Resisting the War on Science

It is so tempting to sound authoritarian on such a “heated” topic — and not difficult to arouse people on something which will be unproved in our lifetimes.

One of the advantages of growing old is being able to remember so many terrible disasters which never came to be.

• It was either TIME or NEWSWEEK which in 1950 (or there abouts) predicted that by 2000 the “Population Explosion” would have us all standing shoulder to shoulder.

• The Soviet Union and the U.S. would unite to fight off the hoards of Chinese military as they launched a move to take over the world. (Less messy to do it economically.)

Certainly this is an issue which should be looked into, but Al — more heat & light than anyone needs — Gore aside, the scientific community, wherever and whoever they may be, is anything but unanimous on IF this is a problem and if so, WHAT or WHO is the cause.

Google on global warming dissent for a wide variety of views. Here’s just one which I picked due to the common point involving censorship. The censorship issue is a more urgent problem than the scientific one.

-----------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml

Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
By Robert Matthews, Last Updated: 2:08am BST 01/05/2005

Two of the world’s leading scientific journals have come under fire from researchers for refusing to publish papers which challenge fashionable wisdom over global warming.

WTH, another great posting ! Science has been wrong many times and is not immune to fashionable cultural-intellectual trends as the current
global warming hysteria indicates. There was the forthcoming Ice Age
of 1975 lore. Al Gore is a big phony and thank god he never got elected.
With Zionist neocon Lieby, they would have gotten us into the same wars but domestically they would never have cut taxes. So we’d be worse off.

WTH,

Climate change can happen very quickly once it has hit a tipping point and this one probably will be within our lifetime. Past flips from glacial periods to interglacial has happened in a few decades and the current warming is unprecedented as to any known geologic record. The main argument today is whether what we are experiencing is man-made or a natural cycle. By FAR, most climate scientists consider it man-made and among them there are various scenarios of what they expect in the future. Some feel warming is happening very fast and that climate changes will occur in a madcap way. Others feel the warming will continue to be gradual. Others think that the Earth will indeed flip into a glacial period as a response to this quick warming period. That’s BM’s 1975 ice age theory, it’s still around and not as he tried to portrait it, it wasn’t some consensual theory back then. It never had the massive consensus that global warming has today. Yet, it still has merit, as a quick flip, the Earth trying to re-balance itself.

Many climatologists believe the Earth has already reached a tipping point or soon will. The problem is trying to understand what this warming will provoke or elicit. For instance, vast stretches of Siberia are thawing, exposing long frozen peat bogs that release methane. Methane unlike carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that has a shorter lifespan in the atmosphere, but as the Earth has been warming more methane has been added at the same time that carbon dioxide continues to be added, a sort of double attack that didn’t exist even a few decades ago.

There is the Atlantic conveyor, warm water that circulates from the south moving north along the North American coast until near Greenland it sinks, circulates east and then back south. There is a theory that this conveyor will be shut down by melting from the Arctic and Greenland. The theory has it that if the conveyor does shut down than the Northern hemisphere will begin to cool again. This may lead to that flip back to an ice age.

There is a sort of competing theory that it is the Equatorial belt that drives warming and cooling. That as the Earth continues to warm that prevailing winds will change and put places like the South American tropical rain forest in danger of less rainfall and the possibility of drying it out producing conditions that make them more fire prone. Tropical rain forests have a tough time in drought conditions. Another consideration is that changes could occur in the timing of the monsoons (this is already probably happening) and that the Saharan Desert actually could become wetter.

I could go into so much more, but the worry is that places all over the world will have different regional adjustments for the people that live there. India for instance so dependent on a reliable monsoon season could be devastated if it changes (less rain or shorter season). In America if the desert Southwest increases desertification (which is currently happening) smacking against its’ increasing population, places like Phoenix and Las Vegas in just a couple of decades may have to go through some major depopulation. Already the Midwest has had a lowering of it’s aquifier partially due to corporate farming practices and partially due to mild droughts.

At any rate, only a few climatologist have some set-in-stone dire predictions, most are merely collecting data that points to possibilities. Most are raising their eyebrows at what the data is pointing to, and wondering what the future will be. They worry, but they don’t scream about it, but they do want a public airing of the possibilities, as do I.

Jon B,

Well, we’re in agreement that this should be addressed by scientists.  Obviously you have been interested enough to read a good deal of the competing theories. (more than I have) I have read about most of what you point out here, but have read nearly as much (non-media hyped—more scientific) in opposition to the urgent arguments as in favor.

I am consistently skeptical of nearly everything which gets the kind of media attention this has. I suggest that some of your comments are media influenced, for example:

• “By FAR, most climate scientists consider it man-made...”

How many climatologists are there in the world?  What are the percentages as believers, disbelievers and merely interested?  Real data — not an AP/UP or other news assertions.

• “It never had the massive consensus that global warming has today.”
How can we accurately compare 1975 reporting with 24/7 reporting of 2007?  Every sex crime with a pretty girl involved gets global coverage on a soap opera’s schedule. We hear what happens in the most remote corners of the world whether we are interested or not.

Consensus is built on repetition: pro-war or anti-war, Barack Obama/Hillary, good economy/bad economy. We are a nation obsessed with polling and speed, not accuracy.

There is always an abundance of “expert” testimony on distant events. You get as much pay and attention for being wrong as for being right. Ask people about this afternoon and they will hedge their comments.

What really bugs me is the attention and calls for spending on this questionable issue and the avoidance of those things which to many of us are happening, we anticipate very soon or worry about for our kids.

Global warming takes a back seat for me compared to lowering of job quality, the Social Security/Medicare shortfall, the millions of people with no health insurance, the cost and quality of education, the influence of lobbyists on legislation…

Global warning is a godsend to politicians everywhere.

WTH,

When I say “by far” that’s from books I’ve read on the subject. It’s like 80%. Climate scientists number in the mid 100s. I don’t have the actual stats on me, and don’t really want to spend the time searching the net right now (maybe later), but I’m not far off. When I speak of consensus, it has nothing to do with the media, that’s from the scientific community.

You know how it works. One person (or team) who is concentrating on a specific aspect will eventually propose a theory. It then goes through a debate within the scientific community undergoing plenty of criticism because any new idea usually will compete with a prior theory and old theorists don’t go quietly into the night, even against overwhelming evidence. The media does pick up on the debate, they read science journals for stories.

Very few science ideas and theories have 100% consensus. Some opposition to any idea base it on personal opinion or an agenda. Look at creation science, there are “scientists” who still claim bones were put there by God to fool us. Much of even the plausible creation science is filtered to agree with a Biblical Genesis.

And an agenda is what the accusations are in regards to global warming. As the article pointed out, it seems convincing that opposition to man-made global warming really comes from the fossil fuel industries who hire scientists to fix the theory to their agenda. And from the deniers of global warming comes accusations that the agenda from the other side is simply an attack on the fossil fuel industries.

But to me I look at Occam’s Razor, you know “the simplest solution...” Considering the impact of the industrial revolution on the atmosphere and what if we could somehow erase all that. It’s visually obvious that we affect the air, just look at major cities all across the world and the choking smog. A few months back I saw some show that was highlighting the longest burning tire fire. It was in California and lasted more than a year. Back when I saw it I had Googled tire fire and found that tire fires are not uncommon.

Consider whether Mother Nature has ever assembled the numerous chemicals that go into making a tire, then collect up millions of them, throw them into a huge pile and wait for lightning to strike or some stupid arsonists (both causes of tire fires) to come along to burn it.

When has Mother Nature assembled Earth-locked coals, gas, minerals, etc. and then set them on fire and do that in a relatively short period of time? But I’m not against the thought that global warming is in a natural cycle as the deniers will explain, but then I think about tire fires and coal plants and cars and, and, and, realize that it’s more than likely we are adding a wrinkle to the natural cycle that Mother Nature never did.

...Continued.

