Chapel Hill is, according to the U.S. Council of Mayors, a “cool city.” In other words, Chapel Hill is an environmentally-friendly city because Chapel Hill “fights” global warming. Chapel Hill does this by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions.
A strange, and to me scary part, of all of this initiative is the club known as “The Mayor’s Youth for a Sustainable Future.” Now does that not sound scary to you? According to the town’s official website, “the youth have the most to lose and their voice is largely unheard” on this matter. And in an eerily brave-new-world like sentiment Chapel Hill views sustainability as “a three-legged stool which involves a balanced and holistic approach to addressing the social, economic and environmental needs of a community. Sustainability transcends the issues of age, race, religion, and gender.” Ooooooookayyyyyy.
The mayor of Chapel Hill, Kevin Foy, thinks that this is a good “opportunity for young people to participate in local government.” It will “offer students who complete this program will learn the skills necessary to make positive changes that will have a lasting impression on future generations.” Well it certainly teaches the young, impressionable kids something: namely that big government is good and that global warming is worth cap-and-trade and expensive taxes. Basically, it prepares them to become statists.
Here’s the question you should ask about the “climate change” hysteria: why is this specific environmental concern a central concern of the modern left? Perhaps because they want to control your life through the state? I think so.
Here’s the deal: the earth’s average temperature over the past ten years has cooled as carbon dioxide has increased. Water is the most influential greenhouse-gas emission, contributing to 97% of greenhouse gas emissions.
As a Heritage Foundation study put it, “past observations indicate a global temperature increase of 0.5C over the last 100 years. (It should be noted that almost all of the warming occurred more than 50 years ago, prior to the emission of more than 67 percent of human-generated greenhouse gases. Since 1941, the temperature dropped and then rose about 0.1C.).”
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that reports to the UN has essentially lied numerous times regarding the increase in emissions. I wonder why.
The UN as well as the U.S. Energy Secretary seem interested only in offering wacky ideas such as releasing a report coupled with an encouragement to stop eating meat and a brilliant idea to paint roofs white. Another example of a stupid infringement on your rights with fighting climate change as the excuse is the U.S. government’s 2012 ban on incandescent light bulbs, the much cheaper alternative to fluorescent light bulbs.
Global warming hype is only a tool meant to raise your taxes and increase your dependency on government. I know that sounds so typical coming from me. Well, I am sorry but it is true.
The funny thing is that all of the future plans for the environmental strategy for Chapel Hill are very undefined and unmeasurable. The only concrete promise I can find on their website is to reduce carbon emissions 60% below 2005 levels by 2050. Naturally I see no evidence of any measure of their progress as of yet nor do I conceive of any way to accurately measure their progress.
Dear nearly every other UNC student I have ever met: when it comes to climate change, please think independently. This issue has nothing whatsoever to do with the GOP or Dems, unless of course your secret goal is to increase government power.
“Global warming hype is only a tool meant to raise your taxes and increase your dependency on government. I know that sounds so typical coming from me. Well, I am sorry but it is true.”
Just to clarify here, are you stating that climate change is a hoax?
Climate does change, yes.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/20/dr-syun-akasofu-on-ipccs-forecast-accuracy/
What’s a hoax is the claim that we are suddenly experiencing an extreme deviation from the normal trend that the global temperature follows.
OK, lemme try again. There is a scientific consensus that climate change is happening, and that human activity is most likely the cause. Do you disagree with this?
@ *: I doubt very seriously that human activity is most likely the cause for global changes in climate, yes. And I think it disingenuous to use the term “consensus.”
Climate, according to Merriam Webster:
“the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation”
Global average temperature, if we can calculate it, probably changes often with the ebb and flow of solar cycles and a variety of other factors.
There is a political consensus among statist idealogues that climate change is happening, and that human activity is most likely the cause.
