August 9, 2009 in City

Council candidates split on global warming’s cause

Just 4 of 12 think humans have significant impact

• Print
• Email
• Share

Only four of the dozen candidates running for Spokane City Council say human activity contributes significantly to global warming. The rest – including two incumbents – question what has become the consensus among climate scientists, or say they don’t know enough about the topic to give an opinion.

Global warming has been a hot topic in city government since then-Mayor Dennis Hession signed the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement in 2007, aiming the city toward reducing carbon emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.

Since then, Mayor Mary Verner has pushed the city to lower …

• Story
• Comments 04

Four comments on this story so far. Add yours!

• 

  Stephen Eugster on August 09 at 10:54 a.m.

  Do we have global warming? Yes, many scientists have so concluded. Is there a solution? If Krakatoa east of Java erupted again and put layer of ash into the atmosphere, that would cool things down. What if a large meteor landed on the floating continent of garbage moving about the North Pacific and exploded it and all sorts of debris into the atmosphere around the earth? That too would cool things down.

  What role does Spokane have in the global warming debate? None really. The article is talking about a “wedge issue.” Why not talk about religious preference, whether one is for obesity or against it Or, how about whether Spokane is for freedom of trade with Cuba?

  Or, whether one likes this or that? (I prefer that most of the time.)

  If there is any real concern here, the concern should be waste. Why is Spokane wasting its resources, its money, its tax revenues? Maybe the current city council and its incumbents like waste because it is good economics. Sort of a City of Spokane Keynesianism

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  NucEngineer on August 09 at 11:07 a.m.

  There has been atmospheric cooling the last 8 years, and no new high global annual temperatures in the last 11 years. None of the computer models replicate this fact. Anthropogenic (or man caused) global warming is not proved.

  The global warming adherents base their argument of proof on more than 20 different computer models called general circulation models (also known as global climate models or GCMs). Each computer model is composed of dozens of mathematical equations representing known scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses. Each equation has one or more constants. The constants associated with known laws are very well defined. The constants associated with known theories are generally accepted but probably some of them may be off by a factor of 2 or more, maybe even an order of magnitude. The equations representing hypotheses, well, sometimes the hypotheses are just plain wrong. Then each of these equations has to be weighted against each other for use in the computer models, so that adds an additional variable (basically an educated guess) for each law, theory, and hypothesis. This is where the models are tweaked to mimic past climate measurements.

  The SCIENTIFIC METHOD is: (1) Following years of academic study of the known physical laws and accepted theories, and after reviewing some data, come up with a hypothesis to explain the data. (2) Develop a plan to obtain and analyze new data. (3) Collect and analyze the data, this may even require new technology not previously available. (4) Determine if the hypothesis is correct, needs refinement, or is wrong. Either way, new data is available for other researchers. (5) Submit results, including data, for peer review and publication.

  The output of the computer models run out nearly 90 years forward is considered to be data, but it is not a measurement of a physical phenomenon. Also, there is no way to analyze this so called data to determine if any or which of the hypotheses in the models are correct, need refinement, or are wrong. Also, this method cannot indicate if other new hypotheses need to be generated and incorporated into the models. IT JUST IS NOT THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

  The worst flaw in the AGW argument is the treatment of GCM computer generated outputs as data. They then use it in follow on hypotheses. For example, if temperature rises by X degrees in 50 years, then Y will be effected in such-and-such a way resulting in Z. Then the next person comes along and says, well, if Z happens, the effect on W will be a catastrophe. “I need (and deserve) more money to study the effects on W.” Hypotheses, stacked on hypotheses, stacked on more hypotheses, all based on computer outputs that are not data, using a process that does not lend to proof using the SCIENTIFIC METHOD. Look at their results, IF, MIGHT, and COULD are used throughout their news making results. And when one of the underlying hypotheses is proven incorrect, well, the public only remembers the doomsday results 2 or three iterations down the hypotheses train. The hypotheses downstream are not automatically thrown out and can even be used for more follow on hypotheses.
  

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Sugar Shane on August 09 at 5:35 p.m.

  I love the comment by Eugster, Climate change is not a city problem. Yea thats what every city in america is saying, and look where its getting us. Read the AP article about the Ice Shelf retreating in Antartica. Or eskimo children swimming in the ocean 1500 mi north of seattle because the water is “warm”. If you do not believe in climate change caused by humans, your just not doing any research, even the scientific community doesn't argue this fact. They may dispute the effects down the road, but all accept the global warming hypothesis.

  Flag as inappropriate

• 

  Hugh Lefcort on August 09 at 10:04 p.m.

  NucEngineer,

  Excellent comment. The IPCC reports are simply not Science. I'm not sure what they are, but the logic of their arguments do not follow what most of us were taught in graduate school.

  Dr. Hugh Lefcort

  Flag as inappropriate