An urgent report on climate change in today's Chinook Observer "Pliocene Epoch: Ice, erosion and uplift shaped modern mountains and river valleys"
The Pleistocene Epoch was not constantly cold. Climates varied from very cold and dry to wet and warm, or to dry and warm. Sometimes local climate was slightly warmer than at present. Warm periods, or interglacial periods, lasted 5 to 10 Ky (thousands of years); 5 Ky was typical.So climate, ice packs, sealevels and shorelines have always been changing. Who knew? Posted by Stefan Sharkansky at February 21, 2007 11:33 AM | Email ThisDuring interglacial periods, sealevel rose to near present-day levels, and the climate west of the Cascades was temperate and usually wet, very like our present climate. During highstand (when sealevel was at its highest in warm periods) in these interglacial periods, the lower portions of the Coast Range were submerged; the most recent terrace deposits in this area formed during interglacial periods.
You really like David don't you. LOL
Why are you doing this to us 0-:
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 21, 2007 11:21 AMDon't tell the AAAS -- they're busy writing grants for giant "electro-rays" to "stop Global Heating".
You are hereby declared a Heretic by the High Priest of the Church of Global Warming.
Your are guilty of the crime of heresy for not adhereing to the central dogma of he the Church of Global Warming.
Climate is naturaly Constant.
Only man is responsible for changing climate.
Unless you repent your heresy you will be assigned to re-education until you adhere to dogma and use only goodspeak.
Posted by: JCM on February 21, 2007 11:49 AM
http://www.livestockweekly.com/papers/98/05/14/whlpetition.asp
Popular Press Ignores Thousands
Of Scientists Who Pan "Warming"
CAVE JUNCTION, Ore. -- In less than two months, a grassroots effort has gathered signatures from nearly 17,000 scientists on a petition debunking the so-called "global warming" treaty adopted last December in Kyoto, Japan.
The signers run the gamut from climatologists and meteorologists to biologists and biochemists. That is a stark contrast to the claimed "consensus" of 2500 signers of a U.N. paper warning about "global warming" that served to promote the treaty.
The supposedly pro-treaty paper, it turned out, was signed by fewer than 2000 individuals, most of whom were outside their fields of expertise, and the paper itself was ambiguous. Only a boilerhoused "summary" cobbled up after the fact by treaty promoters actually supported the "global warming" scare, and the vast majority of qualified scientists among the claimed signers never even saw the summary, much less endorsed it.
Given the media attention lavished on the earlier paper and the treaty it precipitated, such a thorough debunking might be expected to generate substantial news coverage.
Wrong.
The popular media, having bought into "global warming" like a flock of deed-holders to the Golden Gate Bridge, has almost entirely ignored it. In fact, Livestock Weekly could find only one article about it in the voluminous files of the Associated Press, which offers stories on everything from two-headed calves to Chelsea Clinton's new boyfriend.
And that one lonely AP story reads like an unvarnished attempt to discredit the petition.
"It was supposed to be a collection of signatures of thousands of scientists ready to debunk global warming," the story begins, "But the petition, embraced in recent weeks by critics of the Kyoto climate agreement, bore some surprising names."
The article goes on to identify fictional TV attorney Perry Mason as among the signers, along with "three doctors from the TV series M*A*S*H," and "even one of the Spice Girls."
It lists these obviously bogus names as "among the 15,000 signatories," thus arbitrarily slashing the number of participating scientists and at the same time suggesting that even those reduced ranks are suspect.
In a show of "fairness," the story allows a disclaimer by petition organizer Arthur Robinson, a chemist with the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Robinson is allowed to point out that "When we're getting thousands of signatures, there's no way of filtering out a fake."
The article goes on, however, to claim that Robinson has "made little attempt to verify the credentials of those who responded to the petition."
And that is simply not true. Rather, it is technically true, but only in the Clintonesque sense that oral sex does not constitute an adulterous affair.
Actually, a massive Internet website detailing the petition and each of its signatories points out that, "Of the 18,100 signatures the project has received in total so far, 16,600 have been independently verified," and 1500 have not. Among the latter, the site notes candidly, are "several names that were sent in by enviro pranksters."
Independently verified -- meaning Robinson and the petition's organizers, in time-honored scientific fashion, were careful not to do the verifying themselves and thus taint its credibility.
But that is not at all the impression the reader is supposed to draw from the story.
The article goes on to cite mostly unidentified "critics" who "contend few of the names are of scientists who have studied long-range climate change and that Robinson ... has done no independent research on global warming."
Once again, Robinson is allowed a lame response. He is quoted as arguing only that the signers are "qualified to speak on this subject."
A quick check of the website, however, reveals much more detail, all of it available to AP. The website notes that two-thirds of the verified signatories have advanced degrees, among them "approximately 2100 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers and environmental scientists who are especially qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide on the Earth's atmosphere and climate."
An additional 4400 scientists are specialists in "chemistry, biochemistry, biology and other life sciences," and "especially well qualified to evaluate the effects of carbon dioxide upon the Earth's plant and animal life."
Most of the remainder are "trained in related fields," the website says, and possess technical knowledge "suitable for the evaluation of the relevant research data."
That does not include the "Perry Masons," "Spice Girls," "Hawkeye Pierces," and other prank names that the petition organizers have already culled from their head count to get it down to 16,600.
Those bogus names, it should be noted, were "exposed" by a group called "Ozone Action," a pro-treaty "green" group that quickly brought them to the attention of AP. Given the obscurity of some of the names -- a recent People magazine survey found that only a handful of readers could name a single Spice Girl even by her nickname, much less the actual names cited in the article -- a cynic might suggest that Ozone Action did a remarkable job of ferreting out the ringers. Almost as if they knew just what names to look for.
By way of clarification, and to head off dismissive critics, the petition website points out that all of the project's funding comes from private donations, none from industry sources, and none from tax-exempt organizations. The organizers, it adds, also receive no funding from industry, meaning no bankrolling from coal, oil, natural gas or related sources, either through the front door or the back.
A sympathetic website predicted the "greens'" attacks. Describing the petition as a "signal event" that "has blown the claimed 'scientific consensus' clear out of the water," its authors warn that it "is going to upset a lot of people who have avoided debating the science and sought refuge by quoting numbers."
That apparently includes the popular press.
More on it here:
http://www.answers.com/topic/oregon-petition
Posted by: JDH on February 21, 2007 01:37 PMhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/
Posted by: JDH on February 21, 2007 01:38 PMhttp://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Posted by: JDH on February 21, 2007 01:40 PMFiction Fantasy and Falsehoods
About 15,000 years ago the last ice age was melting due to a millennia of early human cave dwellers test firing their volcanoes and traversing the countryside on fire breathing sport utility dinosaurs (SUDs), the volcanoes of the Cascade Mountain Range left lava and mudflows two miles thick. Because of global warming from the volcanoes and the SUDs, the Columbia River then cut a deep canyon through the lava, ash and mud. Gigantic floods up to 1,200 feet deep swept down the river corridor and scoured its cliffs. This created one of the world's greatest disasters; a gorge that appears to have scarred the region forever leaving tributary streams hanging high above the river's bed creating waterfalls so tall they are out of the reach of spawning salmon.
Therefore, it is time for the Inconvenient Truth supporters, socialist green political forces and doo-gooder control seeking environmentalists of today who really want to reverse the affects of global warming to pick up their hand held pick axes and shovels, start another millennia of reversing the actions of those early humans who test fired the volcanoes and fill in that dastardly ditch called the Columbia River Gorge, thereby helping to return the planet to pre-global warming status.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 21, 2007 02:53 PMSpears had a meltdown weekend that included shaving her head, pantyless & wearing skimpy outfits.
By God if that isn't proof that global warming is real nothing is.
Posted by: JDH on February 21, 2007 03:10 PMYeah, that and the slut with the amazing decaying body who is on the MSM 24/7.
Honest to Christmas, it makes you wonder if everyone's brains are melting in this infernal heat.
Sigh. I wish some of that there global warming would makes its way over here to Spokane. I really really hate frozen mud.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 21, 2007 03:36 PMYou know, the same people that say there is nothing wrong with Social Security and that government is here to help me are the ones who seem to have this global climate thing all figured out. So what I need to know from them is: How do they know that this is the climate that is the best?
