Global Warming (soon to be, Global Storming)
This decade has been hotter than previous decades (as were the 1930s). And, unless you’ve been seeking shade under a rock, you know that Global Warming is THE issue (so huge that many policymakers – who typically are in the business of promoting infrastructure stability – already are willing to throw huge energy dislocations at future generations). Here’s my prediction. Temperatures will go back down – continuing to cycle up and down like they have for millennia.
My evidence? None. It’s my hypothesis that this is a blip. If you disagree: your evidence? None. It’s your hypothesis that this is not a blip (no matter how many movie stars, pop scientists, concerts or conventions beat the drum).
The way to test each hypothesis is to collect data over time and see. Of course, a non-human-caused warming trend could go on for a long time, but I’ll give my side just one decade. After that – and, before that, if reliable data comes in – and I will grant you that my hypothesis is problemed. (I know. I know. We might not be around that long. When the full fury of nature is unleashed, and we tip off our axis and start floating into space, my last words will be, “Al really did deserve that Oscar.”).
Here’s the meat of my prediction – and please remember you saw it here first. Millennia of data, with a few significant and seemingly-non-human-caused exceptions, suggest that temperatures will trend back down. Or, I should say, non-homo sapiens sapiens-caused exceptions, since I’m not about to give those damn fire-burning cro-magnons a free pass. Anyway, when temperatures do trend back down, the alarmists will not admit that their hypothesis is problemed. Rather, they will shift ground and grow louder. The trend downward will prove that the climatic conditions of the Earth are destabilized – as will be further proven by every tornado, drought, hurricane, flood, etc., that happens thereafter.
Because I first predicted the positional shift, I get to name it – Global Storming. You heard it here. That’s the adequately-hedged, broad-portfolio crisis to invest in. Global Storming. Global Warming is far too narrow a sector.
Too many people have staked too much on a hypothesis, to simply let it go if it doesn’t pan out. “Um, ya, about jacking up those power rates 1,000%, . . .” Remember: Global Storming.
My hypothesis is that temperatures will trend back down. If not, I’m real sorry that I helped doom the planet. My bad. If they do come down, though, I’ll represent all of you in a class action lawsuit against the promoters of Live Earth.
My evidence? None. It’s my hypothesis that this is a blip. If you disagree: your evidence? None. It’s your hypothesis that this is not a blip (no matter how many movie stars, pop scientists, concerts or conventions beat the drum).
The way to test each hypothesis is to collect data over time and see. Of course, a non-human-caused warming trend could go on for a long time, but I’ll give my side just one decade. After that – and, before that, if reliable data comes in – and I will grant you that my hypothesis is problemed. (I know. I know. We might not be around that long. When the full fury of nature is unleashed, and we tip off our axis and start floating into space, my last words will be, “Al really did deserve that Oscar.”).
Here’s the meat of my prediction – and please remember you saw it here first. Millennia of data, with a few significant and seemingly-non-human-caused exceptions, suggest that temperatures will trend back down. Or, I should say, non-homo sapiens sapiens-caused exceptions, since I’m not about to give those damn fire-burning cro-magnons a free pass. Anyway, when temperatures do trend back down, the alarmists will not admit that their hypothesis is problemed. Rather, they will shift ground and grow louder. The trend downward will prove that the climatic conditions of the Earth are destabilized – as will be further proven by every tornado, drought, hurricane, flood, etc., that happens thereafter.
Because I first predicted the positional shift, I get to name it – Global Storming. You heard it here. That’s the adequately-hedged, broad-portfolio crisis to invest in. Global Storming. Global Warming is far too narrow a sector.
Too many people have staked too much on a hypothesis, to simply let it go if it doesn’t pan out. “Um, ya, about jacking up those power rates 1,000%, . . .” Remember: Global Storming.
My hypothesis is that temperatures will trend back down. If not, I’m real sorry that I helped doom the planet. My bad. If they do come down, though, I’ll represent all of you in a class action lawsuit against the promoters of Live Earth.
posted by steve u. at 11/28/2007
Subscribe
15 Comments:
Here is my hypothesis: Our country will continue to be dependent on middle east oil and foreign energy in general because we have gutless cowards for politicians - my evidence: you
I'll continue to collect data...