You worry more about jobs? Well global warming will affect jobs, social security, health insurance, education costs, etc. It won’t occur in a vacuum. Look at the heat wave that hit Europe in 2003 blamed on global warming. It caused a health crisis which of course affects the economy. If our Midwest were to suffer long term drought conditions, that won’t affect people in all sorts of ways? If California were to climatically change enough to only have one growing season, that wouldn’t have an impact?

Look at the Gulf Coast , Florida and New Orleans. If the increase of hurricanes in last few years is due to global warming (and I do understand that there is a good argument that they are cyclical), but if it was global warming, there was a huge impact economically and directly to people, death and injuries. After the Florida four even a year later people were sleeping in their cars due to a lack of housing in some areas.

The oceans could indeed rise very quickly. There are several ice shelves that scientists are beginning to wonder whether they will slide off within a decade or two. This wasn’t even indicated just a decade back. And as we saw in Inconvenient Truth, the coasts will very much be affected. A persons job doesn’t exist if the business is under water.

The problem with the Gore movie is that too much is made on the messenger rather than the information, he should have collaborated with a Republican. Yes, some of the predictions could be more dire than what will happen, but on the other hand do we sit back and test the theories until proven correct? We can make some changes that really aren’t that much of a hardship. Coal plants can indeed clean up their act, but they fight it tooth and nail.

There are plenty of changes we could make that really doesn’t affect all the things you worry about. When we changed from a rural to an industrial age, people had to adapt. Then adaption occurred again as industries changed. We had to adapt to a new information age and we should not fear adapting to a cleaner industrial age. We do what we have to do when change comes, people always have. There is fear mongering coming from both sides, fear of change, fear if no change, and that’s not making decisions based on clear thinking.

Let’s see, it’s been hot in the summer and cold in the winter --......ummmm, must be global warming. scientists are no more immune from herd thinking than anyone and considering that most of it has been government funded or financed they are probably more vulnerable to peer approval and conformist logic than most groups. I personally am not losing any sleep over this, do not expect tsunamies to wipe out SF or NYC or DC or London and if it does, well, worse things could happen.  There’s a lot of $ to be made on Greenland real estate once those caps melt. Was reading there are real lands there, not just water.
The prevalent consensus could just as easily be based on opinion and an agenda as the dissent.

Maybe so, but dig this…

Has Al Gore’s CO2 Theory Fizzled Out? (part one)

A Crimes of the State Investigation
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/

If you track the popular Internet videos, you may have come across a British TV production called The Great Global Warming Swindle (Google Video). I do not wish to defend the propaganda, the personalities, or the several straw man arguments that appear in this lengthy program.

All I want to focus on is the science.

This is a study of some global warming dissenters in the climate field.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Truth is also explored, in particular Gore’s central claim, the theory of manmade global warming as a result of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere:

“The relationship is very complicated, 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.” --Al Gore, An Inconvenient Truth

This quote is presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle at around 20 minutes in, and then it is mercilessly shredded by the climate scientists.

According to Al Gore’s theory, increased levels of carbon dioxide CAUSE an increase in global temperature. But, interestingly enough, Al Gore does not prove this in his film. Far from it. The very real possibility that increases in temperature cause an increase in carbon dioxide levels (and not vice-versa) is never addressed. Al Gore has short-changed humanity in this most glaring omission: establishing causation.

So, which is it?

Does a rise in carbon dioxide cause a rise in the temperature?
OR, does a rise in the temperature cause a rise in carbon dioxide?

This is no small question. The entire global economy is being reengineered on the assumption that the first scenario is true. But is it really?

What About 800 Years of Lag?

The big counter-argument to Gore is made by Professor Ian Clark, Dept. of Earth Sciences at the University of Ottawa. Clark says that the ice core record shows that changes in atomospheric carbon levels come after the temperature has already changed, in one example by as much as 800 years.

“CO2 clearly cannot be causing temperature changes. It’s a product of temperature. It’s following temperature changes.” --Professor Ian Clark

This is highly significant, if true, as it completely disproves Al Gore’s theory of manmade global warming. This view is seconded by Professor Tim Ball, a Climatologist at the University of Winnipeg:

“But the ice core record shows exactly the opposite. So the fundamental assumption, the most fundamental assumption of the whole theory of climate change—due to humans—is shown to be wrong.” --(emphasis in original) Professor Tim Ball, Dept. of Climatology, University of Winnipeg

Is There a Better Alternative Theory?

The film presents an alternate theory that better matches the data: Changes in sun activity cause changes in global temperature.

Other scientists who study sunspots, which are actually gigantic storms and indicate more solar activity, present their case.

The data record of changes in solar activity can be corroborated by multiple data sources. The conclusion of the film is that this record proves that sun activity correlates to global temperature far better than CO2 levels do.

This is a simplified, scaled-down summary of the claims made by the two camps.Further investigation will be needed.

Continues.

Enter The Politics

If the CO2 theory is completely wrong, and the effects of human CO2 emissions are negligible, and therefore do not affect temperature in any measurable way, then the political side of this argument must be examined in detail.

The global economy includes numerous energy sectors (oil, coal, nuclear, ethanol, as well as clean alternatives), farm and agriculture (biofuels), international trade and agreements, and even proposed new industries that allow “trading” of newly defined “caps on emissions,” a fictional concept somehow given monetary value.

This means that big players have a stake in the outcome, as does every man, woman and child on planet earth.

Unsurprisingly, Al Gore has an investment, possibly a conflict of interest in the “carbon trading” game. Gore is a co-founder of Generation Investment Management LLP, and we learn that:

“As an Associate member of the Chicago Climate Exchange, Generation [Gore’s firm] has made a legally binding commitment to purchase Carbon Financial Instruments (CFIs) sufficient to 100% offset the greenhouse gas emissions caused annually by our firm’s electricity use and business travel for the period 2005-2010.” --Generation Investment Management LLP website

Albert Gore has a responsibility to answer these charges, and to prove the former scenario, if he is going to go to congress and give his seal of approval to building new nuclear power plants as a response to this purported carbon dioxide “pollution” problem.

As long as carbon dioxide can be called a “polllutant,” you and your family are by definition—as biological organisms—“polluters.” I really don’t like the road this line of reasoning points down. It has the quasi-religious flavor of “Original Sin.” Leveraging guilt into political and economic activity is a very old game indeed.

Professor Ball states that CO2 is only .054 percent of the atmosphere. All human contributions of CO2 combined remain a small fraction of that amount. It’s time we got to the actual truth, no matter to whom it is “inconvenient.”
###

Thanks for the information, a lot to take in so let me try to absorb it when I have more time. I appreciate your research here.

Jon B, johndoraemi, Mike,

I have no quarrel with studying the issue to determine if there is a genuine problem and to seek a solution if need be.

My objection is in the attempt to rush spending $ billions of dollars, limit products and processes which may not contribute to temperature change and all the political/media blather passed on to us as gospel.

The Gore movie, regardless of how many scientists chime in, is a political ploy at best or a “Don’t forget about ME!” cry from a failed pro-pol.

The carbon credits crap is like someone who maxes out the credit card when there is a sale as if, “The more you spend the more you save,” puts a balance in your account. His zinc mining, energy splurging and the family ties to big oil (Armand Hammer/OXY) are so well documented either he is senile or thinks the country is. (Come to think of it the national memory IS very selective.)

----------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
Leading scientific journals ‘are censoring debate on global warming’
-------------

The above link (a repeat) is to an article also pointing out censorship on the other side of the issue.

Whether or not the global temperature rise is due to man made pollution or not, anyone who thinks we should not try to cut the choking fumes is probably still smoking two packs a day.

Without waiting for definite scientific evidence the media will trumpet the Kyoto Treaty advocates once more. The finger pointing at the percentage of energy used by the U.S. will be featured and attempts to limit us will ignore the fact that we have been a major force behind environmental concern for decades.

Our concern to protect the environment and people’s health a major reason our companies have moved offshore. To avoid the constraints of the EPA and OSHA they’ve gone where those factors are ignored.

We need to constantly remind ourselves that EVERYTHING is related. China is getting our companies and jobs while continuing to be the world’s major polluter. Check where coal is being shipped.

