Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted
You are probably wondering whether President-elect Obama owes the world an apology for his actions regarding global warming. The answer is, not yet. There is one person, however, who does. You have probably guessed his name: Al Gore.
Mr. Gore has stated, regarding climate change, that "the science is in." Well, he is absolutely right about that, except for one tiny thing. It is the biggest whopper ever sold to the public in the history of humankind.
What is wrong with the statement? A brief list:
1. First, the expression "climate change" itself is a redundancy, and contains a lie. Climate has always changed, and always will. There has been no stable period of climate during the Holocene, our own climatic era, which began with the end of the last ice age 12,000 years ago. During the Holocene there have been numerous sub-periods with dramatically varied climate, such as the warm Holocene Optimum (7,000 B.C. to 3,000 B.C., during which humanity began to flourish, and advance technologically), the warm Roman Optimum (200 B.C. to 400 A.D., a time of abundant crops that promoted the empire), the cold Dark Ages (400 A.D. to 900 A.D., during which the Nile River froze, major cities were abandoned, the Roman Empire fell apart, and pestilence and famine were widespread), the Medieval Warm Period (900 A.D. to 1300 A.D., during which agriculture flourished, wealth increased, and dozens of lavish examples of Gothic architecture were created), the Little Ice Age (1300 to 1850, during much of which plague, crop failures, witch burnings, food riots -- and even revolutions, including the French Revolution -- were the rule of thumb), followed by our own time of relative warmth (1850 to present, during which population has increased, technology and medical advances have been astonishing, and agriculture has flourished).
So, no one needs to say the words "climate" and "change" in the same breath -- it is assumed, by anyone with any level of knowledge, that climate changes. That is the redundancy to which I alluded. The lie is the suggestion that climate has ever been stable. Mr. Gore has used a famously inaccurate graph, known as the "Mann Hockey Stick," created by the scientist Michael Mann, showing that the modern rise in temperatures is unprecedented, and that the dramatic changes in climate just described did not take place. They did. One last thought on the expression "climate change": It is a retreat from the earlier expression used by alarmists, "manmade global warming," which was more easily debunked. There are people in Mr. Gore's camp who now use instances of cold temperatures to prove the existence of "climate change," which is absurd, obscene, even.
2. Mr. Gore has gone so far to discourage debate on climate as to refer to those who question his simplistic view of the atmosphere as "flat-Earthers." This, too, is right on target, except for one tiny detail. It is exactly the opposite of the truth.
Indeed, it is Mr. Gore and his brethren who are flat-Earthers. Mr. Gore states, ad nauseum, that carbon dioxide rules climate in frightening and unpredictable, and new, ways. When he shows the hockey stick graph of temperature and plots it against reconstructed C02 levels in An Inconvenient Truth, he says that the two clearly have an obvious correlation. "Their relationship is actually very complicated," he says, "but there is one relationship that is far more powerful than all the others, and it is this: When there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer." The word "complicated" here is among the most significant Mr. Gore has uttered on the subject of climate and is, at best, a deliberate act of obfuscation. Why? Because it turns out that there is an 800-year lag between temperature and carbon dioxide, unlike the sense conveyed by Mr. Gore's graph. You are probably wondering by now -- and if you are not, you should be -- which rises first, carbon dioxide or temperature. The answer? Temperature. In every case, the ice-core data shows that temperature rises precede rises in carbon dioxide by, on average, 800 years. In fact, the relationship is not "complicated." When the ocean-atmosphere system warms, the oceans discharge vast quantities of carbon dioxide in a process known as de-gassing. For this reason, warm and cold years show up on the Mauna Loa C02 measurements even in the short term. For instance, the post-Pinatubo-eruption year of 1993 shows the lowest C02 increase since measurements have been kept. When did the highest C02 increase take place? During the super El Niño year of 1998.
3. What the alarmists now state is that past episodes of warming were not caused by C02 but amplified by it, which is debatable, for many reasons, but, more important, is a far cry from the version of events sold to the public by Mr. Gore.
Meanwhile, the theory that carbon dioxide "drives" climate in any meaningful way is simply wrong and, again, evidence of a "flat-Earth" mentality. Carbon dioxide cannot absorb an unlimited amount of infrared radiation. Why not? Because it only absorbs heat along limited bandwidths, and is already absorbing just about everything it can. That is why plotted on a graph, C02's ability to capture heat follows a logarithmic curve. We are already very near the maximum absorption level. Further, the IPCC Fourth Assessment, like all the ones before it, is based on computer models that presume a positive feedback of atmospheric warming via increased water vapor.
4. This mechanism has never been shown to exist. Indeed, increased temperature leads to increased evaporation of the oceans, which leads to increased cloud cover (one cooling effect) and increased precipitation (a bigger cooling effect). Within certain bounds, in other words, the ocean-atmosphere system has a very effective self-regulating tendency. By the way, water vapor is far more prevalent, and relevant, in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide -- a trace gas. Water vapor's absorption spectrum also overlays that of carbon dioxide. They cannot both absorb the same energy! The relative might of water vapor and relative weakness of carbon dioxide is exemplified by the extraordinary cooling experienced each night in desert regions, where water in the atmosphere is nearly non-existent.
If not carbon dioxide, what does "drive" climate? I am glad you are wondering about that. In the short term, it is ocean cycles, principally the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, the "super cycle" of which cooling La Niñas and warming El Niños are parts. Having been in its warm phase, in which El Niños predominate, for the 30 years ending in late 2006, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation switched to its cool phase, in which La Niñas predominate.
