|
|
|
|
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 1:11:49 PM | Army: Sun, Not Man, Is Causing Climate Change
By Noah Shachtman June 03, 2008 | 1 00 PMCategories: Science!
The Army is weighing in on the global warming debate, claiming that climate change is not man-made. Instead, Dr. Bruce West, with the Army Research Office, argues that "changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to ... the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles."
In an advisory to bloggers entitled "Global Warming: Fact of Fiction [sic]," an Army public affairs official promoted a conference call with West about "the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates [sic] some scientists and the media are indicating."
In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office's mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that "the Sun’s turbulent dynamics" are linked with the Earth's complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. "The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature," West noted.
It's a position that puts West at odds with nearly every major scientific organization on the planet. "The American Meteorological Society, the American Geophysical Union, and the American Association for the Advancement of Science all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling," Science magazine observes. So has the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore, for their work on global warming.
West acknowledges that the IPCC and other scientific groups have "conclude[d] that the contribution of solar variability to global warming is negligible." He argues that these groups have done a poor job modeling the Sun's impact, however, and that's why they have "significantly over-estimated" the "anthropogenic contribution to global warming."
In recent days, the science and politics of climate change have once again taken center stage. NASA's Inspector General just issued a report, acknowledging that political appointees "reduced, marginalized or mischaracterized climate change science made available to the general public." Yesterday, the Senate began debating a bill that would cap carbon dioxide emissions -- considered one of the leading causes of man-made global warming.
UPDATE: "The Army does not have a position on global warming. Dr. West is an Army chief scientist, and is presenting one alternative theory to the cause of global warming," Army spokesperson Lindy Dinklage tells Danger Room. "This research is just some amongst thousands of studies being conducted by Army Scientists across the globe."
Okay. But the Army's Office of the Chief of Public Affairs chose to promote just this one study. And when Army public affairs rolls out research from an Army chief scientist -- with no clarifications that these are just his private views -- I think it's fair to call that an official endorsement.
After the jump: the Army's full press release.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Dinklage, Lindy J. Ms OCPA
Date: Tue, Jun 3, 2008 at 12:21 PM
Subject: Army Blogger's Roundtable: Global Warming (UNCLASSIFIED)
To:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Army Blogger’s Roundtable
Global Warming: Fact of Fiction
11 AM Thursday, June 5
Is global warming really caused by humans, or is it simply the result of different aspects of the sun’s dynamics?
Dr. Bruce West, Chief Scientist, Mathematical & Information Science Directorate, Army Research Office, will discuss the causes of global warming, and how it may not be caused by the common indicates some scientists and the media are indicating. Research conducted by Dr. West contends that the changes in the earth’s average surface temperature are directly linked to two distinctly different aspects of the sun’s dynamics: the short-term statistical fluctuations in the Sun’s irradiance and the longer-term solar cycles.
Please reply to this message if you are interested in participating.
Lindy Kyzer
Public Affairs Specialist
Media Relations Division
Office of the Chief of Public Affairs
Department of the Army
703.XXXXXXXXX (w)
202.XXXXXXXXX (c)
XXXXXXXX@XXXXXX.mil
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 1:50:31 PM | What the science says...
The correlation between sun and climate ended in the 70's when the modern global warming trend began.
As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.
The correlation between solar activity and temperature
The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.
However, a crucial finding of the study was the correlation between solar activity and temperature ended around 1975. At that point, temperatures rose while solar activity stayed level. This led them to conclude "during these last 30 years the solar total irradiance, solar UV irradiance and cosmic ray flux has not shown any significant secular trend, so that at least this most recent warming episode must have another source."
You read that right. The study most quoted by skeptics actually concluded the sun can't be causing global warming. Ironically, the evidence that establishes the sun's close correlation with the Earth's temperature in the past also establishes it's blamelessness for global warming today.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 1:59:06 PM |
http://www.skepticalscience.com/solar-activity-sunspots-global-warming.htm
That web site you put on there is selling global warming...
skepticalscience
examining the skeptisim of global warming | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 3:21:26 PM | Actually I think skepticalscience is one of the best of the biased global warming web sites. It treats you with some respect and lays out the data. I disagree with some of the analysis because of ignored data but the web site at least points you to the data.
