0
Votes

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Column photo

By Chet Compton

Monday, September 28, 2009

Newsweek Magazine reports, “There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth.”

The New York Times reads, “The facts of the present climate change are such that the most optimistic experts would assign near certainty to major crop failure in a decade.”

And according to Time Magazine, “As they review the bizarre and unpredictable weather pattern of the past several years, a growing number of scientists are beginning to suspect that many seemingly contradictory meteorological fluctuations are actually part of a global climatic upheaval.”

Scared? Don’t be. These are all articles taken from 1974 and 1975 — and they aren’t warning of global warming; they are fears of an imminent global cooling.

Scientists and journalists have been warning us of impending climate disasters for more than 100 years. Many of today’s global warming believers probably don’t even realize their claims are not original.In the 1930s the media was in a global warming fervor over shrinking Arctic ice.

This global warming movement came on the heels of the great global cooling scare of the 1900s. During that movement, the Los Angeles Times warned the entire human race that it “will have to fight for its existence against cold.”

From cooling in the 1900s to warming in the 1930s, back to cooling in the 1970s and back again to warming starting in the 1980s, only one thing has remained constant — humans are doomed unless government can save us.

The trendy global warming scare of today originated from government reports and is now responsible for millions of government jobs and the expenditure of billions of taxpayer dollars.

It has been a largely successful campaign, but the so-called “consensus” is now in a free fall. This is devastating to the alarmist’s cause, which has been forced away from scientific facts and centered itself on a “consensus of scientists” as its main modus operandi.

You’ll never hear this in the media, but more than 700 international scientists are now voicing their dissent of man-made global warming claims. This is compared to the “consensus” of 52 scientists that signed the media-hyped and government published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to policy makers in 2007.

The Czech President Vaclav Klaus called the United Nation’s climate change meeting held in New York last week “propagandistic” and “undignified.”

The dying consensus and the fact that the earth has been cooling during the last decade makes it about time to make the case for global cooling again. It goes something like this: Our planet is growing colder because of evil man and if government doesn’t take drastic steps to curb our activities then our sinful ways will bring rising oceans, drowning cities and countless other plagues upon us.

To believe that our actions are changing the climate is remarkably conceited. The planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Humans have occupied the earth for around 200,000 years (0.00004 percent of Earth’s existence). The planet will be just fine. It’s the people we need to worry about. That’s the right idea.

Compton is a Wichita senior in political science.

Comments

Compton: No need to fear climate change

thousands of workers needed in medical transcription so find your local school to get a degree at http://bit.ly/5V4v8

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Medical transcription causes global cooling.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

You failed to mention that the American Enterprise Institute, funded by ExxonMobil, offered up to $10,000 plus travel expenses to scientists that would publish a paper critical of the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Chet Compton has obviously never been taught a lesson in climatology and is lacking knowledge of basic physics (or the scientific method for that matter). Stop thinking of it as global warming (which is based on the global AVERAGE temperature that IS increasing, yet doesn't signify much). Climate CHANGE IS happening. Spend some time doing ANY legitimate research instead of watching Dancing With The Stars and maybe (and hopefully) your view will change.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Excellent article, Chet. My compliments for dragging back into this discussion some much needed perspective. I'd venture a guess that most Gobal Warming/Climate Change alarmists were completely unaware that their movement has, over the decades, been crying Wolf. For further perspective on wild projections of man-made disaster that never materialized, I'd suggest readers run a Google search on "Paul Ehrlich", "ecology" and "predictions".

If anything, though, you didn't go back far enough. A few hundred years is still not enough perspective when we're talking about 'disaster' that will effect the whole planet. Let's remember that while people (homo sapiens) have been around for thousands of years, and humanids have been around for a few million years, this whole planet is over 4 BILLION years old. So let's just add some more perspective, and do the math, shall we?

If the entire 4 Billion year history of the world were shrunk to just one year, then all of human history would have occurred since dinner time on New Year's eve. The rise of human civilization would have occurred in the last 5 minutes. And in the last 60 seconds, which is the time since the last Ice Age, you would have seen the Earth's climate cool enough for 100-foot-thick sheets of glacial ice to advance from the north pole down to the Iowa-Missouri border, and then warm enough over the last 30 seconds to melt it again. Now ask yourself, how much tempature change did the northern hemisphere of earth suffer for glaciers to advance and retreat? How cold does it have to be for sheets of ice as tall as the Campanile to cover the upper midwest all year around? And how much warmer is it now that the ice has melted. All in the last 60 seconds?

