|
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.
#76 – bobbo & #79 Ah_Yea,
Exactly what new information are you guys talking about? Would you mind posting a link to some new peer reviewed article from real scientists that hints at what you are saying?
I hope you find something. I’d love this to be false. I’d love to think that polar bears might survive, along with many many other species.
However, when you don’t find it, would you mind posting your own credentials as climatologists?
Any of the related disciplines will be acceptible to me. Here’s the list from Wikipedia’s Climatology page:
#81 – Patrick,
#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.
Um … that ridicule you speak of, where exactly do you think that happens? What you’re talking about actually is the peer review process. Certainly new ideas are shot down by the establishment initially.
However, it is part of the process of weeding
out bad hypotheses that this happens. When the data is on the side of the new hypothesis, it gradually wins over support. When the data is not, it is thrown out.
There are always back and forth arguments of this type in the scientific community.
And, it all happens in the peer reviewed publications.
#83 – Ah_Yea,
“Under a Green Sky”
I looked at it and it looks good. It’s on my short list of things to read.
Thanks, Scott!
You’re welcome. I’ll be curious to hear your opinions about it.
#88 – Traaxx,
Godwin’s Law. You lose. You’re also a blithering idiot if you think that peer reviewed science journals are propaganda of any sort.
Drill here, drill there, drill everywhere.
Getting the cost of fuel down so we don’t need to reduce our lifestyles is far more important that trivial things like Global Warming (TM) .
Al Gore is a traitor to humanity. “Save the planet – Kill the people…”
#94 – bobbo,
I guess, in my opinion (not a peer reviewed opinion, just formed from reading quite a bit, as you have too, so there may be some nuance here), A certain amount of CO2 and other GHGs in our atmosphere keep our planet at an average temperature of 15 degrees centigrade as opposed to the negative 18 degrees centigrade it would be without them.
If we increase total GHGs by a significant percentage, and we have, then it will warm the planet, as it is doing.
Of course, the exact amount of warming from a specific increase in particular GHGs may not be absolutely known. Our planet’s climate is quite complex. However, the statement above still stands.
I also don’t believe it’s all about the tipping point. If we’ve already passed it, which is a possibility, then the whole point is moot. However, if we have not, even if we avoid the tipping point, we may affect the temperature significantly.
Avoiding all of the tipping points should still be our top priority, of course, since things like methane clathrates being released into the atmosphere would cause severe warming. However, it makes sense to reduce our impact below what is necessary to avoid the tipping point, if we can.
Remember, one thing about all of this “planet has been warmer before” argument is that it is certainly true. However, another truth is that humans have not survived any warmer periods.
I say this, False, True, whatever. We should have respect for what we do in regards to the planet and environment if the pollution is harmful or not. Just because it isn’t harmful now doesn’t mean we can act like slobs.
the answer said: “Just because it isn’t harmful now doesn’t mean we can act like slobs.”
Smartest thing anyone has said yet.
#94
Agreed. I’m not yet convinced we know if increased CO2 causes ocean acidification or is an effect of some other phenomena. There is no question that reading climate science is complicated. What makes it orders of magnitude more complicated than typical scientific reading is that it is very difficult to isolate effects in order to draw conclusions. There is still quite a bit about the Earth’s biosphere we don’t know.
#95
> 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.
That is not at all self-evident. Treaties like Kyoto would have cost billions and it is unclear whether there would have been any notable benefit much less a benefit that would have exceeded its cost. I think the best solution is to let the market encourage people to be more energy efficient while we determine if there really is a threat to increased CO2 levels.
#66
My bad attitude comes from the same false arguments over and over again. Scientists have looked at ALL of this in great detail, and have shown over and over again that arguments against human caused global warming are at best flawed, and mostly false.
I was a doubter of AGW (anthropomorphic global warming) back in the 90’s and did my own research looking up credible sources. I found that most of my doubts were unsubstantiated.
For example, volcanoes do not spew nearly as much global warming gasses as the doubters claim, the oceans capacity to absorb carbon dioxide is limited and is not keeping up with human caused growth, and the global warming mathematical models have been around since the 50’s, perfected in the 80’s, and have predicted temperature rises accurately since then.
