Global warming reversals

April 13, 2011

In 2009, Sen. Mark Kirk (R--Ill.), then a congressman,
voted for a bill that would have regulated greenhouse gases--a bill that died in the Senate. Kirk later did an about-face
on global warming. In January he explained that "the consensus behind the
climate change bill collapsed and then further deteriorated with the personal
and political collapse of [former] Vice President Gore."

A few days later, Sen. James Inhofe (R--Ok.) defended his
new bill to stonewall the Environmental Protection Agency's research into greenhouse
gases' negative health effects, bemoaning his former position: "I have to
admit--and, you know, confession is good for the soul...I, too, once thought
that catastrophic global warming was caused by anthropogenic gases--because
everyone said it was."

Such mawkish and insubstantial explanations--pious
confession rhetoric, ad hominem attacks on Al Gore--demonstrate a cavalier
attitude toward the environment. Fortunately, while the House voted last week to block the EPA from
enforcing its Supreme Court-backed regulation of greenhouse gases, senators
opposed to EPA regulation couldn't come up with the votes--and attempts
to include such a provision in the budget deal failed.
But they're likely to try again.

Barack Obama's election restored buoyancy to
environmental groups. But after the Climategate scandal
of 2009--a scandal based on allegations discredited by three separate
investigations--elected officials like Kirk and Inhofe took the opportunity to
change their views on global warming. Their flimsy explanations for this often
echo the standard global-warming denier's talking point: "There's nothing
conclusive about the evidence." This phrase has become the Republicans' go-to
antiphon, their response to whatever argument someone gives them.

Opponents of greenhouse-gas regulation are focusing on
its potential economic effects. But while nobody pretends that carbon emission
caps and efficiency upgrades won't cost anything, the EPA recognizes that
short-term corporate budget strains aren't the whole picture--and that the
benefits outweigh the costs.

For instance, in response to Rep. John Carter's
(R.--Tex.) recent
attempt
to block efforts to cut cement plant emissions, the EPA provided
data demonstrating that the regulation would produce public health benefits seven
to 19 times
greater than its economic costs. Or take Representative Ed
Whitfield's (R.--Ken.) objection that new fuel economy standards would add $948
to the cost of each car by 2016. The EPA countered with a study showing that
over time, consumers would save more than that on gas-about $3,000
over the lifetime of a 2016 vehicle.

Job creation estimates favor green policy as well.
Ceres--a national coalition of investors, environmental groups and other public
interest organizations addressing sustainability challenges--issued a report in
February showing that the EPA's new power plant regulations would generate hundreds
of thousands of jobs
over five years.

In all, the EPA estimates $240 billion in benefits,
compared to $52
billion
in costs. These pro-environment policies are hard to dismiss even
in a debate focused only on the economy. What's more, voters may decide that
public health concerns should trump party loyalty and political maneuvering. Then
Kirk and Inhofe will have to find new explanations for their about-faces on
global warming.

Comments

The empirical data contradicts the chicken little CAGW hysteria

I don't know about the live faithfully part, but think critically was not exhibited in the artical. What was discredited by three separate investigations? DO YOUR HOME WORK AND READ THE EMAILS AND THE INVESTIGATION REPORTS. The faith in authority that you proclaim- catastrophic global warming threatens the planet according to the IPCC- is just that , a proclamation. The empirical data is contrary. There have been 20 years of warming, 1978-1998, in the last 63 years. Before 1978 there was 30 years of slight cooling. Since 1998 temperatures have flatlined with no additional warming. There is no unprecedented warming. The 20 years of warming, 1978-1998, was statistically the same as the 20 years of warming from 1922-1942. The warming of the last 63 years and the previous 63 years are about the same. In fact, there has been about 0.7C +/- 0.2C warming per century for the last 300 years since the Little Ice Age This can all be easily confirmed at NOAA. . Todays warming is a continuation of that trend with no indication that carbon emissions have changed the gradual warming. Faith based on the authority of the IPCC climate scientists or science based on empirical data- which do you choose?

empiracal data confirms predictions

Contrary to what the poster above said, the empirical data are fully in line with the model predictions of the warming of the planet under our quickly rising CO2 concentration.
We have added 40% to the pre-industrial CO2 levels over the last century. The temperature has been rising with a steady trend:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Recent papers underline the severity of the issue:

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0907/full/climate.2009.57.html

Those who carelessly calling the scientists who are revealing the inconvenient truth to us "chicken little" better be prepared to swallow their pride.

The next generation will not be kind to those telling us not to care today for the well being of our descendants.

Post proof of assertions

" In fact, there has been about 0.7C +/- 0.2C warming per century for the last 300 years since the Little Ice Age This can all be easily confirmed at NOAA. "

Maybe you should show us, because I can't find the last 300 years, just the last 130.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/service/global/global-land-ocean-mntp-anom...

You say a lot of bull, but fail to back it up. I showed you mine, you show me yours, because I'm going to take your word for it!

A Prayer for Global Warming

Global warming "science" is far, far from conclusive. "Experts" on the other end of the spectrum are equally convinced that people have virtually no impact. See things like http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html. In response to both sides I have to return to a statement that no legitimate scientist can refute: on its good days, science is incomplete. The rest of the time it is just plain wrong. If you need proof, why did the father of modern physics (on his good days) subscribe to alchemy (the rest of the time)?

Don't be fooled into believing that we are better informed today. We are barely able to forecast the local weather tomorrow, and our best forecasts are always wrong in many respects. "Scientific" models on global climate are not any better, and are hardly even worth calling science at all. The scientific method requires a number of things, not the least of which are objective, measurable data, and the ability to repeat results. The data are all over the board. Repeatability? We can't produce the predicted result (for either side of the argument), much less produce it again. That said, if our best models indicate that less ghg is better, we should try to produce less.

Turning from rank political overtones and pseudo-science to something a little more personal and a lot more eternal, a leading figure of the Great Awakening went reluctantly to a meeting where Martin Luther's preface to the book of Romans was read. That evening, John Wesley felt that his heart was strangely warmed. His lackluster career in the church, complete with abject failure in the mission field, was transformed into one of the most dynamic ministries in the last 300 years. My prayer today is for the same thing to happen in every heart around the world--a true demonstration of global warming.