Since that time, already, a number of interesting things have taken place. One La Niña lowered temperatures around the globe for about half of the year just ended, and another La Niña shows evidence of beginning in the equatorial Pacific waters. During the last twelve months, many interesting cold-weather events happened to occur: record snow in the European Alps, China, New Zealand, Australia, Brazil, the Pacific Northwest, Alaska, the Rockies, the upper Midwest, Las Vegas, Houston, and New Orleans. There was also, for the first time in at least 100 years, snow in Baghdad.
Concurrent with the switchover of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation to its cool phase the Sun has entered a period of deep slumber. The number of sunspots for 2008 was the second lowest of any year since 1901. That matters less because of fluctuations in the amount of heat generated by the massive star in our near proximity (although there are some fluctuations that may have some measurable effect on global temperatures) and more because of a process best described by the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark in his complex, but elegant, work The Chilling Stars. In the book, the modern Galileo, for he is nothing less, establishes that cosmic rays from deep space seed clouds over Earth's oceans. Regulating the number of cosmic rays reaching Earth's atmosphere is the solar wind; when it is strong, we get fewer cosmic rays. When it is weak, we get more. As NASA has corroborated, the number of cosmic rays passing through our atmosphere is at the maximum level since measurements have been taken, and show no signs of diminishing. The result: the seeding of what some have taken to calling "Svensmark clouds," low dense clouds, principally over the oceans, that reflect sunlight back to space before it can have its warming effect on whatever is below.
Svensmark has proven, in the minds of most who have given his work a full hearing, that it is this very process that produced the episodes of cooling (and, inversely, warming) of our own era and past eras. The clearest instance of the process, by far, is that of the Maunder Minimum, which refers to a period from 1650 to 1700, during which the Sun had not a single spot on its face. Temperatures around the globe plummeted, with quite adverse effects: crop failures (remember the witch burnings in Europe and Massachusetts?), famine, and societal stress.
Many solar physicists anticipate that the slumbering Sun of early 2009 is likely to continue for at least two solar cycles, or about the next 25 years. Whether the Grand Solar Minimum, if it comes to pass, is as serious as the Maunder Minimum is not knowable, at present. Major solar minima (and maxima, such as the one during the second half of the 20th century) have also been shown to correlate with significant volcanic eruptions. These are likely the result of solar magnetic flux affecting geomagnetic flux, which affects the distribution of magma in Earth's molten iron core and under its thin mantle. So, let us say, just for the sake of argument, that such an eruption takes place over the course of the next two decades. Like all major eruptions, this one will have a temporary cooling effect on global temperatures, perhaps a large one. The larger the eruption, the greater the effect. History shows that periods of cold are far more stressful to humanity than periods of warm. Would the eruption and consequent cooling be a climate-modifier that exists outside of nature, somehow? Who is the "flat-Earther" now?
What about heat escaping from volcanic vents in the ocean floor? What about the destruction of warming, upper-atmosphere ozone by cosmic rays? I could go on, but space is short. Again, who is the "flat-Earther" here?
The ocean-atmosphere system is not a simple one that can be "ruled" by a trace atmospheric gas. It is a complex, chaotic system, largely modulated by solar effects (both direct and indirect), as shown by the Little Ice Age.
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.
So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
Again, Mr. Gore, I accept your apology.
And, Mr. Obama, though I voted for you for a thousand times a thousand reasons, I hope never to need one from you.
P.S. One of the last, desperate canards proposed by climate alarmists is that of the polar ice caps. Look at the "terrible," "unprecedented" melting in the Arctic in the summer of 2007, they say. Well, the ice in the Arctic basin has always melted and refrozen, and always will. Any researcher who wants to find a single molecule of ice that has been there longer than 30 years is going to have a hard job, because the ice has always been melted from above (by the midnight Sun of summer) and below (by relatively warm ocean currents, possibly amplified by volcanic venting) -- and on the sides, again by warm currents. Scientists in the alarmist camp have taken to referring to "old ice," but, again, this is a misrepresentation of what takes place in the Arctic.
More to the point, 2007 happened also to be the time of maximum historic sea ice in Antarctica. (There are many credible sources of this information, such as the following website maintained by the University of Illinois-Urbana: http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg). Why, I ask, has Mr. Gore not chosen to mention the record growth of sea ice around Antarctica? If the record melting in the Arctic is significant, then the record sea ice growth around Antarctica is, too, I say. If one is insignificant, then the other one is, too.
For failing to mention the 2007 Antarctic maximum sea ice record a single time, I also accept your apology, Mr. Gore. By the way, your contention that the Arctic basin will be "ice free" in summer within five years (which you said last month in Germany), is one of the most demonstrably false comments you have dared to make. Thank you for that!
Related on HufPost:
A. Siegel -- Global Warming Knowledge: "Perhaps it is worthwhile to take a moment to lay out some reasonable sources for actual knowledge when it comes to Global Warming science and discussion."
Kevin Grandia -- On Global Warming is it Harold Ambler or the Royal Society?: "It appears that Ambler's background in the area of climate science is non-existent."
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron, and anyone with any grasp of the scientific method knows damn well that practically nothing is considered "settled science".
