ROSEN: Global warming hysteria
By Mike Rosen, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 25, 2008 at 12:05 a.m.
A growing contingent of scientists has been brave enough to stand athwart the politically fashionable global warming steamroller. More than 500 such skeptics convened in New York at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change last month. They argue factually and persuasively that what warming the world has seen in the last hundred years is at best minimal and at worst exaggerated.
Conversely, radical increases in global temperatures or rising sea levels proclaimed by Al Gore and his ilk aren't facts. They're merely guesses, some of them hysterical, about conditions decades or centuries into the future and based on assumptions about innumerable variables, many of which are beyond our scientific comprehension and expertise.
Climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet recurring in roughly 1,500-year cycles and predating humanity by millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone. Compared to the overwhelming influence of the sun and the impact of nonhuman influences on this planet - ocean-generated water vapor, animal life, vegetation, etc. - the notion that the puny contribution of mankind is the principal cause of climate change is a grand conceit.
Human activity constitutes a small fraction of the myriad influences on climate. Marginal changes in human activity within our technological and practical economic means represent an even smaller fraction of that small fraction. The trillions of dollars the world would spend on wasteful schemes to avert a delusional global warming doomsday may be the greatest fool's errand in history. Count me among the global warming skeptics. If I'm still around in a hundred years, I'll delight in saying, "I told you so."
Global warming hysteria is steeped in politics and a strange collection of bedfellows. Along with sincere environmentalist true-believers are the camp followers who embrace this as a quasi-religious calling.
Then there are the watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside. They embrace ecological arguments to achieve ideological goals, exploiting fears of enviro-Armageddon to regulate and control evil capitalists and redistribute world income and wealth. Vaclav Klaus, president of the Czech Republic, recognizes the signs. "As someone who lived under communism for most of (my) life," he warned, "I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning."
Add to this mix, political opportunists seeking election and economic opportunists seeking a quick buck from government grants, subsidies and market manipulation, and you have an irresistible coalition.
In this time of runaway oil prices and surging world demand for energy, of course it's only sensible to marshal creative technological resources and capital to use energy, from whatever source, as efficiently as possible. That's precisely why government-driven boondoggles like ethanol are worse than wasteful, especially as this misallocation of agricultural resources has driven up the world price of foodstuffs. Justifying a wrongheaded policy by simply asserting it's "for the environment" is just as stupid as justifying a wasteful government-spending program with the magic words "It's for the children."
It's currently fashionable for politicians to brag about their policies for a "new energy economy" and the jobs created by it. Economically productive energy programs are wonderful. Just spending taxpayer money for humbug isn't. The market is a much better judge and taskmaster than government for what makes economic sense. Imagine your tax dollars at work hiring 10,000 people to generate turbine electricity by climbing a perpetual wheel like a hamster in cage. Wouldn't that be a great way to create jobs in a new energy economy?
I've got a better idea. While we're waiting for the breakthrough in hydrogen fusion technology that will make water a cheap and plentiful energy source, why not put Americans to work developing our known natural gas and petroleum resources offshore and in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?
Mike Rosen's radio show airs daily from 9 a.m. to noon on 850 KOA. He can be reached by e-mail at mikerosen@850koa.com.
April 25, 2008
5:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
rellimpank writes:
---bravo, Mike---hopefully some sense will return to the US of A before the lights start going out----
April 25, 2008
6:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Mike_In_Hartsel writes:
Gene, you and your left-wing yo-yos can't address the issues so you attack the writer. Every day week paleo-Gene shows his ignorance when he opens his mouth.
By the Gene, are you aware that Al Gore's movie, "A Convenient Pile Of Excrement", falsified footage showing global warming? Reported yesterday on the news.
It is the height of stupity for humans to believe they are responsible for global warming. We can't compete with the forces of nature or the sun.
April 25, 2008
7:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
First of all I'm not a scientist. So I'm not the one to make solid arguments about this issue. But I do know one thing and that is someone is wrong and someone is right. So lets look at what happens if someone is wrong:
1.If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient.
2.If it is man made and we do nothing, OOPS!!!!
I think one side is more costly. Don't you think?
April 25, 2008
8:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Mike is a man of many talents. Sometimes he's a raconteur, other times he's a political commentator,and on other occasions he's a sports writer. Well, today he's a scientist. Who would have guessed?
April 25, 2008
8:03 a.m.
Suggest removal
irisman writes:
Mike is a man of many talents. Sometimes he's a raconteur, other times he's a political commentator, and on other occasions he's a sports writer. Well, today he's a scientist. Who would have guessed?
April 25, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
dilligaf writes:
SASQUATCH:
So I take it until you get prove you want to continue trashing our planet with pollution and do nothing to help energy efficiency? I take it you have no off springs you care about.
April 25, 2008
8:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
AngelontheSidelines writes:
This Global Warming canard is another wedge issue. The left caring for the environment sees a crisis, while the right sees a threat to their right to drive gas hogs.
Any issue that enhances these divisions is used by our mass media to continue this schism.
Enviromentalism is spawned from the eugenics movement of the early 20th century. WWF, Sierra Club, and other organizations were founded by members of the Bilderberg group. The aims are to reduce the world population by 80% or more. This mass mind control is designed to make it easy for the population to accept this as inevitable.
One fact is that the sun is hotter. Radiation from the sun has increased, and every planet is affected. Mars ice caps are shrinking faster than our own. Ice moons orbiting Saturn and Jupiter are becoming ocean moons. We don't see these on the news. But we see more and more subtle suggestions on our news channels that we must sacrifice to save the earth.
The focus should be on save the humans, we are indestructible from outside. Our destruction will come from within. The power elite that has existed since the dawn of civilization cannot destroy us, our petty divisions and the illusion of separation facilitate us to kill each other.
April 25, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
wdmll writes:
I have an article that on the surface, appears to have nothing to do with global warming hysteria. But in reality, because of global warming and cooling, it addresses the disparities between cultures and ethnicity due to climate change.
Why is modern man a Kaleidoscope and what are the consequences?
http://www.zimbio.com/Non-Politically...'s+Crisis/articles/9/modern+man+Kaleidoscope+consequences
The current proponents of Global Warming have their propaganda, high priest and congregation. The earth is in a state of change and change is constant, are we heading into global warming or global cooling? Maybe both as time goes by, in 4.5 billion years the earth has seen many changes. Science itself can at times be a dogma, if scientific debate is not allowed. Albert Einstein, at one time believed that the Universe was static, not expanding. It took observations by Edwin Hubble to change Einstein’s belief about the state of the Universe. Man has to be responsible for what impact he has on the planet when it comes to the environment, but the two fundamental constants are change and motion and only time will tell what is in store.
April 25, 2008
8:35 a.m.