Here in Illinois, our Governor Badboyovich, wants to add a tax on gross sales. In his first term he drove out many businesses by tripling state fees on civil engineering projects, purchases of major equipment items and hit the truckers especially hard. In already perilous economic times he seems intent on destroying what little profit margin is left.

Nationally we could do the same thing in the name of global warming. We cannot adjust the job market anywhere near as fast as we can legislate destruction of the “job climate.”

Millions of Americans are now serviving on the service economy jobs — mowing lawns, doing handyman projects, and working at the grocery store. That 60-something bagboy used to run a lathe.

WTH, thanks again for your thoughtful comments. George Reisman’s massive book, “Capitalism,” has a strong refutation of environmentalism. The publisher is in Ottawa, Illinois too.

Mike,

Thanks for the book title. Capitlism is getting a bad rap these days just like guns. Neither is good nor bad apart from the people involved with them, but are such convenient scapegoats.

Pople need to make time to think rather than just react as the media so often does.

So true, WTH.

The composition of the Earths atmosphere.....

Nitrogen N2 78.084%

Oxygen O2 20.947%

Argon Ar 0.934%

Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.033%

Neon Ne 18.2 parts per million

Helium He 5.2 parts per million

Krypton Kr 1.1 parts per million

Sulfur dioxide SO2 1.0 parts per million

Methane CH4 2.0 parts per million

Hydrogen H2 0.5 parts per million

Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.5 parts per million

Xenon Xe 0.09 parts per million

Ozone O3 0.07 parts per million

Nitrogen dioxide NO2 0.02 parts per million

Iodine I2 0.01 parts per million

Carbon monoxide CO trace

Ammonia NH3 trace

I have an inconvienent truth for all hippies.

CO2 BECOMES A GREENHOUSE GAS AT OR ABOVE 33 PERCENT. TO REACH THIS LEVEL WOULD IS A PHYSICAL IMMPOSSIBILITY. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CARBON PRESENT ON THIS PLANET IS LESS THAN 15 PERCENT OF THE TOTAL FOR ALL ELEMENTS.

Omigod, is THIS you’re first INTELLIGENT posting ?  Congragulations, TacoCon !  And by the way, brown is the color of excrement. While we’re on the subject of physical science.

Texas,
Are you getting your “science” from Alex Jones? 
VTer

No. From a decent education.

If these eco-hippies would study real science and not Peruvian Banjo Playing they would have a basic comprehension of how the system works.

Ahh, then you were joking with us.  I wondered why you didn’t offer any citation to back up such an over-the-top statement.

For those interested in debunking “The Great Global Warming Swindle” on Channel 4, here’s George Monbiot’s take on it:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2007/03/13/channel-4s-problem-with-science/#more e-1047

I notice a lot of people saying that the global warming alarmists have economic interests.  I doubt very much that these economic interests, whatever they are, outweigh the economic interests of the oil companies, the car companies, the shipping companies, the airline industry, and everyone interested in cheap transportation of Chinese goods to the U.S.  So whose grinding axe is bigger?

There is no doubt that the Bush Administration is the first modern administration to have real problems with modern science. First evolution, then stem cell research, now a new prescription drug which suppresses the adrenalin surge in PTSD victims so they can relieve the hyper-reactions they normally experience and live their lives, and now the ever present global warming issue. A new UN study which assembled over 2000 of the worlds most respected scientists has confirmed global warming as a fact (as if we needed to add yet one more peer reviewd study to the existing 950) and still Bush doesn’t get it. Global warming and green house gases are real.

All the political dogma aside crack open a chemistry book once in a while people. Carbon while the sixth most common atom in the universe doesn’t even crack the top ten elements on Earth. We have more titanium in the earths crust than carbon.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/292/5525/2310

Data from fossil core samples debunks the central holy “truth” about the eco movement. CO2 levels are the same now 350-400 ppm as in the Paleocene era which had a far greater diversity of life than the present. The argument that somehow we have “created” the largest amount of CO2 present in our atmosphere in history is junk science. Science is only now begining to understand the climate of our planet. Historical data shows that Earth has cycles of climate stability followed by severe changes. 

The sun is the driving force behind all climate changes on this planet. The sun heats the oceans. The cooler air flows over the water and picks up energy from it.  A small area of lower pressure when passing over an area of high humidity creates rain. More energy released equals more changes. Recent astronomical data has determined the rate of cycle the sun follows and its corollation between intense periods of solar flares and the ice ages.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/06/020607073439.htm

The climate models used by the UN to justify this farce are flawed. Statistical models use valid data to estimate an outcome. When weather ballon data is used on the climate change model it shows a drop in average termpature of over a degree since the 1950’s. The UN model uses flawed satellite data and refuses to change its modeling procedure. Even with this flawed basis for computation the UN models still have to be force fed a ridiculously high diet of numbers that are not physically possible in order to show any change.

The predicitions of the “experts” over ten years ago have not come true. The Kyoto treaty has cost developed countries hundreds of billions of dollars without any tangible benefits to demonstrate. I am reminded of Chicken Little when ever I read an article devoted to our ficticious destruction.  As climate is a non-linear process it’s outcome can not be accurately predicted. 

.

Once you deflate the carbon boogeyman this whole farce reveals itself as another bogus wealth transfer dreamt up by UN diplomats and supported by granola eaters.

Here’s another article debunking the “Great Global Warming Swindle”:

http://www.jri.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=137& ;Itemid=83

“All the political dogma aside crack open a chemistry book once in a while people. Carbon while the sixth most common atom in the universe doesn’t even crack the top ten elements on Earth. We have more titanium in the earths crust than carbon.”

This factoid would be relevant only if the commonness of an element on earth directly determines how it affects global warming.  What is actually important is not how common an element is but what its chemical properties are with respect to trapping heat.

“Data from fossil core samples debunks the central holy “truth” about the eco movement. CO2 levels are the same now 350-400 ppm as in the Paleocene era which had a far greater diversity of life than the present.”

And it may be that there might be great diversity of life even after global warming. But this doesn’t mean that millions of people won’t be killed or have to move due to flooding of coastlines.  Impact on people/economy could be great even if diversity remains the same.

“The sun is the driving force behind all climate changes on this planet.”

This doesn’t mean that other factors (such as greenhouse gases) cannot make decisive changes in climate.  Remember that it is colder at higher altitudes despite the fact that higher altitudes are closer to the sun. This indicates that other factors can affect climate, despite the fact that the sun is the driving force behind climate changes.

“Recent astronomical data has determined the rate of cycle the sun follows and its corollation [sic] between intense periods of solar flares and the ice ages.”

Note that the researcher in the article you linked to didn’t think greenhouse gas-caused global warming was debunked by his study.  So the rise in greenhouse gases could cause rapid change over and above any gradual changes correlated with solar activity.

Another example of how the sun, despite being a driving force in climate, can be a weaker effect:

I’m sure some of you have seen the documentary on global dimming, which is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface, observed since the beginning of systematic measurements in 1950s, and thought to be due to the increased presence of aerosol particles in the atmosphere caused by human action.

Now despite this reduction, the temperature of the earth has increased in this time.  How can this be if the sun completely determines climate, swamping all other effects?

