|
Cityview magazine Knoxville Tennessee — This piece is poorly structured, but contains a lot of excellent info regarding the Global Warming debate. It attacks the “everyone is in total agreement” argument made by Gore. |
On December 13, 2007, 100 scientists (often referred to as the Bali-100) wrote an open letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, His Excellency Ban Li-Moon, in New York, NY. Among other things, the letter made three significant declarations: 1. “[R]ecent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability. 2. The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0.2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century fall within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years. 3. Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate…
On March 4, at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change, more than 500 scientists closed the conference with what is referred to as the Manhattan Declaration. In short, they declared that “global climate has always changed and always will, independent of the actions of humans, and that carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant but rather a necessity for all life. . . There is no convincing evidence that CO2 emissions from modern industrial activity has in the past, is now, or will in the future cause catastrophic climate change. . . Now, therefore, we recommend that world leaders reject the view expressed by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change as well as popular, but misguided, works such as An Inconvenient Truth.” How many of you heard or read about these declarations in the mainstream media?
On April 14, 2008, a group of scientists (Hans Schreuder, Piers Corbyn, Dr. Don Parkes, Svend Hendriksen*), including a former Nobel Peace Prize recipient*, sent a letter to the IPCC. The letter opens with “[W]e are writing to you and others associated with the IPCC position – that man’s CO2 is a driver of global warming and climate change – to ask that you now in view of the evidence retract support from the current IPCC position and admit that there is no observational evidence in measured data going back 22,000 years or even millions of years that CO2 levels (whether from man or nature) have driven or are driving world temperatures or climate change.” They close the letter by asking that the IPCC “and all those whose names are associated with the IPCC policy accept the scientific observations and renounce current IPCC policy.”
Do you still think there is consensus? Try this on: between 1999 and 2001 a petition (commonly referred to as the Oregon Project) was attached to a 12 page paper and circulated within the scientific community. The petition reads, in its entirety: “We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing, or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.” This petition was signed by nearly 20,000 scientists. More than 7,000 are PhDs. Of the 263 signatories from Tennessee, more than 53% hold a PhD or MD. While critics of the petition have pointed to fake signatures (e.g., Janet Jackson, Perry Mason, etc.), no doubt put there by those wanting to discredit it, none have attacked the science and evidence cited in the paper.
#39 – Sea Lawyer,
#31, probably as reliable as ex-vice presidents.
Which is why we turn to peer review. It may not be perfect. It’s just by far the best we’ve got. Without it, any idiot can say anything.
#47 clean air is one thing..a TAX on Greenhouse whatever (proposed in Los Angeles and elsewhere|) is something else. What you are saying is that it makes ZERO difference if this is bogus or not.
Bad attitude. People should be told the truth.
#61–dbr===WHA?????
“The Science” of global warming is and will remain a scientific question.
What to do about it is, and should be, and can’t be anything else but, a political question.
Where do you live that is controlled by scientist? Whoops, even such a place controlled by scientists would be a political system.
How much money to invest where and on what is a political question. The Carbon Cap and Trade is Political.
Note the agency that is at the heart and center of the Global Warming Debate is the IPCC-or the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a scientific body tasked to evaluate the risk of climate change caused by human activity. See the word “governmental” in there? THAT relates to governments, which relates to politics. As does the organization goal and purpose of the IPCC–to PUSH ON A GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED.
The last is in CAPS as it is one of the things that started me thinking maybe everything wasn’t as slam dunk as I first thought.
Yes Bunky, how much of your tax dollars should go to support ethanol from corn?==Politics.
To restrict imports of sugarcane ethanol?==Politics.
Actually, everything is politics–including claiming only America plays politics with Global Warming. Wait a minute===that may be the product of stupidity. Double wait, no, thats politics also.
#49 – BertDawg,
28 – Misanthropic Scott – Studies have shown that mankind is responsible for <2% of the overall CO2 production. Things like natural decomposition, and respiration of all animal life produce most of it. Hell, ALGAE is the source of the lion’s share of it.
Yes, perhaps. I’m not sure about that. However, humans have caused the absolute increase from 280ppm to 380ppm. So, even if only 2% of CO2 emissions are from humans, that 2% has caused a 36% increase in total CO2.
Oh, and algae is a plant. It works by photosynthesis. Therefore, it produces oxygen and takes in CO2.
29 – Noel – Agree with the part about the ice on land (Antarctica only). The ice which is floating (basically the whole north polar ice cap)is displacing the amount of water equivalent to its weight and when it thaws and melts, the net effect is a lessening of its displacement. The ice and snow on Antarctica is not displacing water, and so would increase the water level. I submit the two areas would balance each other out.