Some of the worst web sites are ones that you wouldn't expect. NASA got caught changing archived data last year, increasing historical 'measured' temperatures. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 5:03:16 PM | | Yes, nefarious, you are correct. It's sooo hard to find pro-GW websites that are totally unbiased like the anti-GW ones! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 8:48:14 PM |
The EPICA project drills ice cores in the Antarctic. Ice cores show atmospheric change, temperature, amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, among other things. Like tree rings, they are not disputed in their accuracy- they're like fingerprints. Look at this graph.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
Spikes in temperature (blue) occur 400-600 years AFTER spikes in CO2 (red).
AFTER, not before.
Which means? CO2 is NOT the culprit in warming trends. Which means the central premise of global warming is false.
What's stunning is that this blazingly simple piece of information is being suppressed, by a big money political machine that wants to keep YOU scared. George Orwell wrote in '1984' : 'Freedom is the freedom to say '2+2=4'.
More good news: whether you 'believe' in any of this GW nonsense or not is academic. Neither side disputes we're due for an ice age and we're running out of gas.
^ IMO ....you get the best post RandomRob !!
The Earth's atmosphere is complicated far far past our present ablity to predict accurately .The best method is to look to the past as the above post does.
There are so many holes in the global warming theory that it is ridiculous to empower these control freaks. Not to mention the very obvious and powerful political interests at work to govern the globe ! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 8:50:44 PM | That web site you put on there is selling global warming...
Uh huh, so I guess you're not really interested in examining criticisms of your position then. Which would be why you're not a scientist.
10 CO2 lags temperature 3.4%
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
The skeptic argument...
Joe Barton to Al Gore: "An article from Science magazine explains a rise in CO2 concentrations actually lagged temperature by 200 to 1000 years. CO2 levels went up after the temperature rose. Temperature appears to drive CO2, not vice versa." (Source: Office of Congressman Joe Barton)
What the science says...
The CO2 record confirms both the amplifying effect of atmospheric CO2 and how sensitive climate is to change.
Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.
Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise
Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).
The eccentricity cycle causes changes in insolation (incoming sunlight). When springtime insolation increases in the southern hemisphere, this coincides with rising temperatures in the south, retreating Antarctic sea ice and melting glaciers in the southern hemisphere (Shemesh 2002). As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000 years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007).
How does warming cause a rise in atmospheric CO2? As the oceans warm, the solubility of CO2 in water falls (Martin 2005). This causes the oceans to give up more CO2, emitting it into the atmosphere. The exact mechanism of how the deep ocean gives up its CO2 is not fully understood but believed to be related to vertical ocean mixing (Toggweiler 1999).
The greenhouse effect - how increased CO2 causes temperature rise
When there's more CO2 in the atmosphere, the earth absorbs more heat. Shortwave radiation from the sun passes straight through our atmosphere and is absorbed by the earth. The earth reemits it as longwave (infrared) radiation which is partially absorbed by atmospheric CO2. This is the greenhouse effect. CO2 lets energy in, doesn't let as much get out.
CO2 warming explains how the relatively weak forcing from Milankovitch cycles can bring the planet out of an ice age. It begins with the high southern latitudes (eg - Antarctica) warming and releasing CO2 from the oceans. The CO2 mixes through the atmosphere, amplifying and spreading the warming to northern latitudes (Cuffey 2001). This is why warming in the southern hemisphere precedes warming in the northern hemisphere (Caillon 2003). This is confirmed by marine cores that show tropical temperatures lag southern warming by ~1000 years (Stott 2007).
Climate sensitivity - how CO2 amplifies temperature increase
Climate sensitivity is defined as how much global temperature increase if we doubled CO2. Studies of past CO2 and temperature records have helped quantify how sensitive our climate is to changes in CO2.
Temperature and various forcings (including CO2) over the past few centuries shows a climate sensitivity between 1.5 to 6.2°C (Hegerl 2006). One study combines the results from various paleontological studies to narrow climate sensitivity to around 2.5 to 3.5°C (Annan 2006). Basically, multiple studies covering many different periods of earth's history confirm that when CO2 is doubled, global temperatures go up around 3°C.
