Climate Deniers Gather In Times Square

This week, more than 600 people have gathered in New York for the International Conference on Climate Change. But it may not be what you think -- it's a conference organized by the conservative Heartland Institute, which doesn't believe in climate change.

It comes on the heels of a gathering of some 12,000 young climate activists -- who favor action to stop climate change -- in Washington, DC.

This year's conference has its high points and its low points for organizers. Among the high points is one of its special guests -- the president of the Czech Republic.

Conference organisers were celebrating something of a coup in securing as a keynote speaker the Czech president, Václav Klaus, at a time when his country holds the rotating presidency of the EU. Klaus, a Eurosceptic, believes that efforts to protect the world from the impact of climate change are an assault on freedom.

In his remarks last night, Klaus accused European governments of being "alarmist" on the subject of climate change and in thrall to radical environmentalists.

"They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," he said.

But Klaus and the others at the conference are being abandoned and questioned by others who only last year would have stood beside them. The New York Times' Andrew Revkin points out a wide variety of reasons that the conference is a bit weaker than usual, including the fact that not even Exxon wants to sponsor it now:

But two years after the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded with near certainty that most of the recent warming was a result of human influences, global warming's skeptics are showing signs of internal rifts and weakening support.

The meeting participants hold a wide range of views of climate science. Some concede that humans probably contribute to global warming but they argue that the shift in temperatures poses no urgent risk. Others attribute the warming, along with cooler temperatures in recent years, to solar changes or ocean cycles.

But large corporations like Exxon Mobil, which in the past financed the Heartland Institute and other groups that challenged the climate consensus, have reduced support. Many such companies no longer dispute that the greenhouse gases produced by burning fossil fuels pose risks.

Comments

[JonW]

Another "whacko"society meeting!!

[SFTor]

Here is a bit of philosophy:

All life on Earth depends on CO2 for survival (with some minor exceptions­.) In the Ancestor's Tale Richard Dawkins makes an interesting and related point: "...we know that the atmosphere, especially its high oxygen and low carbon content, is conditioned by life."

What does that mean? The whole web of life depends on carbon, beginning with cyanobacteria and plants. They scrub available carbon from the atmosphere, and turn it into living tissue. Animals eat the plants, and make babies. Those animals are eaten by others that make more babies. And so it goes until it is the turn of the vulture and the scarab.

We know that plants grow faster in greenhouses that contain four or five times more CO2 than we have in the atmosphere today. The higher CO2, the faster the biomass growth---the higher the CO2, the more plant life, and eventually also animals.

So carbon (and oxygen) is the foundation of the entire web of living things. To think that this would be a planet that is easily upset in by variations in CO2, the essential building block of life, therefore goes against logic. It seems much more fitting that it is the opposite: the biosphere is a system that actively manages carbon, and has been shown to do so successfully, through carbon-rich times as well as lean.

Perhaps a simplistic one, but still a thought.

[eljefejeff]

it might sound that simple, but it's not. carbon is in every living thing but carbon dioxide is not what animals live off of. It's oxygen we need. Besides, the major problem is rising temperatures which melt the poles and the ice on greenland and mountains and glaciers, causing the oceans to rise. There's no guarantee that the water cycle will bring that water back to it's original place to freeze, in fact we should assume it won't. If we try to prevent this disaster and we're wrong, oh well. If we don't try to prevent it and it happens anyway, life as we know it will end.

[SFTor]

eljefe:

we are carbon-based organisms. (Oxygen on the other hand provides the reactant for our metabolism­.) Plants grow through photosynthesis, which is the process of using solar power to turn CO2 into sugars and oxygen. All animals ultimately live off of plants, whether they eat the plants directly or eat animals that eat plants.

The water cycle depends on global (and local) temperatures, right. If CO2 is the driver in global warming, a planet that manages carbon efficiently would manage the CO2, and hence the water cycle. That seems to have been the case during the Medieval Warm Period for instance.

[SFTor]

to clarify: we are built out of carbon, we use oxygen.

[SFTor]

one more clarification:

plants are carbon eaters--breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

I also forgot to mention water as part of photosynthesis of course. Please don't shoot me.

[Jeff Smithpeters]

By your logic then, the earth would benefit if we produced as much CO as we could, since it's carbon that plants and animals need. If we put as much CO into the atmosphere as we can, good things happen.

You're right. The thought is simplistic.

[SFTor]

Not so quick, Jeff.