Huh??!!? Balance each other out? The arctic will neither increase nor decrease sea level. The antarctic and Greenland ice sheets will increase sea level as they melt. How does the floating ice in the arctic balance out anything when it has no effect. Sorry. No. When the ice melts completely, the sea level will rise by 200 feet. The antarctic peninsula and Greenland combined without the mainland of Antarctica would increase sea level by over 40 feet.
37 – Misanthropic Scott – Evidently you think your preconceived notions are all you need to know.
Wrong. I go by peer reviewed science. You prefer Faux News and ExxonMobil press releases.
#67-John C Dvorak,
Come on John C Dvorak, we know that there is a correlation between temperature and CO2, and we know that there is not enough vegetation to absorb the amount of CO2 that the world produces. We might not know that the end of the world is around the corner, but we do know that it is potentially dangerous to take the risk. Taxing carbon output is a good idea. If people should be billed by the bit for internet, why shouldn’t major polluters have to pay taxes by the tonne of CO2.
#65 “Which is why we turn to peer review. It may not be perfect. It’s just by far the best we’ve got. Without it, any idiot can say anything.”
Yes, like the “peers” that smeared Marconi and his AC power. Can you imagine idiots like Marconi being able to say anything they wanted to in todays world?
#51 – Ah_Yea,
#28 Misanthropic Scott, be careful of your math.
Bobbo is talking about absolute co2 levels, not relative.
Makes no difference. Humans increase carbon dioxide by 36% over prior levels. Since CO2 causes warming, an increase of that magnitude is huge. In absolute numbers, the increase is 100ppm, which on an item that started at concentrations of 280ppm is hugely significant.
As for the P/T extinction, please read Under a Green Sky. You sound educated enough to get through it. You will likely find it enlightening. It was written by the geologist that proved that the K/T extinction was impact caused. Now he is showing that the P/T extinction was caused by global warming, not human caused, of course, but by global warming.
The information is likely newer than the mainstream view cited on Wikipedia.
#55 – bobbo,
Scott–Ah Yea beat me to it. As knowledgeable as you are, why did you take a cheap shot by arguing “realtive increases” in CO2?
I’d actually ask you why you think absolutes matter. If the pre-human level was 280ppm and the current level is 380ppm, that means we will have 36% more warming from CO2 than we had before.
What good is the absolute number?
Bobbo, I used to buy into the scientific modeling as well. I thought the fundamental theory is sound, but the modeling was off, and maybe the warming wasn’t as bad as they were saying. From taking a closer look, I realized that the scientists weren’t saying things were as bad as the media was saying. I also thought the cost of change wasn’t worth it, given that the problem might go away on its own.
However, more recently, I’ve been getting more skeptical. The fact that co2 levels have risen after global warming instead of before, and the correlation between solar activity and warming changed my position, and put me more firmly on the skeptic side to the point where I think the science is flawed.
The science also seems to be moving in that direction, but it will take a little while.
The possibility of implementing policies is getting lower as China and India become larger emitters, with China now the world’s biggest ‘polluter’. Without the hope of implementing this agenda, the incentive for slanted science disappears, and the real science will come out.
It will take a while for scientists to come out of the flawed model. The main flaw is that they start with an assumption of global warming to prove global warming. Obviously in simple systems, CO2 is a greenhouse gas, so they start with this to say that CO2 is causing global warming. Then as different natural factors are discovered, they measure this, and then they add this to the manmade CO2, and declare, well this is only x% of the total manmade global warming, without stopping to think that maybe the basic assumption is wrong.
#70 – Patrick,
Yes, like the “peers” that smeared Marconi and his AC power. Can you imagine idiots like Marconi being able to say anything they wanted to in todays world?
Yes. And the peers that reviewed quantum mechanics that provide the semiconductors that make your computer work. If you don’t like peer review, I strongly suggest turning off your computer. The quantum mechanics don’t work anyway, so any appearance of the computer allowing you to get on the internet must be an illusion.
>Somewhere, somehow the mass of humanity spewing its waste products is going to bites us. Most often not in the way first predicted, but in some corollary way.
Yes, and this is why the push to combat global warming is a bad idea, even if the science is correct. A wealthier planet is better able to protect the environment than a poorer one. Wealthy people can afford Whole Foods better than poor people(OK, Whole Foods is a ripoff, but the point is still valid).