So what does the CO2 lag tell us? The behaviour of CO2 in the past confirms the amplifying effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. Sharp temperature rises in the past indicate how sensitive climate is to change. Our past history shows how our climate is prone to "tipping points" where warming can lead to positive feedbacks sparking a warming effect.
You'll notice that if you go to the webpage, it has links to peer reviewed scientific journals, providing evidence for exactly what they're saying. Ho hum, another argument that doesn't hold water. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:09:33 PM | I believe the establi$hment has come up with a very powerful method towards global poltical control with the "global warming" agenda . ....
The reason it's so powerful is that lefties are deperate for a cause and a purpose . True evil is shrouded in the vail of doing good . Who can argue that a clean planet is not a very good cause ?
Tricky buggers!
With all of the lefty liberal agendas having been rtried and put into practise.... only to have become warn out and to be shpwn to be dismal social failures , and leftied being in a spirtiual vacuum without a religion or much of a purpose ....
.....the lefties have latched onto the religion of "environmentalism"
As many of the less "g.w." adherents can testify to ...
It's difficult to argue away a desperate soul's religion ! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:16:20 PM | The only thing that does not hold water is the debate. There is none, it is the same trick of the shell and pea game you can change the shell move the pea or remove it.
The proof is documented and even if you don't believe (like it makes a difference) why would you trust the mainstream media after they with-held known truths for so long? The conflicts of interest are always there with the true fact searching missions.
If there is a conflict of interest or if the party has a questionable integrity look for documentation, question it and debate it. If you can not debate your way out of proven facts you have sold out and you are nothing more than a sheep turn sheepdog for the ruin of mankind.
Here are some facts with documentation that you can try to debate but I bet you call people names and change the topic. TYPICAL misdirection trick.
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Climate_Change/Science/Skeptics.asp
The debate is over about whether or not climate change is real. Irrefutable evidence from around the world - including extreme weather events, record temperatures, retreating glaciers, and rising sea levels - all point to the fact climate change is happening now and at rates much faster than previously thought.
The overwhelming majority of scientists that study climate change agree that human activity is responsible for changing the climate. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is one of the largest bodies of international scientists ever assembled to study a scientific issue, comprised of more than 2,000 scientists from 100 countries. The IPCC has concluded that most of the warming observed during the past 50 years is attributable to human activities. Its findings have been publicly endorsed by the national academies of science of all G-8 countries, as well as those of China, India and Brazil. The Royal Society of Canada – together with the national academies of fifteen other nations – also issued a joint statement on climate change that stated, in part: "The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change."
Who are the climate change skeptics?
Despite the international scientific community’s consensus on climate change, a very small band of critics continues to deny that climate change exists or that humans are causing it. Widely known as climate change “skeptics” or "deniers", these individuals are generally not climate scientists and do not debate the science with the climate scientists directly – for example, by publishing in peer-reviewed scientific journals or participating in international conferences on climate science. Instead, they focus their attention on the media, the general public, and policy makers with the goal of delaying action on climate change.
Not surprisingly, the skeptics have received significant funding from coal and oil companies, including ExxonMobil. They also have well-documented connections with public relations firms that have set up industry-funded lobby groups to - in the words of one leaked memo - "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)."
http://www.motherjones.com/news/featurex/2005/05/exxon_chart.html
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_Council_on_the_Environment
(November 2007)
The Information Council on the Environment (ICE), was a U.S. organization created by the National Coal Association, the Western Fuels Association, and Edison Electrical Institute. ICE launched a $500,000 advertising and public relations campaign to, in ICE's words, "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling [1] and Sherwood B. Idso all lent their names in 1991 to its scientific advisory panel.
Its publicity plan called for placing these three scientists, along with fellow greenhouse skeptic S. Fred Singer, in broadcast appearances, op-ed pages, and newspaper interviews. Bracy Williams & Co., a Washington D.C.-based PR firm, did the advance publicity work for the interviews. Another company was contracted to conduct opinion polls, which identified "older, less-educated males from larger households who are not typically active information-seekers" and "younger, lower-income women" as "good targets for radio advertisements" that would "directly attack the proponents of global warming . . . through comparison of global warming to historical or mythical instances of gloom and doom."
