TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Global Warming: Make me an offer...

The theory of man made global climate change says that human co2 emissions, in fact, are a massive and immediate threat to the earth. This theory has been taken as token fact even though temperature models that formed the theory are now almost two decades into inaccurate projections of temperatures thought to have rapidly risen by now, but have actually been stable since the year 2000.

Pretend I'm a high ranking government official and answer this for me as though you were a policy analyst:

Is it logical for governments to enact policy that is detrimental to fossil fuel industries, global economies, and the families of those workers who are literally put out of work by the government based off of the increasingly unfounded and hotly scientifically contested theory of man-made global climate change?

Keep in mind these factors:
Renewable energy does not have a cheap and efficient answer currently.

As we've seen with the Stimulus Package- government subsidized "green" start-ups end in bankruptcy.

The country is in the midst of an economic crisis.

Fossil fuel is the most cost effective and profitable energy source.

Fear is a powerful tool for politicians and businessmen alike.

Have fun kiddos!


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • Aug 19 2013: Darlington,

    The article is written by Patrick J Michaels who works for Western Fuels Association. It seems to me that this is in line with the quote I gave from Upton Sinclair in The Jungle, it is hard for a man to see the truth when his employer is paying him not to.

    In 2006 ABC news reported that the Intermountain Rural Electric Association had given Michaels $100,000. He is a hired gun and has no credibility.

    This is the same guy who grossly misrepresented Hansen's 1988 study to congress at the time of the Kyoto Protocol, deleting 2 of the three scenarios presented in that paper including the scenario that Hansen had said was most likely and which has also been the most accurate to date. Instead, he chose scenario 3 which was the worst possible case scenario and said that it was flawed.

    Hansen replied "Pat Michaels, has taken the graph from our 1988 paper with simulated global temperatures for scenarios A, B and C, erased the results for scenarios B and C, and shown only the curve for scenario A in public presentations, pretending that it was my prediction for climate change. Is this treading close to scientific fraud?" Again, this person has no credibility.

    Nathan Urban has also accused World Climate Report, something Pat Michaels had written, of "doctoring their paper's main figure when reporting their study…I find the result of their figure manipulation to be very misleading…they intentionally took our figure out of the context in which it was originally presented, a form of "selective quotation" which hides data that does not support their interpretation…I find World Climate Report's behavior very disappointing and hardly compatible with true skeptical inquiry." Again, no credibility.

    There are numerous cases in which Michaels has deleted data which contradicts his argument that the planet will warm less than most scientists expect.

    So once again, do you have any credible research on "conflicted data"?
    • Aug 19 2013: Your point is valid, but works both ways. If this man is not credible because his being compensated for his work makes him a "hired gun" then all the grants given to Alarmist scientists to corroborate man made climate change should make them equally lacking in credibility. Scientific credibility is subjective when it comes to completely theoretical conclusions.

      See the following for more resources:



      Now proceed to poke holes in these fine folks via liable because you're running out of projections supporting your theory, my friend.

      P.S. Add this for some supplemental reading:
      • Aug 19 2013: Receiving grant money is not evidence of subterfuge. It is critical information, which in turn may point to a pattern of subterfuge. However, the fact that this person has consistently and repeatedly deleted data that is contrary to his theory, that is the basis on which I don't waste my time with him.

        Also, the conclusion that I am "running out of projections" is a non sequitor. To this point you have not eliminated a single scientific projection since the only reference you have given was a fraud.

        I will look at this reference as well, but it is you that is running out of credible references since your first and foremost one was rejected.

        Dr. Roy Spencer is famous for a few things. First, he believes that as the Earth warms from global warming (what he refers to as "radiative imbalance" that we will have more clouds and that these clouds will reflect more sunlight back to space. If he is completely accurate on this all it means is that the current models need to be tweaked. Radiative imbalance is currently something that has been underweighted in the models. We have discovered that as the ice melts we are absorbing more of the sun's energy as heat than was previously projected. But regardless of how heavily weighted it is it doesn't change the basic premise or theory. Only whether this will play out in my golden years or my children's golden years. He also points out that "climate change has happened before". This is true, but what is often not mentioned is that mass extinction also happened before and in conjunction with climate change. I think it is his use as an "expert" on the Rush Limbaugh radio show that has made him famous.

        The other theory that he is famous for is to argue that evolution is a flawed theory and that he supports intelligent design instead. As a person who believes the Bible I have to believe God formed man from the dust of the ground, hence I believe that evolution is according to the record in Genesis.
      • Aug 23 2013: From Forbes.com

        Larry E. Bell, Risk Manager--HollyFrontier Oil Corporation.

        Adams Resources & Energy

        Director Compensation for 2011
        Fees earned or paid in cash $60,000
        Total Compensation $60,000
        Stock Ownership for 2007
        Number of shares owned 1,000

        I think the term I am looking at is "POW! BIASED!"
        • Aug 26 2013: And the IPCC isn't? Come on man...

          Oh, and I'm sure that Fritz Vahrenholt (mentioned in the article above) is somehow in with big oil too, eh?
      • Aug 24 2013: Why do you still use the term "Global Warming" since scientists have pushed to change the expression to "Climate change"? On a hot summer day drinking a cold glass of ice tea no one says "hurry up and drink your ice tea before it gets warmer" they say "hurry up and drink your ice tea before the ice melts". The Earth is like a giant glass of ice tea with ice at the two poles. This keeps the Earth at a nice temperature for people, instead of getting too cold we just get more ice and instead of getting too warm we just lose some ice. However, if the ice melts then you will really see "global warming".

        The apostle Peter said that "with fabricated words they will make merchandise of you". Global warming is a fabricated word. If you tell people we have global warming then they ask how much the earth has warmed in the last 100 years, then they think, hey that's not so bad, I can live with that. However, if you called it global melting they would ask how much ice has melted. Then they would learn that based on Nasa satellite images the Polar ice cap is shrinking at a rate of 9% per decade. Since sea water absorbs much more of the sun's rays as heat than ice does this creates a very powerful feedback loop so that the more ice that melts the faster the ocean warms up and the faster the ice will melt.

        So please use "Climate change" or "global melting" to refer to the impact that CO2 is having.

        As for your seeking for the words "Boom, Roasted!" be careful what you seek for, you may just get it.
        • Aug 26 2013: Because for the ice to melt something had to warm it? What you're describing is a scientific classification geared toward the exact kind of fear mongering that the IPCC is guilty of.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.