And finally, the easy one: How much could the human race, in it's infancy, have caused any of that? Do I even have to mention that the obvious answer is Zero?

There is a long and documented history of climate change that says any global warming due to natural causes dwarfs the human effect on the earth's atmosphere (currently estimated by climate change 'experts' at a fraction of a degree over the next century). To argue otherwise is like two fleas arguing about which one is in control of the dog they're riding on.....

Compton: No need to fear climate change

There's one thing that Chet conspicuously leaves out of this piece: facts. How many of those 700 "scientists" were the ones paid by Exxon or other oil companies to deny that humans are causing a change in our planets climate? And how can you ignore the observable, measurable effects that anthropogenic pollution is having on the environment? Frankly, this writer has revealed himself as none-too-bright over and over again. He's right when he says the planet will be just fine...after it wipes us out. It is the humans that scientists are worried about, you dolt. Watch as our fertile zones shift northward, making Kansas quite arid and inhospitable to growing crops. Oops, there goes one of the U.S. biggest sources of power, the fact that we don't need to import food. Watch mass migrations destabilize East Africa because of the lack of water and food resources. Oops, you just created the conditions for extremist groups to arise. Human beings are reliant on their environment and ecosystem. By destroying those, we are destroying ourselves. It is good that people like Chet are out there, though. They remind us of the roadblocks we face and give us good practice at overcoming ignorance of major issues like climate change. PS., You're deceiving people by using the term "global warming". You act as if any cooling goes on, then we must not be harming the ecosystem. That's a falsehood. We are altering climatic patterns in ways detrimental to our own survival. Do not let yourself be ignorant of actual science.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

How are we altering climactic patterns, dlowell?

Compton: No need to fear climate change

*climatic. Hoo hoo.

My question still stands...

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Mr. Compton:

Thank you for the valuable perspective you added to this often-shrill and lopsided issue – truly a refreshing and prescient insight.

SomewhereinKS and dlowell:

Maybe you should throttle back a little with the dismissive name calling and doomsday rhetoric. With all of your bomb throwing, it’s pretty hard to take anything you write seriously. Mr. Compton clearly did apply himself to legitimate research (just what is illegitimate research anyway, Somewhere?) and raised some significant issues that are generally ignored (censored?) by most media outlets.

It’s clear that dlowell doesn’t approve of the scrutiny Mr. Compton raises here. But to attack the author for not relying upon facts – and then rely upon no facts in response – well, dlowell’s hypocrisy factor just shoots through the roof!

Instead of facts, dlowell’s entire diatribe relies upon theoretical future developments! No facts, just more theories! “Watch as our fertile zones shift northward . . . mass migrations destabilize East Africa . . . .” If you want to use alarmist rhetoric and carry a sign saying “the sky is falling,” have at it. But if that’s all you’re doing, don’t attack those you disagree with for not using facts!

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Today's letter to the editor actually describes this perfectly. RTBatKU - You're completely right, I didn't offer any hard evidence. I'm not a climate scientist. But I can refer you to some excellent pieces of scholarship on the whole business. There's an excellent analysis of climate change's impact on the U.S. done by the Nature Conservancy. A new scholarly article based on real research on climate change comes out in the Science and Nature journals nearly every month. Also, Chet's research just consisted of taking old newspaper headlines, and then saying they were wrong. He's right, scientists have been warning us about our negative impact on the environment for decades. Just because we haven't done anything about it doesn't make it real. connerm - Same goes for you. There is an entire world of real, hard data on this issue out there, based on real observations done by real scientists. Although I know most climate change deniers doubt the IPCC report for some reason, let's be reasonable here. Which makes more sense...a)That the research done by geologists, atmospheric scientists, climate scientists, and all sorts of other researchers in various fields is correct, and anthropogenic climate change is a real problem, or b) There's a sinister worldwide cabal of scientists that is falsifying mountains of evidence to make us do...God knows what?

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Addendum - Compton doesn't really raise any more scrutiny than the Catholic Church did when they dismissed heliocentrism. And I wouldn't exactly call my claims doomsday rhetoric. Maybe I should've qualified and said it's not going to happen within the next few decades, but if we keep consuming and emitting like we are, then this is what the models are telling us is going to happen. And Compton's claims about the IPCC report are, in fact, false. There are 2,500 independent scientific reviewers, 800 contributing authors, and 450 lead authors on the Fourth Assessment Report on Climate Change. In fact, one of the biggest criticisms of the Fourth Assessment from scientists was that it understated the dangers we're facing, and that some of the data was outdated.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Also, I'd be careful of your use of the word "theory". In the scientific sense, a theory is plausible set of principles explaining already observed data. So you were right in calling my claims theories, in that they are based in a scientific theoretical model, which is in turn based upon empirical observations.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

I will not be careful, dlowell, in using the word "theory" because that is precisely what is at issue here.