Instead of reacting to natural fluctuations in temperature with measures designed to destroy the global economy, let’s increase the efficiency of our technology to get more for less.
comments not showing up… testing.
well, that worked. previous comment lost to the ether but basically what I said was:
Disingenuous how? At what point is a scientific consensus reached, if not when every national/international scientific body is in agreement? There has been a scientific consensus for years now, and in 2007 even the American Association of Petroleum Geologists came around and dropped its rejection of the consensus opinion. The scientific consensus may be at odds with conservative ideology, but to say it doesn’t exist you’re going to have to redefine the word consensus.
Consensus doesn’t determine what is right and wrong. Consensus sometimes allows you to get a bunch of federal money by turning a blind eye to the facts and supporting the predetermined conclusions of some politicians.
Truth in science is determined through observation and experimentation.
In climate science, that which corresponds to reality does not matter anymore if truth in science is determined by consensus.
That’s silly, care to make an actual argument? No one is suggesting that “truth in science is determined by consensus” except for you.
“The scientific consensus may be at odds with conservative ideology, but to say it doesn’t exist you’re going to have to redefine the word consensus.”
Well, that’s not much of an ‘actual argument’ either. So while we are arguing semantics, I posit a claim.
Look, I know for a fact that not every single scientist alive, or people who would know, agree on a consensus when it comes to human effects on climate change. Apart from the science I am telling you that politicians want to control our lives and are using “fear mongering” (as Obama would say) over global warming to achieve it. That is the important point.
As to the science I notice that my local weather men cannot correctly predict the next day’s weather. I am quite sure that they cannot correctly predict what the climate will be ten years hence. Or, for that matter, 100 years from now. That is my feeling on it and I doubt seriously that my mind will ever be changed.
I don’t know, I think the important point here is that ideology is more important to you than science.
The scientific community as a whole is sometimes prone to a herd mentality whereby the majority of scientists blindly follow a popular theory, regardless of how good the evidence is to support the theory.
Two great examples of this are human-caused global warming and the theory that dinosaurs evolved into birds.
This is true, but I imagine that it’s a substantially less pronounced phenomenon among scientists than it is among conservative ideologues.
I think the problem earlier was that I tried to post a link, not sure if this will work:
http://www.juliansanchez.com/2009/04/06/climate-change-and-argumentative-fallacies/
I am putting freedom above the whim of scientific theory if that is what you mean by “ideology.”
You would use “freedom” to defend anything, hahaha
My overarching question is this, and please answer thoughtfully: what does the government stand to gain by controlling us? Is that Obama’s goal — to control our every movement and every choice? What does he stand to gain?
You’re always warning us about crazy liberals trying to take over our lives and big government dictating our every move. I understand the “goal” you’ve laid out and attribute to them, but what’s their rationale?
Don’t you, on the other hand, think that Obama is a patriot and someone who loves his country… someone who is just governing in a way that he feels will be best for the country? Just because his ideology differs with yours doesn’t make him a fascist.
No I would not. But the the balance of freedom and coercion that the government must exercise would be tipped toward totalitarianism if cap and trade or the various other silly measures that the government wants to and has (making incandecent light bulbs illegal for example) are put into full measure. “Every act of government intervention limits the area of individual freedom directly and threatens the preservation of freedom indirectly.” – Milton Friedman
Johnny Q, I can’t keep up lol. If I were to answer your question I would say that when I look at Obama’s life and the things he believes about this country that we learn through past interviews etc., I would say that he is not a patriot. I would say he has a strong distaste for this country’s patriotic values and I would say that he wants to change those things he finds distasteful about America (remember his wife’s infamous quote: “I can finally be proud of my country” (because Obama might be president). We know for a fact that he wants to redistribute wealth, for example, specifically to the black community because he has said so. Do I think he thinks this right? Yes. Do I think he thinks this best for America as a nation? No. I think he believes in an evil ideology, namely marxism or some sudo-marxism, that leaves no room for freedom for the individual because it does not value the individual. His rationale is his arrogant belief that he knows how to run your life better than you do.
So, it sounds like you’re saying that you place greater value on your personal freedom than you do on the environment, and you should be allowed to do whatever you want to the environment, because anything less would be taking away your freedom, science be damned. You can probably guess that this strikes me as rather childish, selfish and short-sighted. What do you think about state-mandated car safety and emissions inspections, also anti-freedom?