Al Gore's method of validating a theory: make crazy-ass statement, claim existence of scientific consent, and call anyone who raises serious questions a tool of big oil.
I am dumbfounded by global warming scientists that say the "debate is over", or that the climate crisis "has been proven". One of the first things we all learned in junior high school science class was that in order for something to be proven, you must be able to reproduce the results. (Example: drop the temp below 32 Farenheit, and water freezes, evertime single time). Yet, these scientists absolutely cannot reproduce actual results since their experimental subject is an entire planetary climate. Rather they have "proven" global warming with anecdotal evidence, and with computer models that have made consistently inaccurate predictions. (For example NASA admittedly used inflated temperature data for years in it's models).
It would be one thing for these scientists to say they have working theories on global warming, or that they are predicting a certain climate change, but it is entirely differently for them to say that the climate crisis has been proven. If it has been proven, why will they not take part in any debates or forums that challenge their findings. What would they have to lose. My best guess is that global warming has become a "cash cow" for the scientific community, and they are working harder to keep the money coming in than to prove or disprove the supposed crisis.
Very good post.
The Global Warming alarmists lost the debate when they refused to debate, and simply declared the debate over.
I have read studies concerning the massive funding (all on one side of the debate of course). Almost $2 billion from the US to universities in 2004 alone. The oil industries have not put up 1/10 of that. Yep, scientists like to eat and drive new cars just like the rest of us.
Actually, the debate has been going on for quite awhile, and the science has only grown stronger and more refined. How did that happen? By spending research dollars on replicating results and making an effort to clarify uncertainties, etc. It's always funny to read arguments on research funding, when some have insisted we study the issue to death rather than acting. And I suspect much of the money goes to equipment/
Funding is also applied to areas of novelty and uncertainty. If anything, modelers and such have reason to exaggerate uncertainty to receive more funding. And I still haven't seen a good explanation of why tenured and fossil-funded contrarians haven't released any successfully reviewed research suggesting gaping flaws in the widely accepted concept of human influence. THAT would be the story of the century for any news outlet interested in controversy (that is, most of them).
Some more on funding:
http://www
Yes I sort of have to eat, not a real option if I wish to stay alive. As for a new car, yep, I just really splurged and bought a Saturn. Of course if you want me to live up to your stereotype, please send me a spare 30 K and I''ll trade it in for a BMW or a Mercedes (I think God told me I should get one so please hurry and you will be endearing yourself to our Lord and Saviour)
as for a new car. YE
You simply don't understand how science works. It is rare in science, to have any system such as water freezing which is simple to model (at least in one sense it is simple). In most (but not all) of my physics research I am ecstatic to only have 50% error. Scientists create mathematical models (though it's not always stated that way in the school text books) and look at the predictions. If they agree with measurements then we say that the theory agrees with experiment within a certain mathematical probability. The concept of agreement between theory (models) and experiment (measurements) is a probabilistic one. The probability that a significant part of global warming is not man made is quite small.
The scientists use complex climate models that simulate all the known physical forces of the earth, and then compare them indicators of temperature measurements from (recently) satellites, tree rings and ice cores going back a thousand years.
These models have done a good job of predicting the long term warming trend recorded in the century and predict accelerated warming over the next century. The cause is the increased levels of global warming dioxide which they understand the mechanisms of this tool.
No model has absolute certainty -- and GW scientists do not claim this. It is the deniers who proclaim absolute certainty they can ignore the best climate models which have been developed over the last 40 years warming and been reviewed by the top climatologists all over the world.
Some good links on GW include:
http://www
http://new
"Scientists do not claim certainty"? Refusing to openly examine the so-called crisis and consistently stating that the debate is over is tantamount to proclaiming absolute certainty.
Examples: Dr. Heidi Cullen, said that any meterologist denying global warming should have his credentials revoked. In 2006, Bill Gray, the hurricane expert from CSU, voiced concerns about certainty over global warming stating that "debate has never actually taken place". The man was vilified by the scientific community. These are just a couple of very public examples, there are many other examples, I would be glad to list them if you like.
I am not saying that this is unusual, a conspiracy, or limited to global warming. Scientists may be the most dogmatic community in history; stifling debate is what they often do. There are many examples of the accepted scientific dogma, (that was wrong mind you), and what happened to those that challenged the dogma.
Raymond Dart discovered Australopithicus in South Africa in the 1920's, but because the scientific community had settled the debate, determining that "Piltdown Man" was the precursor to humans, Dart was belittled and berated into silence. When Dr. Stanley Prusiner discovered that the protein fragment called a "prion" was responsible for spongeform encephalitis (mad cow disease), he was absolutely ridiculed by the scientific community because the accepted line was that all infectious agents had to have the nucliec acid replicating machine to trigger disease.
Again, those are just a couple of examples, I have more.
Ms. Huffington regrets letting this article appear, because while "I am a firm believer that there are not two sides to every issue, and that on some issues the jury is no longer out. The climate crisis is one of these issues."
This is the problem with flat-earthers. They refuse to debate anyone who does not accept that the science is settled. When have you ever heard of this before? The only time I can think of is when a "consensus" of scientists believed the earth was flat, and that the earth was the center of the solar system, and people who challenged those notions were imprisoned or worse. And yet, here we are again.
When Einstein came out with his theory of relativity, it was not long before others found holes in it. Did Einstein accuse these other scientists of being in the pockets of the quantum physics industry? No, he welcomed debate.
