Climate facts to warm to

[W8MM]

From: Scientists doubt climate change*-*-*The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

HEATED DEBATE

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming:



•"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double, man would not perceive the temperature impact."

Oleg Sorochtin of the Institute of Oceanology at the Russian Academy of Sciences



•"I find the Doomsday picture Al Gore is painting — a six-meter sea level rise, 15 times the [U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] number — entirely without merit. ... I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will soon be reached."

Atmospheric scientist Hendrik Tennekes, former research director at the Netherlands' Royal National Meteorological Institute



•"The hypothesis that solar variability and not human activity is warming the oceans goes a long way to explain the puzzling idea that the Earth's surface may be warming while the atmosphere is not. The [greenhouse-gas] hypothesis does not do this. ... The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

David Wojick, expert reviewer for U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change



•"The media is promoting an unprecedented hyping related to global warming. The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of the recent global warming."

Chief Meteorologist Eugenio Hackbart of the MetSul Meteorologia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo-Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil



•"There's no need to be worried. It's very interesting to study [climate change], but there's no need to be worried."

Anton Uriarte, a professor of physical geography at the University of the Basque Country in Spain



Source: Sen. James M. Inhofe of Oklahoma, ranking Republican on the Environment and Public Works Committee

 

[TEG]

The following are comments from some of the more than 400 scientists in a Republican report on global warming...

Yes, unfortunately this is not an issue being debated purely on science, but is obviously a political hot potato right now.

TheHill.com - GOP should catch up with constituents
blogfish: Republican global warming denial begins to melt

 

[W8MM]

Yes, unfortunately this is not an issue being debated purely on science, but is obviously a political hot potato right now.

Exactly! But who made it into a political issue in the first place?

Does the name Al Gore ring a bell?

Well, of course, it wasn't only his doing. He's just one in a long series of famous leftists to seek to control "the means of production" for the betterment of all mankind.

Sound familiar? Hint: it's not from Adam Smith

Sure it's a hot potato. We're watching the typical Stalinist technique of relentlessly shouting down the opposition and keeping the ball rolling until it's way past too late to reconsider. But the only science that's "settled" is the "POLITICAL science" from the left.

I just love all the "reasonable" people who think that a position half way between a wild-eyed politically-calculated false assertion and a large body of contravening observable facts is an intellectually sound compromise.

One might say that there is too much climate-model research that points to an impending calamity to ignore. One could argue that the seriousness of the allegations demand erring on the side of doing SOMETHING because the apparent risks of inaction are so grave. But what are the benefits of inaction if the allegations are untrue? What are the risks of doing SOMETHING if the research turns out to be seriously flawed?

Ordinarily, letting fools reap their just rewards can be very entertaining. All one has to do is wait.

However, if letting serious foolishness play out ultimately results in hobbling the economies of the developed world with a proportionate increase in real poverty, it's no longer entertainment, it's a crime.

To whom shall the re-created poor turn for reparations?

 

[stopcrazypp]

Exactly! But who made it into a political issue in the first place?...

I always thought it was the Republicans who made it into a political issue by hiring scientists to make the picture look more rosy in terms of climate change at least in the US.
I mean the Kyoto Protocol happened before Gore made his mark in climate change history.
I am not going to argue like I have followed this climate change thing as I also don't believe the doom to the extent of Gore's picture. But I don't think Gore is the one to blame for politicizing the issue when clearly the Republicans have done the same (ie. the Republican commissioned reports on climate change as an example you have given).
However, I still feel pollution has to be addressed regardless of climate change, as the impact on local life still remains. The rate at which we are using nonrenewable resources have to be addressed too. Climate change is just a convient way to make people notice these things.

 

[W8MM]

I always thought it was the Republicans who made it into a political issue by hiring scientists to make the picture look more rosy in terms of climate change at least in the US.
I mean the Kyoto Protocol happened before Gore made his mark in climate change history.

Ever read Gore's book "Earth in the Balance" from the 1992 US Presidential election season? He splashily revealed himself as an environmentalist crank half a decade before the word "Kyoto" made the evening news.