*: First of all I never said that I should be allowed to do anything I want to the environment. Second of all I already explained that I do not agree that science proves that carbon emissions contribute to “climate change” and so your “science be damned” comment is nonsensical. I don’t really know anything about car safety inspections or emissions inspections. But, if the emissions inspections have to do with efficiency I think they are stupid. Lastly, in putting liberty above tyranny I am putting my individual freedom above “the environment” as well as yours, whoever you are.
“Is that Obama’s goal — to control our every movement and every choice? What does he stand to gain?”
He stands to gain power, and lots of it.
“you should be allowed to do whatever you want to the environment, because anything less would be taking away your freedom, science be damned”
Um, since when did leftists care about science? Here’s the leftist plan:
‘Let’s raise the emissions standards on cars even though that will result in higher emissions of noxious gases that cause air pollution. Let’s subsidize wind energy even though it’s not a viable baseload technology despite decades of subsidies, kills birds, destroys property values, and is an eyesore. Let’s subsidize coal and oil, and try to annoy nuclear power producers and invent artificial dangers to prevent private industry from supplying the country with its power needs in a green manner. And let’s try to control the environment by releasing chemicals into the atmosphere to block out the sun instead of using technology to adapt to ever-changing conditions. That’ll help us feel warm and fuzzy inside.’
“Second of all I already explained that I do not agree that science proves that carbon emissions contribute to “climate change” and so your “science be damned” comment is nonsensical”
Well, I explained that there’s a scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change but you just disagree, so that’s where the “science be damned” part came from. You don’t like the policy implications of the scientific consensus, so you deny it exists, or pretend that you have some magical insight that has somehow escaped all of the people who are actually climatologists.
Wait, maybe the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and NASA and the American Geophysical Union and the Science Council of Japan, the Russian Academy of Science, the Brazilian Academy of Sciences, the Royal Society of Canada, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, the French Academy of Sciences, the German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, the Indian National Science Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), the Royal Society (UK) and all the other organizations that believe in anthropogenic climate change are actually leftists, and therefore they can’t really be scientists?
And at one time there was a scientific consensus against plate tectonics…does that make it wrong?
Nobody denies climate changes. In fact, climate changes all the time.
Also, the position of the earth in space changes. What will the federal government do to prevent the rotation of the earth around the sun? And what about the rotation of earth around its own axis? What will happen if we do not get together to control the axial tilt of the earth? Winter will bring cold, cropless days to much of the world.
The solution in this case is not to attach thrusters to the continents, but to grow crops during the summer.
In the absence of a coherent argument from your side I’m going to declare myself the winner here.
By the way, one of the things I want to conserve is the environment. So I am disappointed that the Democrats continue to subsidize coal and discourage or only grudgingly go along with nuclear power. Coal removes mountains. That’s bad. Very bad.
On those mountains are trees, which soak up carbon dioxide. So for all you global warming folks: you should save the mountains, not tear them down.
Isn’t it global cooling now? No… it’s simply climate change. Well, of course climate changes. So?
OK, I’m going to summarize your arguments and then I’m done:
1. Scientists have been wrong before, therefore they’re wrong about anthropogenic climate change
2. Climate changes all the time! look, it’s raining right now. is it going to rain forever? NO!!!
3. Democrats do bad things too, why do they do such bad things?
4. Leftists! ha! what do they know about science?
5. Sustainability is fascism.
Rain is weather. Climate is not the same thing as weather.
Nobody said #4 or #5, and #1 is a misinterpretation of our position. We are saying that you’ll need more than statements from groups with a monetary interest in hysteria.
I don’t get it.
Not you, Zach. That other dude.
#1: so you’re now suggesting that every national and international scientific association that ascribes to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change has a monetary interest in hysteria? You’ll have to forgive me that I’m more inclined to trust their opinions about science than I am to trust the opinion of an undergraduate conservative ideologue, even at our fine public university.
