Obama’s Science Team: Reshaping Our Long-Term Future

[beNder]

In coming months, public attention will heavily focus on the performance of Barack Obama’s economic and national security teams, but over the long haul, his new team in science and technology could do even more to shape the country’s future. They will arrive not a moment too soon.
Over the past seven plus years, many leaders in the science and technology community feel they have been in a virtual war with the Bush administration. They despaired, as one told me this weekend, that “no one was ever home” and that the Bush team was so dismissive of key scientific research that it threatened our future.

In a brief capsule, here are some of their key complaints:.

<LI _extended="true">The President and the men around him have been so ideologically opposed to the idea of man-made global warming that they first put their heads in the sand, refusing to accept evidence and editing reports from scientists inside the government such as the EPA, sending morale down the tubes. More recently, President Bush has acknowledged that man has contributed to warming, but the U.S. continues to drag its feet in international negotiations and Bush has resisted mandatory emission standards. <LI _extended="true">Top scientific leaders in the administration have sometimes been silenced, including a top NASA climate scientist James Hansen and former Surgeon General Richard Carmona. A number of government scientists have resigned. <LI _extended="true">The President twice vetoed bills for stem cell research over the objections of many in the scientific community as well as Bill Frist, the cardio-surgeon who was a GOP leader in the Senate. <LI _extended="true">The President allowed funding for the National Science Foundation to go essentially flat and after sizable increases, also allowed a flattening of the budget for the National Institutes of Health. <LI _extended="true">The President did sign onto the competitiveness agenda proposed by a special commission of the national academies of science and engineering – and he helped to secure Congressional passage of legislation endorsing the agenda. But, stunningly, the Congress refused to fund it – and the President put up very little fight. <LI _extended="true">This November, the president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science publicly lambasted the administration for putting unqualified political appointees into permanent civil service jobs that make scientific policy decisions. A case in point: Todd Harding, a 30-year old with a bachelor’s degree from Kentucky’s Centre College, was named to a permanent post at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration working on space-spaced science for geostationary and meteorological data.
Even as some positions were filled with non-entities, the White House left vacant the post of Executive Director for the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.
Against this backdrop, it is not surprising that the scientific community began rallying to Barack Obama months ago. Periodically, Dr. Harold Varmus, now chief of Memorial Sloan Kettering, convened informal conference calls among leading scientists to provide counsel to the Obama campaign, and they also met with Obama for a morning of conversation in Pennsylvania.
This past Saturday, Obama began filling out his appointments to his science and technology team, and it is a star-studded cast, promising a sharp break with the Bush administration. Among those who will be surrounding him are a physicist who has won a Nobel Prize (Steven Chu), a physicist and top expert on global warming who will be his top science adviser in the White House (John Holdren), a chemical engineer who has won acclaim for as an environmental leader in New Jersey (Lisa Jackson), a marine biologist is a leading expert on the impact of global warming on the oceans (Jane Lubchenco),. a polymath who heads up one of the most important genome projects in the country (Eric Lander), and a biologist who won a Nobel prize in medicine (Varmus). It doesn’t get any better than that!
For at least half a century, America has been the world’s premier nation for scientific and technological research. Remaining at the cutting edge is not only important for the advancement of knowledge, but it is also critical – absolutely critical — for the creation of high-powered jobs and meeting the challenges of global warming. In his Internet address on Saturday, Obama said, “It’s time we once again put science at the top of our agenda and worked to restore America’s place as the world leader in science and technology.” He’s right – it is none too soon to call off the war and build a strong, new alliance between government and science. .



http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/23/obama%E2%80%99s-science-team-reshaping-our-long-term-future/


...the bullets got all jacked up. Sorry.

[budgie]

Finally perhaps the leaders of the world's most powerful nation will sit up and take notice of the planet's most pressing problem.

I like this line: "The President and the men around him have been so ideologically opposed to the idea of man-made global warming that they first put their heads in the sand, refusing to accept evidence and editing reports from scientists inside the government such as the EPA, "

We've known for decades about man-made global warming and the vast majority of the world and the scientific community accepts the science. Yet a few powerful industries manage to fund their own "studies" than run against the general wisom and that provides ammunition for the ideologues to challenge reality: "Don't accpet the global warning scam," they tell us, "That's for liberals and hippies!"

Well hopefully, this time someone will be on hand to listen to the "liberals and Hippies".

[Marshall_Nord]

Well hopefully, this time someone will be on hand to listen to the "liberals and Hippies".

How about you come help me do snow removal, I'm sick of it already and there's more Winter left.

I want Global Warming to return! p-)

[11 Bravo]

Finally perhaps the leaders of the world's most powerful nation will sit up and take notice of the planet's most pressing problem.