And yet we still hear the same arguments over and over again, volcanoes cause this, oceans will fix this, the models are flawed. Its like a religion to these doubters and they will not even question themselves or look at any evidence or sources that dispute their beliefs.
I’m sick of trying to.
#102 ‘dro
>>That would be Obama flip-flops.
Yeah, that BASTARD! No pin one day, a pin the next. Who the fuck does he think he is? Dumbya? McBush? How can he flip-flop like that! The sartorial horror!!
#103 – Thomas,
I think the best solution is to let the market encourage people to be more energy efficient while we determine if there really is a threat to increased CO2 levels.
This relies on a market driven by the principles of deep economy. Since we have truckloads of externalized costs, the market does not do this.
As for your disagreement with nobel prize winning economists, among others. Did you actually click through to the link?
You’re quite well educated on a variety of subjects. You should probably read the full PDF. If nothing else, it’s a very interesting read. Obviously, the authors of the letter can state their case better than I can.
#104 – ArianeB,
Please don’t give up. You’ve read the data. You know what’s at stake.
#99–Scott==yes the subject is complex and multi-layered and so is the discussion about it.
I laid out several of the “reasons” I started doubting human-caused global warming. When you question me at #96 for exact reasons, I get the feeling you are acting as an unthinking activist. I still think man made global warming is likely using the same words you do but when the model can’t tell us what EXACTLY (plus or minus whatever?) the tipping point is, how accurate can it really be about anything? So, restating what I said to Ah Yea–my gut still tells me GW is here, caused or contributed to by man, but the “science” models don’t convince my head. And with just that said, I could go back and add 4 more sentences of equivocation to make it more accurate.
#04–ArianeB==if you recognize you have a bad attitude, you should change it. Why not get past the idiots’ arguments and go with your own assessment while recognizing other reasonable people can disagree.
Let me say this again to you and Scott–the science of global warming can offer NO PROOF. Only models. Models tweaked to fit data while admitting that all the data is not known.
Philosophically, its all greatly subject to error, so what is the right course of action? Why have a “bad attitude” when many, including myself, agree we should stop burning oil and coal to become carbon neutral, and only disagree as to why?
bobbo,
And then there is data. More and more data flowing in from a variety of sources. It is true that we do not know exactly when the tipping point will be reached. It is also true that we cannot tell a 400 lb person with cholesterol of 320 exactly when s/he will have a heart attack nor can we say whether it will be lethal.
Do you recommend inaction in both cases?
Here’s some of that new data that just flowed in. The report is in the NY Times but does cite a peer reviewed article in Nature.
Seas Rising and Warming Faster Than Realized
BTW, sometimes even that which is debated in the peer reviewed pubs does ultimately get settled as well. I noticed this link in the article above.
Panel Supports a Controversial Report on Global Warming
The Hockey Stick still stands after all of the controversy. And, it is based on observations, not models, albeit a wide variety of types of observations.
# 84 pedro
Once again displaying a complete lack of knowledge.
# 103 Thomas
It is simple chemistry. If you dissolve co2 in sea water it lowers the pH. A high school student should know this.
Why do people constantly say things like “There is still a lot we don’t know” as if it somehow weakens the global warming case. It doesn’t. Science is very honest about what we don’t know as says so right up front.
Did any of these scientists working on global warming have models that predicted 1998 to 2007 would be a period of no warming? Or that there would be cooling afterwards? At the time, I remember just talk about the planet getting hotter and hotter, with the media highlighting every ‘record’ temperature in some square mile area. How can the scientists now be taken seriously if every time, they just look at all the data, then say ‘global warming’?
#104 Ahh Bobbo…You are leading the voices of reasoning and thinking in this discussion. I’m coming from the other side of the coin but arriving at the same place.
a) We should always work to use our resources in a responsible manner.
b) Modeling can only go so far and has limitations, it could only be a *part* of a whole solution. Much like a blink man feeling any part of an Elephant and claiming to understand the whole beast.
I like your ability to step back and consider how to properly frame the question. If its not set up correctly how can we know we have the answer.