Our use of fossil fuels for transportation and power puts many pollutants into the environment. I am sure you are =aware of this. We are also experiencing an increasing scarcity of less-polluting fossil fuels. Oil for certain, natural gas perhaps less so, and coal is still abundant, and that is of course the worst.

My proposition is that CO2 is possibly a minor issue compared to the many other pollutants that burning fossil fuels produces. Maybe coal can be made into a clean alternative, maybe not. We'll see.

I am an environmentalist a realist. We must reduce our current pattern of reliance on fossil fuels for the sake of our environment and our national interest.

By the way, I don't buy the AGW opponent argument that we must stop spending money on AGW so we can solve world disease and hunger. I'll believe that when I see a single additional dollar get spent on helping out poor people in this world. It's a clever argument, but it rings hollow in my ears, as it comes from many of the same quarters who have resisted foreign aid. Who knows, maybe I'm wrong this time.

One point that I didn't make explicit is that the CO2 levels in the atmosphere are actually at or near a historic low. I'll stand by my contention, without suggesting that we should go out of our way to increase CO2 emissions. My politics in general go in the opposite direction.

[SFTor]

I need to post a quick erratum:

I wrote "other pollutants,' seemingly including CO2.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

And as far as asking your challenge directly: yes, plants and hence animals need it. I didn't say that means we should produce as much of it as we can handle. I said it would seem likely that the biosphere is able to tolerate, even handle it.

[Exusian]

"We know that plants grow faster in greenhouses that contain four or five times more CO2 than we have in the atmosphere today."

People love to play this up. Keep in mind that a greenhouse is to some extent or another sealed off from the outside environment. The reason that CO2 has to be pumped into a greenhouse is because it is constantly being drawn down by the plants in the greenhouse as they grow, the same reason that water and soil nutrients have to constantly be added.

Plants will only grow faster at elevated CO2 levels when all other necessary nutrients are provided at sufficient levels to match the elevated CO2. Such as in a managed greenhouse.

Liebig's Law: growth is controlled by the nutrient or resource in scarcest supply.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s_law_of_the_minimum

[SFTor]

Plants have been shown to grow faster in open air environments as well when they are provided with more CO2---significantly so. They also use less water when more CO2 is available.

You don't need to pump CO2 into a greenhouse to make plants grow, although plants typically need more than 200 ppm to survive. It is done specifically to encourage faster growth.

It goes without saying that you need to add soil nutrients and water when you grow plants in boxes containing finite amounts of soil.

[SFTor]

to expand on the point: inducing CO2 into greenhouses is not done to replenish CO2, but to elevate the CO2 concentration to levels four or five times higher than what is present in the atmosphere.

[Exusian]

SFTor, you are missing my point: the world is not a greenhouse with a controlled supply of water, nutrients, temperature, light, and absance of wind and other violent weather.
Growth is controlled by the nutrient or resource in scarcest supply, not the one in abundance, and that isn't CO2 in the outside world.

You need to read up the research on plant growth in elevated CO2. Almost all species will grow faster, but faster doesn't translate into better in terms of nutrient content, and not all species or types respond the same. Kudsu and poison ivy thrive, wheat and other grains not so much.

[SFTor]

another correction:

answering, not asking.

[valkyrie607]

It is simplistic.

You're presenting one possible effect of climate forcing due to increased GHG levels. It may be a positive effect. Of course, different plant species may be able to take advantage of the increased CO2 better than others. Some plant species may experience a new competitive advantage. Will those plants with the advantage be the ones we humans favor? There's no guarantee.

Then there are all the other possible effects. A few of them may be positive--longer growing seasons for folks in the higher latitudes, for example--but so many more are negative. Losing thousands of square miles of coastal land, for example, and finding new homes for the millions of displaced people, for instance.

Since our knowledge is incomplete, we can't really weigh the risks vs. the benefits.P­recautiona­ry principle would dictate that we are fully conversant with all the possible outcomes of increasing GHGs at such an insane rate BEFORE we started this giant experiment in atmospheric science, using every living being on earth as a test subject. But our current economic system has no precautionary principle. This is a problem with the economic system, not a problem with science or the biological systems on which we all depend.

[SFTor]

Hi Valkyrie!

Two obserations:

pre-industrial CO2 concentrations were at or near historic lows. 280 ppm is 80 ppm the existence minimum for plants. We are now at 382 ppm---not much higher.

The idea that "so many more are negative" are not reflected in the historical record as we know it. Warm periods seem to have been better for people than cold periods.

I agree that this cannot be known for the future, but that is the track record.