Turning science into politics is a great way to get government money to flow towards ones research projects. Politically funded (by government grant) research is a huge moral hazard to good science that some well meaning people refuse to recognise. It's not only defense research projects that sometimes turn into complete boondoggles and a huge waste of tax money. We've all seen odd military aircraft that never seem to fly that keep getting money because a powerful member of congress insists on continuing the project. So, too, with climate research. Maybe more so.

Imagine that you are a senior professor of atmospheric physics at "Prestigious University". Also imagine that some members of congress become interested in a purported "crisis" having to do with climate change and are pushing research funding in that direction. On a lark, you write up a grant proposal that promises to get the job done and subsequently get funded. You hire assistant professors and research assistants, write up more grant proposals, and before long you become head of a school of atmospheric research at PU with a dozen or more underlings. Things are going well and your group is really busy.

But, then, competition sets in and every Tom, Dick, and Harry in academia starts writing up grant proposals with ever greater possible calamities baked into the research topic. Government is rarely interested in funding research projects unless there is a direct connection to some urgency. Also, any research that doesn't get "results" is likely to see cutbacks in further funding as granting agencies seek to maximize the results of their available cash.

Many years go by. Then, a particularly bright recent hire walks into your office and reports that there seem to be some serious discrepancies between the outputs of your research models and some newly organised field data. He can't make any sense of it unless he assumes there is a problem with the models. He thinks the models are wrong and wants to write up a grant proposal to delve into the models with a new insight.

OK, if he's right, your school of atmospheric science is going to get a black eye. If he's right in spades, you may end up without much more work to do.

What's your decision on how to handle this young genius?

I know, let's blame it on Republicans!

 

[tonybelding]

I like this one. . .

Climate facts to warm to | The Australian

It doesn't mean we're all off the hook, though. Peak Oil is still coming at us like a freight train.

Also, even if global warming isn't the crisis some have made it out to be -- it would still be imprudent (to say the least) to drastically increase global CO2 emissions, which is exactly what would happen if we simply switch from conventional oil to tar sands, oil shale and coal-to-liquids.

 

[TEG]

NASA - Researchers Say Arctic Sea Ice Still at Risk Despite Cold Winter

 

[Cobos]

Yeah my take has always been that regardless of which scenario you believe in, using non-renewable resources is a bad idea if it can be avoided. A good example right now is that the EV is a much better solution for local transport than ICE based transport. This global warming concern might be the leverage we need to make sure a new disruptive technology wins. Hence why I do not talk too loud when the most glooming scenario comes up. It's a very pragmatic position I know, but still, it works...

Cobos

 

[BBHighway]

There are several problems with the statements of Marohasy. The claim of cooling since 1998 is only true if you're talking about the USA. Since the issue is GLOBAL warming, not US warming then you need to consider the whole globe.

Globally, 2005 was hotter than 1998, so over this period that she says there has been cooling, the global temperature has actually gone up. Oops!

The bigger problem is cherry picking particular years to make a case, when that doesn't say anything about trends. I found a penny on the ground one day, and the next day I found a dime. Does that mean I should expect my income to increase by 10 every day? In a week I should expect to get a million dollars a day? That's the kind of ridiculous result you get when you pick a couple of arbitrary points and call it a trend.

When you look at the 5 year moving average of global temperatures, it continues to go up. There is no evidence of cooling or even a plateau.

Data @ NASA GISS: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis: 2005 Summation

Her assertions are so completely wrong that it is not possible to attribute them to mistakes, they are intentional attempts at deception. In short, Marohasy is full of BS.

 

[TEG]

Antarctica's Wilkins Ice Shelf eroding at an unforeseen pace | csmonitor.com

 

[bill]

Global Warming

Here's an interesting article on Global warming. I haven't figured out how to post a ink yet, so we will start with this.

The Amazing Story Behind the Global Warming Scam | KUSI - News, Weather and Sports - San Diego, CA | Coleman's Corner

Perhaps someone will set it up properly.

Thanks..!!

 

[TEG]

Bill, your URL linked itself. A feature of the forum.
Trying to 'debate' Tony Belding over global warming was one of the most frustrating things I ever did on this forum. I just don't try anymore.
That story you linked has been on the internet for a while now. You can see a lot more of John Coleman's writing here if you so chose:

Comments on Global Warming by John Coleman

Be aware that a lot of people disagree with him.
Another counterpoint site.