#4: zdexter you said it yourself: “since when did leftists care about science?”
#5: “the balance of freedom and coercion that the government must exercise would be tipped toward totalitarianism if … silly measures that the government wants … are put into full measure”
I’m out. You guys keep honing your fallacies.
Well this will probably be my last comment as well. I just want to make it clear that you can believe whoever you desire about whatever you desire. My point is that the hysteria doesn’t make sense to me, an undergraduate dumb 20 year old kid.
As to # 5: I never said that “sustainability” is fascism. I was referencing the regulations that are being put forth that, I am sure, have “sustainability” as an excuse.
“#4: zdexter you said it yourself: “since when did leftists care about science?””
My point was that science does not seem to find its way into their policies on a consistent basis.
“so you’re now suggesting that every national and international scientific association that ascribes to the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change has a monetary interest in hysteria? You’ll have to forgive me that I’m more inclined to trust their opinions about science”
Scientific organizations that say that climate change is real and will change the environment are correct. Of course climate changes. The question is whether humans cause such pronounced warming or cooling trends that the planet will be unable to sustain us all.
You would be hard-pressed to find a scientific consensus stating that the earth will warm disastrously as a direct result of human actions, or that the earth will cool disastrously as a result direct of human actions. And you would be even more hard-pressed to find a consensus that gas emissions, as opposed to solar cycles, are primarily responsible for massive warming and cooling trends.
And if anthropogenic climate change is real – and of course it is on some, probably rather small and insignificant, scale – then which policies should we implement to reduce the effects of the changes? That is the practical question.
The answer is not “D) Federal control over the energy industry.”
You know, a lot of conservatives actually believe in anthropogenic climate change. You can too!
The arguments that come from the conservatives on this site just blow my mind sometimes. You act as if everything that is liberal or any government regulation is a conspiracy. Don’t you believe in any government regulation? Aren’t you happy when you flip on your light switch and don’t get electrocuted or eat a salad and don’t become ill or drive your car down the road and see stoplights functioning? Your way of life is preserved because of government regulation. And wake up, after the Wall Street meltdown and as health care costs skyrocket, people want more government, not less.
You should read a “liberal” book. You know, like “The Green Collar Economy” or something along those lines. The majority of the world believes in climate change. For now, we have to push you folks aside and continue to progress. You’ll thank us in the future.
I must say, Johnny Q, your comments seem to be good-humored most of the time, and make me laugh. Our arguments have basically nothing to do with your regulation rant. Oh and fyi my “way of life” is “preserved” one, because God allows it to be and two, because my mother and father work very hard and actually spend their money wisely, the money, that is, that the government doesn’t take/steal from their labors and three, I work nearly every day during the summer saving my money.
And of course believing in the stupid, nut-job “cliiiiimmmmmmaaaaate chaaaannggge” theories have nothing to do with being a conservative. But believing in big-government does have something to do with being a conservative, hence my article.
Oh and I will most assuredly not be thanking you later.
Of course anthropogenic climate change occurs. The question is to what extent, and what the consequences will be. It’s rather silly to accuse us of not believing in human-caused climate change, when humans clearly affect climate. But that doesn’t mean the world will self-destruct in less than 100 years. In fact, the extent to which humans impact the climate is probably quite a bit less than Al Gore claims.
I can’t even seem to get a claim of a warming or cooling trend out of you. It’s probably because you’re not sure. If the hysteria over anthropogenic climate change is anything to be concerned about, then there is an either 1) warming or 2) cooling trend that will seriously and negatively impact the earth. No one seems willing to point to either.
What do you mean by “the majority of the world believes in climate change?” What does that mean? Climate changes. I hope the majority of the world believes that. Perhaps you could define “climate change.” But that would simply expose your fallacy.
Crowd: You’re just silly. You countered with God and your parents? You win.
Dexter: How are you so sure it’s a fallacy? What do thousands of scientists from across the world stand to gain by pushing this “fallacy?” And please, let’s be mature in our arguments. When I say “climate change,” I’m referring to the question at hand: whether or not humans are responsible for affecting climate to the extent that it causes severe climactic problems on Earth.