Wow!
Why do anonymous posters continue to name call instead of stating a calm and sensible argument on your blog Steve?
Anon.,
Let's name names. Identify yourself for the record we're keeping here.
But -- you raise a much different issue. I am for an energy policy that gets us out of bed with Chavez, the Middle East, etc. And that means moving away from oil. But, friend, you're neither serious nor informed, if you think that means solar and wind.
For now, it is coal and nuclear, which can reliably produce the massive amounts of energy necessary to fuel electrical solutions and backup the intermittent power sources like wind and solar.
I hope you are right about this Steve, I really do. I have found myself getting caught up in the "evidence" and I don't know if I am brainwashed by a liberal media or if global warming is true. I don't know anymore.
I watched a thing on some science channel about the Greenhouse gases trapped in the ice in the South Pole and how they correlate to temperature change, that was pretty real to me.
I am hopeful that I am brainwashed but regardless of the reason for temperature change, it won't hurt us to alter our energy policies. I would love an electric car right now.
Anonymous, you are a coward and a loser. That's right, a loser. Thanks for contributing nothing to the conversation.
I do agree, mostly, with the first commenter.
I agree with anonymous to a point, but it appears that Steve does, too. So I'm not sure of the point of DavDid's vitriol.
I want an affordable hybrid (or fully) electric car as well, because it will save me money on my gas bill. But right now that's not the case when you consider the cost of the car. The Bush Admin should be doing more to award tax credits for such purchases to make it affordable for more people to go hybrid.
But Steve, the thesis of your article here is VERY SOUND. We don't know the reason behind global warming, but historically it looks suspiciously like Mother Nature is at work here, and we all know that we can't fool her.
We can do things, and we definitely should, to improve our environment. I also support nuclear, but I darn sure also support building some stinking new gasoline refineries in the US in the mean time. If it happens to reduce CO2 emissions, I'm sure that's a good thing, but I personally don't think it's going to mean a hill of beans as regards the NATURAL warming of the globe.
Frank,
Reducing carbon emissions and sound energy policy can go hand in hand -- or the two goals can be at odds with each other. It's a nuanced challenge, and the public has little appreciation for or patience with nuance.
A point that people miss on energy policy is that electricity is not economically storable in large quantities. It needs to be produced when it is demanded (unless someone has some awesome battery technology). Thus -- serious reliability concerns exist with solar and wind. (The most efficient wind turbines don't turn more than half the time; so, some source needs to be supplying power when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining). Wind and solar can be an important part of an energy portfolio (along with conservation measures), but, whether admitted or not, everyone in America demands (in their actual lives, if not their rhetoric) abundant energy -- and that means far more than wind and solar.
I would be in favor of an energy "moon shot" announcement, moving us away from foreign oil and, eventually, oil in general. Clearly, Bush is too cuddly with an oil industry that increasingly gets us in bed with thugs and in entanglements we'd better avoid. I would favor a policy announcement that America will reduce its foreign oil consumption by a certain percentage every year. But to do that, we'd need to make hard decisions and replace it with something. Anon. and DD would replace it with their hot air, but that doesn't really advance any real alternative. It's gotta be something other than dreampower and wishes. Coal and nuclear are two workhorse alternatives.
If you don't like coal, get behind nuclear. If you don't like either, get real.
Steve's post and subsequent comment seem spot on. There are currently no good alternatives to oil. The oil causes global warming folks are anti coal and nuke power, but the various alternative energy sources, like wind, solar, and bio fuel, are nowhere near reliable enough, efficient enough, or proven to even make a dent in global warming.
If we want to end human caused global warming, we need to do two things. First, tell China and India to stop progress. Second, we all must become vegetarians, as cow flatulence is by far the biggest carbon producer out there. Just ask PETA.
I take issue with both anonymous and Steve.
First, anonymous: Your point is hardly salient seeing as how Steve never mentioned oil or "foreign energy" (whatever the hell that is). Your underlying assumption that global warming and the aforementioned subjects are synonymous only underscores your ignorance.
I did find it ironic that you would insinuate that Steve is a "gutless coward" while hiding behind the cloak of "anonymous."