Going Green doesn’t mean GreenPeace, thought I might meet them along the way.
Bobbo, regarding CO2, I’m not convinced that ‘manmade’ CO2 is having the effect theorized, given the natural causes. It may just be that all this emissions is basically staying in the lower atmosphere.
I’m not sure what the medium term natural warming cycle is, given the cool spell that is being predicted now. Before I thought we were in a natural warming cycle.
Then there is the 10000 year ice age cycle, with the last about 11000 years ago. Most of North America and Europe were covered in ice.
#115 – Ed,
It’s common sense that tigers and polar bears will become extinct in the wild due to human activity. It’s common sense that your grand children will have a lower quality of life and a lower standard of living than you do.
It’s not going to take that long, unfortunately. It will be today’s children, not future born grandchildren dealing with it.
In 2050, today’s infants will be 42 years old. And, by conservative estimates, they will have a planet on which there are 8 billion people, a billion of whom will be climate refugees.
As far as I’m concerned, humans are vermin; large brains but greedy and deficient in long range planning.
Couldn’t agree with you more on that one!
The Earth’s balance will eventually be restored even if it means human extinction.
True. However, depending on the nature of our demise, it could be 20 – 50 million years for a full recovery to pre-human levels of biodiversity. If we vanished today, it might only be 10, possibly even less.
BTW, if you have taken surgical measures to ensure that you remain child-free, you are eligible for the Golden Snip Award. If so, congrats and welcome to the club!
#115 I find it interesting that those out there who sound like and out-and-out people haters like yourself are all lined up on the gloom and doom side of things. I have to assume this is merely wishful thinking with the long term hope that all mankind is wiped from the planet and the earth can be reclaimed by wildlife and insects. I don’t trust any of you.
Also this debate is not about climate change. It’s about man-made global warming.
#116 – MikeN,
… given the cool spell that is being predicted now.
Predicted by whom Mike? Got a link to back that up? I keep hearing that the solar radiation will indeed decline. However, I also keep hearing that it makes up only 5-15% of the observed climate change. So, removing even 15% of the warming is still going to leave us with 85%. I fail to see how that’s going to cool the planet.
Please provide a link stating why you disagree. I’d accept either peer reviewed papers or reputable news sources that actively cite peer reviewed work.
Thanks.
#118 – John C Dvorak,
#115 I find it interesting that those out there who sound like and out-and-out people haters like yourself are all lined up on the gloom and doom side of things. I have to assume this is merely wishful thinking with the long term hope that all mankind is wiped from the planet and the earth can be reclaimed by wildlife and insects. I don’t trust any of you.
Also this debate is not about climate change. It’s about man-made global warming.
For some of us, the cause and effect is the other way. For me, in particular, I first found that I love wildlife. Then I found that humans kill wildlife everywhere we go. Then I found than anthropogenic climate change is likely to kill even more wildlife, possibly leading to an enormous extinction event.
Already, the current extinction event is worse than the one 65.3 million years ago that killed off the non-avian dinosaurs. And, that is without even considering the effects of climate change.
So, personally, it was the other way around. First, I found that I love wildlife. Then I saw what humans do and how badly we are evolved, as measured by our likely untimely species demise at our own hands, again with or without climate change.
Knowing all of this is what caused me to hate humanity.
And, for the record, I do not hate all humans. I think there is quite a large minority that are good and decent and relatively non-destructive humans. However, the net effect of our species on this planet still leaves me hating the species overall.
#110–Scott, I respond only for your edification.
Using a medical model to illustrate your position is quite appropriate. Cause and effect is often confused in medical circles, as is equating correlation with proof. Just like you are doing.
Not everyone with a high cholesterol level will have cardio-vascular problems. THE OUTCOME DEPENDS ON OTHER VARIABLES IN A SYSTEM THAT IS NOT COMPLETELY KNOWN. In fact, a few months ago I read about the new evidence/theory that plaque build up might protect the system with the actual cause of the disease being a virus? Very reminiscent of the ulcer debacle.
To say more is to repeat myself again once more.
There’s no longer any point in debating the reality of human-caused climate change. If the 10,000 or so scientists who contributed to the IPCC reports haven’t convinced you by now, then you will simply continue to be part of the problem and not the solution.