Suggest removal
weatherguy writes:
1998 was hotter than normal because of a record El Nino. La Nina caused a cool winter this year, but we’re back, as NOAA says March was the warmest March on record. Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply. Sunspots are an 11 year cycle and has very little signficance to long term climate. Just one suspot ooooo, yikes. As an amateur astronomer, I’ve projected the image of the sun from my telescope several times in my life.
We had just one or no sunspots in 1995, 1984, 1973 etc. We’re heading to a solar maximum in 2012.
As a profesional meteorlogist I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens. I’m taking my family to Canada in a hurry.
Politicians and those that can’t disagree with their party line has really caused such confusion amongst the public nobody will be able to trust scientists again. Until it’s too late. Bye!
April 25, 2008
8:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Mike,
Gene's dry wit has tripped you, he may be more conservative than you. What do you think Gene?
So, you think your insulting, non-scientific way of discussing the issues is "addressing" them? Come on, you can do a lot better than that!
As for Al Gore, "Fat Albert" as Gene likes to say, he's a propagandist. Both sides have them, some more effective than others. Rosen is a propagandist as is Michael Moore and Rushbo! So what? It proves nothing!
April 25, 2008
8:40 a.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
The USA consumes 3.8 trillion KWhrs of electricity per year, half from coal. Many people think coal power is bad because of CO2, pollution, acid rain, and mining accidents.
Because people want electricity when the sun doesn't shine and the wind doesn't blow, solar and wind cannot practically replace more than a small fraction of coal demand.
The only non-polluting source of electricity that works anywhere and all day long is nuclear. To replace all of the USA's coal plants would take about 180 new nuclear plants across perhaps 45 site locations. The cost to build these plants would be $540Bln, requiring perhaps about half that amount in government subsidies and mandate costs.
The USA currently gets 20% of its electricity from nuclear, and nobody has ever been harmed by a modern plant (3 mile island included). France gets over 70% of its electricity from nulcar, so how hard can it be for the USA to move up to 50%?
If the enviros were serious about dramatically cutting the USA's CO2 emissions, they would push for such a plan. With a $540Bln plan, the USA could make a serious and substantial dent in its CO2 emissions in less than 10 years.
Of course, most enviros hate nuclear and keep pushing for expensive and impractical measures that are not based on sound engineering. What they really hate and have fought for decades is economic progress and individual choice. They want us to lead simpler (read poorer) lives and will use exaggeration, fear, and government coercion to get their way.
April 25, 2008
8:46 a.m.
Suggest removal
weatherguy writes:
"Mars ice caps are shrinking faster than our own. Ice moons orbiting Saturn and Jupiter are becoming ocean moons."
The ice caps on Mars are shrinking not because of the sun, but because of a massive dust storm that occurred a few years ago. When the dust settled the darker soils were more prominant on the surface. This decreased the albedo of the planet or reflectivity and caused the planet to warm. Go to NASA and search Mars Ice Caps for the article that started the whole Mars is warming too bit.
As far as icy moons of the outer planets becoming ocean planets is the most ridiculaous thing I've ever heard. There is no way to detect temperature changes of these bodies. When those moons do become liquid, it will because the sun turned into a red giant several billion years from now.
Reading these sites, I swear you guys probably got Cs and Ds in Science class.
April 25, 2008
8:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
SQUATCH, SQUATCH, SQUATCH,
What amazes me is that you even survived the ice age. I do think that you left too much of your mind there. It keeps holding you back. You don't seem to understand that we have problems to solve in the here and now that will require a little imagination and flexibility. Darn it SQUATCH, you don't seem to have either! At least you have common sense, oops my mistake, that was another poster. Oh well at least you have a good sense of perspective.....hmm, no! wrong again! Maybe you can help me out a little bit Squatch. What exactly are the intellectual attributes you bring to the table? The best I've seen so far is that silly window test. Wait! I think I have it- a sense of humour, right? You are joking aren't you?
April 25, 2008
9:02 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
bxwatso,
I'm a "dyed in the wool" environmentalist and I'm willing to accept additional nuclear energy, In fact I would prefer it to our dirty old coal fired plants. Safeguards and storage need to be improved and finalized. The biggest obstacle is the nimby factor which affects wind turbines as well as nuclear plants.
Please be careful in painting other people with a broad brush. There are many different kinds of environmentalists. I have made a profitable business that is based upon environmental principles. I am a raging capitalist and fiscal conservative. I see nothing but a celebration of the individual as we bring imagination to bear to solve our problems. With the right leadership we wouldn't need government interference in our affairs. Approaching the energy problem will require patriots on both sides of the issue. The conservatives will keep regulation and taxes to a minimum and watch out for business while the liberals will promote some new ideas and bring a little passion to the party. Together we can do some great things. Alternatively, we can point fingers, talk past each other and believe the propagandists on both sides and experience more grid lock.
The choice is ours to make and I hope we decide to come together and do this right!
April 25, 2008
9:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Gene,
I forgot about Mike Rosen. That's 2 in one week you've caught me on!
Hink's Daisy is OK, but not exceptional! A nice Rudbeckia, but there are a lot of nice Rudbeckias on the market. What do you think of it?
April 25, 2008
9:30 a.m.
Suggest removal
SheikYurBooty writes:
bxwatso - "The only non-polluting source of electricity that works anywhere and all day long is nuclear." - get your facts straight - hydro works day and night, as does CSP - Concentrating Solar Power. Yes, it works at night too. Look it up. And with storage (ever hear of this thing called a battery??) wind also works when the air is still. Nice try, no cigar.
April 25, 2008
9:32 a.m.
Suggest removal
Spencer writes:
I guess pollution is a good thing. Wonder if Rosen believes Evolution is a hoax too? Jebus is coming any day so why not use up the planets resources? Even Bush has acknowledged global warming. Does that make him smarter than Rosen?
April 25, 2008
9:42 a.m.
Suggest removal
oofda writes:
Gore Admits Financial 'Stake' In Advancing Global Warming Hysteria
Ask a dem, whats in it for me! http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-she...
April 25, 2008
9:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
just when i think rosie couldn't get any more irrelevant
April 25, 2008
9:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
HolierThanThou writes:
I guess every newspaper needs to provide space for corporate-sponsored crackpots to spout nonsense and lies.
April 25, 2008
10:06 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
You need to replace that old scratchy broken record of yours. The Republican CEOS of big agriculture stuck us with corn ethanol and soy diesel. Environmentalists are promoting bio-fuels made from waste cellulose, switch grass and even Algae.
I wouldn't mind that broken record of yours if you would at least get your facts straight.
Oh, and by the way, oil prices began trending sharply upward when Bush and the Republican congress took control nearly 8 years ago.
April 25, 2008
10:27 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
>>More than 500 such skeptics convened in New York at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change last month.<<
And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/sci...
Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference:
http://alternativeapproaches.com/pnuk...
>>Climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet recurring in roughly 1,500-year cycles and predating humanity by millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone.<<
Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles.