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/exxon-secrets
ExxonSecrets is a Greenpeace research project highlighting the more than a decade-long campaign by Exxon-funded front groups - and the scientists they work with - to deny the urgency of the scientific consensus on global warming and delay action to fix the problem. For more information see our FAQ.
The database compiles Exxon Foundation and corporate funding to a series of institutions who have worked to undermine solutions to global warming and climate change. It details the working relationships of individuals associated with these organizations and their global warming quotes and deeds. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:32:54 PM |
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
Bahahahaha !
OMG.....8 million $ is absolute peanuts !
It's a pro - g.w. strategy to feign opposition and to try to discredit legitmate science as "oil company funded propaganda"
8 million $ ???? ......
If it were 100's of millions or maybe billions , then you might have made a point.
Also , if global warming is just a power grab (which it is) , you would expect oil companies to rightfully dispute it and fund opposition .....correct??
If the largest corporation in the world was not onbaord with the "global warming" agenda......you would see "skepticism" that would be pre-dominant and all encopassing in the media and in governments ....so that this ridiculous g.w. internationalist power grab would have fizzled out long ago!
Wake the heck up!!...
The Rockefeller OIL COMPANY mega- money foundation (al bore) is very much promoting global warming! | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 9:48:11 PM | | Fortunately, the ones who make policy in US government are finally getting on board with the very real problems climate change poses. Same goes for either incoming administration as well. This internet debate with the "ignorance is bliss" crowd makes for an engaging pasttime, though. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 10:23:02 PM |
Fortunately, the ones who make policy in US government are finally getting on board with the very real problems climate change poses. Same goes for either incoming administration as well. This internet debate with the "ignorance is bliss" crowd makes for an engaging pasttime, though.
Yes , ignorance abounds , although , I often don't find it "engaging."
Of course the US government is "getting on board" ....Do you actually think there's any real difference between political parties ?
It is "good cop- bad cop"
The phoney former lefties come opportunist neo-cons get their war(s?) and the true conservatives very unfairly get the blame for an evil war, then the left comes in and "does good" and "saves the planet" Tricky buggers !
It's all part of the plan. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 10:42:35 PM |
ExxonMobil has pumped more than $8 million into more than 40 think tanks; media outlets; and consumer, religious, and even civil rights groups that preach skepticism about the oncoming climate catastrophe. Herewith, a representative overview.
It's a drop in the bucket compared to this:
Al Gore just started a 300 million dollar PR campaign to convince everybody.
When was the last time you saw 300 million bucks being spent to promote a scientific hypothesis that was already proven?
I wonder where that money is coming from?
What's his agenda?
Could it be that money making carbon tax?
And that's just his personal agenda... I wonder how much more is being spent by others with a similar agenda. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 10:48:03 PM | | Uh huh, so now that all the shoddy science arguments by global denialists have been shot down, were back to conspiracy theories and besmirching Al Gore. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 11:10:25 PM | No need to besmirch Al... he's good at that all on his own. Why his own "carbon footprint" on this planet is about 1000 times my own.
Nope, just comparing $8 million spent by so called "deniers" to Big Al all on his own spending $300 million.
Funny, I don't remember this being refuted
Polar scientists on thin ice
Last summer, Dr. Wingham and three colleagues published an article in the journal of the Royal Society that casts further doubt on the notion that global warming is adversely affecting Antarctica. By studying satellite data from 1992 to 2003 that surveyed 85% of the East Antarctic ice sheet and 51% of the West Antarctic ice sheet (72% of the ice sheet covering the entire land mass), they discovered that the Antarctic ice sheet is growing at the rate of 5 millimetres per year (plus or minus 1 mm per year). That makes Antarctica a sink, not a source, of ocean water. According to their best estimates, Antarctica will "lower [authors' italics] global sea levels by 0.08 mm" per year.
If these findings are validated in future by CryoSat-2 and other developments that are able to assess the 28% of Antarctica not yet surveyed, the low-lying areas of the world will have weathered the worst of the global warming predictions: The populations of these areas -- in Bangladesh, in the Maldives, and elsewhere -- will have found that, if anything, they can look forward to a future with more nutrient-rich seacoast, not less.