But like the Truthers and other very-far-fetched lib favorites, they pushed a little too hard on the Global Warming hysteria. This is definitely heading to a place where it's going to be a common popular joke. There's just not going to be enough near term climate change to convince any Average Joe, so it will become a laugh.
The left, they really love conspiracies. When you don't have the intellect to rationally understand the world around you, then you are easily entranced by the conspiracy du jour.
http://www.floppingaces.net/2007/02/19/the-global-warming-myths-conti/
Be sure to read the suggested solution to global warming at the end!
Posted by: starboardhelm on February 21, 2007 06:34 PM> So climate, ice packs, sealevels and shorelines have always been changing. Who knew?
Conservatives are astonished & amused by their own ignorance.
Over the last four billion years the climate has changed drastically, life evolved and diversified, the continents collided, the oceans opened and closed.
Anyone with a High School education would know this much. Yet conservatives claim that they do not know.
What does this reveal about the level of scientific ignorance among conservatives? A whole bunch.
These conservatives are so ignorant of science that they confuse the weather with the climate.
Conservatives are so ignorant of science that they actually imagine that human destructive behaviors can have no consequences.
These conservatives are so ignorant of science, I bet there are plenty here who believe that the Earth is less than ten thousand years old.
So why should Stefan's ignorance of science inform the public about Global Warming and its future impacts upon the horrendously overpopulated Earth?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 21, 2007 06:37 PMhttp://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/
And if I'm a conservative, you're a tunicate.
Your list of what you believe conservatives believe has it's mirror image in the Global Warming Hysterics of the left. (Though where you got your mind-reading credentials baffles me. Was it one of those diploma mills?)
"The Pliocene Epoch from 5.3 Million to 1.8 Million Years Ago was marked in Idaho by the appearance of Lake Idaho in the vicinity of Hagerman, Idaho.
The Pleistocene Epoch from 1.8 Million to 10,000 Years Ago is the first Epoch of the Quaternary Period and was marked by the most recent Ice Ages, remember that previous Ice Ages had occurred."
And those that think 10,000 years means much in geologic time are lacking perspective on the much greater time frames of those two epochs. Taking the human record of observed temperatures and projecting them blithely into the future is not science - it's a wild guess based on negligible evidence. Extrapolation of such a travesty and then convicting humans for its supposed 'predictions' is using small bits of scientific jargon to tart up a religious movement similar to the Inquisition.
Also, how come the observably increasing economic trends of India and China, who use much dirtier power than the USA does, and whose populations dwarf ours, are always excluded from GW discussions and demands?
The worst aspect of political correctness is the wilful blindness which excludes such concerns from discussions.
> Your list of what you believe conservatives believe has it's mirror image in the Global Warming Hysterics of the left. (Though where you got your mind-reading credentials baffles me. Was it one of those diploma mills?)
No ESP needed in this case, starboard, I was merely stating what conservatives here have already said.
> And those that think 10,000 years means much in geologic time are lacking perspective on the much greater time frames of those two epochs. Taking the human record of observed temperatures and projecting them blithely into the future is not science - it's a wild guess based on negligible evidence. Extrapolation of such a travesty and then convicting humans for its supposed 'predictions' is using small bits of scientific jargon to tart up a religious movement similar to the Inquisition.
Eh, Hank, exactly what are you saying in the paragraph above? Please clarify.
> Also, how come the observably increasing economic trends of India and China, who use much dirtier power than the USA does, and whose populations dwarf ours, are always excluded from GW discussions and demands?
China and India do pollute the Earth. But the world's #1 polluter remains The United States of America. If America won't make any sacrifices on behalf of the climate, China and India will not either.
America ought to begin making sacrifices right now on behalf of the climate. If America doesn't make any sacrifices, Nature will extract these sacrifices from us.
> The worst aspect of political correctness is the wilful blindness which excludes such concerns from discussions.
What concerns? Please specify.
So you can know what another imagines without reading their mind? Huh. Somehow I doubt you got your ideas from hearing what actual conservatives have to say. More likely you've just extrapolated from liberal smear jobs.
I know and respect many conservatives, some are even scientists and engineers of high repute. Not a one would fit your profile. I also know and respect many liberals, some of whom are skeptical of global warming. (Although a few among them do faithfully beleeeeeeva! in the Coming of The Great Global Warmin'.)
Sound science is rooted in skepticism. It's a healthy thing to challenge entrenched beliefs, right? So, in this case, the skeptics are challenging an entrenched belief in Man-made Global Warming. And the skeptics are not all conservatives. And the conservatives among them are not all fundamentalists. Get it?
Posted by: starboardhelm on February 21, 2007 08:35 PM
> So you can know what another imagines without reading their mind?
Okay, starboard, let's hear what your mind has to say about global warming.
Are you pro-pollution? What is your opinion regarding pollution & its impacts upon the climate of the Earth?
Let's begin here and see where this conversation leads.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 21, 2007 08:44 PMIf Algor stops global warming, how soon could we expect to move south to get out of the way of the ice sheets? Aren't they past due? It has been more than 10,000 years since the last ice age (not counting the "little ice age" which ended in the mid-1800s).
Here's a question for you: If you found out tomorrow that there is undeniable evidence that the earth is not warming, would you then feel free to pollute? If not, it's not rational for you to accuse those who don't believe as you do as being "pro-pollution".
As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that it is even occuring, much less that there is anything humans can do about it if it does occur. I'll wait with suspended judgement until I'm convinced. In the meantime, I don't need the threat of global warming to convince me that polluting the earth and wasting our resources is a bad thing, and I do my part to tread lightly.
Here's a question for you: If you found out tomorrow that there is undeniable evidence that the earth is not warming, would you then feel free to pollute? If not, it's not rational for you to accuse those who don't believe as you do as being "pro-pollution".
As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that it is even occuring, much less that there is anything humans can do about it if it does occur. I'll wait with suspended judgement until I'm convinced. In the meantime, I don't need the threat of global warming to convince me that polluting the earth and wasting our resources is a bad thing, and I do my part to tread lightly.
David thinks all who are skeptical of the GW propaganda must by definition be concervatives. Like so many on the left, he buys into the arrogance of the idea that if you don't agree with him you must be stupid.
Gotta love the tolerance of such a belief system. Its so liberal!
Orwell wrote about the twisted rhetoric of the left 60 years ago. Some of us took a while longer to figure it out.
Posted by: deadwood on February 21, 2007 11:12 PM> I'm an extreme moderate, though, not a conservative.
Starboard, extreme moderate is a self-contradicting description. By definition, moderate is not extreme. If you have any doubts, consult your dictionary.
> Here's a question for you: If you found out tomorrow that there is undeniable evidence that the earth is not warming, would you then feel free to pollute? If not, it's not rational for you to accuse those who don't believe as you do as being "pro-pollution".
Did I ask such a difficult question that you found it impossible to answer?
I can answer your question easily enough: Pollution remains evil even if Global Warming is not occurring.
I am anti-pollution and have been so for much longer than I have known of Global Warming as a consequence of pollution.
> As far as global warming is concerned, I haven't seen sufficient evidence yet that it is even occuring, much less that there is anything humans can do about it if it does occur. I'll wait with suspended judgement until I'm convinced. In the meantime, I don't need the threat of global warming to convince me that polluting the earth and wasting our resources is a bad thing, and I do my part to tread lightly.
Here again you are involved in a self-contradiction. Treading lightly upon the Earth is not simply an individual matter, the behavior of our culture, industries, nation, government and the entire human population is also included.
For that reason: You do not tread lightly upon the Earth. You are, in fact, polluting the entire globe both by your actions and also your inactions.
If you remain passive you will bear responsibility for the apocalypse which is approaching. Does a catastrophe have to occur in order to wake you up?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 04:14 AM> David thinks all who are skeptical of the GW propaganda must by definition be concervatives.
No, I think that the critics of Global Warming at SoundPolitics are by association conservative.
> Like so many on the left, he buys into the arrogance of the idea that if you don't agree with him you must be stupid.
I do not make that assumption. I reached that conclusion by the preponderance of evidence.
I reached that conclusion by the preponderance of evidence.