[SFTor]

One more question:

don't you find the idea of a demonstrably carbon-eating biosphere being able to manage different levels of CO2 the least bit logical?

[SFTor]

correction: 280 ppm is 80 ppm above...

[SFTor]

Valkyrie,

You are right that this is a problem with our economic system, but I am going to miss those fly fishing trips to Zihuatanejo.

But I think I need to restate the point I was trying to make: how can a carbon-eating biosphere be vulnerable to a moderate increase in the principal nutrient it depends on?

Is it possible?

[NewYorkJ]

""They probably do not want to reveal their true plans and ambitions to stop economic development and return mankind several centuries back," he said."

Remember - this group of political hacks actually calls climate scientists "alarmists". These infants aren't respected among the scientific community, so they have to organize their own PR event. They certainly get a lot more attention and $$$ that way.

[gladiator777]

Even if the whole world went to clean fuel starting today and didn't pump out any man made emissions it won't keep the earth from warming or cooling. The past 600m years CO2 has been far higher than it is now, averaging over 1000 ppm. Historically speaking earth is at ultra low levels of CO2 right now, and will naturally go up again to much higher levels. I'm all for clean fuel and air, but the only constant on earth is that it constantly changes and always will until earth is destroyed by the sun or some other phenomenon.

Also, it will take thousands if not tens of thousands of years to see any major climate changes on earth, stuff we won't be around to see. Humans will simply need to adapt to climate change, its natural and it is always occurring, though at a very slow pace. Once we do go all clean fuel and air, don't expect climate change to not occur, it most certainly will and always will.

[Javani]

"Major corporations are painting themselves green around global warming,”

Talking about adaptation, how about them big oil companies gearing up for favorable carbon allotments and price hikes?

Europe Redux.

Cap and trade scam continues. Funny, the New York Times never investigates the financial house money behind cap and trade which funds the global warming political campaign.

[Jeff Smithpeters]

Incorrect. CO2 as a percentage of the atmosphere has been trending higher than at any other measurable point in earth's history (we get old air from amber and other items in which it becomes trap. It is going to increase exponentially if something is not done.

And it is possible that the global warming we've already experienced has unleashed CO2 bubbles from frozen places in which it had been trapped for millenia. It makes sense that if we're on the cusp of reaching that point, we need to step back.

[SFTor]

CO2 has not been trending higher than at any other measurable point in Earth's history in Earth's history.

As a matter of fact, the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm was probably at or near a historic low. The current level of 382 ppm is not much higher.

[Exusian]

No, the pre-industrial level of 280 ppm was NOT at or near a historic low.

You could look this up if you wanted to.

CO2 falls to around 180 ppm during a glacial stadial, something that humans have experienced many times over the past 2 million years of our evolution.

[Exusian]

"The past 600m years CO2 has been far higher than it is now, averaging over 1000 ppm."

An example of red herring misdirection, just as when Dr. Happer used it in his testimony before the Senate committee.

No humans or even primates existed 600m years ago when CO2 levels were 1000ppm. Humans evolved over the last 2m years during the Pleistocene, and everything you know as civilization and technology developed over the last 10,000 years of the Holocene. We exceed the conditions of that period at our peril.

"it will take thousands if not tens of thousands of years to see any major climate changes on earth"

Apparently you've never heard of the Younger Dryas event of 11,000 to 12,000 years ago when a huge meltwater pulse shut down the thermohaline circulation and pushed Earth's climate back into glacial conditions in as little as a decade.

It's highly unlikely that we will see a repeat--there simply isn't enough ice left in the northern hemisphere, but there are other phenomena with tipping points that can cause rapid and sudden climate change. Just because you are unaware of them does not mean that they don't exist.

[wesx]

The trouble with the climate change theory either man infulenced or a part of the cycle of earth or mother nature is the closed minds of both sides of the issue. For the most part science has a very poor track record but is still held as unfailable in the eyes of too many people. Just recently articals out that claim air quality has improved in the last 40 years as to giving us a few extra months of life weather you want it or not. Another example of our goverment regulating things is with appliances which is mandated compliances in energy use and water has changed the lifespan of a appliance from lasting 17 to 30 years to the new improved models which last 7 to 10 years. This means if you donot get it is you have to waste more of everthing to build an appliance that last half as long.Worki­ng backwards dont you think

[Jeff Smithpeters]

"For the most part science has a poor track record."

After I read this, I knew I didn't have read any further.

[valkyrie607]

So... you don't want a few extra months of life?