The push for combating global warming by reducing carbon dioxide leads to less wealth, and less ability to handle other environmental problems.
#73–Mike==pretty much the same thing happened to me. I’ve heard scientists say it is WORSE than what the media is saying as the IPCC and other models are supposed to be “conservative.”==again, the model is manipulated for various concerns.
I might have flipped when realizing that WATER VAPOR is the largest greenhouse gas (92-96%–?) and in the early models, it wasn’t even included because it wasn’t understood. When criticized for this glaring error, they put it in and the model says that the heat trapping by water vapor is offset by the reflection of incoming solar. Imagine that!! Possible I suppose, but disturbing to me.
and so forth, many layers deep winding up with I don’t know what to think which is probably fair on a complex issue on which I have no expertise.
But I think we should stop polluting on general principals, so the why doesn’t matter.
# 52 pedro
As usual you have no idea what you are talking about. Maybe you ought to stick to sweeping floors.
When the debate over G.W. has finally died, we can then address the problem of global deoxygenation. Or the loss of oxygen producing plant life, namely the amazon rain forests, and other zones that we count on to replenish our air. But by then, it may be a little too late to recover what’s being lost. What will eventually happen is the percent of breathable oxygen will drop to a point where those living at higher altitudes will either die or move. And farther along in time, the world population will diminish, as the earth corrects the balance. This will probably effect the poorest populations in the 3rd world, first. Only the rich will be able to afford to have their penthouse apartments (on the 100th floor) plumbed for oxygen in their A/C. Eventually, enough humans will die off, so that the plant life can begin to slowly recover, by taking back the land that was overused for cattle farming and ethanol producing crops.
It’s interesting, to say the least, that the UN backs this whole G.W. scare. I say that because their position only hurts the developing 3rd world nations, who are being told that they can’t use their oil or coal reserves to produce electrical power for their people. So they have to scrape by on wind and solar sources, which just don’t do the job there. It’s almost like the UN has this secret agenda to keep the 3rd world nations undeveloped, and dirt poor. For whatever exploitable reasons they have in the future. Another war perhaps, or a cheap labor source. Politics of one sort or another have been keeping these people poor for decades. And not this IPCC has the latest justification for it, saving the planet. But like all those previous reasons, it’s a load of whoey. And keeping their countries reserves off the market also helps keep the other countries’ coal and oil more valuable, by their scarcity. So it think it’s fairly clear what’s really being protected here. The fortunes of OPEC and others.
Bobbo, I applaud you. It is a rare and intelligent individual who can reexamine what they thought to be true and change their opinions when new information is brought to them.
Thank you.
Solar power will make this a moot point 10-15 years.
Thank Dog.
#74 – Just so you know that peer review has nothing to do with the validity of any scientific argument. Scientific advancement comes mostly from individuals who press on DESPITE their peers ridicule or nay saying.
BTW, I’m still all for cleaner air and water. But let’s just not go nuts, and “screw the pooch”, economically speaking. Right now, I think that ethanol production should be put on hold, until our corn crops recover in the mid-west. We need corn as a food source, much more than we do as a fuel source. Especially as it’s not that good as the latter. But I’ll bet that inspite of the shortage, ethanol producers will get their cut of the corn crops, first. As it’s a valuable trading commodity in the futures markets now. Screw the feed and produce market, eh?! I’m just glad they haven’t figured out a way to make SUVs run on chocolate. Or that would end up costing a dollar an once.
“Under a Green Sky”
I looked at it and it looks good. It’s on my short list of things to read.
Thanks, Scott!
whoa.. I mostly ignored this global warning bullshit, but they are actually saying that CO2 is a “bad” thing when it’s the most BASIC need for plants to consume? With out CO2, we wouldn’t have O2.
Yes less pollution, but CO2 is not one.
Historically, there have been higher CO2 levels, and greater temperature changes in a matter of decades.
MikeN said “Historically, there have been higher CO2 levels…”
http://tinyurl.com/b8w3f
LOL, you must be really be old dude. But I promise I won’t call you a dinosaur. 😉
Traaxx, are Nazis left wing or right wing? I could never figure that out.
I’m questioning you since you seem like an authority.
The “Global Warming” debate comes down to a single claim IMO: does CO2 cause significant global surface temperature increase? You should note that the claim is in two parts: 1. Is there *any* effect? 2. Is the effect significant? The entire Global Warming debate rests on the premise that CO2 does cause significant warming yet I and many others do not believe there is sufficient evidence to support this claim. For example, there is a study that found increases in surface temperature predated increases in CO2 (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/vostok.htm). Similarly, between 1940 and 1970, surface temperatures dropped even though CO2 levels went up. It is not at all clear that in a complex biosphere that an increase in CO2 won’t be offset by some other mechanism.