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=b228f4b0-a869-4f85-ba08-902b95c45dcf&k=0
You'll notice that if you go to the webpage, it has links to peer reviewed scientific journals, providing evidence for exactly what they're saying. Ho hum. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 11:18:09 PM | Al Gore still hasn't accepted a challenge to debate Global warming, issued to him, from the Founder of the Weather channel.
If the evidence was so sound and proven as the GW advocates here believe. Then there should be no reason for him to duck the debate.
I would think that he would take this chance to smack down the Founder of the Weather channel with all the mounds of evidence that the GW loving posters on here constantly quote.
He chooses not to. WHY?
Cause even he knows it's all a bunch of BS.
 | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 11:28:36 PM | He chooses not to. WHY?
Because believe it or not scientific fact isn't established by rhetorical skills. Reality sadly enough isn't a democracy.
Funny, I don't remember this being refuted
It's a complete red herring. What does how Al Gore decides to spend money on have to do with the reality of global warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm
Antarctica is cooling/gaining ice
The skeptic argument...The amount of ice surrounding Antarctica is now at the highest level ever measured for this time of the year, since satellites first began to monitor it almost 30 years ago. All of the IPCC’s models of Antarctica in the twenty-first century forecast a gain in ice, as a warmer surrounding ocean evaporates more water, which subsequently falls in the form of snow when it hits the continent. Other studies, such as Peter Doran’s in Nature in 2003, show actual cooling in recent decades. It’s simply too cold for rain in Antarctica, and it’ll stay that way for a very long time. The bottom line is that there is more ice than ever surrounding Antarctica (source: Patrick Michaels).
What the science says...
Antarctic cooling is a uniquely regional phenomenon. In fact, the case of Antartica cooling is a great case study on how the media and global warming skeptics seize upon a study and interpret it inappropriately. The original study observed regional cooling in east Antarctica. The hole in the ozone layer above the South Pole causes cooling in the stratosphere. This increased circular winds around the continent preventing warmer air from reaching east Antarctica and the Antarctic plateau. The flip side of this is the Antarctic Peninsula has "experienced some of the fastest warming on Earth, nearly 3°C over the last half-century".
While East Antartica is gaining ice due to increased precipitation, Antartica is overall losing ice. This is mostly due to melting in West Antarctica which recently featured the largest melting observed by satellites in the last 30 years. As well as melting, Antartic glaciers are accelerating further adding to sea level rise.
| |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/4/2008 11:46:04 PM |
Nope, just comparing $8 million spent by so called "deniers" to Big Al all on his own spending $300 million.
8 million bucks !!!
Now there's a real war chest ... hey?
What would that buy ? a few full pages in the NY times ? maybe a few t.v commercials?
Ads in the classified section of newspapers like the work at home get rich ads across the nation?? ...
Then.... it's all used up ? LOL
I'll bet that it was often the case that exxon did not even directly fund anti-global warming science specifically , it was that exxon just gave some money to a few groups who happened to have the integrity to have done or reported legitimately skeptical research ??
This is being considered by some nit-wits to be the public disinformation push from a corporation that has revenues that dwarf most countries entire gross national product?? That has to be a friggin' joke!
If it weren't so annoying when GW preachers spew this "big oil company influence on science" garbage, it would freakin' hilarious !
| |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:07:33 AM | | Well, I guess distortions and faulty science comes cheap, while education costs a fortune. And big oil doesn't influence science per se-- it just likes to give "incentive" to certain easily influenced scientists like S. Fred Singer and political groups with similar interests like the American Enterprise Institute. Check out Singer-- his "research" showed that CFC's didn't erode the ozone layer, secondhand smoke doesn't do damage, and GW is natural and even beneficial! I don't think all the money went solely to all that research, either. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 12:18:07 AM |
Well, I guess distortions and faulty science comes cheap, while education costs a fortune. And big oil doesn't influence science per se-- it just likes to give "incentive" to certain easily influenced scientists like S. Fred Singer and political groups with similar interests like the American Enterprise Institute. Check out Singer-- his "research" showed that CFC's didn't erode the ozone layer, secondhand smoke doesn't do damage, and GW is natural and even beneficial! I don't think all the money went solely to all that research, either
Yeah , apparently "distortions" do come cheap . LOL !!!
And Exxon isn't very bright either , they really blew by supporting those crazy fringe groups that you sited .