Another article claiming problems with the Channel 4 program:

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/climate_change/article2355956.ece

Here’s a response to the “CO2 lags global warming, not the other way round” argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#Warming_someti imes_leads_CO2_increases

Excerpt:

“Close analysis of the relationship between the two curves shows that, within the uncertainties of matching their timescales, the temperature led by a few centuries. This is expected, since it was changes in the Earth’s orbital parameters (including the shape of its orbit around the Sun, and the tilt of Earth’s axis) that caused the small initial temperature rise. This then raised atmospheric CO2 levels, in part by outgassing from the oceans, causing the temperature to rise further. By amplifying each other’s response, this “positive feedback” can turn a small initial perturbation into a large climate change. There is therefore no surprise that the temperature and CO2 rose in parallel, with the temperature initially in advance. In the current case, the situation is different, because human actions are raising the CO2 level, and we are starting to observe the temperature response. [24]”

“The ice core data says relatively little about the pattern of modern warming (that is, warming since about 1960). Recent CO2 levels greatly exceed the range witnessed in the ice core data. Isotope analysis of atmospheric CO2 changes implicates human activity as the driver, unlike during prior interglacial periods.[5] As noted above, models that give a significant amount of weight to increased CO2 levels when attempting to explain recent temperature rises match the observed data far better than those that do not. It is from this (and other observations) that the IPCC concluded that humans (because of CO2 emissions) were 90% likely to be the cause of the recently observed warming. [25]”

According to the link above:

“Carl Wunsch, one of the scientists featured in the programme, has said that he was “completely misrepresented” in the film and had been “totally misled” when he agreed to be interviewed.[15][4] He called the film “grossly distorted” and “as close to pure propaganda as anything since World War Two."[16] Wunsch was reported to have threatened legal action[16] and to have lodged a complaint with Ofcom, the UK broadcast regulator.[17] “

It seems to me the most important questions are whether or not man made factors are the primary cause of any warming and whether man should tinker with it.

If people had screwed around with temperatures a while back, we’d be shoveling huge piles of dinosaur crap off the lawn each morning.

Every time some massive government-designed solution is enacted to deal with a problem — mankind only succeeds in creating several more problems. (Read Jacques Barzun, “Science the Grand Entertainment.”)

Can’t you just hear what it would be like for 2000 respected scientists who get a call to solve this problem —

Gentlemen, I have been bailing water out of my house every day, but it keeps rising. My neighbor has the same problem. We recently discovered many other people in the area also treading water. Hans says it is the same story with his cousin in Holland. We have a global emergency! What can we do?

Signed,
Pete Moss
New Orleans, LA

“This factoid would be relevant only if the commonness of an element on earth directly determines how it affects global warming.  What is actually important is not how common an element is but what its chemical properties are with respect to trapping heat.”

There is not enough carbon available in the earths crust to reach 33 percent of the atmosphere as methane or CO2. To form a real greenhouse layer CO2 must reach this critical stage. At this stage all life on this planet would have died from oxygen deprivation so “warming” would not be a factor. Venus has a REAL greenhouse layer. At 96 percent CO2 it is hot and uninhabitable much like Phoenix. Earth has a minor fluctuation in CO2 levels that when compared to the atmosphere as a whole amounts to 385 marbles on the floor of a football stadium.  This ‘factoid” blows this entire farce out of the water. It is junk science and another hairbrained UN wealth transfer scheme and deserves derision as such.

If the hippies need something to fear, a top ten list.

1 Earth crossing asteroids
2. Airborne Ebola
3. Drug resistant bacteria
4. Nuclear anihiliation
5. Supervolcanoes
6. Haji gets the bomb
7. Alien invasion
8. Return of the Black Death
9. Evolutionary stagnation
10. Excess population

What the Heck...What the heck are you talking about?

“If people had screwed around with temperatures a while back, we’d be shoveling huge piles of dinosaur crap off the lawn each morning.”

Are you implying that humans and dinosaurs existed at the same time? Or that prior to the industrial age humanity had the capacity to even do much about temperatures. And finally by your thoughts that appears to accept the premise that we can screw around with temperatures now then why are you willing to deny that we haven’t screwed around with the temperatures before and currently? That we haven’t affected the atmosphere? If you feel there is man-made screwing around to be had, then you believe in man-made global warming.

“Every time some massive government-designed solution is enacted to deal with a problem — mankind only succeeds in creating several more problems. (Read Jacques Barzun, “Science the Grand Entertainment.”)”

Come on, one sentence philosophy is almost always lacking intelligence, history, and context. Just in the atmospheric science we’ve succeeded at closing the ozone hole (at least hopefully for good) by banning aerosols due to government intervention. And if you think a little bit, you know there are plenty of government-designed solutions that haven’t created more problems. By banning aerosols what are the “more problems?”

“Can’t you just hear what it would be like for 2000 respected scientists who get a call to solve this problem —”

Scientists won’t solve global warming, they only do the research and suggest answers. It’s going to have to be a political solution and public willingness to be a part of the solution. In America I sense that public willingness, but not a political willingness. Some things to do to help are so simple, like making one’s home more energy efficient, yet from Washington little if anything is done to make this known and certainly not incentivized which would prompt Americans to feel they can be a part of the answer.

We get a mixed message, science tells us one thing, our government doesn’t take it serious at least publicly, thus making many feel it isn’t. I mean where’s the presidential bully pulpit to call for some easy changes? Bush could be promoting these easy changes weekly, but instead he promotes things that aren’t really the answer, like hybrid cars which we find get poorer mileage than first promoted or flex fuel that we’d practically have to turn our entire farm land into corn in order to grow the fuel if we were to completely switch over. The other day Bush nearly blew himself up by almost plugging a power cord into the hydrogen tank of a hydrogen-electric vehicle.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070407/AUTO01/704070338/1148

And why this new vehicle when a electric car would be just as good without dangerous hydrogen? My point, Bush likes the photo-ops with dead-end space age technology rather than just tell us to conserve some energy, such as turn out the lights if you’re not using them. Energy conservation is one of the most effective solutions, but it’s not sexy to talk about.

“There is not enough carbon available in the earths crust to reach 33 percent of the atmosphere as methane or CO2. To form a real greenhouse layer CO2 must reach this critical stage.”

Where do you get this magic number of 33 percent of the atmosphere?  Is there any sort of physical science law that you can point to for justification of this number?

Jon B,

Come on, I know there were no human beings around with the dinosaurs, except for Fred and Wilma. (It was a bit of sarcasm)

I’m just tired of all the BS from Gore fans talking about Scientific Consensus — as if it were (a.) a fact (b.) important. 

Consensus is a political feature (even then seldom intelligent). The law of gravity was not decided by a show of hands. No matter how many “experts” line up on either side of this topic the truth is not going to be affected, but political policies will. Think of how long consensus said the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was flat.

There are several “Inconvenient Truths” which are ignored unless they help to back someone’s argument. I threw in the New Orleans stuff as just one. You can bet a bunch of the people who are so panicky about warming and the possibility of oceans rising are also bitching about slow post-Katrina rebuilding in The Big Easy.  A lot of them have built on a hillside in CA and want aid every time a house “discovers” gravity during a heavy rain.

With gov. intervention and scientific advances, we are overruling evolution and “survival of the fittest.” Abortion due to inconvenience rather than medical risk and super-care for babies with defects are increasing world population with people that natural selection would have eliminated. Gov. aid to the least well educated and lowest incomes help expand the welfare rolls.

There are times when gov. should stay away from problems and let people learn to deal with life.
--------------------------------------------------

Whoever has the best lobby (and the best lawyers)is going to win the big bucks on global warming and probably on both sides of the issue.

People who complain about government intervention to prevent or ameliorate global warming never seem to complain when the government provides massive subsidies to fossil fuels by creating and maintaining the highway system, or about the billions spent to ensure continuing access to Middle East oil (see Cheney’s Energy Task Force).  Since it is government policies that created the problem, it should be government policies (or abandoning of government policies) that solve them, for example, by making sure that people are paying the true cost of fossil fuels (which accounts for their global warming effects, their pollution costs, and so on), charging for access to freeways, usage-related taxes (pollution measured through tailpipe meters) to support our middle east adventures, and so on.  This would provide incentives for individuals to invest in cleaner and more efficient technologies.  Currently government action is shielding them from this necessity.  Of course, we want to ensure that the increased usage fees don’t go directly to the government (which would waste it), but are invested by an independent body that ameliorates or offsets the pollution.

Evolution as “survival of the fittest”?  I thought such thinking had gone out with the eugenicists and social darwinists.  Evolution has to do with adaptation to the environment, which is itself constantly changing.  There is no such thing as “the fittest.” And civilization and settled life itself (not just government intervention) modifies evolution.  Originally, as hunter gatherers, the physically fit were selected for.  Then, in densely populated cities, it is epidemic-resistant genes that are selected for.

