A mature look at the global warming, oh climate change, wait, climate disruption, no global climate disruption issue

And of all things, it's from the high state of Colorado!

Beaton: Fear, loathing and global warming

Here’s what a global warming “denier” said recently in the Wall Street Journal:

“The idea that ‘climate science is settled’ runs through today’s popular and policy discussions. Unfortunately, that claim is misguided. It has not only distorted our public and policy debates on issues related to energy, greenhouse-gas emissions and the environment. But it also has inhibited the scientific and policy discussions that we need to have about our climate future.”

Except he isn’t a “denier.” He’s President Obama’s former undersecretary for science, Steve Koonin. He’s also a former professor of theoretical physics and a provost at Cal Tech, and holds a Ph.D. from MIT. His piece is titled “Climate Science is Not Settled,” published Sept. 19 on the Wall Street Journal’s website.

Koonin explained that global warming exists, or doesn’t, depending entirely on the time period you’re referencing. Dinosaurs thrived on an Earth that was much hotter than it is now. (In fact, there were no polar ice caps at all for the great majority of Earth’s history.) Mammoths romped on a colder Earth. Romans ruled one a little warmer. Columbus sailed in one a little cooler. President Bill Clinton held office in one that was slightly warmer than it is now.

That is the greatest flaw in the "logic" of the global warming believers. On the Earth, which is in constant change (storms, earthquakes, changing heat amounts from the sun, droughts, changing patterns of temperatures) what is normal? And how to we arrive at that version of normal? I wish an "objective journalist" would ask the ALGORE that question before he gets off of his SUV to get onto his private jet to fly somewhere to make money saying "the planet has a fever..."

So next time people ask if you “believe in” global warming, answer yes — and no.

Notwithstanding all those natural climate variations, serious scientists such as Koonin do say this:

Part of the slight warming over the past few hundred years was probably human-caused. We don’t know how much.

It’s not factual that 97 percent of scientists believe that global warming is a crisis. What those 97 percent actually believe is the first point — that some part of that slight warming over the past few hundred years was human-caused.

And to add to that, the "97 percent of scientist", is there a list of these people we can refer to? All the scientist in the world, in the US, only UN countries, what is the population of academics. And are we referring to only academic scientist or also those who work in the private sector. Just asking. I've heard this quoted too many times but no one has an accurate list of these "scientist".

I Googled the question "How many scientist are in the world" and there is no firm number. This is what I found from ResearchGate.net, when another person asked "How many active academics/scientists are there worldwide?":

Andrzej Szymanski · Poznan University of Technology
@ Michael
Indeed, it is an important issue for long-term development planning ResearchGATE , but also in itself - for all of us - very interesting.
I do not think we were able to get to the precise data on the global number of scientists, inter alia, because of the large dispersion - not only in the various scientific institutions and universities, but also in industry. We must also take into account the independent scientists .
I was wondering on the "scale of the problem". On the basis of knowledge on the number of scientists working in about 20 major Polish universities and the Polish Academy of Sciences, I can say that the profile of the ResearchGATE has an average of about 20-25 % of scientists.
It seems to me, that in Polish universities and other scientific institutions ResearchGATE is not as popular as in other countries. So if we assume that the global number of people who have a profile on ResearchGATE medium reaches 35-40 %, it can be assumed, that the "global market" there are about 10-12 million people in the "scientific sector".

Ok, we got a number and I'll admit it's a swag. What the global warming believers will have us think is, using the low number of 10 million, 9.7 million scientists out there believe in global warming. OK, how did they come up with that number? Did they go to 9.7 million people across the planet and ask? Another question for an "objective journalist".

Scientists are roughly split on whether it’s a crisis. Some think it’s a good thing because it may save us from the next ice age.

The recent warming peaked about 18 years ago. The computer models didn’t predict that. We still don’t know why it happened. We don’t know if the warming will resume or reverse and, if it does resume or reverse, we don’t know at what rate or whether it will stop or start again.

Extreme weather events are no more frequent now than in the past. In fact, there are fewer hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods and wildfires. We don’t know why.

If global warming resumes, it will produce winners and losers. It is hard to predict which will be which. The warm climate when dinosaurs ruled suited them well and suits a lot of other life well. Much of human evolution occurred during warm periods in warm places (and much did not). And longer growing seasons would alleviate hunger by increasing crop yields.

To the extent you think skiing will be supremely important to your great-grandchildren, be advised that in places with the latitude of Washington, D.C., such as Aspen, it might not be as good. So skiing might be a loser. On the other hand, an Environmental Protection Agency study suggests that skiing might be a winner because the warmer temperatures might be offset by more snowfall because more water would evaporate from the oceans into the atmosphere.

On balance, there would be greater biomass. That is to say, there would be more life on Earth as there was when dinosaurs thrived. Compare the quantity and diversity of life in the tropics with, say, Antarctica.

If we decide to prevent global warming from recurring, we’re not sure how. Reducing carbon emissions would help, but we aren’t able to say how much because we don’t know how much of it is caused by those emissions. Stated another way, we don’t know how much warming-reduction bang we get for our carbon-reduction buck. Nor do we know how much we need (if any).

So what should we do?

First, take the issue seriously. We should continue to test, probe, measure, analyze, model and debate.

Let’s use but not waste the resources of this unique planet and let’s look for ones that are renewable. Whether you’re from the political side that calls this “environmentalism” or the side that calls it “conservation,” we can agree that conserving our resources is a good thing.

Here’s what not to do:

Don’t fear-monger by contending that a particular heat spell or a snowstorm proves or disproves global warming. Scientists don’t rely on a single data point.

Don’t loath those who disagree with you. Children censor, shout and name-call; scientists consider, analyze and, only then, rebut. And friends and other persons in a civil society simply respectfully disagree. Persons with one set of views are not “deniers” and persons with another are not afflicted with “hysteria.”

In any event, censorship, shouting and name-calling are counter-persuasive. They say, “I’m not smart enough to rebut you, so I’ll instead silence you.”

Don’t take scientific advice from politicians and celebrities, and don’t take a position because it’s fashionable or because that’s the position dictated by your liberal or conservative tribe. Think for yourself.

Finally, unless you’ve stopped traveling by planes, trains and automobiles — and ski lifts — don’t get too sanctimonious. We’re all in this together.

Glenn is a former aerospace engineer for Boeing, and can be reached at theAspenbeat@gmail.com.

Thank you Mr. Glenn for an excellent review of the issue. However I'm drawn to your statement "Scientists are roughly split on whether it’s a crisis." and I recall the words of our current occupant of the White House, B Hussein Obama about using a crisis to get things done. I think the global warming/environmental crisis is an opportunity for the radical left to "accomplish things".