Duh, we’re in a warming trend. That doesn’t prove your point though. Many leading scientists have said that while we are in a warming trend, the rate at which the globe is warming can not be wholly contributed to normal trends. Lots of scientists. People much brighter than you and I. People with more expertise than you and I. People who study climate for a living. People who went to school and post-graduate school to study climate. While I don’t think it’s a good idea to just take someone’s word for it, don’t you find it peculiar that thousands of scientists don’t think you’re right?
You said:
“It’s rather silly to accuse us of not believing in human-caused climate change, when humans clearly affect climate. But that doesn’t mean the world will self-destruct in less than 100 years.”
The question and the concern is, as you stated, about how much. A plethora of research exists and many experts in the field believe that if we don’t change what we’re doing, the world is screwed. You believe that humans can affect climate. Well then, what is your stance after gathering the current scientific evidence about anthropogenic climate change?
“What do thousands of scientists from across the world stand to gain by pushing this “fallacy?” ”
Grant money – and they save their jobs from ideological, fear-mongering bosses.
“You believe that humans can affect climate.”
So does everyone else on the world. If humans were to detonate thousands of nuclear bombs simultaneously, that would probably have an effect on climate. It’s the probably more subtle effects of more subtle causes that are hard to measure.
“A plethora of research exists and many experts in the field believe that if we don’t change what we’re doing, the world is screwed.”
CO2 is a trace gas in the atmosphere. Less that 400ppm. Increased emissions of carbon dioxide result in effects that decrease the impact of any additional warming from the relatively small amounts of CO2 that humans inject into the atmosphere.
Nobody really knows for sure whether increased CO2 emissions have impacted the radiative energy equilibrium in the upper atmosphere in such a manner as to let less radiation out of the earth than the sun pumps in.
Even if an imbalance exists, it could have existed for centuries before humans began emitting large amounts of CO2. And multiple weather or oceanic effects could be offsetting that balance.
So scientists have tried to model the climate, but modeling a nonlinear dynamic system with accuracy – accounting for all variables in all subsystems – is notoriously difficult.
Even if the earth is warming dramatically, the solution is *not* to hand over control of the energy industry to the feds. A better idea is to deregulate the nuclear energy market a bit and stop subsidizing oil and coal. Solar panels and wind turbines may yet become viable baseload technologies, but the government should stop subsidizing the current technology (i.e., picking winners and losers) because other solar-based systems (currently losers in that they don’t get a per-kwh tax credit) are much more efficient.
And the solution definitely does not include any kind of corn or sugarcane-based ethanol. We must not tear down the Amazon rainforest to make gas. Oil (which, along with ethanol, should stop receiving subsidies) is much less damaging to the environment.
Finally, cap and trade (and ObamaCare and the new financial regulation, etc) will only prolong this recession, and the companies that are moving us off of dirty fuels will keep having to cut R&D budgets. We’ve got to get leftists out of office so that we can start to make progress on viable baseload forms of alternative energy at the market’s usual, rapid pace.
And to directly answer your question, I think that the warming is exaggerated, that it will only be a degree or two by 2100, and that we do not fully understand how the earth’s radiative transfer mechanism works. I also think that counter-effects within that system will take much of the extra CO2 and dampen the warming effects. Finally, I am inclined be open to the possibility that natural solar cycles have caused much of any recent warming.
Also, policies that many American voters think are helping the environment are actually tearing up land and killing children.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24kristof.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11sun1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=ethanol&st=cse
“The general rise in food prices (in part because of American use of corn for ethanol) is leading to more micronutrient deficiencies. One study found that a 50 percent rise in food prices in poor countries leads to a 30 percent drop in iron intake.”
Not willing to progress towards a cleaner future, the Obama Administration keeps pushing ethanol subsidies. Note to Obama voters: that’s not change.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124148381997685649.html
I win!