>>Compared to the overwhelming influence of the sun<<
Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,
>>and the impact of nonhuman influences on this planet - ocean-generated water vapor, animal life, vegetation, etc. - the notion that the puny contribution of mankind is the principal cause of climate change is a grand conceit.<<
In Rosen's poorly-informed opinion.
April 25, 2008
10:38 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
weatherguy
>>As a profesional meteorlogist I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens.<<
The hydrates occur all over the place, not just in the Artic Ocean. If a significant amount were released, it would be bad indeed, but there are two factors that keep them locked up - temperature and pressure. I suspect much of the hydrates are at pretty sigificant depth to where the pressure (from both the overlying ocean and the sediments they are buried in) is so high that that it would take more than a few degrees of warming for them to sublimate.
April 25, 2008
10:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
Squatch,
So now you're seeing green bubbles!
You should wave a white flag!
April 25, 2008
11:11 a.m.
Suggest removal
JCRiggle writes:
Rosen gets a little carried away about denying man made global warming, but he does bring up some good points. For one, there is quite a bit of contradictory evidence both for and against CO2 causing global warming, but the science and the debate is far from being settled.
Now a lot of people like to make the point that if man made global warming theory ends up being true and we choose to do nothing about it now then the consequences are dire, so we have no choice but to do something about it.
However, there are a couple of points that people look past when coming to that conclusion. First, the climate is in constant change and will continue to fluctuate between hot and cold regardless of human intervention. So at some point in the future, even if humans completely cut carbon emissions the glaciers will melt, sea levels will rise and people living in low lying areas will be affected, so humanity will have to deal with that issue at some point.
Second, the cost of immediate action in cutting carbon emissions will be enormous. Government bureaucracies will be involved, the wrong technologies might be chosen (i.e. ethanol) and energy prices will soar (not to mention the dreaded "pinch" on the middle class). Rosen's main point, which is a good one, is lets all just settle down and let the market (albeit not a perfect one) judge the most efficient way of producing energy. Look, we are already on a path to a more sustainable energy future and as oil prices continue to rise, cleaner and more efficient energy sources like nuclear power or this hydrogen fusion technology that Rosen loves so much, will become more enticing. We don't need immediate action from the government to make this all better.
April 25, 2008
11:41 a.m.
Suggest removal
WeaveMan writes:
Just a few thoughts: If you have to believe in it, it’s not science. If you have to vote on it (i.e., consensus), it’s not science. Climate alarmism is based on poor climate modeling, not completed science. The UN is a political organization that does not ‘do’ science research. With global temperatures on a flat trend line since 1998 and carbon emissions on a linear positive slope in the same time frame, where’s the proof of anthropological global warming? I am looking beyond all the name calling, political scaremongering, media hyping, research grant chasing, and rent seeking while waiting for the proof. Waiting. And waiting. Going through life as a skeptic is like driving without your eyes closed.
April 25, 2008
11:49 a.m.
Suggest removal
rickg19611 writes:
CL....
"And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up."
There's some real logic.... if we see a photo of two people attending the Super Bowl, are you going to claim that no one else attended?
"Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference"
So when 30 attend the presentation of the Nobel Prize, does that mean you think the Paranormal Conference is more credible, afterall... more people attended it.
>>Climate change is a natural and age-old phenomenon on this planet recurring in roughly 1,500-year cycles and predating humanity by millions of years. Ice ages have come and gone.<<
"Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles."
Yeah... must have been all those SUV's that caused the last ice age.
>>Compared to the overwhelming influence of the sun<<
"Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,"
Yeah... everyone 'knows' that the sun has no relevance to temperature levels. That's why the temperature is identical at midnight as it is in the middle of the afternoon!!! Did you graduate from Bunk U?
>>and the impact of nonhuman influences on this planet - ocean-generated water vapor, animal life, vegetation, etc. - the notion that the puny contribution of mankind is the principal cause of climate change is a grand conceit.<<
"In Rosen's poorly-informed opinion."
As opposed to CL's poorly-informed opinion. What next? Claiming that the temperature declines over the past decade are due to global "warming"?
April 25, 2008
11:56 a.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
dilligaf wrote, "If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient."
But by wasting all that money and effort trying to control or stop things that are not pollutants, we end up with little left over to eliminate those that really are.
The effort to stop global warming isn't so much to "clean up our act" as to obtain power and a massive transfer of wealth.
April 25, 2008
12:22 p.m.
Suggest removal
p_myers661 writes:
The problem with Global Warming/Climate Change is that its proponents fail the "practical" test.
Simply put, the normal way to advance a change in human belief or behavior is to show a problem, offer a practical solution and seek additional information and solutions.
The GW debate begins with demands for change and impractical solutions that "grab for too much." Many demand a complete change of the marketplace or economy. Others demand punishment for activities that were approved and legal when they took place.
GW solutions don't exist. Improvements do exist and many are not merely practical, they are welcomed with open arms.
New forms of insulation that offer higher protection with smaller volumes are in demand for their practicality. Better technology creates solutions. For this to happen, the markets must be open and free to make combinations of the various technologies and products to create something new.
People also need to stop feeling that their way is the only way to deal with this issue. (I'm a major denier and proud of it.)
Insulation, good planning and doing things in within reason to change bad habits or wasteful ones.
Using less electricity, working at keeping things within reasonable limits and making sensible choices in our homes and work can make a difference. The key to all of this is to allow the individual to choose the level at which this will happen in his life. Coercion never creates a permanent change. It often creates a near permanent hostility to that which has been forced upon them though.
GW advocates have asked for everything and they, just like in the song, want it NOW. Practicality and free choice are the keys to meaningful change. Work to make the solutions practical and they will be embraced by enough people to make a change. Impose them and you create a permanent resentment that will eventually destroy any temporary progress.
The test for all of this is reason, not passion.
April 25, 2008
1:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
p_meyers,
I like your concept of a " practical test". SASQUATCH has his infamous window test. I have something similar to yours that we might call a "common sense test". You and I had a conversation on Earth Day which I enjoyed.
I am an environmentalist but also a fiscal conservative and above all a realist. The environmentalism comes originally from my farming family, the fiscal conservatism from my years in business and my realism from the wisdom that sometimes comes with age.
My own observations and my scientific background lead me to believe in Global Warming, but I still respect those who don't.
I don't care why people embrace efficiencies and conservation. In my opinion, it's all good and should make sense to most people regardless of politics.
Many proponents of GM are young and ardent. Maybe that's appropriate because they will be the most affected. I am a member of the old guard. I've fought my share of battles and now I prefer compromise, working agreements, diplomacy and most of all the discussion that brings us to these things.
I look forward to more conversations. Its nice to see someone on the web with a similar approach to the issue.
April 25, 2008
2:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
Gonzopozo writes:
News flash - another strict conservative in denial about Global Warming. 500 "growing" scientists? Wow, that has to be at least .01% of the scientific community. Let's just ignore it is happening and send another Billion to Iraq and another one to Exxon-Mobil. I'll buy an air conditioner with my whopping $700 or maybe a bag of rice.