Your words dude, not everyone elses.
Posted by: Army Medic/Vet on February 22, 2007 06:26 AMPlease share with us your prescription for the ideal global climate and temperature. That way we will all have an idea of what your climatic goals are.
If you are unable to do so, you will have exposed yourself finally as another run-of-the-mill Cassandra; an Al Gore without Tipper; a Tawana Brawlety without Sharpton; a fish who has, at last, lost his bicycle.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 22, 2007 09:19 AMGeez, what blatant fear-mongering. Sounds so Old Testament. I can see you on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board proclaiming, "Repent Ye! The End is Near!" Exactly the kind of thing that leads me to be so skeptical of the motives behind the Great Global Warming Apocalypse Scare.
You see, David, here you admit that Global Warming Hysteria is all about controlling the actions of The Others, since non-Hysterics can't be trusted with behaving responsibly toward the earth. I pity your blindness.
Posted by: starboardhelm on February 22, 2007 09:23 AMMonday, February 5, 2007
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was one of the first Canadian Ph.Ds. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.
Read the rest at:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Does this guy have a bigger sheep skin than David M?
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 22, 2007 09:47 AMTo the irrational Global Warming flock, it's much more about their perception that the earth is being hurt. They view this is some kind of sad mistreatment of a pet, and not the factual reality of a huge planet and the powerful forces within it and in the nearby sun, that far outweigh any human contribution to its dynamics.
The have accepted on faith, the unprovable and hypothetical computer models. Faith is the opposite of reason. And those who question the faith are denounced as heretic, no matter the factual and rational quality of their arguments.
It makes no sense to argue Global Warming with the irrational. What does make sense if to present a factual argument to the calm and more reasonable majority. That is happening now. The hysterical left has pushed too far and there is blow-back by more and more scientists, and everyday folks like the reasoning commenters here. The anti-crisis movement is gaining traction, and as time passes and no armageddon materializes, the left will lose yet again.
How can I be sure? Because if one has the guts to put aside the rhetoric and emotion, it's easy to see that the facts against a hysterical response to climate change far outweigh the flimsy evidence in support. To anyone here who can be honest with themselves and is willing to change their views based on facts, the reading is all there on the WWW. If you are not fully entrenched in an emotion laden left leaning mindset, and you want to go read both sides of the argument, you will be surprised by what you find. If you dismiss this statement as needing no further factual consideration, then you can't be persuaded, and you are closed to science and argument. It's either one or the other.
The real inconvenient truth is that when pushed for a real scientific discussion with an expert, Gore will decline every time.
Posted by: Jeff B. on February 22, 2007 10:15 AMSo I now pose this question, if their science is so "air tight" why is it that they are afraid of anything that might not agree with it?
Posted by: JDH on February 22, 2007 12:08 PMThe ad hominem assault on "global warming" critics (ongoing updates)
http://bidinotto.journalspace.com/?entryid=500
Posted by: JDH on February 22, 2007 01:12 PMColleagues destroying dissenting publications and denying access to opposing views -- while proclaiming their allegiance to freedom of thought and opinion?
You must work at a college, too.
Do what I do: put American flag stickers on every damn Prius in the parking lot.
Posted by: Rey Smith on February 22, 2007 01:31 PM> No David what you are is a pathetic miserable failure who would consign others to live in a third world of poverty and filth.
JDH, you seem to get a little emotional in your response.
Regarding the Third World of poverty & filth: Did you know that approximately 2,000,000,000 humans are living this sort of lifestyle. You seem to not mind too much that they are living this sort of hellish existence. So why should I favor your own prosperity over their suffering?
And also regarding America's poverty: Did you know that America is going to become an impoverished nation whether you like it or not. America is burning up its natural resources at a tremendous pace. A century from now America will have fully depleted its fossil fuels: Oil, natural gas, and coal. What then?
> Look you worthless POS if you want to live in a hell right here on earth North Korea or any fundamentalist islamic middle eastern is is calling.
Hell on Earth is coming to the United States of America. This American lifestyle is generating the circumstances which will cause America to collapse economically, socially, and politically.
If you would rather avoid Hell on Earth you ought to begin making substantial sacrifices right now. But you really don't care about future suffering so long as it occurs after you are gone, right?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 03:36 PM> Please share with us your prescription for the ideal global climate and temperature. That way we will all have an idea of what your climatic goals are.
My prescription regarding protecting the climate & biosphere: Humans should cease burning fossil fuels altogether, and humans should cease all industrial activities altogether.
It's a pretty big sacrifice but it is necessary.
> If you are unable to do so, you will have exposed yourself finally as another run-of-the-mill Cassandra; an Al Gore without Tipper; a Tawana Brawlety without Sharpton; a fish who has, at last, lost his bicycle.
I've done it. Do you like my prescription?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 03:39 PM> Geez, what blatant fear-mongering. Sounds so Old Testament. I can see you on a street corner, wearing a sandwich board proclaiming, "Repent Ye! The End is Near!" Exactly the kind of thing that leads me to be so skeptical of the motives behind the Great Global Warming Apocalypse Scare.
If you happen to visit your doctor and he/she informs you that you have terminal cancer and have only six months left to live, do you dismiss the doctor's diagnosis as mere fearmongering?
> You see, David, here you admit that Global Warming Hysteria is all about controlling the actions of The Others, since non-Hysterics can't be trusted with behaving responsibly toward the earth. I pity your blindness.
Your actions are already controlled by others, starboard. The American consumer is not a free agent. Corporations spend $billions every year propagandizing and manipulating you.
American consumers would behave differently without all of this brainwashing by advertising. The remarkable thing is that the consumers appear lost in their delusions and illusions and they actually imagine that their behaviors reflect some sort of self-identity when actually they are following the commands of the corporations.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 03:44 PM> Does this guy have a bigger sheep skin than David M?
I read that article a while ago and was not impressed. I read it again today and am still not impressed.
The global warming skeptics can only point to a small handful of scientists and among that handful there are several disreputable scientists who have a long history of serving corporate interests.
> It makes no sense to argue Global Warming with the irrational.
You haven't yet established your own rationality, Jeff. Is it possible that your approach towards this issue is itself irrational?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 03:54 PM> The ad hominem assault on "global warming" critics (ongoing updates)
ExxonMobil has explicitly conceded that it has funded anti-global warming scientists so this is not an ad hominem attack upon those scientists.
The truth is simply the truth. The oil corporations have a huge stake in avoiding taxes and environmental regulations. They have invested millions of dollars in propaganda and contributions to politicians in order to influence both public perception and government policy.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 04:02 PMAn ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the person", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument by attacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument. It is most commonly used to refer specifically to the ad hominem abusive, or argumentum ad personam, which consists of criticizing or personally attacking an argument's proponent in an attempt to discredit that argument. (Wikipedia, 2/22/2007)
As for the ExxonMobil ties to GW skeptics. This was a charge raised by UCS, the Union of Conserned Scientists, an organization bought and paid for by Greenpeace and whose first meeting in 1969 included impassioned speeches by Norm Chomsky, Erik Mann of the Weathermen fame, and Jonathan Kabat on the evils of capitalism.
The trusth is that UCS charges are based not on tracking any monies paid to skeptics, but on their support of convservative think-tanks who support the skeptics by providing venues to speak the truth on GW.
Stalin, Troysky and Castro used similar smear campaigns against their enemies. Good show Dave! Your colors are showing.
The GW cult claims consensus, but when eminent scientists express skepticism, and especially when the cult is outed about its fascist tactics, it retreats to time honored methods of the folks they admire.
Oh, and Dave, in case you think referencing fascists and commies together represents some kind of inconsistency - nazis too are socialsts, just not as far left as commies. And they both use the same tactics and you and your ilk. They replace debate with emotional rhetoric and personal attacks.
He's baaaack! But now he's Doctor David, MD, and High Prophet & Priest of the Flock of Global Warming Alarmists. Get real Davy, Global Warming Hysteria is nothing like cancer. (ISeems more like some kind of mental health issue, actually.) I like the pc "he/she", but you forgot the "it". I've always thought it should be ladies first, and say it real fast: "she-he-it".