Wait a minute, let me get this straight: the global warming “scare” is a secret plot for scientists across the globe to keep receiving grant money?
HAHAHA
See, this is why people don’t take you seriously. That is a very anti-science position to take. Thousands of scientists would have to be in cahoots for that to work. By your logic, we can’t trust any scientific discoveries because scientists are probably just working in their self-interest.
“Nobody really knows for sure whether increased CO2 emissions have impacted the radiative energy equilibrium in the upper atmosphere in such a manner as to let less radiation out of the earth than the sun pumps in.”
YES THEY DO!!! More greenhouse gases = a higher greenhouse gas effect. What really bugs me is that you are questioning the consensus of thousands of scientists while at the same time purporting your arguments as fact. EXPERTS believe that we are releasing so much CO2 that it will have disastrous effects on the planet. I trust folks who study climate for a living. What’s funny is you’re taking arguments from people such as Peter Dietze (who is not a scientist) and other global warming deniers. In fact, many of your statements are basically copy and pasted. But, that’s OK… neither of us are experts. However, please don’t come across as though you think you’re an expert. The views you’re purporting are in the scientific minority. This isn’t even an conservative or liberal issue — it’s about science. And while science isn’t always perfect, it has come down more often on the view that anthropogenic climate change is and is going to be a severe problem.
Johnny,
The government pours billions of dollars into the research surrounding “green” technology, and into efforts that seek to our way of life more “environmentally friendly”. You dismiss Zach’s valid point by putting words in his mouth. He didn’t claim a wide spread conspiracy. He simply answered your question by saying that scientist have a lot to gain by promoting the environmental agenda. You’d have to be incredibly naive to believe that “green” technology isn’t a lucrative business for researchers.
As far as consensus is concerned, weren’t you the one who SLAMMED the Inquisition for siding with the consensus surrounding geocentrism? Since when has consensus been science? And regarding your claim to consensus and Zach’s supposedly ridiculous claim on grant money:
Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, the vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research at Chubu University in Japan, had this to say about CO2 emissions. “CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. Every scientist knows this, but it doesn’t pay to say so. Global warming as a political vehicle, keeps Europeans in the driver’s seat and developing nations walking barefoot.”
A renowned Russian geographer and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Andrei Kapitsa says, “It is global warming that triggers higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, not the other way round Kyoto theorists put the cart before the horse.”
Oh, and by the way. There was a rather large poll done in which around 10,000 scientists were asked questions regarding global warming. About 3000 responded and of those 97% agree that global warming is an issue, and that humans play a significant role. That’s your consensus? 3000 scientists?
Also(cut and pasted): Over 700 dissenting scientists (updates previous 650 report) from around the globe challenged man-made global warming claims made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and former Vice President Al Gore. This new 2009 255-page U.S. Senate Minority Report — updated from 2007’s groundbreaking report of over 400 scientists who voiced skepticism about the so-called global warming “consensus” — features the skeptical voices of over 700 prominent international scientists, including many current and former UN IPCC scientists, who have now turned against the UN IPCC. This updated report includes an additional 300 (and growing) scientists and climate researchers since the initial release in December 2007. The over 700 dissenting scientists are more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
Source: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
You don’t have to be an expert to smell a rat, Johnny.
“What’s funny is you’re taking arguments from people such as Peter Dietze (who is not a scientist) and other global warming deniers.”
Um, ok. Haven’t heard of Peter Dietze.
I read that argument from the work of Dr. Roy W. Spencer, whose current position is: U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite). He has a Ph.D in meteorology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and has been a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama at Hunstville. He won the Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for his work with NASA monitoring global temperatures from satellites.
“More greenhouse gases = a higher greenhouse gas effect.”
You can’t go from there to: “anthropogenic climate change is and is going to be a severe problem” without a leap of more than rhetoric. Higher concentrations of certain gases cause small heating effects in the lower atmosphere, and small cooling effects in the upper atmosphere. The eventual temperature rise depends on what the feedbacks do, and that is under debate within the scientific community, no matter how badly you want leftists to start taxing energy production.