The other thing I love about the flat-earthers is how they cherry-pick small periods to support their theory, then denigrate those who do the same to counteract their argument. Example: how many times have we heard that 1998 was the warmest year ever in earth's history (which is a lie) and that it's proof of global warming? Yet, 2008 was the coldest year of my lifetime, one of the coldest of the last 100 years, but if I point that out, I'm told I don't understand the difference between climate and weather.
2008 was the coldest in your lifetime? Not according to this:
http://www
Yes, la niña etc conspired to moderate the warming signal in 2008, but no serious scientist I'm aware of claims that means a trend reversal, just as no serious scientist claimed that all of the warmth of 1998 was due to anthropogenic warming (with no contribution from the strongest el niño of the century). If anything, it's the deniers and delayers who have mis-used 1998, by claiming a cooling trend based on that one exceptional year.
Honest debate on the issues in one thing. Misinformation and misleading half-truths, as we've seen on this page, are another.
Yes, 2008 was the coldest in my lifetime. The coldest winter, the coolest spring, the coolest summer, the earliest fall, the earliest snowfalls, etc. I have never seen snow prior to Thanksgiving until this past year. I know it does not mean much, just as 1998 does not mean much, but I have to disagree with you on 1998. It was the alarmists who constantly brought out 1998. The problem was, they also constantly said it will just keep getting warmer unless we immediately do something to fix it. Then when it only got cooler, they were called out on their (once again) false predictions based on their theory that they said was irrefutable.
If the alarmists had simply allowed debate, they would probably have more believers today. People are smarter than you give them credit for. When someone keeps telling them "don't look behind the curtain, just trust me", they usually know they are getting conned.
As I re-read your post, I see you are also a denier. You say 1998 was not caused by CO2, but rather, by naturally occurring events. All of the alarmists claims I have seen blame 1998 squarely and solely on AGW.
I do want to commend you for encouraging honest debate. You are the first AGW believer I have ever seen who even utters the word "debate".
And that is where most of my suspicions came from, and what caused me to do so much research. Sites such as the one you listed, spend so much time and energy trying to beat down any theory which does not correspond with the almighty "man did it and nothing else is the cause" theory. They try so hard to make themselves look so authoritative, but serious scientists would not engage in ridicule and name-calling like they do (example "Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion" article).
Look, AGW is a theory, and nothing more. To say it is settled is absolute nonsense, and you know it (I can tell you are intelligent). To go beyond theory, predictions based on any theory have to be proven. So far, nearly every prediction has been wrong, and wrong to the extreme. So at best, it is still an unproven theory.
realclimat
I especially like the link to Al Gores video and Micheal Crichton's "State of Confusion" on the sidebar.
Try using a source with a minimum of agenda please. Mebbe a scientific one.
To understand the long term global warming trend -- look at the graph at this article.
Also note that 2008 is relatively cooler, but still would fall in the red zone on the long term trend.
"Global average for 2008 should come in close to 14.3C, but cooler temperature is not evidence that global warming is slowing, say climate scientists
Prof Myles Allen at Oxford University who runs the climatepre
The Met Office predicted at the beginning of the year that 2008 would be cooler than recent years because of a La Niña event - characterised by unusually cold ocean temperatures in the equatorial Pacific Ocean. It is the mirror image of the El Niño climate cycle. The Met Office had forecast an annual global average of 14.37C.
http://www
What holes have been found in relativity? Please elaborate.
http://www
It is trivial for someone with some knowledge of mathematical modeling of time series to analyze local station temperature data, in this case from Wichita, KS USA, and conclude that some weather stations in mainland US do not provide any evidence of a short term,
There are so many scientists with credentials beyond reproach who find AGW to be dubious or refute the theory outright that believers can't hide THEIR heads in the sand any more (but they still do).
EG:
Ivor Giavor, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics
JoAnn Simpson, formerly of NASA, PHD in meteorology
Dr. Pal Brekke, Senior Advisor, Norwegian Space Center in Oslo
Dr. Phil Happer, Award-winning scientist, Professor in the Dept. of Physics, Princeton University
Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science commitee of the International Geologoical Congress 2008
Hajo Smit of Holland, meteorologist and former IPCC member
Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist and former outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol
Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African nuclear physicist and UN IPCC co-ordinating lead author
Dr. Phil Chapman, NASA astronautical engineer and former astronaut and staff physicist at MIT
Want DOZENS more? Go to the report at
http://epw
I looked at your link by the Right Wing Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma (who has compared environmentalists to Hitler)
His list of 400 scientists include "COMPUTER" scientists, economists, biologists, doctors, along with scientists who have little to NO expertise in climatology.
Inhofe's list also counts scientists who say they don't know one way or another, or are concerned there is not enough information to trust the climate models on the WORSE case scenarios yet (but should be cautious just in case) on his Global Warming hoaxers list.
Senator Inhofe does this by resort to snipping comments outside their full scope to give the impression they are hoaxers like him.
I say -- if there was any science to the global warming hoaxers -- Right Wingers like Senator Inhofe would not have to LIE and DISTORT to the degree he does.
some good links explaining common myths of the Right Wing on global warming.