You probably weren't around for the Global Cooling Scare in the '70s. Back then it was Dhimmi Carter in the role of Al Gore, but the scenario was much the same as the Global Warming Hysteria of today. "Science" claiming to predict a new ice age hyped in the popular press. Dissenting views suppressed. Humanity and Americans blamed for creating the problem. Politicos making grand, meaningless, yet expensive, gestures in an effort to stave off the inevitable cooling. And so on.
But, I must say, it all apparently worked! Perhaps a little too well. Seems that all the "action" taken back then not only defeated global cooling, but kicked off global warming instead!! What if we fix global warming the same way? Oh no!
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=24537_The_Goracle_Has_Spoken&only
Posted by: starboardhelm on February 22, 2007 06:19 PM> As for the ExxonMobil ties to GW skeptics. This was a charge raised by UCS, the Union of Conserned Scientists, an organization bought and paid for by Greenpeace and whose first meeting in 1969 included impassioned speeches by Norm Chomsky, Erik Mann of the Weathermen fame, and Jonathan Kabat on the evils of capitalism.
Not merely a change, deadwood, an objectively verified fact:
"In its report covering 2005, Hoedeman's group details payments by ExxonMobil to two organizations -- the International Policy Network, which received $130,000 and the Centre for the New Europe, which received $50,000.
"CEO suspects ExxonMobil also has financed other groups actively engaged in undermining support for legislation that refused to reveal their funding."
Exxonmobil cool to global warming
and ...
"First of all, I should say that I went in deeply dubious about Exxon Mobil, based on their past history of funding Astroturf campaigns to increase the FUD around climate change, not to mention their editorial page peak oil denial ad in the New York Times. However, I think it's good to talk with people one disagrees with, so I thought I'd at least listen to what they have to say. I'm still fairly dubious, but I also appreciate that they have been courteous and willing to sit through a couple of very frank exchanges of views with I and the other bloggers on the call.
"Despite my doubts, I find that encouraging. Maybe they've already figured it out, but if they haven't, there seems hope that from these painful experiences they will learn this: they cannot have it both ways in this increasingly transparent world. Either they are responsible corporate citizens trying to move the world forward to a better climate policy regime, while protecting the legitimate interests of their shareholders, or they are sneakily sowing dishonesty and doubt via funded proxies.
"But not both. Trying to do both is not going to work. A few years of consistent climate good citizenry and vigorously distancing themselves from the likes of the CEI is going to be required to clean up their image. I wish Ken Cohen the best of luck in that task."
ExxonMobil Conference Call
ExxonMobil has publicly and explicitly declared that it has in the past funded anti-global warming propaganda. This is not a matter which is subject to dispute.
Maybe you would like to venture a guess as to what could possibly motivate an oil corporation to engage in deceptive propaganda against the concept of global warming. There are probably forty billion good reasons why ExxonMobil would behave in such an unethical and dishonest manner.
> You probably weren't around for the Global Cooling Scare in the '70s. Back then it was Dhimmi Carter in the role of Al Gore, but the scenario was much the same as the Global Warming Hysteria of today. "Science" claiming to predict a new ice age hyped in the popular press. Dissenting views suppressed. Humanity and Americans blamed for creating the problem. Politicos making grand, meaningless, yet expensive, gestures in an effort to stave off the inevitable cooling. And so on.
Starboard, it appears that you have painted yourself into an intellectual corner with your argument:
1. The globe is not cooling.
2. The globe is not warming.
Therefore, according to your non-scientific climatology, it follows:
3. The climate is not changing!
Problem solved! Nothing ever changes ... even when things change!
Would you kindly clarify your opinions regarding what is happening to the climate, starboard? You've got some explaining to do.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 06:50 PM> "Did you know that America is going to become an impoverished nation" Left to you and Saint Al it would.
You are seriously deluded, JDH, if you think that America's present course can have any other outcome except for the bankruptcy & collapse of the U.S. of A.
America could become an impoverished simply because of the massive debt and trade balance which our leaders have allowed over the last several decades. America could become impoverished simply because of the exhaustion of America's own natural resources. America could become impoverished simply by virtue of engaging (and losing) an eternal Long War of attrition.
Since America is engaging in all three of the above foolish acts, America is a country in the process of self-destruction. Impoverishment is inevitable.
> That is all you have to offer. What have YOU done to lift mankind?
I gave humankind the sun, isn't that enough?
> The way for all to have more is to produce and in doing so others will have an opportunity to rise. The key to prospreity is to fill wants and in doing so you join in the TRUE uplift of your fellow man. For in doing so you trade for what they produce and entire cultures climb out of poverty. You are a simpleton and do not look at consequences on a global scale.
This is a lie and a delusion of capitalism. The world is finite and all of its resouces are constrained: only a small percentage of the human population can live like wealthy Americans.
> Poverty today and in the future is perpetuated by the "Live simply so others can simply live" mentality more than anything else. The way out is living to their potential and thereby adding to humanity's bounty and providing a MARKET for more people to fill.
You are a man of faith. Your religion is Capitalism, your god is Adam Smith, and your hope is prosperity for yourself and maybe for everyone else, but if they don't get it that it their own tough luck.
There are two billion impoverished people on the Earth. These cannot live like Americans. They have no choice except to suffer poverty and deprivation their entire lives.
What will you do for these people?
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 07:00 PMI was just pointing out that the Global Warming Alarmists of today are going to look at least as silly in 30 years as Global Cooling Alarmists of yore look now. It's amusing to watch the wheel of history go around.
As the Poet said:
Davy's "but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
> Davy Davy Davy. You're even less coherent than usual. Did you forget to take your meds tonight?
Starboard, starbaord, starboard ... have you taken leave of your senses? I suspect that you have.
> I was just pointing out that the Global Warming Alarmists of today are going to look at least as silly in 30 years as Global Cooling Alarmists of yore look now. It's amusing to watch the wheel of history go around.
You seem to know a lot about the future, starboard. I suspect that you know a lot less than you think that you know.
> Davy's "but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage,
And then is heard no more; it is a tale
Told by an idiot full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing."
I am pleased to see you quote poetry, starboard. You probably should pay a little attention to science, too.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 07:50 PMTake a look at the green guides to investing six years ago. They had a strong reccomendation to invest in Kenny Boy's Gubbermnt rent seeking company. Yes the king of all rent seekers ENRON. Take a close look at the evidence now out and it is not pretty. Look at the green interests that were singing Kenny Boy's praises and there are NONE of the major players left out.
You too are a dupe, a fool and a tool of the energy companies with a "green" stamp of aproval as well as Saint Al and the "environmental professionals" that fly around the world on your dime as well. You are a blithering idiot and a hater of mankind and your kind is a pestulence to people who wish to rise from an existance of scratching barely enough to stay alive out of the soil.
Posted by: JDH on February 22, 2007 07:56 PM
> You are parroting the claims of Marx and working as Lennin and Stalin did to bring their claims of the collapse of capitolism to fruition.
The collapse of capitalism is inevitable, JDH. That much is certain.
The collapse of the United States of America is also inevitable, JDH. America is a country which pushed capitalism to its limits and it will suffer the consequences.
How does it feel like to live in the era of the dying superpower and the dying global civilization? We are living in interesting times.
Posted by: David Mathews on February 22, 2007 08:01 PMThe is one thing, however, that survived all those collapses of empires and it was one or another form of free enterprise. Capitalism is simply the modern form of it.
I was looking at the ice core data a few days ago and found something very interesting. It seems each major collapse was accompanied by a period of climatic warming or cooling.
Possibly the warming periods allowed population growth that could have led to mass movements of people who were looking for new areas to settle. The cooling periods possibly were times of famine and resulting societal collapse. The plagues of the middle ages?
With warming being the current trend could we be seeing mass movements of people? Are we already seeing it? Definitely saomething to keep in mind.
Playing with proxy temperature can be fun when combined with history!
As for AGW. Is there warming? Probably, but there still are problems with the data.
Can it be tied to man-made causes? Not with degree of certainty. The 90% quanlitative assessment in the IPCC Summary is a political statement.
Believe whatever you want, but as a scientist who has written and read my share of papers, I am not even 10% convinced that their models are even well constrained. GIGO is the relevant term for what is passing as "proof" with the AGW cult members.