April 25, 2008
2:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
Mike Rosen thinks it's the height of arrogance to think that human activities alter global climate. I think it's the height of arrogance to think we have no effect whatsoever. Although such an attitude allows people to buy 5,000 sq. ft. centrally air-conditioned houses and oversized SUVs with gas mileage that sucks. Gallons per mile, anyone?
We put increasing amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere and we destroy the rain forests, a major source of CO2 elimination. We have billions of cattle burping a lot of methane, another greenhouse gas.
Mike is using false thinking. He sees the overall global picture and wonders how our output can possibly influence anything.
Suppose you have an extremely delicate balance scale with 100 lbs on each side. Add one ounce to one side, and the scale will tilt. Mike Rosen would argue that that teeny ounce couldn't have caused the scale to tilt. Why someone must be lifting the table!
Earth's natural systems balanced over a long period of time. We are dumping huge amounts of CO2 into that system, and the balance is starting to tilt. Screaming that human beings are puny creaures doesn't prove anything. There are more than 6 billion of us. We have a global impact.
April 25, 2008
2:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
bassman writes:
The cost of the U.S complying with Kyoto could provide safe drinking water for the entire planet according to a book "The Skeptical Environmetalist". Which course is going to save more lives? Which course will waste trillions of dollars? Which course will subject us to enviro-fascism?
April 25, 2008
2:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Did you know that they have a coal technology that is very clean, almost as clean as natural gas, although almost as expensive too. There are actually a couple of them, pulverized and gasified. Considering that the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of the coal world, all the energy we need is underneath our surface. The lib politicians and the EPA are still holding back these technologies from being implemented and utilized.
On another note, it has been shown that increased heat increases the aggregate CO2 levels which means, yes, heat is more likely the cause of the CO2 increases than the other way around.
Furthermore, approximately thirty-five years ago, the libs were panicking America about global cooling. The temps are cyclical; global warming is just another insidious ploy by the Left to lead us further down the road toward socialism, which (have I mentioned yet?) doesn't work.
April 25, 2008
2:28 p.m.
Suggest removal
GWM writes:
SASQUATCH, not once in this whole article have you mentioned your "look out the window test". Sup with that? I think Greenleaf misses it. I know I do. It's windy today. The libs must be talking alot.
April 25, 2008
2:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Hey, peterbi, did you know that CO2 is one of the main greenhouse gasses? And, did you know, that unless you are a really weird mutant, you exhale that horrible greenhouse gas. In theory, we could help eliminate global warming by killing you. :)
April 25, 2008
2:47 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
But, spencerr, you're just "dreaming" that aren't you?
April 25, 2008
2:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
peterpi writes:
after all, no conservative has ever harmed anyone anywhere.
April 25, 2008
2:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
weatherguy wrote, "The ice caps on Mars are shrinking not because of the sun, but because of a massive dust storm that occurred a few years ago."
But dust storms can't just happen spontaneously. So, what could drive those storms but, ultimately, the sun? And if not the sun, what would cause those storms to be any more massive a few years ago than in any other year?
April 25, 2008
3:20 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
spencerr -
"Did you know that they have a coal technology that is very clean, almost as clean as natural gas, although almost as expensive too."
Yes - but by clean you mean less things like sulfates and mercury. The basic combustion still forms CO2 as an end product, so you would still need to remove the CO2 post-combustion somehow.
Or go nuclear :)
>>On another note, it has been shown that increased heat increases the aggregate CO2 levels which means,
yes, heat is more likely the cause of the CO2 increases than the other way around.<<
No, we know that heat is not the cause of recent CO2 increases for several reasons :
1) Increases in CO2 levels have been preceding temperature increases
2) The current level of CO2 is much higher now than when temperatures where at similar levels in the past
3) The ratio of carbon isotopes (C12, C13 & C14) indicate that a significant percentage of the carbon in the atmosphere originated as fossil fuel. For example, C14 has a half life of 5,730 years so coal, oil and gas have practically no C14. Since C14 gets replenished in the atmosphere at a pretty steady rate (cosmic rays smacking nitrogen atoms), adding C14 depleted carbon to the atmosphere reduces the ratio of C14.
In other words, we can tell that we are responsible for the increased CO2 levels.
April 25, 2008
3:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
SheikYurBooty:
I am sorry to report that hydro does not work anywhere. It only works where there is a strong river and a place to build a dam. That should be obvious!
If you didn't know, it is impossible to transmit AC electricity over very long distances. This is because of the phase distorting charactaristic of transmission lines. Therefore, it is impractical to build a hydro plant in UT or AZ to power Denver.
There is no economically feasible system for the storage of solar power. It is possible to store molten sodium, but that is experimental at best.
The facts ARE straight. At best, "alternative" energies can provide 10% of our electricity needs. That is based on a fairly old IEEE study on the matter.
As further proof that wind and solar can't provide much of our energy needs, look to Xcel's plan to comply with the new law on the subject. The compliance comes primarily from the replacement of coal plants with gas plants (and billions in higher energy bills for homeowners)
April 25, 2008
4:02 p.m.
Suggest removal
bxwatso writes:
greenleaf
Fair enough, but I did say "most enviros." Why don't you check out http://www.ecolo.org/base/baseus.htm ? They have something to say on the topic. A handfull of 1970's "no nuke" people have changed their minds.
April 25, 2008
5:57 p.m.
Suggest removal
RainbowWarrior writes:
Too bad the world is not as simple and as black and white as people like Mike Rossen would like us believe. And of coarse belive only what they want us to believe because that's what they believe. There have been some words of wisdom spoken here, but not many, and certainly not by little Mike.
Not too far in the future the truth will be known, a tipping point will be reached or never obtained and then those on one side of this issue or the other will eat their crow.
I have followed environmental issues for many years now, and it seems credit is never given for the successful ideas and changes that have come about, many from conservatives and republicans, many that were just common sense and a better way of doing things and others that only came about because people were inspired by the success and postive contributions in the past created by the environmental movement from both sides of the isles. It takes all kinds of people to make a world... most of us are moderates, and then we have extremist like Mike, who stereo type and push everything into political catagories (a whopping 2 left/right) and paint the world with huge brush strokes to make a point. I would relate it to collective barginning, you know, ask for twice as much as you expect to receive... or maybe it's more like over kill, if it only takes 100 nukes to turn the planet into glass, let's create and store 30,000!
There is common ground and it can be found were there are open minds and open hearts. Those like Mike and others here that continue to promote a divide and conquere mentality do more harm than good.
United we should stand, because divided we will fall...
I heard mention of white flags, so be it if we can meet in the middle and then move in a common direction for the benefit of the majority of the people.
I wish the extremist fring from both sides would just shut up and let the rest of us figure these problems out with less noise in the room.