#1 http://ske
#2 http://www
#3 http://www
#4 http://www
#5 http://new
#6 http://www
I guess the deniers and delayers are out of the woodwork again. This essentially looks like a regurgitation of the same stuff that's been debunked repeatedly (see http://cli
The 800 year lag between slow warming at the end of glacial periods and a recovery of atmospheric CO2 does NOT mean CO2 can't be a climate forcing. What we have now is a rapid CO2 accumulation in the middle of a long interglacial, and all indications that it's largely of fossil fuel origin (mass balance, isotope ratios, etc.). Yes, the oceans naturally emit CO2, but they also absorb it, and are a net SINK. Actually, terrestrial and oceanic carbon sinks absorb about half of our emissions (at least for now). If nature had suddenly become a net source of CO2, ALL of our emissions, plus the natural stuff, would be accumulating, and concentrations would be much higher than they are now.
Last I read, there was a slight DECLINE in output in '98, but would a correlation between an el nino and a CO2 increase be evidence of natural causation? And solar influences etc. have been/continue to be, extensively studied, yet the prevailing view remains that they're playing a relatively minor role. There's also more to the cloud/negative feedback story than the author lets on (what about changes in atmospheric water vapor capacity and the thermal properties of different cloud types?). Etc. etc.
There are so many scientists with credentials beyond reproach who find AGW to be dubious or refute the theory outright that believers can't hide THEIR heads in the sand any more (but they still do).
EG:
Ivor Giavor, Nobel Prize Winner for Physics
JoAnn Simpson, formerly of NASA, PHD in meteorology
Dr. Pal Brekke, Senior Advisor, Norwegian Space Center in Oslo
Dr. Phil Happer, Award-winning scientist, Professor in the Dept. of Physics, Princeton University
Dr. David Gee, chairman of the science commitee of the International Geologoical Congress 2008
Hajo Smit of Holland, meteorologist and former IPCC member
Miklos Zagoni, Hungarian physicist and former outspoken supporter of the Kyoto Protocol
Dr. Philip Lloyd, South African nuclear physicist and UN IPCC co-ordinating lead author
Dr. Phil Chapman, NASA astronautical engineer and former astronaut and staff physicist at MIT
Want DOZENS more? Go to the report at
http://epw
Where's A Siegel's post? I was beginning to think it was automatic.
Inhofe mentioned.
It was like clockwork. Very predictable. You know like Global temperatures.
People, just look outside and trust your body. Isn't it cold?
Look at reports of weather all across the world telling of record cold. Even the most dependable forecasting tools, Old Farmer's Almanac, stated that this was going to be a long, and cold winter, and that this is just the beginning of a global cooling that will last a few decades.
If you thought that this summer was hot, why was there snow in Australia for first time in over a 100 years (Australia's winter is our summer)?
We have been held hostage to wrong science, and may have forfeited our economy in the process. Who will be buying our so called alternative energy cars, when gas cars will still be a lot cheaper. Putting our eggs all in one basket, not drilling for oil, as well as not pursuing nuclear, will certainly be our downfall.
I believe that this Global Warming Fear has diverted us from attacking the real problems of pollution, like pesticides, and other chemical pollutants, as well as efforts to clean up our rivers, and oceans.
See A. Siegel's Profile
Cool. I'm going to rely on The Old Farmer's Almanac rather than the National Academy of Sciences (the APS, the AGU, etc) for scientific knowledge about climate. And, well, on "climate" issues we should "trust our body"? The only reason to take insanity like this seriously is that it is undermining efforts to create paths toward greater prosperity, more resiliency, and a stronger America.
PS: So, particulates from coal-fired electricity, coal ash, and mercury are not "real problems of pollution"? Acidification of the oceans? Cancers caused by petroleum fumes? These aren't "real"?
It is extremely frustrating that people can't wake up to the very real potential of "no regrets strategy" approaches on that miniscule chance that you, and not the Royal Academy of Sciences and the IPCC and ..., are wrong about humanity's role in driving global warming.
True Prosperity??? Hasn't the world been more prosperous during periods of warming?
PS: So, particulates from coal-fired electricity, coal ash, and mercury are not "real problems of pollution"? Acidification of the oceans? Cancers caused by petroleum fumes? These aren't "real"?
Hey guess what A. Siegel. They are real. No one is saying they aren't. We need to address those, but not under the assumption of global warming. There is no global warming that is unnatural. Everyone is slowly realizing that now after a few years of being bombarded with nothing but global warming stories. We need to address the pollutions you mentioned, but lets leave global warming out of it.
http://www
Looks like they're doing pretty well. How bout them IPCC models?
"it is undermining efforts to create paths toward greater prosperity"
If by this you mean government coerced and subsidized efforts to divert foodstuffs into biofuels, erect uneconomical power sources such as wind farms and solar collectors, and produce uneconomical electric and alternative fuel transportation systems, then you are sadly mistaken.
Such misguided efforts on the part of the state to divert scarce resources into uneconomical uses in defiance of market preferences does nothing but WEAKEN the economic system afflicted with this meddling. This truth can be seen throughout human history. One of the most glaring recent examples are the Communist regimes, where myopic central planners have directed their economies into such a state they cannot even feed their own people. North Korea and the former Soviet Union are prime examples of such failure.
The only paths your kind create are to bankruptcy and tyranny.
Oh, and to those referring to cold weather: This issue is about global CLIMATE change over years, decades, and centuries, not about WEATHER fluctuation. Global warming doesn't mean an end to all natural variability (mostly related to heat DISTRIBUTION and ocean-atmosphere heat exchange). It doesn't mean we're baking the planet next year. It means we're cranking up the thermostat on a planetary slow-cooker. And there's no practical, safe way of turning it back down when we decide things are getting unsuitable for holocene ecology and a civilization of billions.
