This is a response to a link that my father posted on facebook. In quotes is eveything that he said and my response to them below.

Please do not take this offensively, but I am very sick of this sentiment. Now is a time for action not more argument like this. I am happy to talk all day about the right way to solve the problem, but arguing the problem does not exist is irrational and irresponsible.

“It is interesting that many popular beliefs are a complete myth. For example: “Those who do not believe (Global Warming/Climate Change) is an urgent issue are ignorant of the science”.”

“Those who believe say the science is settled and we need to drastically change our way of life and our economy to stop this impending disaster. The Climate Change crusade is specifically couched in emotion and agenda not science. The skeptical among us are faced with a “when did you stop beating your wife?” question. The assumption of the correctness of the understanding to the problem outweighs the rational evaluation of the science and those who don’t believe are guilty of something. The science is NEVER settled. The real danger is the backers of the political movement do not understand that for a Scientific Theory to be true the evidence to support it and must be consistent. Science demands that when valid conflicting evidence disputes the expected results of a theory, that theory must be modified or abandoned. A theory can only stand when it is the best explanation for what is going on. Unless it is propped up by those with some emotional or financial agenda.”

To this point: Climate Change is not a theory it is a fact. Climate change is a fact because it is the undeniable evidence that we have been witnessing more extreme climates than we ever have before. This is an observation and it is the beginning of forming a theory. A more proper argument would be that our theories about the cause of climate change are inconclusive. This is not the current opinion of the scientific community.

Scientists examined 4,014 abstracts on climate change and found 97.2 percent of the papers assumed humans play a role in global warming. My quote: “[Tol] has even said there is no doubt in his mind that there is an overwhelming scientific consensus, so everyone is a little bit amused by the fact that he agrees with our results and yet he has been attacking our research,”

“So why should those who value science should be skeptical of the Climate change mantra. A short list:” I disagree that this is a short list; short lists should consist of less than 4 bullets.

“-This article explains that Global warming stopped with the end of the 90s. (Hence the new term Climate change.)” There is no mention of this anywhere in the article linked, but let me disprove it anyways Simple Graph: Reference Source of data: Reference Reference

“-The correlation of our Ice caps receding at the same rate of those on our neighbors. Venus and mars.” This is utterly false and quite irrelevant. For mars we do not have long-term data for their temperature variations. The NASA article this is often reference for this has this huge caveat: “Unfortunately, Fenton’s conclusions were undermined by the failure to distinguish between climate (trends) and weather (single events). Taking two end points – pictures from 1977 and 1999 – did not reveal any kind of trend, merely the weather on two specific Martian days. Without the intervening data – which was not available – it is impossible to say whether there was a trend in albedo reduction, or what part the prodigious dust storms played in the intervening period between the first and second photographs. Indeed, when you look at all the available data – sparse though it is – there is no discernable long term trend in albedo.” Reference

“-The 80 were all about the coming Ice age. Yet another theory that has been abandoned, look it up if you cannot remember. “ This is anecdotal evidence that has no place in the scientific theory you claim to understand. Lets pretend that this is anything more than an emotional argument. If you take a look at the rebranding of global warming into climate change you can see that it was not a political one, but one what was motivated by more correct terminology. This correct terminology is required because many people will see these cold winters and think, “Global warming does not exist, and it is too cold”. Climate Change takes into account the entire picture. Reference

-Rampant falsification of data so that it meets the theory and political agenda. Where? Give me some links… I’ll give you one to start at. Reference

-The historical record, both man-made and that found in the geological evidence supports a continuously cycling climate. Yes climates continually cycle, but we are currently above normal. Reference

-We are well within the norms of this cycle. Not even close to the previously highs and lows. Yes we are, but we are increasingly headed towards a tipping point in which we will fall out of those norms. We may be in the norms for the planet but you also have to remember that life on earth is a new concept on a geological timeframe. Surviving would be very difficult if we went to any of the extremes that we are currently headed for.

Reference This article is great (read the whole thing) Reference This video is a simple explanation of why this is a quite irrelevant point: Reference

-When compared to the last hundred years we have recorded, our current temperature changes do not stand out in any way. It is only when we look at an extremely small or chosen sample that any “rise” is apparent. The bigger numbers mean that is increasing in temperatures or “Rising”


This is where we get into the fun! “Unfortunately the conflicting Science does not fit the political agenda of those seeking legislation to regulate most if not all of our economy.” What conflicting science? 3% disagreeing is not a conflict; it is the representation of outliers.

“They propose the way to fix it is through government management of the process.” Who do you want to manage it? BP? Enron? Any corporation who has a fiduciary responsibility to make profits not change. There is nothing wrong with this, but they are not the people to create something for the public good. We can scour the earth and use every resource and what will we be left with? A bunch of useless rocks with memories of beauty.

“For example: Cap and trade has nothing to do with protecting our environment or stemming non existent global warming. The name should be changed to Ration and Tax. This will be the effect of Cap and trade. You cannot call it that because folks would then understand what is going on and never allow it. Don’t be fooled by political rhetoric masquerading as Science.”

Rationing a limited resource that is required for life is logical. I really do not want to argue this. Something needs to be done and incentivizing reduction in harmful chemicals is a great way to make some changes. Reference Reference

Do a little research and find out what is really happening. Some thing that has disturbed me is the scorched earth policy that many conservatives are taking (Some liberal are too, but they have been less common as of late.) The right is not right, the left is not right. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.

Sometimes doing nothing is the right thing to do. Sometimes doing nothing leaves your Grand Children (Hey I am working on that part, give me a year or two or ten) with an unlivable planet. We are not doing nothing, we are acting against it and being a part of the problem.

Matt Misner

A Technically Personal Blog