...Now I retreat back to posting stories of glaciers melting and sea levels rising... Speaking of which, I wonder how all those new man made islands in Dubai will fare in 100 years...

 

[bobw]

Try this link

On The Hijacking of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) ​

I am not qualified to judge the argument on techical grounds. I will say that historically the climate varied in cycles long before the industrial revolution. I see no reason for those cycles to stop just because human activity has added CO2 to the atmosphere. ​

I am qualified to judge the quality of the debate. Frankly, it sucks. I read proof-by-repeated-assertion. I read appeal to authority, without answering questions any educated person can raise about global climate changes in historical times. I read ad-hominem attacks on global warming (sorry, climate change) skeptics.

I can point out that the same people pushing cap-and-trade schemes on carbon emissions made a bundle on emissions trading.

"Everything is different now!" is just as foolish applied to climate as when applied to the business cycle.​

I too am in favor of the electrification of the automobile. I want to make oil less important. I would like to clean up our air. I would like to build manufacturing businesses in the USA. ​

Cobos: ​

"If the truth will not serve us, what does that say about us?"​

 

[bobw]

Then, there's Freeman Dyson:

Edge: HERETICAL THOUGHTS ABOUT SCIENCE AND SOCIETY By Freeman Dyson

And there's always that eminent philosopher:

[media]
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/7W33HRc1A6c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/7W33HRc1A6c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
[/media]

 

[TEG]

Carlin: "trying to save endangered species is meddling with nature"
So I guess hunting them and ruining their habitat is 'natural', but trying to stop is not... Sigh...

 

[bill]

Thanks TEG

<< TEG ..Bill, your URL linked itself. A feature of the forum.>>

Thanks.. It is a lot easier than I thought.


<<TEG.. That story you linked has been on the internet for a while now. You can see a lot more of John Coleman's writing here if you so chose:>>

Thanks again for the info. You folks are way ahead of me. I don't know anything about global warming, but Some of the science I see is pretty well twisted. I call it "Scientific Marketing". Generally, it's not science but a combination of ego and money. SAD...:frown:

 

[TEG]

You won't reach consensus here. There are forces at work twisting science in all directions for various reasons. Best stick to the "national security", "peak oil" and "localized pollution" arguments for why getting away from burning petroleum products is a good idea.

You know, catalytic converters don't work well until they are hot. Many cars will fail a smog check if you test them right after starting the engine. PHEVs (and to some degree all hybrids) stop the gas engine enough to keep the catalyst from working to full effectiveness. Carbon monoxide, smog and other irritants/pollutants are still something to work to prevent. (I guess Carlin might have argued that asthma and lung cancer are natural phenomenons so we have no business trying to prevent them).

"Live like there is no tomorrow" is not a credo I go by.

Neither is "Every man for himself". We are all in this life together, and we need to work together for a healthier, safer future for us and our offspring.

 

[TEG]

 

[bill]

Thanks Again

<<TEG You won't reach consensus here>>

I'm here to learn. Don't expect consensus and didn't join to debate. It's a Great forum. Thanks again for your help and advice.

 

[bobw]

TEG:

I think George Carlin was pointing out the hubris of claiming to understand the world and know how to fix it. It's also hubris to pretend to control the world. We don't.

We don't understand the environment. We don't understand the climate. Almost anything we do will have side effects we don't expect and don't like. Some people won't admit that.

Look, it's reasonable to want to reduce pollution. Nobody likes being down wind of a coal burning power plant. I hate the smell of car exhaust, too. At some point we're all down wind. You can see the smog clouds over China and India from orbit.

Some people know what's best and are bound and determined that we all will do things their way. Others "want to be part of something bigger than themselves." Such people foisted Prohibition on us. They've gone on (perhaps with the mob's help) to foist the drug war, and now the chiliastic environmental movement on us.

And they all want to save the world by giving the rest of us orders. There's got to be a better way.

Notice that alcohol usage has gone down since the repeal of Prohibition. Smoking rates declined before the recent wave of bans. Persuasion works, with fewer side effects.

Building a better mousetrap also works. A better solution has market value. Who knows what the resources that have gone into lobbying and marketing on environmental issues might have achieved if devoted to solid state physics? Does one endowed chair at the University of Illinois cost more than an office in Washington D.C.?