Close this Advertisement

Environmental Protection Blog

Blog archive

Global Warming's Faulty Logic

I think it's safe to say EPonline readers are passionate individuals. Many of our articles receive a lot of comments from readers who enthusiastically announce their resounding agreement or staunch opposition. In order to have balance in our editorial coverage, I feel this is as it should be.

In my opinion, the news topic that has always caused the greatest furor has to be the global warming/climate change issue. In the interest of full disclosure, I wish to make it clear that I am undecided as to where I stand on this issue; I neither support nor oppose the theory. I think there is more to learn on this issue before a determination can be made; therefore, call me an agnostic as far as this issue is concerned.

Regardless of where you stand, this particular topic seems to bring both sides up in arms. One prominent, recent example of this is the news item "EPA Rejects 10 Endangerment Challenge Petitions." In addition to attracting the usual string of scathing comments, this news item spurred one reader to also send us this commentary: Commentary: Little Objectivity on Climate Change.

But the purpose of this blog entry is not to debate the validity of global warming, but call out the confusing logic employed by both sides to support their arguments. Without naming names--you're welcome to search out the comments among the many news items on our Global Climate Change news page--many times a commenter, often in the same paragraph, will espouse with unwavering certainty that global warming does or does not exist and then, as further proof or his or her stance, immediately follow up that affirmation with a sentence stating that there is more going on in our environment than we can completely understand.

This strikes me as akin to someone declaring that without a doubt the world is flat or round, period, but then assuring us that he or she is correct because we don't possess a ship that can carry us beyond the horizon.

Can we at least agree that the issue deserves more study before we support or denounce it? Let's take a cue from Shakespeare and concede the fact that "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

Posted by Marc Barrera on Aug 09, 2010 at 12:43 PM


Comments

Tue, Jul 10, 2012 Earnest Harper Idaho

This was my comment to the related article in the July 10th issue of ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION. A few points to balance the above opinion. (1) NOTE that this heat wave has been off-set globally by EU and other cooler-than-normal conditions. (2) CO2, which is ~1% by volume in air with only 3% of the 1% from anthropogenic sources has NEVER been proven as a direct or indirect cause of GW. (3) NOTE that NOT ONE Model of GW has been accurate in their projections and are usually off by one or more step functions. (4) NOTE that while CO2 has gradually climbed to near 390 ppm, since 1996, global temperatures have been FLAT or slightly cooler! (NOAA/NCDC) and believe it or not, the first 6 months of 2012 are below the 5-year temperature average. (5) The evidence against CO2 and the UNJUSTIFIED REGULATION OF CARBON is a sign that politics has replaced Science in large part with the previously respected EPA. VERY SAD!

Thu, Aug 19, 2010

Dear Ms. Williams, The reason not all give their names is frankly, out of a fear of reprisal. In some circles, nonconforming opinions are dealt with swiftly and without mercy. Ask those who work at many leading universities, and national agencies. Shameful, is it not?

Thu, Aug 19, 2010 bruderly Florida

Papers touting theoretical proofs from 1909 and 1928 ignore an overwhelming body of evidence compiled since that validates basic physical-chemical connections between greenhouse gas and climate response. Arguments over the science is pointless; whether one believes the science or not is irrelevant. The major thrust of the political / economic argument should be risk management; climate uncertainty, especially chaotic uncertainty, is a major risk to survival of economies and civiliization as we know it. The prudent response to risk posed by unpredictable threats in our society has always been to take reasonable, cost-effective measures to mitigate the threat AND to purchase insurance against damages that might be caused by the threat. Society cannot predict whether or not your house will burn down, let alone when. But society can act to make this less likely to happen and to help you manage the financial risk in a responsbile manner.The economic and political response of society to pollution is slightly different; basically the polluter is expected to stop making pollution or obtain permission from the government to continue to do so. Under tort law the cost of damages from pollution can be recovered if the damaged party has the means to seek recovery. The magnitude of risk from a nonlinear (aka chaotic) climate response to human pollution is so large and responsibility so broadly based that recovery of tort damages from a responsible party is impossible. In this case coordinated action to prevent or mitigate the threat is a rational response by civilized society. Since purchasing insurance against the impacts of climate chaos is impractical, economists must treat the cost of climate mitigation the same way they treat the cost of health, fire, life and property insurance and other risk management strategies. Politicians must be honest and treat efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions like any other risk management strategy, balancing short-term costs against long-term consequences. Unfortunately Americans, in general, and American politicians, in particular, tend to be rather short-sighted when confronted with controversial problems that are both complex and threaten the established order of things.