You seem to recognize that for more than a century, scientists have warned about near-term environmental collapse. However, you don't seem overly concerned by the fact that these dire past warnings all proved less-than-accurate. You don't seem troubled by the fact that these past warnings were often diametrically opposed to preceding dire warnings (all based on authoritative research, I'm sure). You seem shocked that this conflicting cycle of warnings has reduced the credibility of contemporary alarmist anthems. You offer references to research supporting the theory you endorse, but refuse to consider the merits of competing research that reaches a contrary conclusion. Collectively, these factors constitute a poor platform to use for lecturing us “none-too-bright” types.

One more thing, make no mistake about it, the rhetoric you employ is absolutely "doomsday."

Compton: No need to fear climate change

I'm just trying to see if YOU understand the theory of catastrophic anthropogenic global climate change. You seem to have very strong opinions. Take a shot at it.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

RTBatKU - I would like to hear of this "competing research that reaches a contrary conclusion." I have read statements from skeptics before, but have yet to see a body of scholarship that contradicts, with sufficient empirical data, the current models. And while yes, I believe that humanity's negative impact on our environment might have dire consequences, my statements previously were legitimately-supported predictions of the impact of climate change on U.S. national security. These are the same impacts described by a well-known realist scholar Joshua Busby, who has an extensive body of work on the effects of climate change on global security.

My understanding of climate change is that human civilization, since the Industrial Revolution, have exponentially increased the amount of "greenhouse gases" in the Earth's atmosphere. This environmental pressure is compounding the effect of natural pressures and forcing significant changes in the Earth's climate. I gave one example already, of fertile zones shifting northward, increased and worsened droughts, and those are just the effects on human-populated areas, not to mention the immediately observable melting of polar ice caps, permafrost zones, and glacial retreat. I mean, we all attend a top-tier research university with an entire institution, CreSiS, dedicated to studying these effects.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Okay, so an increase in greenhouse gases causes what by what mechanism? Is this a linear increase or, like painting a wall with X number of coats and each coat having less of an effect than the previous, does the amount of overall effect decrease due to diminishing returns? And what are some examples of molecules that cause a greenhouse effect? What are their relative strengths and proportions in the atmosphere?

Compton: No need to fear climate change

dlowell:

You previously conceded that you failed to rely upon “any hard evidence” in your sharp critique of Mr. Compton’s article (even though the thrust of your critique was that he didn’t rely upon hard facts). You excused your failure to substantiate your claim by confessing that you “are not a climate scientist.” (By the way, do you think Mr. Compton is a climate scientist?) But now, it turns out that you’ve app rejected competing scholarship because, alas, it lacks “sufficient empirical data . . . .” Either you are a climate scientist, sifting through the empirical mountain for clues, or you are not – you can’t have it both ways.

If you sincerely want to “hear of this ‘competing research that reaches a contrary conclusion,’” you could begin by reviewing the findings of the Polish Academy of Sciences (document published in early 2009). You could also flip through Dr. Ian Plimer’s “Heaven and Earth.” Even if you find yourself unpersuaded by these and other dissenting scholars, perhaps you will recognize that they’re not all “none-to-bright.” Indeed, you may even find these skeptics (including Mr. Compton) and their views warrant at least some baseline respect and decency (that is, you probably don’t need to insult them).

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Let's take the nasty rhetoric and name-calling down a notch, kids, and address the fundamental issue at hand, namely, what does the science tell us? And, more importantly, what are scientists telling us that may be be accurate but also misleading?

Let's imagine an experiment: We'll observe the ambient temperature in Lawrence Ks for a long period of time, observe any trends, and make a projection of what the temperature will be like at some point in the future. You'll note that in simple form, this is the basis of most climate change research.

