6% and Flawed Models: Why We’re Skeptical of AGW

monique-chartier-avatar

A second day, a second applause-worthy editorial by the Providence Journal yesterday. They politely call out Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, who

… asked [US] Attorney General Loretta Lynch whether the Justice Department had considered pursuing fraud charges against those who have, in his view, misled people about climate change. ….

This is troubling: a U.S. senator and attorney general, both sworn to uphold the Constitution, mulling legal action against American citizens and companies for the “crime” of challenging a scientific theory.

The ProJo correctly points out that

… it is vitally important that America not discard its essential values of freedom.

With Earth Day coming up this Friday, it’s important to note the two simple facts that make so many of us skeptical of the theory of anthropogenic global warming. 1.) Man only generates 6% of all greenhouse gases. 2.) The heart of the case for AGW, the climate models, are flawed (see here and here, and lots of other places).

Accordingly, the proposal by Senator Whitehouse and others to silence by prosecutorial bullying those who question AGW not only violates, as the ProJo points out, free speech, one of America’s essential values, but also comes across as someone who … well, doesn’t want to hear why he may be wrong about something he believes in. It’s fine to disregard facts and evidence that contradict your belief in something. It crosses the line to narrow-minded despotism, however, to propose the use of the considerable powers of government to punish people or companies attempting to present such facts and evidence.



  • Russ

    “It crosses the line to narrow-minded despotism, however, to propose the use of the considerable powers of government to punish people or companies attempting to present such facts and evidence.”

    I agree government overreach is a concern here and there’s no crime in being vocally misinformed. But you seem to be saying that corporations should have the right to deliberately mislead the public. Is that your position? If it could be demonstrated (as with tobacco advertising at one time) that companies are conducting a coordinated disinformation campaign, should that still be considered legal out of concern for the effect on legitimate critics?

    Your doctor wants you to smoke! Buyer beware?
    http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_1777633,00.html

    • Tired of the BS

      Corporations don’t mislead…people do. And I agree…people should be held accountable for lies. For example, do I hold the federal government accountable for Hillary’s lies or do I hold her accountable?

      If tobacco was so bad why does the government allow it to be sold and tax it? Oh, I see. It’s the same thing as carbon credits. We keep doing it but the government gets more money …

      • Mike678

        Russ transmits…not so good at listening.

  • Russ

    1.) Man only generates 6% of all greenhouse gases.

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
    Natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies). But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2.

    2.) The heart of the case for AGW, the climate models, are flawed (see here and here, and lots of other places).

    This is akin to saying that because weather models are flawed (they of course are as well), you should ignore hurricane warnings (you’d be foolish to do so).

    • 2) No, it’s a case to make sure the government doesn’t violate the constitution in shutting down speech, and also to make sure the government doesn’t set up a permanent, costly tax structure to counter a scenario which may never come to pass.

    • Mike678

      Russ…be very careful because you don’t want to mislead anyone do you? Getting past the flawed models and the fact that there is no proven linkage between CO2 and warming ( correlation does not equal causation), how much carbon has man put into the ground in things such as landfills? Discussing what we put into the air without talking about what we ‘fix’ or put into the ground is deceptive is it not?

      Your metaphor about hurricanes is flawed as is most of your reasoning. Hurricanes are proven to cause damage. Hurricane warnings are fairly accurate with probability tracks shown. Proven cause and effect. Additionally, I have the freedom to not leave my home under a warning if I desire. You want to deny us even that in pursuit of your religion. You and your ilk seek to deny us freedom of choice.

      No one is stopping you from turning off your heat. From not using clothing transported by truck. Put up some solar cells on your roof so your neighbors can subsidize your power needs. Better yet, shut off your lights and TV. Lead by example…like Gore (not). Show us the data that proves that the US can do anything to change the temperature by more than .03° If the theory proves correct. Show us that there has not been warming and cooling cycles in the past. Show us the data approves the Suns output is not variable. Show us that heat kills more than cold. The list is endless…. But not to the faithful….

Quantcast