And in a true meritocracy, what’s wrong with aid to the less-educated, if such aid makes them better educated?  This makes sure that we’re searching throughout the gene pool for those skills that we can use, not just among the offspring of the rich.  The randomization of genes in sexual reproduction means that the genes of the offspring aren’t identical to the genes of the parents.

Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation to extinction in about 10 meters of distance. At a concentration of 33 percent of the total atmosphere CO2 absorbs radiation at 3 meters which reduces the amount of radiation reflected back into space by 66 percent thus creating “warming”.

Not to worry!  If the atmosphere was to reach 7 percent CO2 saturation this would deplete the atmosphere of oxygen as CO2 contains two oxygen molecules for every carbon molecule thus suffocating all life and rendering this political discussion moot. However the lack of water vapor would remove 70 percent of the ability of this planet to retain heat and Earth would freeze at around -1 degree Celsius. So Earth is not capable of sustaining a “greenhouse” neccessary for any significant change. 

For references sceneshistoriques I would suggest Chemistry 101.

The basic science behind anthropogenic global warming is no more complicated than the fact that throwing an extra blanket on the bed will keep one warmer.  The compexities arise in understanding the dynamics of climactic variability.  Without a proper scientific education, it is easy to be influenced by denialists pointing at uncertainties in these complex factors into believing the underlying facts are in question.

The fact is that the earth is warming and increasing CO2 concentrations are the largest causal factor for that warming.

The scientific consensus depends on a fair analysis of the data and not on political opinion.

TI,

Your science is so absurd as to be undecipherable.  Apples, oranges and bananas.  Where are you getting your information? 

Qualitative chem cannot be used for determining the IR absorption of CO2.  It isn’t any part of the curriculum.

It is a subject of physics.
\
You betray your ignorance.

WTH, thanks again, the only sane voice in this Babel of Lunatics here. Science is no more immune from politics than any other field, just more pretentious in its pompous denials. The complete epistemological collapse since Hume/Kant has affected the hard sciences now too, just as they long infected the soft social sciences. That some religious lunatic like the unluminous antibeauty postures as a science expert proves this point. They have a regular science show on the leftwing Pacifica station here in Berzerkeley by an NYU Ph.D named Michio Kaku, but what the good doctor does is 90% leftwing political ca ca and very little real science.

“Carbon dioxide absorbs radiation to extinction in about 10 meters of distance. At a concentration of 33 percent of the total atmosphere CO2 absorbs radiation at 3 meters which reduces the amount of radiation reflected back into space by 66 percent thus creating “warming”.”

I’m sure you’ll have no problem providing references for this, and its applicability to global warming, since it’s “Chemistry 101,” as you put it.  Specifically, show references that in its current concentrations in the atmosphere, CO2 cannot possibly be trapping heat.

Just saying that CO2 is present in minute concentrations is not enough.  Minute concentrations of dioxin can have big effects.  Basically the effects, chemical or otherwise, depend on the properties of the particular substance.  Some substances may need greater concentrations to achieve certain effects, others less.  For example, Methane achieves greater heat trapping effects than CO2, all other things being equal.

Science is no more immune from politics than any other field...

I agree in that the scientific consensus is being challenged by those with a political agenda to preserve the status quo.  This results in a confusion over what is fact.  AGW is a fact.

From http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html

“The absorption of light by fluids (here, greenhouse gases [GHGs]) can be measured by the following simple relation:

A = log 10 (1/T) = epsilon c d.

Equation of absorption of light by fluids

where A is the absorbance or optical density of the solute (here, a GHG), epsilon (liters per mole per centimeter) is the molar extinction coefficient of the GHG at the wavelength of measurement, c (moles per liters) is the concentration of the GHG, d is the optical pathlength in centimeters, and T is the transmittance [60]. When a molecule absorbs light, it normally goes from the ground state to an excited or “hot” state. The hot molecule can release its excess energy primarily in three ways: chemical reaction, quenching, and emission. Because greenhouse gases are fairly stable, chemical reaction is not a common pathway for releasing the excess energy. Excited or hot greenhouse molecules release excess energy mostly through emission and quenching. Quenching is the process of transferring excess energy to other molecules in a ground state, thereby increasing the temperature of the other molecules. The other hot molecules can also emit excess energy in the form of radiation.”

So it’s not really chemistry.

More from http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/alternate/page/environment/appd_a.html

“Assuming steady incident radiation, the radiating power of a GHG molecule depends largely on the absorption coefficients for that GHG, which determine how much of the available radiation it absorbs in each of the wavelength ranges where it absorbs radiation. Other important factors are the concentration of the gas and its residence time, or decay time, in the atmosphere. The residence time of GHGs depends mostly on two factors, namely reactivity of GHGs and the GHG sinks in the biosphere. Plants and trees, for example, store carbon and thus serve as sinks for carbon dioxide.”

LB, Scenes,
Although he provides no reference, Texas is getting his information from the pseudoscience that is circulating on the world wide global climate change deniers’ web.  The article from which he cut and pasted his most recent reply can be found, unattributed, on several sites, including this one: http://phalle.com/ and this one:  http://www.nov55.com/gbwm.html It appears to be mostly gibberish designed to give the conspiracy ranters something that sounds like science.  The love to say CO2 “absorbs radiation to extinction,” a phrase that means nothing - and even less in the discussion of global climate change.
These folks have a simple explanation for global climate change, and that’s “global ocean warming.” Yeah, that’s right, they say carbon dioxide has nothing to do with warming the earth.

To give you an idea of how out of touch these folks are, the tell us:  “About 95% of the heat trapped in the atmosphere gets there through conduction and convection from the earth’s surface, not radiation picked up by so-called greenhouse gasses. The only reason you don’t know this is because you are being propagandized by frauds. The science is too clear to call it anything but fraud.”

The statement is proof that they have no clue as to the function of greenhouse gases in climate change - they’re taking the term a little to literally, and ignoring the science.  We actually know that the earth is heated by radiation.  We have a name for its source: the Sun.  We’ve known about for quite some time. 
Texas, what is it that you think traps all that that heat in the atmosphere?  (Hint: one of its components begins with ‘C’)

Back to the “hot oceans” theory of global climate change.  If it sounds crazy, that’s because it is.  They offer absolutely no evidence pointing to a possible source, but they do point to one:  “The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth’s core heating the oceans, not human activity.”

Uh-huh.  A hot spot in the earths core.  Not that there’s any data to suggest the earth’s core has a hot spot that’s playing “bunsen burner” with oceans all over the globe. 

If this, as Texas suggests, is what is being taught in Texas science classes we should be very concerned. 

-Vter

Here is an example of the complexity of the “greenhouse” effect:

“In climate models an increase in atmospheric temperature caused by the greenhouse effect due to anthropogenic gases will in turn lead to an increase in the water vapor content of the troposphere, with approximately constant relative humidity. The increased water vapor in turn leads to an increase in the greenhouse effect and thus a further increase in temperature; the increase in temperature leads to still further increase in atmospheric water vapor; and the feedback cycle continues until equilibrium is reached. Thus water vapor acts as a positive feedback to the forcing provided by human-released greenhouse gases such as CO2.[9]”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gases

No, it’s not a fact and if you go to the website of the George Marshall Institute, named after the Commie general, you will papers challenging it. GW is simply another left-liberal fad. That’s all. See Reisman’s Capitalism for a full refutation of all environmentalist premises. Do not make the mistake of confusing Beaner fundie trash like TexASS as the serious opponents here.

Just as an aside, there are left/marxist deniers of global warming (e.g. Alexander Cockburn).  They find it inconvenient to their politics in the sense that if resources are limited, then there’s less to be shared among the workers.

sceneshistoriques,

Well, you totally missed my point —

• First of all let me say I’m totally against government subsidies. You actually gave a good example of what I was trying to point out to Jon B — government programs as subsidies to these fossil fuel companies are a cause of more trouble than they are worth. Whether subsidies of cash payments to big oil or subsidies of illegal immigrants to big growers, the problems continue to multiply.