April 25, 2008
6:24 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
RainbowWarrior,
I couldn't agree more my friend. both sides need to lay down their "weapons" and meet on neutral ground. Well said!
April 25, 2008
6:33 p.m.
Suggest removal
jconder45 writes:
Irisman- the funny thing is, he sucks at all of them.
April 25, 2008
9:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
kathyM writes:
WeaveMan said, "If you have to believe in it, it’s not science. If you have to vote on it (i.e., consensus), it’s not science." WELL SAID! THANK YOU!
April 25, 2008
11:23 p.m.
Suggest removal
farmboy writes:
weatherguy wrote, "I am now worried of the poistive feedback loop occurring in the Arctic Ocean with the frozen methane hydrates. They have warmed and could release massive amounts of methane gas. If that happens. I’m taking my family to Canada in a hurry."
If the methane hydrates in the Arctic Ocean are that big a threat, why would you move your family to Canada, a place that's *closer* to them?
April 26, 2008
12:52 a.m.
Suggest removal
Quagmate writes:
Try the optimist point of view. Read up on and educate yourself on Hydrogen and you will find a world of not only of hope but reality. We are arguing in a vacuum. Please understand that in ten years Hydrogen will power most vehicles.
Infrastructure in the key. BMW, Toyota, GM all have vehicles today that can run on H. London will be running on H in two years.
Alarmists are always with us. The long view is the key. Today everyone talks about how Social Security will go bankrupt when the Baby Boomers retire… In ten years more then 70% of the Baby Boomer will be dead. It is a natural cycle.
Please people, oil will become no more than a lubricant in the 10 years. The US is leading the way. While other talk, H will become $3 a kilo and your car you are driving today will convert. Progress IS progress and soon what man thought impossible (flight, the moon, ect.) will become reality.
While we fling arrows at each other, the solution is already at hand.
Please I implore you to read.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/hydrogena...
April 26, 2008
9:04 a.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
"Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply." - weatherguy
If we had a sharp increase in CO2 levels in 2007, why did we have such a dramatic drop in temperatures in the same year? Is it all La Nina's fault?
April 26, 2008
9:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
rickg19611 -
>>"And when they asked for all the scientists to gather for a group picture, 19 stepped up."
There's some real logic.... if we see a photo of two people attending the Super Bowl, are you going to claim that no one else attended?
"Is 500 so impressive? Consider that over 1,200 showed up at the The National Paranormal Conference"
So when 30 attend the presentation of the Nobel Prize, does that mean you think the Paranormal Conference is more credible, afterall... more people attended it. <<
Rosen was the one trying to make it sound like this was some huge event, I was just putting some perspective on it.
Given all the hype this was given and the supposed huge numbers of scientists who oppose AGW this is all they could come up with? The comparison to the Paranormal Conference was to illustrate that something as obscure as that had a higher draw. Here's another comparison - the 2007 annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union had an attendance of over >>14 thousand<<. I have a group photo with about 9,000 in it from when I attended several years ago.
Point being, their numbers are simply pathetic.
>>"Try 100,000 year cycles - and greenhouse gases are clearly linked as a major player in those cycles."
Yeah... must have been all those SUV's that caused the last ice age.<<
Obviously not, you're either being silly or just ignorant. The 100,000 year cycle is tied to cyclical changes in the earth's orbit called Milankovitch cycles, but these cycles are too weak to explain the magnitude (which was an early criticism of Milankovitch cycles) and pattern of the changes - here:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/xc...
is what an ice age cycle looks like - the warming phase occurs much faster than the cooling phase, a pattern that would not be caused by shifting the earth's orbit. That pattern is matched by the level of greenhouse gases - in fact the pattern can not be explained unless you factor in the greenhouse gas levels.
So there's the connection of greenhouse gasses to the ice age cycles - and no, it wasn't SUVs.
Continued in next post
April 26, 2008
9:54 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
rickg19611 (cont)-
>>"Bunk - the sun's influence has been shown to be a very minor player in recent changes - in fact solar activity has been going in the >>opposite direction<< for over 20 years now,"
Yeah... everyone 'knows' that the sun has no relevance to temperature levels. That's why the temperature is identical at midnight as it is in the middle of the afternoon!!! Did you graduate from Bunk U?<<
The sun's output doesn't change between midnight and afternoon, so your argument is grossly flawed, plus I never said the sun had no relevance to temperature levels but that it was a minor player in recent changes. Is your position so weak that you can't respond to what I actually wrote?
Consider what I wrote above - there are 2 patterns to past ice ages - the 100,000 year period that matches Milankovitch cycles and a pattern of relatively rapid warming and slow cooling. Since you are so certain the sun is the cause, then I'm sure you will tell us about what solar change coincides not only with the 100,000 year Milankovitch cycle AND the pattern of change within each cycle.
Secondly, solar output has been studied by several methods, including direct measurements by satellites for the last few decades and they all show that while there is variation, it is insufficient to account for the magnitude of the changes, in fact solar changes for the last 20 years or so have been going in the >>wrong<< direction.
>>What next? Claiming that the temperature declines over the past decade are due to global "warming"?<<
Temperatures haven't declined over the past decade. Here's the temperature changes over the last decade with the trend range within 95% statistical probability:
http://img142.imageshack.us/img142/60...
>>As opposed to CL's poorly-informed opinion. <<
I've supported my "opinion" with much more information than Rosen has.
April 26, 2008
10:07 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
John II -
>>"Also they reported 2007 had the sharpest increase in CO2 ever in one year and methane levele are up sharply." - weatherguy
If we had a sharp increase in CO2 levels in 2007, why did we have such a dramatic drop in temperatures in the same year? Is it all La Nina's fault?<<
Didn't you say you lacked vigor debating this subject?
La Nina only impacted a few months, not the whole year. Remember this?
"2007 Was Tied as Earth's Second-Warmest Year
Climatologists at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) in New York City have found that 2007 tied with 1998 for Earth's second warmest year in a century. "
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/new...
April 26, 2008
2:50 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
CL,
I do lack vigor in debating this subject. But, I was curious so I asked. I had a feeling you were going to refer me to that figure. Did temps decline in 2007? Also, I have another question. Why do some charts so that temps are at 1998 levels?
April 26, 2008
2:51 p.m.
Suggest removal
John_II writes:
Never mind my last question about 1998.
April 26, 2008
9:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
jacka writes:
high cost new energy economy - all due to no new refining capacity, less drilling, no more coal fired plants, no nuclear, all corn based ethanol..............