And you think the government has mandated a shorter lifespan for new appliances­... don't you think the smart guys who build fridges and such could have come up with designs that meet gov't efficiency standards AND have a long lifespan? Personally I think they're quite capable, they just stopped designing for longevity because it's not profitable. Higher profits if your products need replacement after one decade instead of three, you know.

I will never understand how people are so cynical about the government yet place such unlimited trust in the benevolence of big corporations.

[legalclubs]

Notice how the language has changed for "global warming" to "climate change". The problem with "global warming" is what do you do when the temperatures stop going up and start going back down, which is directly contrary to the theory of global warming being based on CO2 being trapped in our atmosphere? Basically you theory is screwed.

But ah ha! Let's call it climate change, which basics means what? Now anytime anything happens related to the climate we can now say --- must be "climate change".

Science is based on testable theories. The global warming theory is on the verge of being uncontestably disproved by mother nature - how to you argue with the temperatures being reported -- so now we are developing a totally untestable theory. This is all just a giant money grab by the left.

[valkyrie607]

There is not problem with global warming. The only problem is that it does not do full justice to the magnitude of the effects we're observing. Warming continues apace. But this does not really give you the idea that the extra CO2 in the atmosphere is driving the pH of the oceans down, threatening mass extinctions of marine animals. It doesn't do justice to the genetic changes in insect species we've already seen, nor the risk of shutdown of the North Atlantic conveyer belt, nor the increase in precipitation volume over the northeastern US.

The warming trend is far from disproved--if anything, recent data points have shown that scientists' estimates of glacier melting rates and ocean level rise may have been too conservative.

[legalclubs]

Nice try. You just failed to address the my point because you can't.

If the average global temperature continues to stay below the high temperatures recorded over the last few years that disproves the theory of global warming. That is how the scientific process works: propose a theory, set parameters to test the theory, conduct the experiment to see if real life results fit the theory. The experiment (which is this case is the annual average global temperature readings) are disproving the theory.

Now if you want to talk about pollution, that is a whole different topic from global warming.

[Kenji]

The high point came when the deniers were all struck by lightning -- but then pretended it didn't happen.

[norgotoad]

This is the same gang who kept on saying "the fundamentals of the (US) economy are sound." They repeated this mantra until the Dow lost 20+% of its value, then they claimed that "nobody" saw this coming. Oh... really? What about Roubini, Krugman, and a chorus of other learned economists who warned of the impending disaster, but were overruled by the "everything is rosey" crowd? They said "oopsy... mea culpa.. why was that little ol' me who was so greed? I am soooo sorry..." They said this and flew away on their tax payer funded jets and lined their pockets with tax payer supplied bailouts. So now that same crowd has moved from destroying the economy to destroying the planet, eh? One critical difference is when you destroy the planet, there ARE NO BAILOUTS!!

[SFTor]

You are not making an honest argument.

To say that these are the "same people" implies guilt by association to all that disagree with you.

Not fair.

[Phynx]

Honestly I don't care if what he says are a complete pack of lies.
I don't care if ultimately global warming is proven to take much longer than initially predicted.
The fact is that right now we're finally shedding some light on the issue. Only the most uninformed would argue that pumping carbon dioxide into our atmosphere wont EVENTUALLY change our climate. That's just a fact, whether or not it takes a few thousand years or a few hundred. The fact we as a country are starting to recognize that this might be a problem in the near future means we're doing our best to fix it now by inventing more efficient and clean technologies, reducing the waste we produce, recycling the waste we have, and punishing more harshly those that choose not to comply.
We're doing the work now that will have to get done eventually anyway. The earth cannot continue to support our unrestrained abuse of its resources, its just a matter of time: Do we want to tackle this problem now, or ignore it because our generation won't be alive when it happens. There are enough selfish people *cough* CONSERVATIVES *cough* that without the threat that something catastrophic might occur during our generation, these essential problems would get pushed back to future generations.

[SFTor]

This is an interesting point by the way: Vaclav Klaus is the President of the Czech Republic, which is a a parlamentary republic. That makes Vaclav Klaus the head of State, a largely honorary title with very limited powers. He is however one of the most popular politicians in the country. He was Prime Minister from 1993 to 1997.

Currently Mirek Topolanek is the Prime Minister---the head of government. He holds all the power. He seems to take a positive view of measures against climate change.

Both are from the Civic Democratic Party.

I guess it goes to show that the debate isn't over in the Czech Republic.

[SFTor]

One more factoid:

About 11% of the Czech population are believers in AGW.