Posted by: deadwood on February 22, 2007 09:01 PMI dug into the May 2006 draft of the IPCC "scientific basis" to see if I could find anything quantitative to back this statement. All I found was a table similar to the one in the Policy Makers' Summary that provides the qualitative numbers and associates them with terms such as "likely" and "very likely".
This is a very odd way of assessing certainty in a scientific study. Normally certainty is a measure of reproducability and is measured with statistics. Typically when you you a term like 90% certain, it is backed up by tables of data and statistics.
I've certainly run into lay perople who would ask questions about certainty*, especially when dealing with computer models, but have not seen them written up in technical reports or papers.
I haven't seen anything written about this, and was wondering anybody else has seen this way of estimating certainty before in a scientific publication.
* - My favorite answer to these lay folks, BTW, is "Science doesn't provide certainty - only less uncertainty".
> The is one thing, however, that survived all those collapses of empires and it was one or another form of free enterprise. Capitalism is simply the modern form of it.
Capitalism hasn't failed yet (though it has flirted with failure), so when it does fail expect the worst. Apocalypse is a good word to describe the collapse of capitalism. When the great engine of free enterprise runs out of steam the world's economy will collapse in dramatic fashion.
I imagine that the collapse of capitalism will occur within the context of a larger human tragedy which is non-economic. Failure to survive is worse than the failure of capitalism.
The Earth is going to have 9,000,000,000 humans within the next fifty years. The Earth will suffer exhaustion of the fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal) within the next century. The Earth will experience dramatic climate change within the same time frame.
There is nowhere to go from here except down.
> With warming being the current trend could we be seeing mass movements of people? Are we already seeing it?
Mass movements of populations will occur, that much is certain. When the oceans start eating away at the world's coasts millions will have to find somewhere else to live. But where? With nine billion humans there won't be much space to accommodate the migration of millions of humans.
> Believe whatever you want, but as a scientist who has written and read my share of papers, I am not even 10% convinced that their models are even well constrained. GIGO is the relevant term for what is passing as "proof" with the AGW cult members.
You are entitled to your own opinions, of course, but the 90% is enough for me.
> This is a very odd way of assessing certainty in a scientific study. Normally certainty is a measure of reproducability and is measured with statistics. Typically when you you a term like 90% certain, it is backed up by tables of data and statistics.
Given that the full IPCC report is 1400 pages there is plenty of space for data and statistics.
Oh, yeah. Just shut down all the CO2 producing industries and power plants, shut off the fuel supply for all cars, trucks, and tractors.
Without all these things 8 of the 9 billion people will simply disappear! Might be a bit messy with all the rotting bodies, but what the heck. They'll be good fertilizer.
Posted by: The Sky is Falling on February 23, 2007 09:12 AMThe only available document is the May 2006 draft, which I have seen. It was the draft used to prepare the Summary for Policy Makers, which is the ONLY document yet released by the IPCC, and it definitely does not contain the data and statistics you assure me are there.
Your responses do not surprize me Dave. For the last couple of weeks I and others here have provided reasoned debate on the issue and have received nothing in return from you except canned bullet points from the cult and personal abuse.
Your arrogance is only exceeded by your ignorance Dave. You assume that anybody who doubts the IPCC must be a dolt and yet numerous times you have been informed of eminent experts in climatology who have expressed serious doubts about both the science and politics behind the IPCC AGW conclusions.
Most here have been very tolerant of your personal attacks. Tolerance used to be considered a liberal virtue. In today's backwards Orwellian world, the so called liberals exhibit little or no tolerance for people, ideas, and facts that contradict their worldview.
Bye Dave . . .
Posted by: deadwood on February 23, 2007 09:32 AMAs Went the Dodo so Will Kyoto
By Marc Sheppard
February has been a tough month for Global Warming doomsayers. First, their cataclysmic worst-case scenarios were debunked by the IPCC, which cut its own 2001 projections for temperature increase by a third and sea level rise completely in half. Then, just five days later, they learned that the environmentally irresponsible U.S was actually doing a better job of cutting CO2 emissions than their Kyoto-signing European Union heroes. And to top it off, attendees of a February 16th DC meeting of GLOBE nations agreed to abandon their adored Kyoto's economy-killing, energy-rationing, short-range, mandatory CO2 targets in favor of more realistic long-term goals.
The Valentine's week gathering of policy-makers from around the world was primarily the initiative of Britain's Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE). And, coming just 2 weeks after the announcement of a proposed EU carbon tax on non-Kyoto aligned nations from that French prince of pomposity, Jacques Chirac, it was a breath of lukewarm fresh air. After all, the nations meeting at the Washington Legislators Forum on Climate Change, the so called G8 Plus Five, were discussing an early retirement for the flawed and failed Kyoto protocols.
Ultimately, the group signed a declaration which established a long-term goal of stabilizing "greenhouse gas" (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level of between 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm). Most GHG advocates promote this as the range necessary to maintain their dream of a 2 degree Celsius maximum variance with pre-industrial temperatures.
Of course, as the new goals conform more or less to Kyoto, fans of one should eagerly welcome the other, right? Not quite. There's resistance brewing over this proposed post-Kyoto approach, which calls for a policy of measurable milestones addressing climate change over not the next 15 years, but rather the next century. Additionally, in the opposite corner, there remain many who disagree with the need for any action whatsoever and see the new plan as a design to bait otherwise unconvinced nations into nebulous indentures.
Superficially then, this month's revelations wouldn't appear to have brought conflicting sides of this ostensibly endless debate any closer to harmony. Yet, beneath the reputedly industrially polluted surface, hope glimmers.
You see, while non-binding, this new agreement will form the foundation of an upcoming June G8 summit on the subject and, likely, a new accord. Granted, its aspirations are based upon the still unsettled science of anthropogenic Global Warming. Still, there are many benefits to the projected pragmatic 2009 alternative to a 2012 Kyoto renewal for lucid believers and skeptics alike. As to alarmists - the plan has something to offer them too - a long overdue reality check.
For Believers - There's strength in numbers
Rational believers can take solace in the fact that the U.S, which wisely rejected the potentially catastrophic Kyoto accords, has tentatively signed on. In fact, just days before, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs told an audience in Berlin, Germany:
"Now, I know there is a deeply held view among many in Europe that the U.S. Government doesn't get it. That we don't care about climate change, that we are doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that Europe, while perhaps not perfect, is doing a far better job of tackling the issue than the United States. This proposition--no matter how simple, no matter how widely held, and no matter how much it fits a pop-culture 'blame-the-United States' paradigm--is completely wrong, on every point."
And, while Kurt Volker's comments included a few questionable points regarding the roles of mankind in climate and scientists in the IPCC summary, he did a pretty clean job of defending our rejection of Kyoto as a rebuff not of principle, but of detail and reach.
Accordingly, in addition to the more pragmatic targets, the group of 13 nations wisely agreed that both developing and prosperous nations must meet those targets, not just selected "offenders," as in Kyoto. Indeed, the previous pact's exclusion of India and China, which continues to build coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week, was a major obstacle to requisite international acceptance. And, while many dismissed President Bush's surprising call to "confront the serious challenge of global climate change" during his January 23rd State of the Union Address, their distrust has been proven increasingly vapid by both time and non-rising tide.
You believers will also like the proposed globalization of the European Union's carbon trading market. Here, CO2 emission "credits" are traded against quotas by big industrial firms in an effort to cap emissions and foment investment in "greener" energy sources. But beware: Although recently heralded by the Christian Science Monitor, this silly "cap-and-trade" model has thus far been a dismal failure on its flagship continent, with carbon credit values currently approaching zero.
Nonetheless, GLOBE does set reasonably acceptable CO2 goals and EU-recognized temperature ceilings. And, by providing realistic time to evaluate potential benefits of proposed changes versus their societal and economic impact, it does so in far less disruptive a manner than did its forerunner. After all, should the threat be accepted as real, only a fully cooperating planet which includes its largest economy can ever hope to mount a meaningful defense - No?
To Skeptics - Time will tell
We skeptics may enjoy a new post-Kyoto realism for which the watchword will be a cautious "long-term" rather than a hysterical "immediate." Even if relegated to the short-term by some, this renaissance will have long-lasting value. As witnessed by the 6 year thaw in the IPCC's sense of urgency, given time, eco-science knowledge is subject to drastic turns. In fact, data rotations of 180 degrees in less than a week are not unheard of.