April 27, 2008
6:50 a.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
Most of what I read above is just mudslinging nonsense and usually on the part of those who think the planet is in peril. It's a good job its not as I wouldn't want these guys to be the ones saving us! There is no direct evidence to link mankind with the last century's modest warming trend of .5 degrees C. It takes a lot more than .5 degrees to melt an ice cap that is more vast than a lot of you can imagine. Minus fifty is the average temperature in the east antarctic region which, incidently is currently showing a growth of ice mass. Those who are panicing and tightening their belt and braces need to look right to the source of the information/science and decide for themselves what the reality is. Anyone with a modicum of science background can see through what is rigorous science and what is not. Loud assertion from ignorant people does not make it true. The arguments above involve those who say such things as "if you want to go trashing the planet in the same old way..." etc. This is not the issue. The claim is that CO2 from industrialised nations is causing a positive feedback loop and will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This has not been shown to be true in real world data. Computer models use this scenario because they do not know what mechanism counters this so called positive feedback. It is now being shown in more than one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong negative feedback effect. Furthermore it is already known that adding more CO2 to the atmosphere, for example in equal amounts, will not cause a equal amount of temperature change IE if you add all the CO2 you can find in the world there is a modest limit to the amount of warming that can be achieved by this alone. CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data, a fact very rarely mentioned and plainly ignored by Al Gore. Pollution and care for the environment is not the same issue. It has been highjacked by ignorant greens and knowingly by certain politicians who have found it a great vehicle, saying "Vote for me and I'll save the world." When you hear him speak, read that as, "Vote for me or buy my carbon offsets and I'll RULE the world." He is a modern day wolf in sheeps clothing. Those who believe him are, I am sad to say, being taken in. Don't believe me, look into the sources of this science and you will see clearly what is likely to be going on here. GREEN IS THE NEW RED!
April 27, 2008
8:20 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
John_II
>>But, I was curious so I asked<<
You asked a loaded question based on a faulty premise, like "have you stopped beating your wife yet"
>>Did temps decline in 2007?<<
It's in the link.
>>Why do some charts so that temps are at 1998 levels?<<
I don't understand your question.
If you mean why some do and some don't, that would be because some show different things like land surface or ocean surface temperatures and some use different data sets and/or different methods of combining the data points.
If you mean doesn't that indicate no increase since 1998, that's because 1998 is a single data point and not a level. Here's the last 15 years GISS temperature anomalies:
1992 - .12
1993 - .14
1994 - .24
1995 - .38
1996 - .30
1997 - .40
1998 - .57
1999 - .33
2000 - .33
2001 - .48
2002 - .56
2003 - .55
2004 - .49
2005 - .62
2006 - .54
2007 - .57
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...
This is a good discussion of why trying to discern trends from short periods is flawed. It's a pro-AGW site, but it's one of the best explanations I've seen plus the chart at the beginning puts 1998 into perspective.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/...
If you really want to get into the nuts & bolts of statistical sampling, this wikipedia article is a decent start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size
April 27, 2008
9:12 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Joy -
>>There is no direct evidence to link mankind with the last century's modest warming trend of .5 degrees C.<<
According to who? BTW, it's more like 1 degree C but hey, what's being off by 100%?
>>Those who are panicing and tightening their belt and braces need to look right to the source of the information/science<<
Like the source saying .5 degrees C?
>>The arguments above involve those who say such things as "if you want to go trashing the planet in the same old way..." etc.<<
I made "arguments above" where did I write that?
>>The claim is that CO2 from industrialised nations is causing a positive feedback loop and will cause a runaway greenhouse effect. This has not been shown to be true in real world data. Computer models use this scenario because they do not know what mechanism counters this so called positive feedback.<<
Malarkey. See my earlier post about the role of greenhouse gasses and past ice ages and the link below.
>>It is now being shown in more than one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong negative feedback effect.<<
Wow that's really convincing. There most certainly are negative feedbacks as well as positive feedbacks, in fact you can't avoid feedbacks. The big question though is what feedbacks are in play and their magnitude. Interesting how you conveniently try and downplay one and drum up another with no explanation as to why.
>>CO2 lags temperature change in the ice core data, a fact very rarely mentioned and plainly ignored by Al Gore.<<
I don't know about Gore, but AGW theory doesn't say CO2 should lead temperature in the ice cores - a fact commonly ignored by AGW skeptics. That fact is laid out in this work, which is considered to lay out the groundwork of current AGW theory:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1...
>>Loud assertion from ignorant people does not make it true.<<
True, I'd say you made your point quite well, although probably not in the way you thought you thought you did.
April 27, 2008
5:05 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
.5 degrees C is the amount under discussion by all parties, some say .6 degrees. My sources are the four main GMT outlets which all paties rely on. I do not as you would like to think have my own separate data set! It is you who are misinformed.
Show me the data that proves that human kind is responsible for this poultry amount of warming that is well within natural variability. I would be interested to see the graph and the data source. The positive feedback loop I speak of is the one proposed by AGW alarmists. This trend is not showing up in observed data. The positive feedback I spoke of is a hypothesis and that is all. General circulation models are used to run different scenarios in order to attempt to prove this hypothesis. They cannot thus far project acurately for ten years let alone one humdred.
The CO2 lag is 800 years! You need to get around that if you're going to prove a cause and effect relationship using such data. The CO2/temperature graph for the last 100 years (which is the time period that most are concerned with) there is no meaningful correlation. Anyone can see this.
Your loud assertion is ignorant and unhelpful if you want to excite people into changing their lives for the "planetary emmergency". He who makes the claim bears the burden of proof.
April 27, 2008
6:44 p.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
joy do you believe that nearly every single field appropriate using peer-reviewed info to come up with the nearly universally held consensus on this subject are part of one big conspiracy or are you simply refusing to acknoweldge said consensus?
April 27, 2008
7:40 p.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
dilligaf -
I think you make a great point.
"1.If global warming is not man made but we still clean up our act and it may cost us unnecessary money and effort we will still have cleaned our planet and made things more energy efficient.
2.If it is man made and we do nothing, OOPS!!!!
I think one side is more costly. Don't you think?"
I actually agree with this. What I don't agree with is giving those IPCC scientist tillions of dollars to do their research anymore. I say knock their funding down a trillion or so and get those scientist working on alternative forms of energy that will work. Eventually, we will run out of oil and coal. When I don't know I am no scientist.
I know we have free speech, so we can't put a sock in Al Gores mouth. I am all for finding alternate source of fuel for this simple reason--It sucks to run in Denver with the Brown Cloud. I know (without a doubt) that the stuff that comes out of a tail pipe kills. Just look at the amount of people that have killed themselves in their garages with the automobile.
The weather is going to change, we can't control that. We can control the air that we breath...well atleast what we put into the air. Those IPCC scientist are going to keep putting out their warnings and studies, simply because they know were the money is coming from. I am sure they make alot of money to put food on their tables. they don't want that to just disappear. So as they continue to study they will adjust their finding to keep the funding (did someone say Trillions?) to justify their existence. Can't say I blame them. We all want to make a buck.
April 27, 2008
7:48 p.m.