That Exxon corporation is run by a bunch of dummies when it comes to p.r. and political influence ....
But , I guess those evil buggers did their best and tried to skew science and to influence public opinion and they lost fair and square...... to al gore .
That must be it .
 | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:06:04 AM | "War for oil" and "global warming opposition" all in the same mind ?....Yikes!!
You know ,
It boggles the mind that there are so many lefties that can somehow actually hold the belief that oil companies used their clout to cajoule the U.S. into a disasterous , mutli- trillion dollar
" war for oil" and at the same time believe that Exxon et al are seriously opposed to the "global warming" international power grab ...... that the best the oil companies could do in thier opposition to g.w. was so pathetic and so very apparent that the left picked up on it and won the p.r. battle ?
This absurd notion proves that lefties often don't think rationally on even the most basic level.
But , that's nothing new.
Rational people already knew that from the oh so many other examples of lefty insanity.
Of course , many common sense and rational thinkers also feel that the establi$hments plan for using the easily manipulated and dim-witted left is very well thought out.
| |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 10:32:58 AM |
What the science says...
Funny, I didn't notice the "science" references at the site you mention. There are no peer reviewed studies quoted there whereas the article I quoted certainly does.
It's amazing that anything that might contradict the "consensus" is derided as "local" or "regional" phenomenon. Or completely ignored.
The simple fact is that the IPCC has been caught so many times changing facts in their "reports" that it makes one wonder just why they need to do this, if the facts are indeed enough to actually predict "global climate change".
I guess it's OK to slam big oil for spending $8million on some studies... but not $300 million being spent by big Al on propaganda? Gee, wouldn't that $300 million be better spent helping save the Maldive Islands from drowning, or is it more important to big Al to scream in the headlines "the sky is falling"?
If Mr. Gore is indeed concerned by Co2 problems why does he not fix his own "carbon footprint" first? Instead of telling everyone else to do so first? | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/5/2008 1:15:59 PM | I edited out the opinions from this editorial on the Carbon Tax which is going to royally screw anybody who doesn't earn a hollywood salary.
Liberal Democrats and "green" Republicans are proposing a massive reorganization of the American economy to fight so-called global warming. Worse yet, proponents of this bill are attempting to sell this eco-socialism as a "market-based" policy, and their allies in the national media are going along with the charade.
For decades now, the media have shoved down our throats the idea that Planet Earth is in grave peril of catastrophic global warming. Now that Washington's elites feel confident that everyone from McCain to Obama agrees that doom is imminent, it's time to push something they call "cap and trade." Put an emphasis on the "cap." That means that the federal government is aspiring to dictate for every individual and business in America the absolutely perfect level of carbon-dioxide emissions. Once the government mandates how much emission will be allowed, then it will allow the public to "trade" on the rights that remain.
The media will sell this bill as an important solution that absolutely everyone who considers himself a responsible citizen will support. Virtually absent from the discussion will be the cost, both financial and in the loss of freedom.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) says Lieberman-Warner would effectively raise taxes on Americans by more than $1 trillion over the next 10 years.
Making assumptions that are not at all guaranteed (like a 150 percent increase in nuclear-power generation by 2050), the Environmental Protection Agency concluded that the Lieberman-Warner bill would result in annual reductions of U.S. gross domestic product ranging from $238 billion to $983 billion in 2030, and from roughly $1 trillion to more than $2.8 trillion in 2050.
If created, how much will this massive government bureaucracy reduce the average global temperature?
Climatologist Patrick Michaels thinks it would have virtually no effect on the climate, an additional 0.013 degrees (Celsius) of "prevented" warming. That's another little bitty fact that will never see the light of day on most press reports. Instead what we'll get is the usual hot air, except this time it has the price tag of 660 hurricanes.
L. Brent Bozell III is the president of the Media Research Center. To find out more about Brent Bozell III, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
COPYRIGHT 2008 CREATORS SYNDICATE INC. | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/10/2008 12:29:17 AM |
Good to see you back wvwaterfall are you in the business of global warming activism yet? It's going to be very profitable.
Profit is not very high on my priority list. I had an environmental policy job that included, I thought, keeping the political leaders here up to speed on the latest developments in climate change science. But doing that in a state heavily dependent on coal and coal-fired electricity production proved hazardous to my job security. So it goes.