In our experiment, we'll start by observing the temperature at 6am on July 1st. We'll use a highly accurate thermometer, and place it in location that is unaffected by reflected heat from nearby buildings. We will leave it there for all of our readings. At 6am, it's 70 degrees exactly. We continue to observe the temperature every our on the hour until noon, 6 hours later, when it is 94 degrees, when we stop observing, go back to the lab, and get out our calculator. The temperature has risen an average of 4 degrees per hour throughout the period of our observations. Moreover, the temperature has risen steadily throughout our experiment. We can thus predict that if these current trends continue, by tomorrow afternoon, the sun will boil the water out of Potter's Lake. By the following day, July 3rd, it will be hot enough outside to roast human flesh. We're all going to die in 48 hours or less.

You will note that this experiment is undertaken with great respect for the scientific method and we have used accurate measuring equipment. It is only our logic that is lacking.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

I doubt that anyone here is a meteorologist or climatologist. I'm not. I'm just a BizGrad. But while I am not trained extensively in Physics, Chemistry, Biology or weather, I am extensively trained in the use and misuse of statistics. And I can tell you that the first thing my old Stats professor taught us was that you should NEVER extrapolate beyond the range of your data. The little experiment above is an obvious example. It amazes me, though, that so many of the climate change alarmists both in and out of the scientific community treat data as 'settled science' when it is merely data, and limited data at that.

The second thing we were taught is that correlation is NOT causation. You may have noticed that the sidewalk in front of Wescoe Hall is wet every day that it rains - a pure, 100% correlation. But you'd have to be a fool to believe that by wetting down the sidewalks, you can make it rain. Yet that is what much of the climate change community is doing. More recent research indicates that CO2 concentrations do indeed increase in the atmosphere during periods associated with Global Warming in the past, but only on a LAGGING basis. That is, the CO2 appears AFTER the warming, not before. It would seem that the 'wet CO2 sidewalk' is being caused by the rain of natural, non-human-related cycles of global climate change. In short, there is more evidence that humans have NO effect on the climate than there is that we are changing the weather. In fact, it's pretty lopsided.

This is not to say that we can pollute our world with impunity. It IS to say that we should clean up our crib because it's just plain healthier to do so. What we don't need are self-appointed and self-important chicken littles telling us it's OUR fault the sky is falling. There are better ways to prompt us to do the right thing.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Ah college kids--is there anything they don't know?

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Impressive! Wrong at every turn!

"Scared? Don’t be. These are all articles taken from 1974 and 1975 — and they aren’t warning of global warming; they are fears of an imminent global cooling."

Articles in the 1970's about global cooling were bad journalism, not bad science: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm

"You’ll never hear this in the media, but more than 700 international scientists are now voicing their dissent of man-made global warming claims. This is compared to the “consensus” of 52 scientists that signed the media-hyped and government published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report to policy makers in 2007."

Presumably you're talking about Inhofe's sad joke of a "minority report," which cited TV weathermen and Southern Baptist creationists among other "scientists." Not all opinions are equal. Given a sick patient and the choice between the opinion of 700 random people or 52 doctors, which would you prefer?

"To believe that our actions are changing the climate is remarkably conceited. The planet is about 4.5 billion years old. Humans have occupied the earth for around 200,000 years (0.00004 percent of Earth’s existence). The planet will be just fine."

The planet's not at risk; our civilization is.

Finally, let's note that this piece was basically a lift of George Will's piece here: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/04/cooler_heads_needed_on_warming.html

But, when you play fast and loose with facts all along, I guess borderline plagiarism doesn't matter. That's the right idea.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Global cooling = BETTER Beer Global warming = BETTER Wine

   Bring it ON!

Oh and Medical Transcription is a Skam. On paper or electronic.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

KUBizGrad is spot on.

Using fear mongering isn't helping anyone's cause (I'm looking at you dlowell). The truth is there isn't enough data to say whether we are actually causing harm to the environment or are not. How often in history has something been "absolutely known for a fact" (e.g. the Earth is round) only for it to be disproved. The minuscule amount of data-collection that has been done regarding global warming isn't enough to say global warming is or is not happening. It's the same debate that arises when religious folks say God exits because no one can prove that he doesn't - no one is really going to win with that argument. All you are going to do is create a divide between people rather than focusing on something we can actually do, like cleanup the world and focus on real problems.

Just because we may or may not be causing global warming, however, doesn't mean we shouldn't do all we can to make sure this place we call home is kept clean and used in the most efficient way that we can.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Crap. I meant for "the Earth is round" to say "the Earth is flat," but my point is made.

Compton: No need to fear climate change

Dub: I'm just curious about the better beer thing. How does a cooler climate give us better beer? Does it have something to do with growing hops?

Advertisement