In our city we have federally subsidized buses which must be at least a given size to qualify — the result is gas sucking vehicles with a very few people on them.

• “...what’s wrong with aid to the less-educated, if such aid makes them better educated?”

I was not speaking against education, rather pointing out that the government has promoted increasing the size of families (or in the case of unwed mothers, individuals) which are least equipped to care for the kids economically.

• Evolution has to do with adaptation to the environment, which is itself constantly changing.

Here again the point is that by killing kids for the inconvenience they would bring and saving those who would not survive naturally, we (our government) are reversing the natural process of evolution.

It is not a case of like it or dislike it — it just is so.
------------------------------

Luminous,

“I agree in that the scientific consensus is being challenged by those with a political agenda to preserve the status quo.”

There is just too much politicking on both sides of this issue and too little time with adequate records to establish a serious case for the amount of concern and urgency. Who has a bigger political agenda than Al?  Gore is Exhibit A and his movie is NOT genuine science, genuine inquiry or anything close.

I’d like to see some real investigation and scientific method absent grant seeking professors or money grubbing corporations heading it up. Sure it has been determined a slight rise in tempt has occurred, but there are those on each side of the issue with questionable motives.

Whenever this many election dependent people get involved everything goes to hell.

I don’t know enough about the science to proclaim the prevailing global climate change scenario to be a “fact.” I don’t have any more than a regular academic background in science.  But the debate we seem to be having reminds me of a quote from Vonnegut’s Breakfast of Champions:
“Kilgore Trout once wrote a short story which was a dialogue between two pieces of yeast. They were discussing the possible purposes of life as they ate sugar and suffocated in their own excrement. Because of their limited intelligence, they never came close to guessing that they were making champagne.”

The way I look at it is, since none of us can determine the absolute “truth” about global climate change without gazing into the future, we are forced to gamble with being right or wrong.
If we gamble that the climate scienteists are right, and we start reducing our CO2 emmissions immediately, we may save the planet.  If they’re wrong, we may end up spending more, but we may also have a cleaner planet.

If we decide to ignore the science, or liberal-left fad as you call it, we may save a lot of money.  We may still be able to use our precious carbon-based fuels.  But if we’re wrong, we suffocate in our own excrement because of our limited intelligence. 

Some peple are in the “better safe than sorry” category, others are in the “I’ll take my chances with the excrement” category.

-VTer

“First of all let me say I’m totally against government subsidies. You actually gave a good example of what I was trying to point out to Jon B — government programs as subsidies to these fossil fuel companies are a cause of more trouble than they are worth.”

We’re already in a subsidy environment.  In this case government action would be stopping the subsidies and making people pay for the true cost of using fossil fuels.

“In our city we have federally subsidized buses which must be at least a given size to qualify — the result is gas sucking vehicles with a very few people on them.”

And the reason few people are on them is because of an even bigger subsidy for people using cars, for people living far away from where they work, etc.  (Government creates infrastructure for suburbs, allowing people to move into them; Government makes freeways wider, allowing more cars, and hence more people to move further away from work).

“Here again the point is that by killing kids for the inconvenience they would bring and saving those who would not survive naturally, we (our government) are reversing the natural process of evolution.”

My point is that by not living as hunter gatherers we are already not following the natural process of evolution.  Most people nowadays would not survive in a natural environment, since our genes are more optimized to be epidemic-resistant (due to living in close proximity with each other), rather than physically fit for hunting/gathering.  We have gone way past evolution as a species.  The definition of the “fittest” has changed to be whoever survives in the changed artificial environment we have created.

“Some peple are in the “better safe than sorry” category, others are in the “I’ll take my chances with the excrement” category.”

A very illuminating way of putting it.

Thanks, and here’s an ‘o’ for the people.

WTH…

I guess I’m not understanding you. I think you are letting some sort of natural skepticism rule where you put your foot down, and in the process are playing it down the middle. And I certainly understand skepticism, I’m always looking for a conspiracy behind a theory. As well, I’ve seen you use much better arguments in other forums.

“Consensus is a political feature (even then seldom intelligent). The law of gravity was not decided by a show of hands. No matter how many “experts” line up on either side of this topic the truth is not going to be affected, but political policies will. Think of how long consensus said the sun revolved around the earth or the earth was flat.”

Now come on. This is so incomparable to today’s scientific topics it’s pitiful. First, science (as we would understand it today) was in its’ infancy back in the alchemist days, not to mention that sun around the Earth was based on repressive religious dogma in concert with lack of instrumentation to prove anything. The first rudimentary telescope wasn’t invented until 1608. They didn’t have polling back then at any rate, which is how we measure scientific consensus today. They send out lots of questionnaires.

I should amend an earlier post here. I mentioned that there are mid-100s of climate scientists, I was thinking of one particular study. This latest IPCC study had about 1,500 involved. But these type of numbers can be deceptive, it matters how much involved each person is.

Back to your post, you slyly confuse an average Joe in New Orleans or a home owner in Cal. with scientists that study what they are going through. But an average Joe can discern changes. A long time hunter or birdwatcher for example can see change over time in the location they return to decade after decade. Here in Michigan wildlife has been moving north over the last two decades and biologists have been tracking all sorts of changes. This in itself doesn’t prove global warming, but it is added into all the other types of science for an overall picture.

sceneshistoriques addressed other of my thoughts. I’d like to add as well, that government subsidies for the fossil fuel industries is not something that was voted on by Americans, some sort of public concensus. This is why I’m always skeptical of politicians as they high jack policy from any thoughts the public might have. I was aghast at the last energy bill, handing billions out to the oil industry for instance. And then a few months later we watched Exxon CEO Lee Raymond retire with a $400 million retirement parachute. We essentially paid his retirement with our tax dollars.

Vermonter,

Thanks for the links.  Apparently, the ‘absorption extinction’ BS comes from a paper by Dr. Heinz Hug, a signatory of the Leipzig Declaration, that cherrypicks a single absorption line of IR by CO2 and extrapolates it beyond reason to arrive at the conclusion he makes.  This paper, as far as I can tell, is only published on the denialist site of John Daly.  It obviously cannot pass the peer review process.

WTH,

Have you actually seen “An Inconvenient Truth”?  It contains a lot of science.  It is a popularization of the science.  Almost all the criticisms are false and/or exaggerations, much like the lie that Gore claims to have ‘invented’ the internet. 

What do you know about the science, anyway?  You might check out RealClimate.org where real scientists engage in real debate about the scientific issues.

This is what I know… As a child growing up here in St. Louis 30 - 40 years ago, we had a winter. We walked to school through the snow, we played hockey on frozen ponds till it was dark. There was snow on the ground for months on end, The ponds and creeks were frozen for months, I’m talking good solid ice. Now, more and more, Christmas and new years day I can go outside with a jacket on, we have maybe 3 weeks of frigid temps,(in feb) this year we had snow on the ground for maybe 8 days,(not 8 straight days) we have freezing rain now instead of snow, never, do you see a pond freeze over (I’ve yet to see one for almost 20yrs that you could skate on) Its almost as tho an imaginary line has creeped north from Memphis to St.Louis (we have their winter.) Label it what you want, but somethings wrong....I can see it, cant you?

This comment brought to you with no help from Science or a Lobbyist

Just as the holocaust revisionists are right about that conventional wisdom being a pack of lies, I’m sure the GW “deniers” will be proven right over time. Shortbus, winters have been as cold as ever in most places most of the time. Here in the SF Bay Area it was damn cold and I was using the fireplace all winter.

“Label it what you want, but somethings wrong....I can see it, cant you? “

To be fair to the deniers, they aren’t denying the fact that the climate is changing.  That is undeniable.  They’re denying that it’s due to human activity.

Jon B,

I stand by my analogy regarding consensus — no matter what people claim to be the “consensus” it does not make it the “truth.” In addition no one will be able to enforce any restriction coming from such a consensus. Wars are even messier.

If you want me to stick closer to the original topic, OK — the assault on science regarding global warming is a two front war. People on both sides are claiming the high ground without really preparing a battle plan. They are just hollering, “Follow me!”