I no longer argue with creationists, or with people who say the CIA brought down the WTC, nor do I think Ben Stein has anything worthwhile to say about evolution.
There’s an objective, scientific reality out there, people. Just deal with it.
#122–Jim==how can the VERY BASIS of your position be the very basis of my doubt?
Makes as much sense as posting you don’t want to debate an issue on a blog thread? Course, that could only logically mean you just want to pontificate?
Let me rephrase my post #67: 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. The organization goal and purpose of the IPCC–to PUSH ON A GOVERNMENTAL LEVEL THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS HUMAN CAUSED.
If they even allow dissenting peer reviewed articles to be published in their journal, they certainly would not encourage it?
How can THAT be the source of unbiased information? Science proceeds on experiments and proof, not arguments, logic, and modeling. There is no possible control group for mother earth, so expect arguments while you GO GREEN!!!!!!! for many other valid and salutary reasons.
123 bobbo, this is exactly how religious people try to attack evolution, by questioning the honesty of the scientific people. If you go down that road, you eventually conclude we don’t “know” anything. Maybe Apollo didn’t really land on the moon. Maybe the CIA invented AIDs.
That’s simply not productive. The only way to move forward is to accept a currently solid scientific consensus – for example, that the earth is round – and if it changes in the future, as new evidence and new thinking emerges, so be it.
The IPCC reports convince me, and they’ve also convinced the big insurance companies and the G8’s financial people (with the exception of the US of course). The big insurers are in the business of evaluating risks – realistically and rationally – and they could care less about Al Gore. Check this story, now already 2 years old:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2006/jun/06/business.environment
#112
All other things being equal, yes the PH will rise. What we don’t know however, are the thousands of other factors that go into the reaction besides just CO2 and water. Your statement is a good illustrates of why climate science is so complex. You cannot assume that a reaction in a test tube will create the same reaction on the biosphere. The biosphere as compensators that a test in a lab does not.
#123 – bobbo,
Sorry, you happen to have a patently false statement in there.
This is utter and complete bullshit. The scientists in the IPCC are likely as objective as humans can be. However, the governments that appointed them are not.
In particular, among the scientists in the IPCC consensus are scientists appointed by the governments of: The United Statues, China, Saudi Arabia, and Australia. These are the largest oil burning nation, the largest coal burning nation, the largest oil exporter, and the largest coal exporter, respectively.
The governments that appointed those scientists have a huge interest in picking scientists that are skeptical about climate change either existing or being human caused.
And, in fact, the scientists who raise the most objections are indeed the scientists from these nations.
No. The IPCC’s charter is not to push a particular agenda. It is to evaluate the data and draw conclusions. And, they operate by consensus. So, when IPCC states with 90% confidence that climate change is both real and human caused, it means that a scientist appointed by a nation with the vast majority of their GDP from oil exporting agreed to say that.
If anything, it is best to assume that the IPCC’s consensus mode really means that they consistently understate the problem.
# 124 pedro
He said you are an idiot and ill informed.
The word “science” has been personified as to encompass the scientific community. Perhaps you should go back and read those Dick and Jane books so that you can understand English better.
#125 – jim_h,
Excellent point. Actually though, even more important than a front end insurer like Lloyd’s is the reaction to climate change by the world’s largest reinsurers. These are the companies that insure the insurers.
Both Swiss Re and Munich Re are taking climate change extremely seriously. Here’s an article talking about both insurance and reinsurance with respect to climate change. Pay special attention to the lengthy third paragraph under the header “The Insurance Industry: Recognizing the Problem”.
Insurance and reinsurance in a changing climate
#129, As that article points out, “The global climate change issue is complex, and has gone through a period of hot contestation to one in which many of the main issues have been settled.”
I’m sure many of the people still in opposition here aren’t dumb, or obtuse, but just a bit behind on their reading. The scientific debate occurred, and it’s over – we have all the certainty we’re going to get.
Nations and corporations are now trying to decide who will profit and who will lose as the warming accellerates. The Russians plan to win, as Siberia’s thawing opens up oil reserves and farmland.