[Machun]

I bet they are an enlightened group to be around. Fortunately I'll be dead before this hit me. I'm gay and have no children to worry about either. Let me know how this works out for your kids and grandkits, selfish jerks.

[greendig]

I attempted to question Klaus at the Wall Street Journal ECO:nomic conference. His response to my question was both clever and disturbing. You can read it on MNN.com:
http://www.mnn.com/technology/research-innovations/blogs/face-to-face-with-eu-president-vaclav-klaus

[Kenji]

A good read, greendig. BTW (sort of), a good friend of mine in Prague -- a Holocaust survivor to the left of Klaus on every possible subject -- for many years nonetheless played tennis with him on Tuesdays and perhaps still does. Guess all this suggests is that even their crankjobs are a lot more civil and easygoing than ours. Of course it is a very small country...

[mrsolik]

You shouldn't need to be a scientist to understand the concept of cause and effect.

Is anyone denying that pumping 25 Trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere per day won't have an effect?

And if you aren't denying that do you think that the 25 Trillion tons will have a positive effect?

[SFTor]

That would be 7 gigatons per year, mrsolik. In the great scheme of the carbon cycle it is not a large number.

It will be difficult to continue this discussion until you have seen the actual numbers for yourself.

[mrsolik]

Are you suggesting there will not be an effect? We can continue pumping another 7 gigatons of Carbon every year for 100 years(7 gigaton will probably grow exponentially with the population­)... and there will not be an effect?

It's going to be difficult to have a conversation until you answer a question.

[SFTor]

A gigaton is a billion tons, by the way.

[SFTor]

Another quote from The Discovery article:

"This is nothing like anything we've seen since 1950," Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee said. "Cooling events since then had firm causes, like eruptions or large-magnitude La Ninas. This current cooling doesn't have one."

I have no idea whether these guys' research will hold up, but I think we must at least agree that this statement concerns an empirical observation.

[mark h]

Shouldn't the burden of proof be on the skeptics of global warming? "Don't worry." They confidently say. "Changing the composition of the atmosphere will not cause problems." It seems that the conservative approach would be to be cautious until we KNOW it will not contribute to global warming.

[SFTor]

Jeremy Jaquot is writing about an interesting article here on http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jeremy-jacquot/hot-or-not-making-sense-o_b_172269.html2269.html.

The article will be published in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, by by authors, Kyle L. Swanson and Anastasios A. Tsonis of the University of Wisconsin-­Milwaukee.

Mr. Jaquot says: "The main takeaway from this study is that there is a significant degree of variability in our climate system, and that, even though we may be entering a period of warming "stasis," long-term trends still point to significant warming due to anthropogenic forcing."

A significant degree of variability in our climate system.

The news blurb on Discovery News, here:

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/02/global-warming-pause-02.html

Excerpt from the news blurb: "But just what's causing the cooling is a mystery. Sinking water currents in the north Atlantic Ocean could be sucking heat down into the depths. Or an overabundance of tropical clouds may be reflecting more of the sun's energy than usual back out into space."

(I wonder whether "the overabundance of clouds" is a reference to so-called Svensmark clouds.)

Comments, please.

[fumes]

hi SFTor, the overabundance of clouds provides an albedo effect. as the world turns, no wait that's a tv show, as the world warms and the ice caps melt, CO2 comes OUT of the ocean, water evaporates and condenses into clouds and clouds as you know can hold away heat through reflection of sunlight , that albedo thing, as well as hold in heat, that greenhouse thing. at some point water vapor will prove more of a preventative to global warming than a contributor and things will quite naturally turn themselves around. what's ironic is that the doom-and-gloomers will resist any hope or evidence that climate might take care of itself as it did before our arrival. lol..

[SFTor]

What strikes me is that this represents a direct reference from a scientist to a negative feedback effect from water (in this case clouds.)

My understanding is that the global climate models reach their conclusions by positing an overall positive feedback effect from water (presumably water vapor.)

I am interested to know whether there is a way to reconcile this.

[Exusian]

"My understanding is that the global climate models reach their conclusions by positing an overall positive feedback effect from water (presumably water vapor.)"

No, all water in the atmosphere: water vapor , water droplets (clouds), ice crystals.

Water vapour is a positive (warming) feedback. Clouds can be either positive by downward radiation or reflectance, or negative (cooling) by upward reflectance of incoming sunlight, depending on the cloud type and altitude. On balance clouds are thought to be net positive, but more research into clouds definitely needs to be done. This is an area where legitimate scientific debate still exists.