As for Steve: I don't appreciate your disrespect for cro-magnons. I once knew a cro-magnon that was faster than a deer.
I'm in Shayne's boat. It is definitely trendy, especially in "liberal" circles, to be up in arms about global warming, but I have read convincing arguments and studies on both sides. I can see the natural cycles of the earth argument, especially as I've read about the global cooling worries of the seventies. But I cannot flippantly disregard man's ability to affect the Earth. Pollution changes the temperature in Utah Valley all the time. I know the causes are different, but we've wiped out species, deforested regions, caused the desert to "blossom," and Las Vegas wants to drain the water from west desert aquifers which I think would cause huge changes. Just one steel plant closing changed the air quality here from one of the worst in the nation to above average, though growth and inversions seem to be catching up with that.
So I think balance is definitely the right approach. I wish I could be informed enough to understand the truth between competing claims on clean coal technology, or if it’s even possible rather than a euphemism. Nuclear worries me from Utah’s past downwind experiences, and from what I understand, it requires huge amounts of water that is then rendered useless for drinking, irrigation, or anything else. That’s a problem in Utah, especially in southwest Utah. Little lifestyle things to cut back are easy, and I would love to someday be able to afford those solar panels that let you sell the extra back to the power company.
I think was the real problem with the post was that it seemed much more sarcastic than normal Steve, as opposed to your recent voucher, UTOPIA, and malpractice posts. Your reasoned responses on UTOPIA gave your questions more credibility.
Jordan,
I’m not saying I can ALWAYS run faster than a deer. Just when I’m being chased by a mountain lion. And, by the way, cro-magnons were NOT faster than deer; they couldn’t even outrun saber-tooths and mastadons.
Utah Teacher,
I always appreciate reminders on tone. Thanks. I read reviews today for Break Through. The authors point out that global warming is not gaining more traction in the public arena because it has become a political power issue for liberals, addressed through proposals of guilt and scarcity, rather than a real issue to be addressed using America’s penchant for action and prosperity. Some very real issues exist because of massive deforestation and pollution. And, as I hope I have been clear on, very real issues exist because of our dependence on imported oil. These are complex issues that require real solutions. But as long as demagoguery dominates discussions in the public arena, I don’t think we can have the dialogue necessary to move toward real solutions. I did intend to poke some fun at the demagoguery. But I apologize if it was off-putting to people seriously interested in looking for progress.
My dad used to say that all of these problems would go away quickly if everyone in the world would stick his/her head in a bucket of water three times and pull it out twice. Of course, from the rhetoric that comes from those that use environmentalism as a club to beat up everyone else, it seems that's pretty much what they think ought to happen.
Manipulation and deceit, in the midst of any adverse trend, even thought is can be demonstrated to be cyclical, is easily expoloited short term. All that is needed to gain political momentum for radical change is focus on the fear of the present. Maintain that it is man made (therefore, can also be reversed by different men), blame the party in power, and obscure the longer historical context. Climate change is the perfect example. One does not actually have to prove anything because any clain about what will happen in the future can not be disproven. Repeated speculation will do. It's calle the "big lie". The old political soulution to a stubborn society of free marketers is to manufacture a problem so terrible and imminent that confusion and fear will follow, hich will then require a massive concentration of power to fight off the enemy and to restore order. Global warming appear to be that perfect home for a global assault because it can not be disproven and it knows no national boundries. Voin Campbell.
Steve is wrong, and there's overwhelming evidence to show that. But rather than try to post it in this comment box, I've written my response to Steve at my own blog http://colorcomments.com.
(Colorcomments.com is a blog devoted to Color Country and the issues we all face together.)
Dan Mabbutt
Warren here seems to have a pretty good handle on the GW issue.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2007/09/table-of-conten.html
He throughly discusses many issues about the subject. With scientific back up.
As well he lives i the PHX area which means nothing except he knows the west.
I will ask why I should donate so anybody can purchase a car for less $? This should never happen! EVER!! If you desire to be a pioneer, then pay for it! Yourself. If a company makes hybreds and they cost too much then they will either stop making them or reduce the price. Get Wally World on it.
One more item. The rush to Ethanol is a major mistake! I but cringe when I see the amount of tax dollars being funneled into that boondoggle.
Post a Comment
<< Home