Suggest removal
LFC writes:
Greenleaf and Sasquatch
Come on guys. I can't believe you guys argue about who has made the price of fuel/gas go up. It isn't either party's fault. It is the way it is. Demand has increased a lot since Clinton, it is harder to get, there are more rules in what additives must be put in for each state. It is going to keep going up. Regardless of who gets in office next year. Just deal with it and stop pointing fingers at the parties. That is one thing that is not their fault.
April 27, 2008
9:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
greenleaf writes:
LFC,
I've been following Joy and CL, a fascinating contrast don't you think?
Please don't worry about Squatch and I, we are comic relief. He is my straight man. He gives me lots of opportunities, and heaven help me, I just can't resist.
When I'm being serious,I too remind people to stop pointing fingers as we are all in this together and need to work toward solutions not division.
Having said that, do watch Squatch, he is too funny!
April 28, 2008
10:18 a.m.
Suggest removal
jay writes:
" It isn't either party's fault. It is the way it is"
this isn't quite necessarily true...although i hear rosen, rush and o'reilly trying the same kind of rhetoric on the masses...
the uncomfortable truth (for the conservatives anyway) is that in addition to increase demand, many other factors have caused gas prices to skyrocket. among those factors are republican policy stances...including those that have destabilized the middle east.
April 28, 2008
10:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
Joy -
>>.5 degrees C is the amount under discussion by all parties, some say .6 degrees. My sources are the four main GMT outlets which all paties rely on. I do not as you would like to think have my own separate data set! It is you who are misinformed.<<
No, I don't have my own data set - you can look at the GISS data yourself at the link I gave John_II in my 8:20 post - here it is again:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/gra...
There you will see the anomaly for 1907 is -0.39 C and is 0.59 C for 2007 - a difference of 0.98 C - much closer to 1 degree C than .5.
So there it is, you don't have to take my word for it. Do you have a link to your "main GMT outlets" showing otherwise?
>>Show me the data that proves that human kind is responsible for this poultry amount of warming that is well within natural variability.<<
Is that chicken or turkey warming? I already provided you a link to the work that laid the basis to AGW theory, but you obviously ignored it. Here's a simpler one for you -
Temperatures when only natural factors are accounted for:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/imag...
Temperatures with natural and human caused factors accounted for:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/faqs/imag...
It's only with both human and natural factors can the temperature changes be accounted for.
>>The ***positive feedback*** I spoke of is a hypothesis and that is all. General circulation models are used to run different scenarios in order to attempt to prove this hypothesis. They cannot thus far project acurately for ten years let alone one humdred.<<
Actually you wrote "one study and more recently by Roy Spencer that clouds have a strong ***negative feedback***"
Negative or positive - which is it?
>>The CO2 lag is 800 years! You need to get around that if you're going to prove a cause and effect relationship using such data.<<
I specifically addressed this point, but apparently you ignored it. Again, see the work:
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1990/1...
It specifically says:
"... whether the temperature changes lead or lag the changes in CO2 or CH4 concentrations is not relevant for the study of fast feedbacks."
and explains why.
I strongly suggest you read it in order to get at least a basic understanding of GW theory. After that, if you have any specific points we can discuss those.
>>Your loud assertion is ignorant and unhelpful if you want to excite people..."
Interesting - I've provided explanations and links supporting my positions (Maybe they would be helpful if you read them) while you have provided none and the only time I used an exclamation point is when I have quoted you.
>>... into changing their lives for the "planetary emmergency".<<
Actually, I want to change people's lives as little as possible, which is why I strongly support developing nuclear power, for example.
April 28, 2008
11:36 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
CL, you are on the same wrong page as Al Gore with regard to the relationship with CO2 and heat. See this CNN clip http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io-Tb7.... Also, there are CO2 sequestering technologies that trap it underground, where algae processes it back into Oxygen. Global warming is bunk.
April 28, 2008
11:53 a.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
Al Gore's film, for which he won a nobel prize, is propaganda, all the way to the sci-fi footage from "the day after tomorrow" showing an ice shelf falling into the ocean, a scene that he used in his movie.
Furthermore, even if man-made GW is real, there are two ways to deal with it; hamper humanity, or ignore it. In hampering it, we slow down our economic activity, maybe control the population, force very expensive green energy solutions, basically let radical Leftists take over and control our lives. We will then live in a perpetual recession...or we can go with the dissenting half of the scientists' point-of-view and just ignore it. I vote for the latter. Their argument is valid if ignored. The models don't work, and the empirical evidence is both statistically insignificant and explained by natural cycles.
Perhaps a good compromise would be to just nuke the Chinese, cutting one plus billion people from the worldwide population and all of their dirty dirty industrial practices.
April 28, 2008
12:17 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
“Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority it is time to pause and reflect.”
Mark Twain
“There goes another beautiful theory about to be murdered by a brutal gang of facts.”
Duk De La Rochefoucauld French writer and moralist (1613-1680)
At the end of my post are some quotes I gathered along the way, as you might not want to read my words. There’s no quick answer to the poster who questions my judgement on the so called consensus. He is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.
Belief requires faith which is religion. Consensus is the basis of democracy which is politics. Conspiracy is too strong a word, and I feel the term opportunistic is more fitting with regard to the global warming alarm. As any salesman will tell you emotion sells and is one of the most powerful tools that anyone (in this case substitute politician or bad scientist) can use to sway opinion. I see nothing inherently unusual in this as I believe we all use this powerful tool throughout our lives, even toddlers use it to get attention. It’s just that some turn it into a force to rule or gain materially on a grand scale. Recently a British high court judge ruled that any school that shows Al Gore’s movie without pointing out the numerous flaws and untruths will be in breach of the education act on indoctrination. Furthermore he is forbidden from peddling his carbon offset business in this country, as he will breach our racketeering laws! Ring any alarm bells anyone? By the way Carbon monoxide is a deadly gas not to be confused with carbon dioxide which is plant food. CO2 is toxic at 6000 parts per million. Plants thrive at around 1000 parts per million, a fact illustrated by commercial greenhouses who use high concentrations of CO2 thus improving yield. Catalytic converters fitted into all european vehicles now capture and recirculate amongst other gasses carbon-monoxide. Particulates and other toxic substances are often confused with CO2. The hose pipe thing won’t work if your car has a fully functioning converter.
April 28, 2008
12:27 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
In the matter of the question about the thousands of millions of peer reviewed research that supports the hypothesis of manmade global warming:
We must look at the source of the phenomenon. It first began for this country with Margaret Thatcher in the 80’s who wanted to push nuclear power for Britain as she was closing coal pits in large numbers and did not want to rely on the middle east as a main source of oil. She commissioned the Royal society to, with massive funding, prove a link between greenhouse gasses produced by industry and warming of the planet to the detriment of the environment. Of course once the money is there then the studies flow forth. Including such topics as nut gathering behaviour in squirrels with reference to global warming. One can imagine that the subject found it’s way to the lips of anyone who otherwise would not be guaranteed funding. Again, I see nothing evil in this as any scientist who wants funding for their particular field will no doubt be tempted to use whatever lever will help their research. The British government formed a think tank which eventually joined or helped form the IPCC which is an international body. This body functions on the same basis as Maggie’s think tank but on a bigger scale. The premise is to uphold the notion that mankind is responsible for most of the warming in the twentieth century due to greenhouse gasses. The IPCC is split into four working groups, each dealing with different aspects; only one group is concerned with the atmospheric science and physics component; but all with the same basic supposition. It is often said that there are thousands of studies. Many of the studies quoted are in fact, model runs. This is to say that each time a group of scientists changes a set of parameters and runs it through the computer it counts as another “study”. Model Scenarios have been misrepresented as predictions by the IPCC and the likes of Al Gore.