Wed, Aug 18, 2010 Editor

Please note that the comment submitted on Friday the 13th was heavily edited and approved only so I could make a comment. Name-calling is not the way to get your comment approved. Please bring new insight not insults into the discussion. Many commenters also are critical of some views but when they express theirs, they are not willing to leave their names. Hmmmmm.
-LK Williams

Tue, Aug 17, 2010 cleanwater Cleveland

Many AGW' freeks refer to the temperature data sets provided by NOAA. Well it has just been announce by NOAA themselfves that at least one(1) data set and probably four(4) other data sets have been corroupted by "bad" sensors thus they have shut down the Great Lakes data set because it was showing Lake Michigan at 612 degrees f. Garbage in is Garbage out. Maybe its time to scrape a 200 year old Hypothese that has never been proven by creditable experimental data.

Fri, Aug 13, 2010

anyone who doesn't "believe" its happening is a moron.

Wed, Aug 11, 2010 cleanwater USA

I have commented on this subect repeatedly and unfortunately most people have no knowledge of physics and prefect to believe in fairy-tales,just like Star Trek or Star Wars etc. The first person to disprove the " ghg effect" was R.W.Wood a professor of physics and optics at John Hopkins University from 1901-1955. In 1909 Prof. Wood publiced his work that showed that the "ghg effect" does not happen. Since then many physicists have shown that the concept of the "ghg effect" violates fundamental laws of physics. below are a few of many references:
The paper "Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics" by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.

Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Web- site references:
www.americanthinker.com-wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
!!The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance."
—Albert Einstein

Tue, Aug 10, 2010

To all those who believe in global climate change, please predict the future correctly, so I can plan my life.

Tue, Aug 10, 2010 Alex

@ norris hall: Both comments by Medvedev are correct. But I think in his situation, where his popularity is decreasing and the government clearly dropped the ball with respect to fire control, blaming climate change (at least publicly) deflects some responsibility from emergency management agencies to a boogie man... so it's a political statement more than anything...

Mon, Aug 9, 2010

Thanks Marc, global warming deserves more study but we are certain (as certain as we can ever be in science, which is means highly probable) of the following: co2 is increasing, the increase over the past 120 years is the result of burning fossil fuels, co2 is associated with increased global temperatures in the paleoclimate record, most of the world glaciers are melting, sea levels are rising and have been rising for over 100 years, extreme weather-related events are increasing (floods droughts, wild fires, etc.). All of these spell danger for the future. It is easy to show the evidence for each of these (and other changes). That evidence is overwhelming and that is why the latest poll of climate scientists showed that 97% agree. Most study?, Yes. But act like nothing is decided and nothing is really happening? When would you make a decision? Read one the several hundred books that have been published on this in the past five years. Then I think you will stop with the "nothing is decided" theme.

Mon, Aug 9, 2010 anon

Eschatology is at the root of all this. People are afraid of the brute scientific truth that when they die the universe will move on without them, without even caring that they existed. The spiritual solution to this is to have the world end and everybody die together. This way people don't have to be brave about their immortality, and can instead huddle under the End Of the World Rock.

Mon, Aug 9, 2010 norris hall

Russian President Medvedev 2009 "(global warming is) some kind of tricky campaign made up by some commercial structures to promote their business projects." Russian President Medvedev after July 31, 2010 "practically everything is burning. The weather is anomalously hot. What's happening with the planet's climate right now needs to be a wake-up call to all of us, ...in order to take a more energetic approach to countering the global changes to the climate."

Add your Comment

Your Name:(optional)
Your Email:(optional)
Your Location:(optional)
Comment:
Please type the letters/numbers you see above