Case in Point:
The recent IPCC summary was broadly criticized for not including the 2004 report of a doubling in Greenland's melt rate. Drew Shindell, a climate expert at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, went so far as to say on February 2nd:
"The melting of Greenland has been accelerating so incredibly rapidly that the I.P.C.C. report will already be out of date in predicting sea level rise, which will probably be much worse than is predicted in the I.P.C.C. report."
Yet, just 6 days later, the NY Times reported that not only wasn't Greenland melting as fast as previously thought -- the thaw may have ended altogether:
"It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland's ice - and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, 'average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.'"
Moreover, in the coming years a number of currently explored cyclical theories (particular those involving solar and cosmic rays) will see their results presented prior to any imprudent action being taken. Indeed, as Greenland attests, anything that buys time also returns up-to-date facts as a dividend.
Origin of the Specious
Surely, the softer projections of the IPCC and the recent declaration of the GLOBE meeting have shaken and will continue to shake the counterproductive doom merchants out of their endangered trees. And, while time is an asset to the rational, it's an affliction to their counterparts. Having the G8 plus 5 agree to 50-100 year goals certainly takes a gust of the 380 ppm CO2 wind out of the sails of Nobel and Oscar nominee Al Gore's 2006 admonition in An Inconvenient Truth that:
"We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin."
And here's how his fellow alarmist James Hansen, head of the same NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies which pays Drew Shindell, addressed as little as a 2 degree temperature change during a February 3rd radio interview:
"But if you start talking two or three degrees Celsius, then you're really talking about a different planet from the one we know. There would be no sea ice in the Arctic in the summer and fall. That means the species that live there now - polar bears, the seals that live on sea ice, and reindeer on the tundra - they would not be able to survive. So it's like the million-year flood; it's never happened in the past century. So, were talking large regional changes."
For more recent Henny Penny rubbish, we turn to Charlie Kronick, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign, who wasn't about to allow his hysteria to be denied when he responded to the GLOBE meeting
"The projected target for climate-wrecking gases would result in a disastrous three-degree increase in temperature. This would see the loss of 20-30% of species, melt of two polar ice sheets, add one to two billion more people to those suffering water scarcity and trash the world's remaining rainforests and coral reefs. Politicians can't truly tackle climate change by statements alone. Real action and political will is urgently needed to prevent a global disaster."
This continued turgidity in the face of evolving contrary science places the eco-maniacs in the unenviable position of having to substantiate their ongoing alarmism to the rational amongst their believing ranks. Meanwhile, more and more nations are accepting the need for human reaction to what may or may not be the result of any demonstrable human action. Subsequently, alarmists will soon be forced to deal with the science and economics of climate shift, rather than their mankind stinks politics - something they're pitifully even less qualified to do.
The Mauritius Dodo Bird (Raphus cucullatus) has been extinct for over 300 years. As with most unfortunate outcomes on the planet, its demise as a species has been widely attributed to the actions of mankind (Homo sapiens). Be that as it may, the same forces which demanded adaptation from the doomed flightless bird will ultimately and rightly demand it of all obstacles to human survival and advancement.
Be they unyielding treaties (Kyoto accordis) or stridently foolish alarmists (Skyis fallinonus), those that cannot respond to changes around them shall not endure on this Earth (Terra firma).
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/as_went_the_dodo_so_will_kyoto.html at February 23, 2007 - 01:00:03 PM EST
> Oh, yeah. Just shut down all the CO2 producing industries and power plants, shut off the fuel supply for all cars, trucks, and tractors.
> Without all these things 8 of the 9 billion people will simply disappear! Might be a bit messy with all the rotting bodies, but what the heck. They'll be good fertilizer.
You do understand that problem, now, don't you?
Within the next century all of these CO2 emitters are going to shut down anyway simply by virtue of the exhaustion of the Earth's supply of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal). What then?
You people aren't planning for the future. You people aren't even thinking about the future.
You people are pretty much taking the future on faith. That's a pretty massive mistake and it will lead to some terrible consequences.
Humankind is confronting two dilemmas simultaneously:
1. The Earth is running out of its supply of fossil fuels (available for human consumption).
2. The climate is changing in response to the pollution generated by the fossil fuels.
This is undoubtedly the ideal recipe for an apocalypse. Loading the Earth down with nine billion humans under these circumstances is a crime of hubris.
Humankind will suffer, that much is certain. Humankind may not survive, extinction is a real possibility.
Once Homo sapiens go extinct, what then?
By Bill Steigerwald
Timothy Ball is no wishy-washy skeptic of global warming. The Canadian climatologist, who has a Ph.D. in climatology from the University of London and taught at the University of Winnipeg for 28 years, says that the widely propagated "fact" that humans are contributing to global warming is the "greatest deception in the history of science."
Ball has made no friends among global warming alarmists by saying that global warming is caused by the sun, that global warming will be good for us and that the Kyoto Protocol "is a political solution to a nonexistent problem without scientific justification."
Needless to say, Ball strongly disagrees with the findings of the latest report from the United Nations' Intergovern-mental Panel on Climate Change, which on Feb. 2 concluded that it is "very likely" that global warming is the result of human activity.
I talked to Ball by phone on Feb. 6 from his home on Victoria Island, British Columbia, which the good-humored scientist likes to point out was connected to the mainland 8,000 years ago when the sea level was 500 feet lower.
Q: The mainstream media would have us believe that the science of global warming is now settled by the latest IPCC report. Is it true?
A: No. It's absolutely false. As soon as people start saying something's settled, it's usually that they don't want to talk about it anymore. They don't want anybody to dig any deeper. It's very, very far from settled. In fact, that's the real problem. We haven't been able to get all of the facts on the table. The IPCC is a purely political setup.
There was a large group of people, the political people, who wanted the report to be more harum-scarum than it actually is. In fact, the report is quite a considerable step down from the previous reports. For example, they have reduced the potential temperature rise and they've reduced the sea level increase and a whole bunch of other things. Part of it is because they know so many people will be watching the report this time.
Q: Why should we be leery of the IPCC's report -- or the summary of the report?
A: Well, because the report is the end product of a political agenda, and it is the political agenda of both the extreme environmentalists who of course think we are destroying the world. But it's also the political agenda of a group of people ... who believe that industrialization and development and capitalism and the Western way is a terrible system and they want to bring it down.
They couldn't do it by attacking energy because they know that would get the public's back up very quickly. ... The vehicle they chose was CO2, because that's the byproduct of industry and fossil-fuel burning, which of course drives the whole thing. They think, "If we can show that that is destroying the planet, then it allows us to control." Unfortunately, you've got a bunch of scientists who have this political agenda as well, and they have effectively controlled the IPCC process.
Q: You always hear the argument that the IPCC has several thousand scientists -- how can you not accept what they say?
A: The answer, first of all, is that consensus is not a scientific fact. The other thing is, you look at the degree to which they have controlled the whole IPCC process. For example, who are the lead authors? Who are the scientists who sit on the summary panel with the politicians to make sure that they get their view in? Š You've got this incestuous little group that is controlling the whole process both through their publications and the IPCC. I'm not a conspiracy theorist and I hate being even pushed toward that, but I think there is a consensus conspiracy that's going on.
Q: What is your strongest or best argument that GW is not "very likely" to be caused by SUVs and Al Gore's private planes?
A: I guess the best argument is that global warming has occurred, but it began in 1680, if you want to take the latest long-term warming, and the climate changes all the time. It began in 1680, in the middle of what's called "The Little Ice Age" when there was three feet of ice on the Thames River in London. And the demand for furs of course drove the fur trade. The world has warmed up until recently, and that warming trend doesn't fit with the CO2 record at all; it fits with the sun-spot data. Of course they are ignoring the sun because they want to focus on CO2.
The other thing that you are seeing going on is that they have switched from talking about global warming to talking about climate change. The reason for that is since 1998 the global temperature has gone down -- only marginally, but it has gone down. In the meantime, of course, CO2 has increased in the atmosphere and human production has increased. So you've got what Huxley called the great bane of science -- "a lovely hypothesis destroyed by an ugly fact." So by switching to climate change, it allows them to point at any weather event -- whether it's warming, cooling, hotter, dryer, wetter, windier, whatever -- and say it is due to humans. Of course, it's absolutely rubbish.