I don’t believe it is as simple as VTer when he says, “If we gamble that the climate scientists are right, and we start reducing our CO2 emissions immediately, we may save the planet.  If they’re wrong, we may end up spending more, but we may also have a cleaner planet.

There is far more involve here than simply, “reducing our CO2 emissions.” The cost could be enormous, diverting funds from other more imminent negatives such as feeding people, putting large numbers out of work, while countries such as China will (as usual) do as they damn well please.  Who is going to make them abide by any “consensus”?

The U.S. and to some degree Europe have made a half hearted show of environmental concern and what has it gained us? Our corporations have skirted the restrictions by moving operations to Asia or Africa where they are not hampered by such considerations. One of my former clients is making a casting in South Africa at 10 percent of the cost here.

We’ve lost the jobs, the executives have pocketed the savings, the earth is a little dirtier and now we want to increase the process — to what end?

“Scenes” to be fair you are an obnoxious lowlife punk. I’m going to let the scientists fight this out and stop wasting time reading your leftwing ca ca.
WTH, you make many valid points but you are dealing with a religious cult here.  These are the most hardcore socialist nature lovers since national socialist Germany in the 30s. They are immune to reason.
Environmentalism is the new communism, govt control over every facet of our lives. Syllogisms are great but these people will ultimately have to be answered with a gun. They are total 100% statist fanatics.

Apparently after we’ve emitted all the CO2 and caused this humongous problem to develop our economies, the Chinese/Indians have no right to do the same.  The answer is for us to give the Chinese the technology they need to develop efficiently.  Because the Chinese have little existing energy infrastructure, it’s easier to provide them with new efficient and cleaner power plants than it would be to upgrade power plants in already developed countries.  You get a lot more bang for the buck in terms of CO2 reduction by providing developing countries with cleaner and more efficient technologies.

“The costs might be enormous, like putting people out of work.”

One, the costs could be even more enormous, like killing millions of people on the coastlines of the poorest countries.  Already, salt water is creeping into the rivers and alluvial flood plains of Bangladesh.  Who’s going to feed the Bangladeshis?  People driving SUVs?  Two, it may be possible to generate jobs in the cleaner, more efficient industries to replace the jobs we lose in the dirty inefficient industries.  If it becomes mandatory all over the world to take into account greenhouse gases and pollution, whose industries would win?  The industries of those countries that manage to create cleaner and efficient new technologies.  It certainly won’t be the Chinese or the Indians.

I’m wondering if there is anything that could convince deniers that human-induced climate change is happening.  Are their theories even falsifiable?  Remember that even if sea levels rise and millions are killed, the deniers can still claim it has nothing to do with human activity.  Assuming for the sake of argument that climate change is being caused by the activity of the sun, shouldn’t there be an associated increase in whatever solar activity (frequency of sunspots? solar magnetic activity?) that the deniers claim is causing climate change?  Even if CO2 increases lag solar-activity-induced climate changes, shouldn’t there then be increased solar activity in the past (the present minus the lag) that is causing the current increase in greenhouse gases?

A buddy of mine (a chemistry teacher) recently brought up another question related to this that I had never heard of. It has to do with methane in deep ocean trenches which, he said, could be liberated into the atmosphere if oceanic temperatures were to elevate beyond some small amount. I have not yet taken the time to look up much about his concern, but one thing I’ll also have to check out is his assertion that methane holds much more heat per volume than carbon dioxide.

Any chemists out there who can shed some light?

Correct scences..

WTH, My newspaper just yesterday reported this, in 2006 venture capitalists spent $2.4 billion to fund in the alternate energy sector, compared to $917 million in 2005. Much of this going to the Midwest and fortunately including my state, Michigan. If you are so worried about jobs understand that this money is for future new jobs. There is a good possibility that America will become the worlds’ leader in an alternative energy industry unless we continue to drag our feet. It seems the venture capitalists are starting to understand the potential, you should consider that cleaning up our act isn’t going to be the end times of economic activity. As I pointed out before, America has adapted to change and will again.

Kuya,,, yes the methane is trapped below the ocean bottom, called methane hydrates. The concern is that these large pockets will be released at a tipping warmth point, what is termed a “methane burp” and if that happens, all bets are off. Methane burps have been attributed to being a major part of the Permian extinction where 90% of life ceased to exist, that was absolutely the largest extinction event in Earth’s history. Bear in mind that methane burps are not well understood by scientists yet and being a part of the Permian extinction event isn’t considered scientific concensus at this point. But as I pointed out earlier, methane is being released in Siberia as frozen peat bogs are being thawed from global warming.

And a sort of mea culpa. Apparently Bush did not almost blow himself up as the link I sent reported. The CEO of Ford, Alan Mulally must have some sort of superman complex, crediting himself for saving Bush. Keith Olberman covered this last night and had video that showed that Mulally was fantasizing or something. There I go, getting burned for believing what a CEO said.

An article by George Monbiot on so-called climate change censorship:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists/Column/0,,2053519,00.html

Excerpt:

“If you want to know what real censorship looks like, let me show you what has been happening on the other side of the fence. Scientists whose research demonstrates that climate change is taking place have been repeatedly threatened and silenced and their findings edited or suppressed.

The Union of Concerned Scientists found that 58% of the 279 climate scientists working at federal agencies in the US who responded to its survey reported that they had experienced one of the following constraints: 1. Pressure to eliminate the words “climate change”, “global warming”, or other similar terms from their communications; 2. Editing of scientific reports by their superiors that “changed the meaning of scientific findings”; 3. Statements by officials at their agencies that misrepresented their findings; 4. The disappearance or unusual delay of websites, reports, or other science-based materials relating to climate; 5. New or unusual administrative requirements that impair climate-related work; 6. Situations in which scientists have actively objected to, resigned from, or removed themselves from a project because of pressure to change scientific findings. They reported 435 incidents of political interference over the past five years.

In 2003, the White House gutted the climate-change section of a report by the Environmental Protection Agency. It deleted references to studies showing that global warming is caused by manmade emissions. It added a reference to a study, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, that suggested that temperatures are not rising. Eventually the agency decided to drop the section altogether.

After Thomas Knutson at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) published a paper in 2004 linking rising emissions with more intense tropical cyclones, he was blocked by his superiors from speaking to the media. He agreed to one request to appear on MSNBC, but a public affairs officer at NOAA rang the station and said that Knutson was “too tired” to conduct the interview. The official explained to him that the “White House said no”. All media inquiries were to be routed instead to a scientist who believed there was no connection between global warming and hurricanes.

Last year Nasa’s top climate scientist, James Hansen, reported that his bosses were trying to censor his lectures, papers and web postings. He was told by Nasa’s PR officials that there would be “dire consequences” if he continued to call for rapid reductions in greenhouse gases.

Last month, the Alaskan branch of the US fish and wildlife service told its scientists that anyone travelling to the Arctic must understand “the administration’s position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues”.

At hearings in the US Congress three weeks ago, Philip Cooney, a former White House aide who had previously worked at the American Petroleum Institute, admitted he had made hundreds of changes to government reports about climate change on behalf of the Bush administration. Though not a scientist, he had struck out evidence that glaciers were retreating and inserted phrases suggesting that there was serious scientific doubt about global warming.”

Monbiot is an extreme leftist hack not endowed with credibility. Most of you extremely verbose windbags are counting on the fact that the working stiffs have neither the time nor the research bucks to check out your extravagrant assertions. The predictable left party liners like LB we can ignore, she’s just recycling today’s KPFA crapola. The bulk of this monologue here by the doomsday crowd with the usual villain, capitalism and the usual solution, more state control over all facets of our lives, is entirely political, not scientific. You are using a thin veneer of science with your typical selective sources chosen in advance because they agree with your crappy political agenda. But who’s supposed to be fooled here ?

