that will really affect our pollution levels of the earth.

One more thing... Al and his buddies over at the IPCC have yet to add the effects that the sun has on global temperatures. I think we all know that the sun has a real, everyday effect on our temperatures. Just the fact that they have never considered that and conveniently left it out of their debate, makes me think they have a different agenda to the 'solution' in the form of taxation.

One more thing.. Al Gore's company is one of the companies that will be handling these carbon taxes and he will directly benefit from this sort of legislation. I think there is something to be said for that. I think the words i'm looking for are 'ulterior motive' or maybe 'vested interest' or perhaps even 'corruption'. Do you know that Al Gore met with the big wigs of the large energy companies shortly before coming out with his theory and proposed solutions.

He met with them behind closed doors to discuss it with them and the solution they all came up with was carbon taxes. Conveniently it allows them to replace their current profits from oil / energy generation with taxation money (or something to that effect).

Like i have said before. We should be living better lives and working with our planet to make it a better place to live for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons. The fact that money is a focal point to many of the debates on climate change makes me sceptical about claims and their proposed solutions.

I don't know who to believe and i guess that is the real problem. We get too many different stories and one way or another we are going to be led down a path, whether it is the right one or whether it is the wrong one. Maybe we should all be holding thumbs.

Anonymous said...

@FishEagle re your comment: “Maybe you can tell me the significance of the graphs?”
OK, if you recall, there were a whole lotta graphs with red lines and blue dots.
Each red line in each graph represents the prediction of warming by a specific “scientist”. The blue dots represent actual measured data that they thought influenced their prediction of GW at the time. As you may have noticed, the blue dots on each graph are totally different to the blue dots of another “scientists” graph, yet the red lines are all almost identical. If you put 1 and 1 together, you must question how they all had different measurements (inputs), yet they all get the same answers, unless they all made a 'genleman's agreement (nudge, nudge, wink, wink).
On the other hand, Lindzen researched and compiled a much more detailed database (20 yrs worth) with factors ignored by other “scientists”. His prediction was the opposite. And now, 20 yrs later his graph is the one that stood the test of time.

FE, once again, watch

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related

Lindzen himself can explain

“Response: No double standards!!!!!!!!! My point is that Gore - yes, a politician - brought together the scientists and the general public in a discussion about global warming when everyone else was too chicken shit to do it. I don't have anything against politicians!!! I have a thing against politicians DEBATING SCIENCE.”
You got me lost. Either you are saying that Gore is not a politician or that he is not debating science, because you are opposed to politicians debating science? You admitted that Gore is your hero, therefore he isn’t a politician or he isn’t debating or both.

“But my gut tells me that it is all true”.- you dismiss someone else’s gut feel about “all people are equal mantra” as non scientific. Please give us the benefit of the same courtesy.
“I have shown your thought process to be flawed on numerous occassions.”
No, you have not, unless it was a gut feel. Please point out the flaws to me?

“The methods used to determine whether CO2 is correlated with temperature are outlined in the publication. See….”
I tell you what: you study http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6TqqWJugXzs&feature=related
Then I will study your link. Fair is fair.

“You don't even know what I do”.
I don’t? I thought it said on your profile that you were an environmental accountant? Hmmm, I hope that wasn’t a fib, or was it?

FishEagle said...

@ h. Yes, I have made up my mind that Gore is my hero. I don't think it will change if it became known that this was just a big scam, for whatever reason. Unless it turned out he was responsible for the scam. But that really is all hypothetical, now isn't it?

I've also made up my mind that I'm going to listen to the scientists' view points when it comes to the debate. So far the scientists seem to have all the proof that is needed to be able to say in a unified voice - global warming AND climate change is a man made phenomenon that needs our urgent attention. The skeptical scientists' viewpoints have been disproved each and every time - IN RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC JOURNALS, NO LESS. The fact that 30,000 odd scientists signed a petition to say that they did not believe it all, means absolutely nothing to me. That is a POLITICAL response - not a scientific response.

The sun's impacts have been discussed and the theory has been proven wrong. I'm going to refer you to the same link as Anon above (http://climateprogress.org/2008/12/12/scientist-our-conclusions-were-misinterpreted-by-inhofe-co2-but-not-the-sun-is-significantly-correlated-with-temperature-since-1850/). Maybe now you will reconsider that they do not have an 'agenda' and that all these things are being investigated by the scientists.

I'm copying part of a comment I made earlier in this discussion regarding Al Gores financial interests in global warming -

"Al Gore is a partner in Kleiner Perkins, who has invested about a billion dollars in 40 companies that are going to benefit from cap and trade legislation. Gore's response? "I believe that the transition to a green economy is good for our economy and good for all of us, and I have invested in it. But every penny that I have made, I have put right into a nonprofit, the Alliance for Climate Protection, to spread awareness of why we have to take on this challenge." Every cent that Gore made from his movie, book and investments in renewable energy has gone to non-profit organizations." http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/05/new-york-time-al-gore-carbon-billionaire-not-fox-news/

I don't know if I agree with Al Gore's carbon tax.

My political solution to this whole problem is to IMMEDIATELY get rid of all democracies and socialism! Replace it with meritocracy and capitalism. Equal rights is the culprit causing all our environmental problems. Everybody thinks their off spring have equal rights to survive. So people breed like rabbits with a false sense of security and in the process we deplete every single natural resource left on earth. Reality gives us a kak choice - the weak is sacrificed for the group's fitness or else the whole group dies out. Nature chooses, not you or me. Nature's rules, not yours or mine.

If we don't go to the very source of the problem first we won't be getting anywhere - and that is that there are too many people on earth. Right now we have this 'we are equal' mantra shoved down our throats day and night in every corner of earth, which makes me very, very, very (can I say this enough times? :)) skeptical that we are actually going to beat this thing of global warming. The carbon taxes MAY work initially and maybe that is the first step. But will people then be willing to take the next step of reducing the human population? There is nothing that tells me this is going to happen.

I'll be holding thumbs with you.

FishEagle said...

@ Anon 11.09. I've already pointed out the flaws in your reasoning. Don't waste my time please. And damn it, give me scientific references! Don't refer me to another yootube video on the topic.

You understood the graphs even less than I did. All the graphs, except Lindzen's graph, were MODELS - i.e. predictions. Lindzen was the only scientist that presented ACTUAL data on the show. So the questions from my first comment still stand, "But how do we know they didn't? And why was there a rise in the earth's temperature?"

Your comment, "you dismiss someone else’s gut feel about “all people are equal mantra” as non scientific." My response: You're damn right A GUT FEEL IS NOT SCIENTIFIC! Are you for real?? I don't believe my gut feel is scientific! I'm not asking you to believe MY gut feel - I'm giving you the scientific facts and references as I'm finding them on the web. So far they are confirming my gut feel though.

I'm not an environmental accountant. As far as I know there is no such profession. I jokingly refer to scientists as 'environmental accountants' because they punch numbers most of the time. For obvious reasons I can't give my true occupation because I want to stay anonymous.

Gore is a politician and he is not debating the science. He's making that point pretty clear. It would be a waste of time for politicians to debate the merit of the science behind global warming and climate change. They are not qualified!!!! Gore probably knows his limits, unlike Monckton (I suspect). Gore's my hero because of what he did - not what he's still going to do. He bridged the gap between the scientists and the public by communicating critical information that could have an impact on the whole world. If that is so hard to understand then I have no further interest in continuing in this debate with you.