"...If you thought that this summer was hot, why was there snow in Australia for first time in over a 100 years (Australia's winter is our summer)...
We regularly get snow in Australia during the winter months, almost all of it in mountainous regions located in the south-east of the continent. It hasn't just been a once-in-a-lifetime occurrence.
Jeez, do your research and stop trying to tell me made-up things about my own country.
OMG you have the nerve to claim you know what is going on in your own country!? Get your eyes checked. My son went to Australia and he was hot. Are you calling my son a liar? Didn't you understand, he said it hasn't snowed in your country for over 100 years. What don't you get? You must be the kind of person who base their opinion on fact and observation - we don't need you here.
Right on man. The cash ought to go to fighting real problems, not lining Gores pocket or paying for Carol Browner (incoming Energy Czar) to fly from DC to Oregon on weekends to see hubby.
wow.. This is your evidence. The fact that it has been a cold winter? Now we are in a global cooling? Climate change... Change is the operative word! Ice caps are melting faster than expected, therefore there is more cold water in the oceans, cooling ocean currents and weather systems. Hence more snow and precipitation, colder weather in some places and drier and warmer in others, like the southeast and southwest. It is obviously not as simple as I described and I am not a climatologist just read and think a lot.. We need to be thinking and solving these problems systematically.
http://www
That's right:
Here is a recent NASA article:
Although global temperatures were cooled by La Niña early in the year, the 2008 meteorological year was among the ten warmest since reliable recordkeeping began. (Dec '08)
http://dat
And this is a good article in the Guardian UK explaining the RELATIVELY cooling trend.
If you look on their long term temperatur trend, 2008 still ending on the RED half of the temperature increase.
http://www
This post, and numerous others that have suddenly appeared in journals such as Daily Tech, are feeding the worst fears of the Neo-Cons: that AGW was a Marxist strategy having little to do with scientific method. Its a long conversation, but it certainly has begun, hasn't it.
Remarkable coincidence: The Democrats resume power and suddenly their policy centerpiece is found to have clay feet.
I am shocked! Shocked, to learn of this.
At least it's a conversation, rather than "settled science"..
Actually, AGW has absolutely *nothing* to do with the scientific method.
Nothing to do with the scientific method
Says who? Rush Limbaugh?
* The National Academy of Sciences (NAS),
* the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
* the American Institute of Physics,
* the American Chemical Society,
* the American Geophysical Union,
* the American Meteorological Association, etc.
The NAS is particularly credible. That's 1800 of the USA's best scientists, elected by their peers. Being elected to the NAS is like winning the Oscar in science.
Virtually all the federal agencies with scientific missions warn of global warming.
for a MUCH longer list -- skip the intro and read down this link
http://www
I find it interesting to note that all of the folks promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming are primarily depending on the word of Climate Modelers, and all of the "deniers" are quoting real science and current scientific data. So, which should we believe... the model predicting doom and gloom or the empirical science saying it ain't gonna happen?
Interesting survey of the literature and summary at http://www
http://www
Great article and summary.
You don't have real science without models. Could you please explain what you are talking about.
Which Right Winger are YOU listening to?
Basically all the major science organizations and top climatologists in the world agree the climate models (which simulate the actual physics of the earth and compare these with satellite data, tree rings and ice cores from 1000 years for testing against) show a long term warming trend that corresponds with the increase in carbon dioxide levels.
Virtually all the federal agencies with scientific missions warn of global warming.
need some examples?
----------
**ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY**
What's Known
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:
Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.
http://www
Captain Kirk,
Regarding the scientific models, are you familiar with term GIGO?
Acronym for Garbage In Garbage Out!!!
**NASA**
Evidence for Global Warming
Recent observations of warming support the theory that greenhouse gases are warming the world. Over the last century, the planet has experienced the largest increase in surface temperature in 1,300 years. The average surface temperature of the Earth rose 0.6 to 0.9 degrees Celsius (1.08°F to 1.62°F) between 1906 and 2006, and the rate of temperature increase nearly doubled in the last 50 years. Worldwide measurements of sea level show a rise of about 0.17 meters (0.56 feet) during the twentieth century. The world’s glaciers have steadily receded, and Arctic sea ice extent has steadily shrunk by 2.7 percent per decade since 1978
http://ear
Climate Approaches Dangerous "Tipping" Point
GISS research finds that human-made greenhouse gases have brought the Earth's climate close to potentially dangerous consequences for the planet. (May '07)
http://www
**NOAA**
"Reflecting the long-term warming trend in the Earth's climate, U.S. and global annual temperatures are now approximately 1.0°F warmer than at the start of the 20th century, and the rate of warming has accelerated over the past 30 years, increasing globally since the mid-1970's at a rate approximately three times faster than the century-scale trend. For additional information on global temperature trends, please see the 2006 annual temperature trends discussion.
http://www
NASA ... large government bureaucracy which over the years has through hubris, negligence and incompetence, destroyed several spacecraft costing billions of dollars while at the same time extinguishing 17 human lives in spectacular fashion.
NOAA .... Another government bureacracy, albeit much smaller than the aforementioned NASA, one arnm of which is the National Weather Service, best known for its inability to forecast the weather accurately more than about 24 hours in advance.
