That's only the first question. Global warming may well be happening. Assuming it is, the second and more important question is: what's causing it?
Folks tend to combine these two questions such that "Global Warming, Therefore Our Fault".
The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming."
Interestingly, these are logically equivalent statements -- and both wrong.
I've always thought that those who expect our climate to remain static are the kooks.
Of course global warming is happening. As this and other articles contend, it's not just happening on earth and there is no hard reason to believe it is a bad thing or caused by man.
I'm angry because the weather has been hijacked as a political platform by Democrats. The freakin' WEATHER.
My understanding is that by our best yet uncertain measures the following two claims are true: a) the earth is slightly warmer now than one hundred years ago, b) the earth is cooler now than 1000 years ago. So is that warming or cooling?
I listened to an interview Limbaugh conducted yesterday with a noted former NASA scientist/meteorologist. The scientist essentially accepted that GW is a phenomenon, yet there is no hard scientific data to conclude the warming is primarily caused by man. Mr. Limbaugh had no problem accepting that.
Therefore, stating that Rush Limbaugh is spewing 'no Global Warming' propaganda is inaccurate (at least as of now).
Yes, many in the past who have been skeptical of the GW phenomenon, as presented by the likes of Al Gore, have countered with the idea that GW doesn't exist. I believe, however, that as more information from responsible scientists, climatologists and meteorologists comes out, we've come to realize that while there is something that is causing the earth to warm at this time, little has to do with man's affect on our environment.
Please give those of us not blessed to be among the scientific community credit for due diligence in developing an understanding of a complex issue, and advancing our position as the situation changes.
Since I am no fan of the formerly fat boy, lemme say that this NOT, repeat NOT, IMHO, what the wannabe pro golfer says.
Nor I either. Recent measurements seem to reliably indicate a Global Warming trend. The question is, "Is this man's doing?" Sensible answers range from 1 to 2:
(1)"Maybe.... quizás, peut-être, the teensiest bit in certain tiny micro-regions, like Mexico City, sitting in its bowl-shaped depression at 6,000 feet. But nobody knows, because that black cloud of crap hanging over most of neighbor republic's high colonial cities just might be keeping them cooler!
(2) No.
After all, when the Vikings were farming Greenland in the 12th, and 13TH centuries, it was one hell of a lot warmer place than it is now. They didn't call it "Greenland," cause it was the same color as ice, which of course, being Vikings, they had certainly seen before.
And at one point, fine wine grapes grew in England.
So before Fat Al thinks about selling the McMansions, maybe he should check out solar activity, the Earth's Precessionary period, its changing angle toward the Sun, undersea volcanic activity etc. etc. etc. etc.
The earth is warmer? OK, if you say so, but so what? Scientifically speaking, we have nothing to do with it. Rising sea levels? Nah. I'd be more worried about buildings built on permafrost. That could effect some big cities in Siberia. We might have to beef up the bases of the Alaska Pipeline. Those caribou tragically affected by drilling in the ANWAR will not be affected, too much, one of course, prays.
Worry? Be my guest, Mr. Gore, and bring your fans.
Wouldn't it be nice if every "self-esteem" class was dumped and a class in formal logic was taught instead? Then people might recognize the "post hoc, ergo promter hoc" BS when the MSM feeds it to them.
Rush has not said that. I would like to see transcripts of where he stated such. Rush's main thrust is to question those who are "certain" that GW is man-made; that it is "settled science." Rush like many, myself included, who are utterly exasperated at the insanity of those who believe the Earth's climate is at the "tipping point." I am an engineer who has been involved in circuit and systems modeling. Just dealing with how to determine valid initial conditions is difficult enough; handling non-linearities is another layer of complexity.
My intuition would tell me that any output from models of the Earth's climate should be not taken as "truth or settled science." Who knows what seemingly "simple" parameters yet to be accounted for in their models, will result in vastly different results. The Scientist on Rush's show yesterday was a breath of fresh air over this non-problem. I was astounded when he said that precipitation is not an integral part of many models. That alone should give anyone pause over the claim of the nuts like Gore. I choose to be happy and appreciate the beauty of nature, knowing man will NOT destroy the climate. I fear the freaks on the left who have found yet another pathway to try impose their totalitarian hell upon civilization.
The counter by such noted scientists as Mr. Limbaugh is to say, "Not Our Fault, therefore No Global Warming."
Interestingly, these are logically equivalent statements -- and both wrong.
All depends on whether or not you use the UN dictionary or not.
At the core of this debate is raw political power, derivable from treaty requirements which require a crisis rooted in an anthropogenic cause to move forward.
In this Ross McKitrick, Canadian economist, hits the nail on the proverbial head.
An Economist's Perspective on Climate Change and the Kyoto Protocol,
by Ross McKitrick. November 2003
The 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) defined "climate change" as follows:
"Climate change" means a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.
( http://unfccc.int/index.html )The recent Third Assessment Report (TAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) defined it differently ( http://www.ipcc.ch/ ):
Climate change in IPCC usage refers to any change over time, whether due to natural variability or as a result of human activity.
This is a very important difference: The IPCC is looking for signs of any change, whereas the policy instruments prescribed by the UNFCCC are not triggered unless it is a particular kind of change: that attributable to human activity. When IPCC officials declare that "climate change" is for real, this is about as informative as announcing that the passage of time is for real. Of course the climate changes: if it didn't Winnipeg would still be under a glacier. But the fact that the last ice age ended doesn't imply that the policy mechanisms of the UNFCCC should kick in. That's the problem with the ambiguity over the term "climate change"-and it seems to trip up a lot of people-accepting the reality of "climate change" does not mean accepting the need for policy interventions. And denying that global warming is a problem requiring costly policy measures is not the same as denying "climate change."
Thus it is prudent to be very skeptical and very discerning of all that is offered under the banner of Climate Change.
You omit the third and even more important question -- is it a good thing or a bad thing?