We definitely should be wary about making policy about that which we clearly do not know enough. Money blown on nonsense like Kyoto could go to a host of better places like ensuring the people of the world have clean drinking water.
#41
> Were all that CO2 to be released
> into the atmosphere today, we
> would all die. 250 million years ago,
> when it was all in the air, we had
> the greatest mass extinction the
> planet has ever seen.
Where is the evidence that the *CO2* was *the* cause of the mass extinction? Clearly it man could not have been the cause. I think #51 answered this nicely.
For all of you that think there are no “peer-reviewed scientific studies that argue against the so-called “consensus”, here’s 61 of them just to get you started…
http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/06/al-gore-in-inconvenient-truth-isnt.html
Has Gore bothered to lower his energy bill to less than 15 times the average yet?
I stopped reading when they got Ban Ki-Moon’s name wrong in the first paragraph. Can’t trust their research if they got that wrong!
The best thing about the global warming debate is people are thinking.
Nuclear is getting considered again. The science is dissected and people are actively learning about climate science in an attempt to form their own opinions.
I like it.
#72–Scott, you say: “I’d actually ask you why you think absolutes matter.” /// To your point, it is the “absolute” and only the absolute that matters. What % of co2 in the atmosphere brings us to “the tipping point” of irreversible changes? Thats the important question. The amount of co2 change with regard to itself is a measure of how fast we might get to the tipping point, but it is the tipping point that is important. PS–we don’t know what that point is.
More revealing though is that Global Warming is a serious issue. It should not be subject to extremist language appealing to the uninformed emotions of people and that what you do by picking the most dramatic way to present the information.
#75–Mike==the effort to fight Global Warming may be money poorly spent but its near corollary to fight co2 pollution is still valid. Anything “in excess” is pollution. Co2 may be killing our Oceans while the sun heats our earth in some cycle not yet identified. Getting off oil is necessary to our national security and our economic well being. A confluence of concerns with a common element==stop burning oil.
#79–Ah Yea–don’t be too complimentary. I have just gone from thinking its the best explanation available to thinking the evidence has not yet rising to a level that mandates corrective action===ALL TO THE LIMITED POINT of whether or not Global Warming is significantly caused by man.
But as stated, I think the evidence is quite strong that the same mechanism that Scott is pushing for man-caused global warming IS the cause of our killing of the ocean. This also is not proven, but the causation seems better supported?
#86–Mike==you are being a bit cavalier with your facts and your conclusions. I don’t know which drives which.
To all–
#90–Thomas==your analysis is too limited. Add “does increasing atmospheric co2 cause ocean acidification that will lead to species collapse?” In other words, man made co2 may contribute in insignificant ways to global warming, yet remain catastrophic for ocean chemistry?
To all: http://www.realclimate.org is a fantasic resource. If you haven’t spent hours/days reviewing its information/links then you have missed out on a major resource. Just trying to follow a single nuance like does co2 lead or lag temperature change gives me a headache==and it all has to be read twice.
I do think Global Warming is here and ocean rise is coming and there is nothing that will be done to stop it with “everyone” clammering for more oil to drive more cars, with India and China economies coming on board, with population still climbing etc.
Its not time to buy hip boots, but changes are coming.
GO GREEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!
#73 – MikeN,
I also thought the cost of change wasn’t worth it, given that the problem might go away on its own.
Top U.S. Scientists and Economists Call For Swift, Deep Cuts In Global Warming Pollution
Perhaps you might say that these 1,700 may not really be all economists and climatologists. However, in this case, according to the League of Conservation Scientists, among the names are:
The full PDF is available for download at this link
I scanned this list and found a very high percentage of relevant expertise. There are some names without full qualifications. However, most are listed with full degrees and job titles. Most are in fields that would be highly relevant to either climate change, economics, or fields such as agriculture and biology that would be relevant in assessing the expected damage from climate change and the amount to which we could mitigate the damage and what it would take. All of these are also relevant given the nature of this letter.
The most important point to take from all of this is that taking strong action on climate change will actually have a very high return on investment and not only makes ecological sense but good solid economic sense as well. This is important information to combat the claims of many in the right wing who claim that such action will destroy our economy.
Far from it. Strong action is required to save both the environment and the economy.
The economy cannot thrive without a healthy biosphere.