There are many scientists who were lead authors or reviewers who have stated their concern about the process or even have left in disgust at the corruption of the peer review process which is not carried out in good faith within it’s walls. Those reviewing papers are often those who were involved in the study. You couldn’t make this stuff up!
April 28, 2008
12:43 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
Read Chris Landsea’s “brutally honest” account of his experience with the IPCC before he left. MIT’s professor emanuel has recently stated that he would now reconsider his long held opinion that tornadoes and hurricane intensity and number would increase in a warmer world. Read Paul Reiter’s account of the misinformation and bad science that went on while he worked for the IPCC as a lead expert in insect born disease. He wrote a letter to parliament and describes much of what went on. He threatened legal action before they finally removed his name from their “list”. Richard Lindzen was a lead author and subsequently a reviewer and it is widely known what he thinks of the so called settled science! John Christy’s temperature record is used as a fair model…see his latest data up to March of this year about the global mean temperature. Listen to his lecture on line: Google “what do the numbers say john Christy”. The observed data is not in agreement with the AGW hypothesis. For those who like to bash deniers then there a few individuals that do this at the end of the lecture with impunity. Read “Global Warming’s dirty secret by Professor Patrick Michaels;
The fact is that there are many “peer reviewed” papers written in journals which do not support this view of human induced climate catastrophe. Have a look at Anthony Watt’s work on weather stations throughout America which, as it turns out give a warming bias due to bad siting and faulty algorithms used to adjust the data. They have had a significant victory in helping to solve this problem only this week! (They are volunteers made up of many retired meteorologists and others) See Icecap for useful articles and links which include papers as they emerge from around the world, refuting the polemic. Lastly, here are some quotes which, I think some will find revealing if you’re still awake.
“Climate change is a reality and science confirms that human activity is heavily implicated in this change. But over the last few years a new environmental phenomenon has been constructed in this country. The phenomenon of catastrophic climate change. It seems that mere climate change was not going to be bad enough and so it now must be catastrophic to be worthy of attention. The increasing use of this pejorative term and its bedfellow qualifiers, chaotic, irreversible, rapid has altered the public discourse around climate change. I have found myself increasingly chastised by climate change campaigners when my public statements and lectures on climate change have not satisfied their thirst for environmental drama and exaggerated rhetoric. It seems that it is we the professional climate scientists who are now the catastrophe sceptics! How the wheel turns!
April 28, 2008
12:53 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
“Why is it not just campaigners but politicians and scientists too who are openly confusing the language of fear, terror and disaster with the observable physical reality of climate change, actively ignoring the careful hedging of science’s predictions?
To state that climate change will be catastrophic hides a cascade of value laden assumptions that do not emerge from empirical or theoretical science.”
Mike Hulme. The director 2000-2007 of the tyndall centre for climate change research
“Self evidently dangerous climate change will not come from a normal scientific process of truth seeking. Although science will gain some insights into the question if it recognises the social contingent dementions of a post normal science, but to proffer such insights scientists and politicians must trade normal truth for influence.”Professor Mike hulmeagain.
On Climate models:
Until we can establish a reasonable level of internal consistency and empirical adequacy, declining to interpret model-based probabilities as decision-relevant probabilities isn't high skepticism, but scientific common sense.
Tacit knowledge gets lost in translation with climate modelling.” The Bulletin online10 march 2008.
The Blog “Real climate”, the font of catastrophe, states the following with respect to climate models and predictions:
“A scenario only illustrates the climatic affect of the specified forcing.”
“The scenarios can become obsolete and cannot be verified or falsified by observed data because the observed data have become dominated by other affects not included in the sinarios. This is why it is called a scenario, not a forecast. To be sure the first IPCC report did talk about prediction. In many respects the first report wasn’t nearly as sophisticated as the more recent ones, including in its terminology. One should not mix up a sinario with a forecast. I can not easily compare a sinario for the affects of greenhouse gases alone with observed data because I cannot isolate the affects of the greenhouse gases in these data. Given that other forcings are also at play in the real world.”!
April 28, 2008
12:55 p.m.
Suggest removal
spencerr writes:
You bring me joy :)
April 28, 2008
12:56 p.m.
Suggest removal
joy writes:
This is the definition of a sensitivity experiment according to roger Pielki
The IPCC were given sensitivity model runs. These have been misconstrued as prophecies.
Prof David Vaughan(glacier expert at British Antarctic survey):
“There are a lot of differences from year to year in the Antarctic. Some stations show warming and some, ,like the one at the south pole show cooling. The jury is still out on what is going to happen.”
Taken from Telegraph article by Richard Gray 04/11/07
"If back in the mid-nineties, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would not exist because we would have concluded it was not necessary" Dr. Tim Patterson - Professor of Geology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University
"No matter if the science is all phony, there are collateral environmental benefits...climate change provides the greatest chance to bring about justice and equality in the world" Christine Stewart, former Canadian Environment Minister
"Unless we announce disasters, no one will listen" Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
The last two quotes illustrate clearly the misguided and well meaning nature of some individuals pushing the alarmist view.
"Consensus is the business of politics. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period." Michael Crichton
“Did we think Kyoto would [reduce global warming] when we signed it [in 1997]?… Hell no!” said
Gore. He then explained that the actual point of Kyoto was to demonstrate that international support
could be mustered for action on environmental issues. Answer given by Gore was at a private showing of his climate slide show in January 2006 at the Americans for tax reform.
And so we have Chinese whisper science. Demonstrated by the IPCC. Not all scientists agree and most are not quoted accurately by the summaries for policy makers. Look like settled science to you?
It doesn’t look like a wholesale conspiracy but a patchwork of exaggeration, fraud, greed, misguided virtue, bias, panic and primitive herding instinct. All in all a Human fabricated entity without substantive empirical evidence and without observed data for support. Not a reason to tighten your belt and braces but to quote Michael Chrichton a good reason to “reach for your wallet for you’re being had.”
April 28, 2008
1:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
CL writes:
spencer - wow a youtube video now there's a real science source! If you make an actual argument and provide a link to support it I might take a look at it - at least then I'll have some idea if it's worth my time.
>>Also, there are CO2 sequestering technologies that trap it underground, where algae processes it