Q: What is the most exaggerated and unnecessary worry about global warming or climate change?
A: I think the fact that it is presented as all negative. Of course, it's the one thing they focus on because the public, with the huge well of common sense that is out there, would sort of say, "Well, I don't understand the science, but, gee, I wouldn't mind a warmer world, especially if I was living in Canada or Russia." They have to touch something in the warming that becomes a very big negative for the people, and so they focus on, "Oh, the glaciers are going to melt and the sea levels are going to rise." In fact, there are an awful lot of positive things. For example, longer frost-free seasons across many of the northern countries, less energy used because you don't need to keep your houses warm in the winter.
Q: Is the globe warming and what is the cause?
A: Yeah, the world has been warming since 1680 and the cause is changes in the sun. But in their computer models they hardly talk about the sun at all and in the IPCC summary for policy-makers they don't talk about the sun at all. And of course, if they put the sun into their formula in their computer models, it swamps out the human portion of CO2, so they can't possibly do that.
Q: Is the rising CO2 level the cause of global warming or the result of it?
A: That's a very good question because in the theory the claim is that if CO2 goes up, temperature will go up. The ice core record of the last 420,000 years shows exactly the opposite. It shows that the temperature changes before the CO2. So the fundamental assumption of the theory is wrong. That means the theory is wrong. ... But the theory that human CO2 would lead to runaway global warming became a fact right away, and scientists like myself who dared to question it were immediately accused of being paid by the oil companies or didn't care about the children or the future or anything else.
Q: Have you ever accepted money from an oil company?
A: No. No. I wish I did get some. I wouldn't have to drive a '92 car and live in a leaky apartment bloc.
Q: Why are sea levels rising and should we worry?
A: Sea levels have been rising for the last 10,000 years. In fact, 8,000 years ago, sea level was almost 500 feet lower than it is today. It's been rising gradually over that time. It's risen very slightly in the modern record, but it has risen no more rapidly than it has in the last 8,000 years. One of the factors that people forget is that most of the ice is already in the ocean, and so if you understand Archimedes' Principle, when that ice melts it simply replaces the space that the ice occupied -- even if the ice caps melt completely. What they do is they say if we estimate the volume of water in Antarctica and Greenland, then we add that to the existing ocean level. But that's not the way it works at all. But it does work for panic and for sea-level rises of 20 feet, like Gore claims.
Q: Why are the sea levels rising, just because we are in a warming period?
A: Yes. We are in an inter-glacial. Just 22,000 years ago, which is what some people can get their minds around, Canada and parts of the northern U.S. were covered with an ice sheet larger than the current Antarctic ice sheet. That ice sheet was over a mile thick in central Canada. All of that ice melted in 5,000 years. There was another ice sheet over Europe and a couple more in Asia. As that ice has melted, it's run back into the oceans and of course that's what's filled up the oceans. But if you drilled down in Antarctica, you go down almost 8,000 feet below sea level. That ice below sea level, if it melts, is not going to raise sea level.
Q: Is there any aspect of global warming alarmism that you are worried about?
A: There are a couple of very minor things. I'm interested in and need more research done on commercial jet aircraft flying in the stratosphere. The research that's been done so far says no, it's not an issue, but I think the jury is out on that still. The other concern I have is that we're totally preparing for warming. The whole world is preparing for warming, but I mentioned that we have been cooling since 1998 and the climate scientists that I respected -- particularly the Russians and Chinese -- are predicting that we're going to be much, much cooler by 2030. So we've got completely the wrong adaptive strategy.
Q: Is it not inevitable that we will have another ice age?
A: Yes, I think there is another ice age coming, because the major causes of the ice ages are changes in the orbit of the Earth around the sun and changes in the tilt of the Earth. Those are things we've known about for 150 years.
Q: If someone asked you where he should go to get a good antidote on the mainstream media's spin on global warming, where should he go?
A: There are three Web sites I have some respect for. One is the one I helped set up by a group of very frustrated professional scientists who are retired. That's called Friendsofscience.org. It has deliberately tried to focus on the science only. The second site that I think provides the science side of it very, very well is CO2Science.org, and that's run by Sherwood Idso, who is the world expert on the relationship between plant growth and CO2. The third, which is a little more irreverent and maybe still slightly on the technical side for the general public, is JunkScience.com.
Q: If you had to calm the fears of a small grandchild or a student about the threat of global warming, what would you tell him?
A: First of all, I probably wouldn't tell him anything. As I tell audiences, the minute somebody starts saying "Oh, the children are going to die and the grandchildren are going to have no future," they have now played the emotional and fear card. Just like in the U.S., it's almost like the race card. It's not to say that it isn't valid in some cases. But the minute you play that card, you are now taking the issues and the debates out of the rational and logical and reasonable and sensible and calm into the emotional and hysterical.
So I wouldn't raise these kinds of fear with the children. What I would do with my children and grandchildren is what I'm trying to do with the public and say, "Look, here's the other side of the story. Make sure you get all of the information before you start running off and screaming 'wolf, wolf, wolf.'"
Bill Steigerwald is a columnist at the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. E-mail Bill at bsteigerwald@tribweb.com. ©Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, All Rights Reserved.
Posted by: JDH on February 24, 2007 07:42 AMFebruary has been a tough month for Global Warming doomsayers. First, their cataclysmic worst-case scenarios were debunked by the IPCC, which cut its own 2001 projections for temperature increase by a third and sea level rise completely in half. Then, just five days later, they learned that the environmentally irresponsible U.S was actually doing a better job of cutting CO2 emissions than their Kyoto-signing European Union heroes. And to top it off, attendees of a February 16th DC meeting of GLOBE nations agreed to abandon their adored Kyoto's economy-killing, energy-rationing, short-range, mandatory CO2 targets in favor of more realistic long-term goals.
The Valentine's week gathering of policy-makers from around the world was primarily the initiative of Britain's Global Legislators Organization for a Balanced Environment (GLOBE). And, coming just 2 weeks after the announcement of a proposed EU carbon tax on non-Kyoto aligned nations from that French prince of pomposity, Jacques Chirac, it was a breath of lukewarm fresh air. After all, the nations meeting at the Washington Legislators Forum on Climate Change, the so called G8 Plus Five, were discussing an early retirement for the flawed and failed Kyoto protocols.
Ultimately, the group signed a declaration which established a long-term goal of stabilizing "greenhouse gas" (GHG) concentrations in the atmosphere at a level of between 450 and 550 parts per million (ppm). Most GHG advocates promote this as the range necessary to maintain their dream of a 2 degree Celsius maximum variance with pre-industrial temperatures.
Of course, as the new goals conform more or less to Kyoto, fans of one should eagerly welcome the other, right? Not quite. There's resistance brewing over this proposed post-Kyoto approach, which calls for a policy of measurable milestones addressing climate change over not the next 15 years, but rather the next century. Additionally, in the opposite corner, there remain many who disagree with the need for any action whatsoever and see the new plan as a design to bait otherwise unconvinced nations into nebulous indentures.
Superficially then, this month's revelations wouldn't appear to have brought conflicting sides of this ostensibly endless debate any closer to harmony. Yet, beneath the reputedly industrially polluted surface, hope glimmers.
You see, while non-binding, this new agreement will form the foundation of an upcoming June G8 summit on the subject and, likely, a new accord. Granted, its aspirations are based upon the still unsettled science of anthropogenic Global Warming. Still, there are many benefits to the projected pragmatic 2009 alternative to a 2012 Kyoto renewal for lucid believers and skeptics alike. As to alarmists - the plan has something to offer them too - a long overdue reality check.
