Michael Barone: I'd have "been grateful for some global warming as I waited in the dark for the school bus" in Michigan
July 12, 2009 4:05 pm ET by Media Matters staff
From Barone's July 12 Washington Examiner column titled, "Who's afraid of global warming?":
I am open to arguments on this issue, but as I have written several times it seems to me that many global warming alarmists are motivated by something that is more like religion than science. It makes sense to try to mitigate negative effects of any change in climate or weather, as we are quite capable of doing, technologically and economically. Though not always politically, as seen by our decades-long failure to protect our one major city under sea level, New Orleans, from the effects of a catastrophic storm, in the ways that the Dutch have protected their country in which most people live below sea level. But imposing huge costs on our private sector economy on the basis of computer models of something as complex as climate, and which have not done a good job of predicting the present or recent past, seems the height of folly.
I think it makes more sense to monitor and mitigate--keep our eyes open for problems that may occur and take intelligent action to prevent negative effects.
[...]
As for global warming, why assume that every affect will be negative? I grew up in Michigan and would have been grateful for some global warming as I waited in the dark for the school bus. As [Ian] Plimer explains in the opening chapter of Heaven and Earth, climate has been much warmer and much cooler at various times in the past. Human beings have adapted--and it's been a lot easier to adapt to warming than cooling.
The media myth of Obama's "falling poll numbers"
How to annoy Glenn Beck in five minutes or less
Media Matters: In which Glenn Beck hosts talk of tickle fights
The deniers sure can milk their simpleton jokes though. Ha ha, it's cold sometimes, so what's so bad about Global warming?? MOst of America's overweight, they could use a little cancer or AIDS. Yuk yuk.
Gee, I don't think anyone said that every effect would be negative. It is quite possible that some areas that are now suffering from drought conditions might see an increase in rain, etc. Although the people in New Orleans might look at it different if sea levels were to rise.
I think it makes more sense to monitor and mitigate--keep our eyes open for problems that may occur and take intelligent action to prevent negative effects.
So, I guess his answer is to sit on our hands until sea levels are up, extreme storms are the status quo, and million of acres of farmland have been lost due to climate change. (among other effects) Rather than being pro-active and doing what we can to mitigate our affects on the enviroment now.
It makes sense to try to mitigate negative effects of any change in climate or weather, as we are quite capable of doing
Huh? This guy must be privy to some kind of super secret weather technology, that no one else is aware of. Assuming nothing changes and global warming continues, there is not a magic weather machine that we just need to flip a switch on to solve all our problems. Any action we take needs to be thought out well since any action we take will take time to show it's affects, whether good or bad.
Some peoples will be able to adapt okay. But people don't have the ability to move away from the coastlines in many countries. That's where they own property, and we aren't going to be able to just have everyone shuffle inland hundreds of meters at a time so that no one gets disadvantaged. When current coastlines disappear, it's likely to cause violent conflicts around the world unlike any we've ever seen. When climate change affects areas in a bad way, we're likely to see the citizens of those areas act in less than delightful ways. And when climate change affects areas in 'good' ways, we aren't likely to see those newly-benefitted citizens suddenly share their wealth with others.
Our descendents are in for some big shocks and tough times, even if they personally aren't affected in a major way by global warming.
Craig came to your defense in that last article citing some of the costs of inaction (his source was the NRDC). Let's take the fallacy of one of his projected costs, hurricane damage, as an example by crunching the numbers since Big Al made his ominous statement: "But there is now a strong, new emerging consensus [there's that word again] that global warming is indeed linked to a significant increase in both the duration and intensity of hurricanes." Cue the screams.
So how much has the U.S. lost due to hurricane damage since Al made his dire warning in AIT? I guess that would be a big fat goose egg since not one hurricane has made landfall in the U.S. since he spouted his nonsense. And the predictions from NOAA and Colorado State were off as well if you go the "I don't care what Al says, what are the scientists saying" route:
The 2006 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 140% of average season; actual was 85% (only off by a minor 55% and their forecast released in April was 195%, off merely 110% from the actuals).
The 2007 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 160% of average season; actual was 99% (only off by 61% and again, their forecast released in April was 185%, just wrong by 86%).
The 2008 August Net Tropical Cyclone activity prediction was 190% of average season; actual was 162% (finally closer to reality but still off by 28%, and the irony here is if they stuck with their April forecast of 160% they would have been pretty much right on).
I got these numbers from Colorado State themselves, so please don't try to pull the "data funded by big oil" technique. So over the last three years the August predictions (you know, two months INTO the hurricane season) were off on average just 48%, a mere pittance. So how is 2009 shaping up? Although their December 2008 prediction of 135% has been tempered, it seems they may have wised up a bit in their alarmism since. Their April NTC number was 105%. In light of reality, their June NTC number dropped to 90%. We'll see what they have to say in their follow-up reports, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say the numbers will be off substantially again, my margin of error being, oh 48% or so.
If scientists (widely regarded as experts in their field) who have been doing this kind of stuff for decades can't even make accurate predictions IN NEAR REAL TIME, could you please explain to me how we are to rely on the "consensus" computer models that project years and decades and sometimes centuries into the future? And no, I am not confusing weather with long term climate statistics. This is only an issue because Al and others tried their best to link the intense 2005 hurricane season to global warming. Don't let the facts get in the way of some good hype, right?
That is just one of the many exaggerations you have bought into by believing the AGW models. The issue is the same with the IPCC/Hansen/Mann projections. There seem to be no repercussions to their inaccuracies when the real-world numbers are scrutinized. Instead the goal posts are moved over and over again and some reason is given to "explain" why the numbers were off. You do sound reasonable and genuinely compassionate which is why I am taking the time to address this to you. Please stop ingesting the AGW Kool Aid and instead focus your energy on the real environmental issues of the day. The more folks like you and I do that, the less the AGW crowd will increase their power. It is people like us that must force them to change their priorities.
I often hear people say things like, "What are you going to say to your grandchild 30 years from now when they ask you, 'Why didn't you do something about global warming'"? I turn that around and ask what are you going to say when your grandchild asks, "Why didn't you do something about the destruction of the Amazon rain forest?" Or "Why didn't you save the last mountain gorillas?" Or "Why did you let millions of children die because their families were forced to pollute their lungs by burning dung to cook their meals?" I could list hundreds of questions like that. Our eye is way off the ball. Until it is refocused, you should expect these current tragedies to only get worse.
1) Is he suggesting we will evolve adaptations to the heat?
2) Does he realize those various periods of global warming and cooling killed off huge numbers of species?
3) Apparently he looks forward to when a Michigan Winter resembles North Africa.