I'm content for now to make my income in ways more appreciated by the people I work for. We'll be a better state when we finally wean ourselves from our dependence on the fossil fuel industry. Until then I'll do what good I can however I can, whether a paycheck is associated or not.
It's really heartwarming to read that people are willing to stop Ad Hominem attacks and stop insulting those who disagree with them. Can't we respect each others intelligence?
I've never had success influencing anyone by insults or disrespect. If you dig deep enough we all have core values in common. Building on what we have in common makes far more sense to me than an eternal struggle to beat down the 'bad guys' we may disagree with on a particular issue.
I have a scientific background and I look at the data and can come up with conclusions based on facts. I don't need someone to tell me what to think because I can think for myself.
See, there's something we both have in common. We don't like someone telling us what to think. Having a scientific background helps a great deal when it comes to understanding the scientific process. You know then how the peer review process works. Like democracy, it isn't perfect, but it's the best system we've come up with so far.
You've applied your scientific background to look at enough climate change data to reach a conclusion that diverges from that of the climate science community. That's certainly your right. As one who also thinks for myself it's my right to decide whether to put faith in your conclusions or those of dedicated climate professionals who have spent years doing research and defending their conclusions through the vigorous review the peer-review process entails.
I'm not a scientist. I'm also not a lawyer, doctor, or auto mechanic. But in each case I've had to make choices as to who among those professionals to put my trust in, and in general I trust the specialists to know the most about their specialties compared to those in the same general profession with different specialties. All get weighed against my logical and intuitive sense of who is sincerely trying to do good work vs. those with other motives. I assume you do the same thing. We just have reached different conclusions.
Trying to keep the Earth changeless is ridiculous.
Agreed. But at least in my view, trying to minimize any negative impacts humans have on the planet is essential to our continued quality of life, not to mention the quality of life all the other species now depend on us to provide since our recent emergence as the dominant species on the planet. Change has always happened and will continue to do so. Environmental change caused by human activity has time and again proven to have unintended negative consequences. No matter what we do we'll have an impact. I just think it's well worth the effort to understand and manage those impacts as completely and beneficially as we can.
I realize that some people can't think independently and need to rely on 'experts'.
I certainly agree that many people prefer to avoid independent thought in many aspects of their lives. I would assert, however, that in today's increasingly complex and interdependent society we all need to rely on experts to help us in our decision making. It just isn't physically possible for one person to make everything they own, do all their own research to support every choice they make.
I'm assuming you didn't produce all the data yourself that you analyzed on climate change to reach your conclusions. Or build and program the instruments to collect it. I'm pretty confident you haven't produced peer reviewed papers supporting your conclusions. Nor have I. But we've both looked closely enough at the information we can find to reach conclusions we feel confident in.
What I think is the Global Warming is over-hyped and is seriously going to hurt those who are living in poverty. A new tax just for living is going to be built in to everything we buy, but not the developing countries. Just the foolish guilt ridden western democracies.
I'm unfamiliar with the 'tax just for living' you refer to. There has been some talk of a carbon tax, but the momentum right now favors a cap and trade system that will incentivize businesses who produce less greenhouse gasses than their peers. That means buying an energy efficient appliance will cost LESS than it might otherwise, AND we'll spend less on the energy needed to use it. This hurts us how?
Certainly those living in poverty will suffer. They are always the first affected by any change. Including strategies for developing countries is a major discussion point in current climate change policy discussions, and certainly a weakness in the soon-to-be-replaced Kyoto protocol, an agreement always intended to start us down the climate policy path, not provide the ultimate solution.
I'm not going to argue with you point for point on the relationship between CO2 and global warming, or any other specific details of the climate change argument. If you really want to find the data and arguments to support the conclusions of the climate change community over your own theories it doesn't take much google time to do so.
Like you, I've done enough research on the topic to make up my own mind. In my case that's about fifteen years of tracking the latest conclusions of thousands of climate scientists. I've seen confidence in the role humans play in climate change steadily grow, skeptic arguments consistently refuted. I've seen long term projections consistently nudged toward the more dire as observed outcomes continue to outpace predictions.
I respect your right to disagree, but we do certainly disagree.