For Believers - There's strength in numbers
Rational believers can take solace in the fact that the U.S, which wisely rejected the potentially catastrophic Kyoto accords, has tentatively signed on. In fact, just days before, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for European and Eurasian Affairs told an audience in Berlin, Germany:
"Now, I know there is a deeply held view among many in Europe that the U.S. Government doesn't get it. That we don't care about climate change, that we are doing nothing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that Europe, while perhaps not perfect, is doing a far better job of tackling the issue than the United States. This proposition--no matter how simple, no matter how widely held, and no matter how much it fits a pop-culture 'blame-the-United States' paradigm--is completely wrong, on every point." And, while Kurt Volker's comments included a few questionable points regarding the roles of mankind in climate and scientists in the IPCC summary, he did a pretty clean job of defending our rejection of Kyoto as a rebuff not of principle, but of detail and reach.
Accordingly, in addition to the more pragmatic targets, the group of 13 nations wisely agreed that both developing and prosperous nations must meet those targets, not just selected "offenders," as in Kyoto. Indeed, the previous pact's exclusion of India and China, which continues to build coal-fired power plants at the rate of one a week, was a major obstacle to requisite international acceptance. And, while many dismissed President Bush's surprising call to "confront the serious challenge of global climate change" during his January 23rd State of the Union Address, their distrust has been proven increasingly vapid by both time and non-rising tide.
You believers will also like the proposed globalization of the European Union's carbon trading market. Here, CO2 emission "credits" are traded against quotas by big industrial firms in an effort to cap emissions and foment investment in "greener" energy sources. But beware: Although recently heralded by the Christian Science Monitor, this silly "cap-and-trade" model has thus far been a dismal failure on its flagship continent, with carbon credit values currently approaching zero.
Nonetheless, GLOBE does set reasonably acceptable CO2 goals and EU-recognized temperature ceilings. And, by providing realistic time to evaluate potential benefits of proposed changes versus their societal and economic impact, it does so in far less disruptive a manner than did its forerunner. After all, should the threat be accepted as real, only a fully cooperating planet which includes its largest economy can ever hope to mount a meaningful defense - No?
To Skeptics - Time will tell
We skeptics may enjoy a new post-Kyoto realism for which the watchword will be a cautious "long-term" rather than a hysterical "immediate." Even if relegated to the short-term by some, this renaissance will have long-lasting value. As witnessed by the 6 year thaw in the IPCC's sense of urgency, given time, eco-science knowledge is subject to drastic turns. In fact, data rotations of 180 degrees in less than a week are not unheard of.
Case in Point:
The recent IPCC summary was broadly criticized for not including the 2004 report of a doubling in Greenland's melt rate. Drew Shindell, a climate expert at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, went so far as to say on February 2nd:
"The melting of Greenland has been accelerating so incredibly rapidly that the I.P.C.C. report will already be out of date in predicting sea level rise, which will probably be much worse than is predicted in the I.P.C.C. report." Yet, just 6 days later, the NY Times reported that not only wasn't Greenland melting as fast as previously thought -- the thaw may have ended altogether:
"It was big news when the rate of melting suddenly doubled in 2004 as ice sheets began moving more quickly into the sea. That inspired predictions of the imminent demise of Greenland's ice - and a catastrophic rise in sea level. But a paper published online this afternoon by Science reports that two of the largest glaciers have suddenly slowed, bringing the rate of melting last year down to near the previous rate. At one glacier, Kangerdlugssuaq, 'average thinning over the glacier during the summer of 2006 declined to near zero, with some apparent thickening in areas on the main trunk.'" Moreover, in the coming years a number of currently explored cyclical theories (particular those involving solar and cosmic rays) will see their results presented prior to any imprudent action being taken. Indeed, as Greenland attests, anything that buys time also returns up-to-date facts as a dividend.
Origin of the Specious
Surely, the softer projections of the IPCC and the recent declaration of the GLOBE meeting have shaken and will continue to shake the counterproductive doom merchants out of their endangered trees. And, while time is an asset to the rational, it's an affliction to their counterparts. Having the G8 plus 5 agree to 50-100 year goals certainly takes a gust of the 380 ppm CO2 wind out of the sails of Nobel and Oscar nominee Al Gore's 2006 admonition in An Inconvenient Truth that:
"We have just 10 years to avert a major catastrophe that could send our entire planet into a tailspin." And here's how his fellow alarmist James Hansen, head of the same NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies which pays Drew Shindell, addressed as little as a 2 degree temperature change during a February 3rd radio interview:
"But if you start talking two or three degrees Celsius, then you're really talking about a different planet from the one we know. There would be no sea ice in the Arctic in the summer and fall. That means the species that live there now - polar bears, the seals that live on sea ice, and reindeer on the tundra - they would not be able to survive. So it's like the million-year flood; it's never happened in the past century. So, were talking large regional changes." For more recent Henny Penny rubbish, we turn to Charlie Kronick, head of Greenpeace's climate change campaign, who wasn't about to allow his hysteria to be denied when he responded to the GLOBE meeting
"The projected target for climate-wrecking gases would result in a disastrous three-degree increase in temperature. This would see the loss of 20-30% of species, melt of two polar ice sheets, add one to two billion more people to those suffering water scarcity and trash the world's remaining rainforests and coral reefs. Politicians can't truly tackle climate change by statements alone. Real action and political will is urgently needed to prevent a global disaster." This continued turgidity in the face of evolving contrary science places the eco-maniacs in the unenviable position of having to substantiate their ongoing alarmism to the rational amongst their believing ranks. Meanwhile, more and more nations are accepting the need for human reaction to what may or may not be the result of any demonstrable human action. Subsequently, alarmists will soon be forced to deal with the science and economics of climate shift, rather than their mankind stinks politics - something they're pitifully even less qualified to do.
The Mauritius Dodo Bird (Raphus cucullatus) has been extinct for over 300 years. As with most unfortunate outcomes on the planet, its demise as a species has been widely attributed to the actions of mankind (Homo sapiens). Be that as it may, the same forces which demanded adaptation from the doomed flightless bird will ultimately and rightly demand it of all obstacles to human survival and advancement.
Be they unyielding treaties (Kyoto accordis) or stridently foolish alarmists (Skyis fallinonus), those that cannot respond to changes around them shall not endure on this Earth (Terra firma).
Marc Sheppard is a technology consultant, software engineer, writer, and political and systems analyst. He is a regular contributor to American Thinker. He welcomes your feedback. Recent Articles America's Neo-Copperheads A is for Arrogance, B is for Baloney New Testament Manuscripts: Discovery and Classification Postwar Eras and their Crises As Went the Dodo so Will Kyoto Nuclear Arms and Moral Equivalency Let's Agree to Disagree Quartet Goes Gaga Over Gaza Iran's Revolutionary Guards ARE the Regime Why I - a Staunch Pro-Lifer - Am Voting for Giuliani Blog Posts Jimmy Carter refuses to debate again Welcome Rush listeners! Happy Birthday, RNC! Greenpeace co-founder changes mind Missing headlines (a continuing series) Pelosi's appalling ignorance Israel and Azerbaijan to consider natural gas deal China cracks down on "internet addiction" Bait and switch and trap: The real story behind the Libby Trial The Spanish connection to 9/11 Monthly Archives February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 More...
Posted by: JDH on February 24, 2007 07:48 AMSo climate, ice packs, sealevels and shorelines have always been changing. Who knew?
Two things.
It's the rate of change which is so troubling. Life adapts, but it takes time.
Also, the projected changes are somewhat distressing. Should the oceans rise 5, 10, 20 feet, where will people live? If the mid-west turns into a desert, what will people eat? As temperatures rise, diseases will spread to new areas.
Each and every one of the highly probable changes predicted has profound policy implications. During the Cold War, threats were identified and contingency plans were drafted. Shouldn't other similar threats to our national security, economy, and public health be treated just as seriously?
Similarly, we're (hopefully) planning for the avian bird flu virus. If that bad bug hops from human to human, I'm pretty much dead. Along with perhaps 150m other people. That's a drop in the bucket, compared to all of humanity. But who will get hit hardest? The least among us. The migrant farm workers who pick our food. The elderly and infirm. The children. How would we even handle the glut of corpses?
My little brother, upon return from Iraq, now works in disaster planning. I'm extremely grateful for people like him doing that kind of work. It's their job to be paranoid (plan for the worst, hope for the best).
In some ways, I'm a pessimist. Forgive me and others like me who fret about the future. How would I even live with myself if something were to happen to my family, friends, and community, I knew about it, and I did nothing to prevent it.
Cheers, Jason