Grassroots Commentary

Global Warming

By Hugh Doss · Feb. 12, 2013

I continue to be both alarmed and amused that anthropogenic (manmade) global warming is such an important issue for the political left to focus on at a cost to our economy of trillions of dollars over a period of years.

When experts such as Timothy Ball, Richard Lindzen, Timothy Patterson, Scott Armstrong, William Gray, Kesten Green, John Coleman, Joe D'Aleo, Lord Christopher Monckton and Joe Bastardi – along with so many others that have been published on the subject of global warming – agree global warming is not caused by human behavior, the matter is not at all settled.

Joe D'Aleo described our atmosphere as a 100 story building, with man's contribution of carbon dioxide amounting to the level of linoleum on the first floor. Even though atmospheric carbon dioxide continues to accumulate – it's up 4 percent since 1998 – the global mean temperature has remained flat since then. Further, CO2 is only 0.038% of our atmosphere (1/27 of 1%, which is less than 4/100 of 1%), and nature, not mankind, is responsible for more than 95% of that small number. That raises some obvious questions about the theory that CO2 is the cause of climate change. How much would we have to spend to reduce it enough to be able to measure it? Moreover, the positive affect of increased CO2 is to cause plant life to grow larger and produce more.

I am also reminded that Newsweek in April of 1975 proclaimed a coming ice age. This was after NASA, in 1971, predicted a disastrous ice age may only be 50 or 60 years away. Media hysteria always has us starving, freezing or burning up. That is the nature of their business ….. facts seem to matter very little.


wjm in Colorado said:

Every fantasy the Marxists espouse has nothing to do with any facts, but about power and controll. If they can create some hysteria about anything, climate, guns, education, then they can come up with some way to get control of it. What is most troubling about the left, is when they do legislate or regulate, everyone ends up worse off than if nothing was done. That is the problem of tryanny and transformation, misery is shared by all at the expense of the tyrants, who live in luxury and polute at levels the common man cannot comprehend.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 3:03 PM

pr in utah said:

I wonder if its a delicate balancing act. That small additions can have large effects. Like the grain of rice tipping the scale. I think we all admit there seem to be more extreme weather occurrences... Be nice if it wasn't true, I just don't know anymore.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 3:46 PM

erik in monterey, ca said:

Timothy Ball is a shill for energy companies, Richard Lindzen seems rather on the fence about man-made global warming, and Joe D'Aleo believes "Earth and its ecosystems — created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence — are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth's climate system is no exception."

I didn't care to look up the rest - but you haven't blown anyone away with your list of "experts" on climate anything.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013 at 8:33 PM

Russell C in USA replied:

" ... Timothy Ball is a shill for energy companies ... "

And the relevance of that is.......... what, exactly? Richard Lindzen most certainly questions the extent, if any of notable significance, of human activity being a major part of global warming, and Joe D'Aleo's religious beliefs have no relevance on his observations of long-term climate. He observes what we all observe and interprets what we see through established laws of physics. Who or what first established those laws is of no significance to the current global warming situation.

You may not care to look up the rest, because such other skeptics probably undermine whatever pre-conceived notions you have about global warming. Skeptics' objective is not to 'blow away' anyone. However, they most certainly do offer highly detailed climate assessments based on peer-reviewed science journal-published papers, such as the NIPCC Reports ( ). These kinds of assessments, at the very least, contradict what the IPCC claims about the role of human activity in global warming.

State opinions about the character of skeptic scientists if it makes you feel better, but fail to offer any valid reason why your opinions have any relevance in the absence of how this renders skeptics unworthy of consideration, and you will convince no one to join your side. Instead, they will look at yours and others' attempts at character assassination as a tactic giving the appearance that those on the IPCC side have little actual confidence of their underlying science being able to stand on its own merits.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 12:48 AM

anderlan in Georgia replied:

Thank you! Same old guys, again and again. Compare this prima-ideologia article to the stated consensus of every established science academy on earth, whose science has been vetted and found reasonable by the Vatican, the US Council of Bishops, the congresses of every major religious sect in America, the US Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, and most of the Fortune 500 not directly involved in fossil fuel extraction and refining!

Not only is fossil protection vile and dangerous, it is destroying potential wealth that could be flowing if energy transition were to happen sooner than later.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Russell C in USA replied:

As Lord Monckton so succinctly pointed out last August ( ) " ...the fallacy of appeal to authority is legitimate as long as it meets conditions such as “genuineness” and “consensus”. This really will not do. An argument must stand on its own internal merits: to pray external forces in aid is to misunderstand the process of logical thought altogether. After all, who is to say whether the “experts” are acting with “genuineness”, rather than in response to peer pressure, political predilection, social convenience, or financial profit? And, since the argument from consensus is itself an elementary fallacy, praying it in aid to shore up the fallacy of appeal to authority seems desperate, and is scarcely a rational approach. ..."

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 2:10 PM

G. Daylan in Peoria, IL said:

I do not "admit that there seem to be more extreme weather occurences." I do admit that there are 24-hour "news" outlets that concentrate on every change in the weather. Occasionally, bad storms occur but the increased damage caused by them is primarily due to population increases and the inflation of property values. Comparing dollar losses due to Sandy (2012) and Diana (1955) is rididulous.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 5:48 AM

Icarus62 in Texas said:

All the evidence shows that human activity is now the dominant influence on global climate, responsible for all of the global warming of the last half century. So-called 'skeptics' such as those listed above can rail against this in print but they can't change the facts. There is a legitimate debate to be had over how bad the impacts are going to be, and what action we should take in response (e.g. the cost of mitigation vs adaption). That is what we should be focussing on, not the tired old denial of reality which is still occasionally being rolled out in articles such as this one.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 7:33 AM

Russell C in USA replied:

The "evidence" commenter Icarus62 refers to without any specificity is contradicted by assessments made by skeptic climate scientists in reports like the NIPCC, which I linked to in my comment further above. Astute readers of that and other skeptic assessments will readily see how the scientists do not "deny" reality, they offer the opinion that human-induced greenhouse gases are not conclusively demonstrated to be the main driver of global warming. Further, it is misleading for commenter Icarus62 to claim skeptic opinion is "occasionally being rolled out" when it can be found in abundance by anyone who chooses to look for it on their own.

So when commenters like Icarus62 state two unsupportable talking points in that manner, it doesn't win converts to their side, it instead makes more and more people wonder about the need to employ such shell-game tactics.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013 at 2:22 PM

Hank in Indiana said:

I agree with Hugh - well said!

Sunday, February 24, 2013 at 7:55 AM