Dave | |
|
| Global Warming's New 'Consensus'
Posted: 6/10/2008 2:45:04 AM | http://www.washtimes.com/news/2008/jun/10/opinion-distortions-in-the-name-of-a-noble-cause/
OPINION: Distortions in the name of a noble cause
Environmentalists and media subvert the facts
Alan Nathan
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The cost of oil is high because our knowledge of how to combat it is low. The media has blossomed into the greatest enabler of this collective shortcoming.
Yes, behemoths like Exxon/Mobil, Shell, and Texaco are to blame when bemoaning our corrosive energy prices. However, we are forgetting about the environmentalists' role and their strange, bedfellow alliance with the very nemesis they castigate - oil companies. By blocking refineries from getting built, environmentalists increase the value of oil: They render oil less accessible. Oddly enough, they provide petroleum giants with the very scapegoat necessary to validate their high profits - an easy reference to the "laws of supply and demand."
We must separate the legitimate environmentalists from the illegitimate ones. The former caution us not to blindly side with economic growth at the cost of harming our planet's treasure; they beseech us to find a balance. The latter camouflage a socialist agenda behind the cause of environmentalism in order to reduce individual prosperity and thus weaken the resistance to socialism. (The more socialists are confronted by a financially self-reliant population, the less attractive becomes their proposal for citizens to surrender independence in exchange for authoritarian protection.) Accordingly, the activists-in-disguise create a frustrating paradox. While big oil fights environmentalists over drilling - for example, ANWAR and off-shore options - they have little incentive to fight them over refineries. These crippling prices are caused less by supply and demand than they are by available supply and demand - which has nothing to do with healthy capitalism because said availability is fictionally portrayed.
As a result, these cost manipulations are cultivated by bad-faith advocates who wind up squeezing the very little guys they purport to champion.
Pressured by these anti-business zealots masquerading their collectivist agenda behind the more socially-palatable cause of saving the earth, federal and state legislatures have imposed upon oil companies the most intellectually barren regulatory formulas imaginable. Thanks to excessively officious barriers, energy conglomerates enjoy political cover for not having created another refinery since 1976 - while delighting in the higher profits generated by the absence of those refineries.
Most colorfully emblematic of this strangeness is Arizona Clean Fuels Yuma, the first planned refinery in 32 years. Though initiated in 1998, their refinery application will not be a physical reality until 2011. It is amazing that the project still lives - given the opponents' vapid but dour predictions of violated ozone standards, a circuitous permit-system lasting longer than most marriages and the comfort needs of a Flat-Tailed Horned Lizard that generates the kind of sympathetic anguish normally reserved for hurricane victims (who are then told they have cancer).
Consequently, the bad-faith environmentalists have become to big oil what De Beers has been to the diamond industry for years - an excuse to charge more money by falsely giving the perception of reduced inventories. Strangely, we have a 10-year high of oil reserves getting blocked from a more unfettered market-reach because these abridged thinkers believe that oil consumption must be eviscerated even at the cost of harming everyday consumers. Their movement trades on the high cost of oil as an incentive to go for alternative fuels; they prevent us from having more affordable fuels as we pursue those alternatives. Why make the transition so avoidably punishing? This would all be less dangerous if we could have a more objective presentation of facts driving the energy debate in this country.
But how can this happen when we are at the mercy of media leaders like Time magazine Managing Editor Richard Stengel? While speaking against global-warming at the University of Mississippi, he said, "This notion that journalism is objective - or must be objective - is something that has always bothered me," according to Business and Media Institute. Mr. Stengel's posture on journalism was ironically undercut a month later (in May) by his top columnist, Joe Klein. He chastized CNN's Lou Dobbs for his take on illegal immigration; Mr. Klein argued that the anchor had failed to meet the standards of "a network that makes a real effort to separate truth from falsehood and represents all sides of the political debate [AKA, objectivity]."
Mr. Klein's outrage was predicated on a foundation already rejected by his boss. For editors like Mr. Stengel, reporters may no longer present facts in their self-evident form, but rather must shape them in a fashion that better facilitates one worldview over another. Apparently, in the name of a noble cause, it is now acceptable to trample on far nobler principles. | |
|
|
| Page 4 of 6
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 |
|
Home
login 