Forgive me if I questoin the accuracy of predictions of future events made by these bodies.
Ok, so if this article is true, and it is, why would we accept Gore's apology? He and his helpers have caused untold fiscal and psychological disaster that is not going to be going anywhere anytime soon. It's going to require many years of his staunch dedication to *reversing* the damage he's caused and trotting all over the globe, and returning the gazillions of dollars made off his schemes in order to reverse the damage he's done already.
An apology is the first and most meaningless step in fixing what he's done with this scam.
It is not true.
Yes it is.
Read "Ecoimperialism" by Paul Dresher. He was a co-founder of Greenpeace and exposes how corporations with NGOs (nongovernment organizations) have used the global warming myth to generate economic advantage across the globe. The intent of these groups is to manipulate developing countries and keep them as colonial extensions.
These groups encourage keeping developing countries in a state of poverty. They encourage solar panels on huts over hydro-electric plans to keep huts forever and deny these people an industial age.
Many reputable scientists seriously question climate change. They are not bought and paid for by the special interests, whose sole purpose is to find more ways to tax us with their bullshit cap and trade system. Want more information?
http://epw
See A. Siegel's Profile
Not for the first time in this comment stream, links to Inhofe's bizaare list are trotted out as some form of proof. Re that list, the discusssions are too number to cite here, but here is a good place to start: http://gre
Mr. Siegel,
Your links are great at pointing out a handful of questionable entries in the list. But this is more a case of "guilt by association" in reverse. It's true that a few entries are likely misrepresented, though it is a very small minority.
If you take the time and read the credentials of the remaining names, you would recognize that 24 of the names are participants in the UN IPCC process, of which approximately eight have been contributing authors, and at least three (it could be four) have been lead authors. The remainder are "expert reviewers.
Rather than picking out one or two names who are questionable inclusions on the list, perhaps you might more constructively spend your time refuting what the other scientists are saying.
Define "many" and then tell us how many scientists believe climate change is real and caused by human activity.
I looked at your link by the Right Wing Senator Inhofe from Oklahoma (who has compared environmentalists to Hitler)
His list of 400 scientists include "COMPUTER" scientists, economists, biologists, doctors, along with scientists who have little to NO expertise in climatology.
Inhofe's list also counts scientists who say they don't know one way or another, or are concerned there is not enough information to trust the climate models on the WORSE case scenarios yet (but should be cautious just in case) on his Global Warming hoaxers list.
Senator Inhofe does this by resorting to snippet comments outside their context to give the impression they are gw hoaxers-- just like him.
I say -- if there was any science to the global warming hoaxers -- Right Wingers like Senator Inhofe would not have to LIE and DISTORT to the degree he does.
some good links explaining common myths of the Right Wing on global warming.
#1 http://ske
#2 http://www
#3 http://www
#4 http://www
#5 http://new
#6 http://www
NAS: Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years
The basic conclusion of Mann et al. (1998,
1999) was that the late 20th century warmth in
the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented
during at least the last 1,000 years. This conclusion
has subsequently been supported by an
array of evidence that includes both additional
large-scale surface temperature reconstructions
and pronounced changes in a variety of local
proxy indicators, such as melting on icecaps and
the retreat of glaciers around the world, which in
many cases appear to be unprecedented during
at least the last 2,000 years.
http://del
Yep. The National Academy of Sciences must all follow Al Gore too, along with:
http://en.
On this topic, very recently Mann et. all published an updated reconstruction in PNAS.
http://www
Confidence now extends back to 1,300 or 1,700 years (depending on inclusion of additional proxy data) and applies globally (not just the northern hemisphere as the earlier studies covered).
J, how many scientists have left the UN's IPCC because they object to the panel's position on global warming?
Nice Try HMDMSR,
When you can't respond rationally to a criticism of your post, you re-post it where you think more people will see it.
It's a typical response of AGW alarmists.
they cut-and-paste the koolaid thereisnofear. very few will speak extemporaneously!
This is an excerpt from an NAS brief on the article under discussion. They're the ones who came up with this--not me. I don't use pure reason to come to my conclusions, and you shouldn't either. Your thoughts should be more evidence based. I have no intention to read that entire report. I'm comfortable with the decisions made by the actual scientists who wrote it--you know, the ones that doesn't support you.
1,000 is not a very long time in paleoclimatology, but it does put the lie to the anthropogenic warming hypothesis: What was doing the warming 1,000 ago? Hummers?
Also the ice data, is, well, data'ed. Here is the latest information:
http://www
There are natural cycles. No one has denied that. We have models that show the current warming is not natural. Should we do anything about that? That is a choice that is not related to science. The science is in. The question is does anyone want to do anything about it.
Do you READ your entire article, Right Brain???
Like this part:
Earlier this year, predictions were rife that the North Pole could melt entirely in 2008. Instead,
Center, tells DailyTech this was due in part to colder temperatures in the region. Chapman says wind patterns have also been weaker this year. Strong winds can slow ice formation as well as forcing ice into warmer waters where it will melt.
Why were predictions so wrong? Researchers had expected the newer sea ice, which is thinner, to be less resilient and melt easier. Instead, the thinner ice had less snow cover to insulate it from the bitterly cold air, and therefore grew much faster than expected, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.