The letter from the scientist Carl Wunsch to the makers of “The Great Global Warming Swindle”:

-----8<----------------

Mr. Steven Green
Head of Production
Wag TV
2D Leroy House
436 Essex Road
London N1 3QP

10 March 2007

Dear Mr. Green:

I am writing to record what I told you on the telephone yesterday about your Channel 4 film “The Global Warming Swindle.” Fundamentally, I am the one who was swindled---please read the email below that was sent to me (and re-sent by you). Based upon this email and subsequent telephone conversations, and discussions with the Director, Martin Durkin, I thought I was being asked to appear in a film that would discuss in a balanced way the complicated elements of understanding of climate change---in the best traditions of British television. Is there any indication in the email evident to an outsider that the product would be so tendentious, so unbalanced?

I was approached, as explained to me on the telephone, because I was known to have been unhappy with some of the more excitable climate-change stories in the British media, most conspicuously the notion that the Gulf Stream could disappear, among others. When a journalist approaches me suggesting a “critical approach” to a technical subject, as the email states, my inference is that we are to discuss which elements are contentious, why they are contentious, and what the arguments are on all sides. To a scientist, “critical” does not mean a hatchet job---it means a thorough-going examination of the science. The scientific subjects described in the email, and in the previous and subsequent telephone conversations, are complicated, worthy of exploration, debate, and an educational effort with the public. Hence my willingness to participate. Had the words “polemic”, or “swindle” appeared in these preliminary discussions, I would have instantly declined to be involved.

I spent hours in the interview describing many of the problems of understanding the ocean in climate change, and the ways in which some of the more dramatic elements get exaggerated in the media relative to more realistic, potentially truly catastrophic issues, such as the implications of the oncoming sea level rise. As I made clear, both in the preliminary discussions, and in the interview itself, I believe that global warming is a very serious threat that needs equally serious discussion and no one seeing this film could possibly deduce that.

What we now have is an out-and-out propaganda piece, in which there is not even a gesture toward balance or explanation of why many of the extended inferences drawn in the film are not widely accepted by the scientific community. There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.

(continued)

(Letter from Carl Wunsch, continued)

An example where my own discussion was grossly distorted by context: I am shown explaining that a warming ocean could expel more carbon dioxide than it absorbs—thus exacerbating the greenhouse gas buildup in the atmosphere and hence worrisome. It was used in the film, through its context, to imply that CO2 is all natural, coming from the ocean, and that therefore the human element is irrelevant. This use of my remarks, which are literally what I said, comes close to fraud.

I have some experience in dealing with TV and print reporters and do understand something of the ways in which one can be misquoted, quoted out of context, or otherwise misinterpreted. Some of that is inevitable in the press of time or space or in discussions of complicated issues. Never before, however, have I had an experience like this one. My appearance in the “Global Warming Swindle” is deeply embarrasing, and my professional reputation has been damaged. I was duped---an uncomfortable position in which to be.

At a minimum, I ask that the film should never be seen again publicly with my participation included. Channel 4 surely owes an apology to its viewers, and perhaps WAGTV owes something to Channel 4. I will be taking advice as to whether I should proceed to make some more formal protest.

Sincerely,

Carl Wunsch
Cecil and Ida Green Professor of
Physical Oceanography
Massachusetts Institute of Technology

I just noticed that in Carl Wunsch’s letter he writes something very relevant to what was posted earlier on this forum by texasindependent:

“There are so many examples, it’s hard to know where to begin, so I will cite only one: a speaker asserts, as is true, that carbon dioxide is only a small fraction of the atmospheric mass. The viewer is left to infer that means it couldn’t really matter. But even a beginning meteorology student could tell you that the relative masses of gases are irrelevant to their effects on radiative balance. A director not intending to produce pure propaganda would have tried to eliminate that piece of disinformation.”

So it’s not Chemistry 101.  It’s Meteorology 101.

Earlier in this discussion someone posted this to indicate that scientists have been wrong before:

“There was the forthcoming Ice Age of 1975 lore.”

Here’s a response to that myth:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

My information is from Exploring Chemical Elements and their Compounds by David Heiserman. My son’s 8th grade chemistry book. I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.

Meteorology casts chicken bones to divine the weather at less than 50 percent accuracy. Chemistry uses the scientific method and a few hundred years of research and data to determine the effects of compounds and elements. And the relative mass of CO2 is critical to radiative balance. Isn’t that the entire philosophy of this hippie nonsense? Isn’t CO2 the reason you people are screaming the sky is falling? It is a scam and you people are too caught up in the politcal side without a thought in your empty heads about the science this hoax is based on.

I do not care what idiotic political theories you people propose. But when you propose to destroy the economy I rely on to feed my children based on junk science that has no basis in reality we have a serious problem. Civil war level of problems.

Could you provide the quote from your son’s chemistry book that you think is relevant to our argument.

“Meteorology casts chicken bones to divine the weather at less than 50 percent accuracy.”

That would be relevant if we were discussing predicting the weather.  But we’re talking about climate change, not predicting the weather.  It’s quite possible to not be able to predict the weather two days from now in New York City, but still be able to make very reliable statements about the climate in the Northwest.

“Chemistry uses the scientific method and a few hundred years of research and data to determine the effects of compounds and elements.”

And it can be a wonderful science when it is applied to its proper domain.  In this case, Chemistry is inapplicable because GHGs are chemically stable, so they don’t release the energy they absorb primarily through chemical reactions.

“Isn’t CO2 the reason you people are screaming the sky is falling?”

Yes.  But this does not mean that the relative mass of CO2 to other atmospheric gases is relevant to its effects on radiative balance.  To repeat my analogy from before, just because dioxin is present in minute quantities doesn’t mean it’s not toxic.

“I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.”

I’m not sure exactly what you mean by “It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.” Perhaps you can explain a little more about this.  Then explain how this means it cannot possibly be a greenhouse gas.

As far as I understand, greenhouse gases absorb radiation reflected by the earth’s surface, and they then emit this radiation again.  The longer they remain in the atmosphere, the greater their influence on the “greenhouse effect.”

A couple of you clowns are taking up gobs of space to repeat yourselves, give only sources which verify your prejudices and try to overwhelm us with a mass of trivia. Anyone with half a brain knows they can read Capitalism by George Reisman, a massive refutation of all the premises of the communistic environmental movement. Then go the George Marshall Institute website for rebuttal views on “global warming.” Having a couple of these aging lefty hacks 69ing each other here is not the purpose of these threads. I find mostly lefty types to be verbose because they are bad writers and worse thinkers. You JO artists are not convincing anyone who is not already with you.

“I double checked my professional references to be sure of the absorption rate of radiation of CO2. It absorbs radiation at 10 meters of distance.”

Ahhhh, I see now.  It appears the statement refers to incoming solar radiation - light. 

You should do a double check on greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with gases absorbing incoming solar radiation.  In fact, the greenhouse effect relies on incoming solar radiation, which heats the earth.  Greenhouse gases absorb the reflected radiation.  If you switch to your son’s 8th grade earth science book, you’ll notice that about 25% of the solar radiation is reflected as light, and about 75% of the sun’s radiation is reflected as heat (infrared spectrum).  Greenhouse gases prevent the escape of infrared radiation - heat.  (The gamut of radiation includes both heat and light, as well as radio, radar, and etc.)

CO2 or other greenhouse gases, at levels in the ludicrous atmospheric proportion you propose would actually have the reverse effect - absorbing incoming solar radiation and preventing it from reaching the earth’s surface, reducing the amount of solar heat on the earth - which might or might not result in “global cooling.”

You have taken a specific piece of information and tried to apply it universally.  Without a full understanding of the rest of the equation, you’ve come up with a false conclusion.  While it may be fair to debate if, or how much, man’s activity may contribute to the earth’s stock of greenhouse gases and global climate change, it doesn’t seem prudent to debate something that does not pertain to the concept at hand.

You argue, in effect, that there is no perceptible consequence of the carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.  But the greenhouse effect, and carbon dioxide’s role as a greenhouse gas has been observed and understood for well over 100 years.  It isn’t a fad, and it isn’t a theory.  The levels of infrared radiation absorption from water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are quantifiable.  The “greenhouse effect” is a fact, and without