And why is 2008 a relatively cooler year?
http://www
http://epw
See A. Siegel's Profile
What you are posting a link to also rates a 100 on the Inhofe scale as it is disinformation and deception from the Inhofe staff (Marc Morano). For understanding the level of deception, suggest looking to some discussions, such as this one with many links to people dissecting this "list" for the fraud it is: http://gre
just curious there bud but how do you respond to the fact that al gore continues to live large not practicing what he preaches others to do. and say siegel, at a guess you didn't walk or ride your bike to work today either did you?
I don't have the problem with understanding deception.
Everything must be reviewed with a healthy dose of skepticism. Inhofe shouldn't be trusted anymore than Gore. I always wonder about motivations. Follow the money. Gore has made millions off of the AGW scare. Rajendra Kumar Pachauri has been on the board of directors of Indias gas, oil companies while being director of IPCC (any of these facts can be googled). IPCC are a bunch of POLITICIANS with an agenda.
Chris Horner was a lawyer at Enron when he realized that the oil and energy companies have something to gain if they invest in "green " ideology and steer people toward that end. This would seem to be Pachauris game. Patrick Moore left Greenpeace when he realized it was no longer about the science, but a political agenda....
http://onl
IPCC has lost many of the "scientists" that it originally started with. an example..
http://www
My suspicion is that these scientists are realizing how this has become about the politics and not the science.
The typical ad hominem attack is to say that "skeptics" are funded by Big oil, but the reality is that more money is spent by the US gov, UN, pro agw side than the non AGW side. It doesn't pay to be a "skeptic".
More suspicions
AGW alarmists and MSM use James Hansen as a leader in the field. He won a million dollar award in 2007 for his "models". Have you seen any "skeptics" win that much? He has earned a lot from his lectures and comments about AGW ...
http://www
(wonder how much he got paid?)
I question his standards as a scientist and his motives when he gets nailed for fudging Data to fit his Models.
http://www
http://www
(Watts and Mcintyre are all over Hansen and his poor data keeping, Hansens been nailed at least twice)
I don't believe we should't clean up pollution, but I don't think we should spend Trillions and significantly alter the way we live for a problem that barely (if at all) exists.
Others can believe what they want. Obviously scientists would lend a lot more credence than a blogger (or worse - journalist) that has magically morphed into a "climatologist".
Sorry, folks. Until I see Al Gore living naked in a cave, somewhere (not that I'd ACTUALLY want to see that) this whole "doom and gloom" thing is coming off a little too much like "let them eat cake, while I keep toasty warm in my mansion."
KCF:
Al Gore doesn't have to become a cave man to care about the planet.
Are you a conservative -- Sounds a lot like the "if I can slime you as a hypocrite" defense, I don't have to feel any guilt about my own actions -- for anything.
" guilt " That's what the whole thing is about add Emotions to the soup and as long as the public will feel guilty about having to take a deep breath this farce will live on.
Heck with science and facts .Chicken little got hit on the head by an ALCON
We have wished, we ecofreaks, for a disaster or for a social change to come and bomb us into Stone Age, where we might live like Indians in our valley, with our localism, our appropriate technology, our gardens, our homemade religion—guilt-free at last!
—Stewart Brand (writing in the Whole Earth Catalogue)
KCF, why don't you answer is true question? Why does Al Gore get to fly around the globe in a private jet when he could easily appear via satellite? Why does Al Gore live in an energy wasting home? Having 60% or so of his energy come from a green source still doesn't mean that he should freely waste it. Given his investments in beach front properties, he can't be too worried about sea levels rising. Has it ever occurred to you that he's laughing all the way to the bank? Have you ever wondered how much money he's receiving from the Solar and Wind industries? Please quit viewing global warming as some type of sick religion and start opening your eyes to the obvious signs that this is a scam. If Gore truly believed in global warming he wouldn't have left the little ice age and the Medieval warming period off of his graph in An Inconvenient Truth. I don't think he deserved the Nobel Prize, but he did deserve the Oscar because frankly AIT was one hell of an acting job.
Why not start with this: name one single thing you right-wing nut jobs have EVER been right about? ONE. SINGLE. THING. Follow it up with this: If I'm going to bet on what's happening with the climate, I reckon I'll take the side that ALL the people who make it their life's work to study the climate are taking. Finally this: if you halfwits are wrong (as you always have been in the past), it means the complete and utter destruction of life as we know it, and the deaths of hundreds of millions of people.
Not much of a decision as far as I can tell.
Atlas -- c'mon. You are asking Right Wingers to chose between lower taxes and making the planet better/safer for future generations???
They'll vote for the lower taxes, in overwhelming numbers!!!
But they'll say stuff like: Let the market decide. Get government off our backs. Keep your hands off my money....
Are you really asking people not to try to get down to the facts, either for or against the reality of man-made climate change-- but to just accept what some scientists have found to date as absolute truth that humans are the cause? I think most self-respecting scientists would say that they are information gatherers and analyzers, but that ultimately their conclusions about man-made climate change are only hypotheses at this point. Are you really saying that all scientists ("All the people who make it their life's work to study the climate") believe this or are you saying "all the people" as in all the people who really want climate change to be the result of humans?
Must we be so arrogant, thinking that only man could alter his environment so greatly, or can we at least consider that the arguments listed in Ambler's post may be more accurate?
Your argument seems equivalent to hedging your religious bets -- surely safer to practice religion and hope to go to heaven than to be wrong, resulting in the 'complete and utter destruction" of your after-life, and the death of your soul.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