We've known for decades about man-made global warming and the vast majority of the world and the scientific community accepts the science. Yet a few powerful industries manage to fund their own "studies" than run against the general wisom and that provides ammunition for the ideologues to challenge reality: "Don't accpet the global warning scam," they tell us, "That's for liberals and hippies!"

Well hopefully, this time someone will be on hand to listen to the "liberals and Hippies".

"We" have known for decades aboutman made global bologna??????........... You still smoking linoleum ?. The "Vast" majority of the world have been spoon fed media elite version 2.0 and if pressed have not a clue what the flawed science is that these hucksters spout to get all emotional about their bologna. Sorry I don't see the 'vast' majority of the scientific community hoodwinked on this either. Seems from what I read and observe more and more of this community are coming out to debunk it using FACTS as opposed to emotion and politics.

[Bia]

OMG1! Bravo "you" have a WAY with "words"

[paracrusader]

11B- awesome. Wouldn't expect any more from an 11B, but simply awesome...

[paracrusader]

Well hopefully, this time someone will be on hand to listen to the "liberals and Hippies".

Yes, there will be, unfortunately for us all

[budgie]

How about you come help me do snow removal, I'm sick of it already and there's more Winter left.

I want Global Warming to return! p-)

It's Christmas and it should have been snowing steadily for the past four weeks in Sapporo. Instead all we get is a trickle, then a thaw, then a dump then a thaw, then bloody rain. How about you send me some of what you got?

[philbob]

hmm groupthink of any kind is dangerous and the fact of the matter is that is what obama's science counsel is so much for change....

[budgie]

Change it is guys, but you don't have to like it. The Right can whine all they want about 'groupthink' and a 'global warming hoax', but even if you don't believe Al Gore's dire predictions, even if you want to accept fossil fuel industry 'studies' on how it's a 'natural' warming cycle, here are some facts:

1) Fossil fuels make the air dirty
2) Industrial waste contaminates water tables, rivers and the ocean
3) As does sewage
4) deforestation destroys species habitat and reduces renewable resources fior future generations.
5) The earth IS getting warmer and these things, if they don't contribute, sure don't help.

This is not a left/right issue. You don't have to be against conservation just because the left is for it. The fact is to keep the world a clean and beautiful place for future generations we do have to better manage our use of its resources and find cleaner ways to maintain our lifestyles. To reduce this global problem to a mere pissing match between two American political parties does no service to anyone.

[philbob]

Change it is guys, but you don't have to like it. The Right can whine all they want about 'groupthink' and a 'global warming hoax', but even if you don't believe Al Gore's dire predictions, even if you want to accept fossil fuel industry 'studies' on how it's a 'natural' warming cycle, here are some facts:

1) Fossil fuels make the air dirty
2) Industrial waste contaminates water tables, rivers and the ocean
3) As does sewage
4) deforestation destroys species habitat and reduces renewable resources fior future generations.
5) The earth IS getting warmer and these things, if they don't contribute, sure don't help.

This is not a left/right issue. You don't have to be against conservation just because the left is for it. The fact is to keep the world a clean and beautiful place for future generations we do have to better manage our use of its resources and find cleaner ways to maintain our lifestyles. To reduce this global problem to a mere pissing match between two American political parties does no service to anyone.

too bad it has already been reduced to that..... Besides 'change' would be getting passed the left and right divide and to bring in a group of scientist from both sides to figure it out not just hiring scientist that are your political allies

There is nothing wrong with conserving or any of that but there is somthing wrong with keeping narrow minded scientist who have turned climate change into a religion instead of doing what they are supposed to be duty bounded too which is to tell the truth and give unbiased anwsers and suggestion to fix it. This isnt even bringing up the issues of the arrogance of the west that is in Kyoto or that there is no requirments for China India or Brazil to comply.

The Earth is also gettin warmer becuase th sun is buring hotter each year. Eventually it well swell and absorb all the space up to venus and then it will be really hot here. So in the end all our little efforts are futile

common Budige you can give better response then that I have seen you do it before

[budgie]

common Budige you can give better response then that I have seen you do it before

There we have it. For the right this appears to be a personal pissing match. There shouldn't be two sides to this argument. Pollution is harmful - end of story. Again whether you believe or not that human industry is responsible for global warming (and how much) it is still responsible for a host of other problems that need to be cleaned up. This is not a myth or a hoax. Drink dirty river water or eat mercury-laden fish if you want to conduct a simple experiment.

However calling in scientists from both sides of the political spectrum is absurd. The reasons are twofold: firstly this should not be a political issue; secondly, because those scientists on the Right have been sponsored by industry to 'prove' that it's okay to go on polluting as they always have. They're hucksters whose research is entirely based around 'debunking' the accepted science.

I'm not saying that we should stop questioning accepted science either, but unlike those grounbreakers who discovered that pollution is harmful (and how, why, where and two whom) the scientists who 'question' global warming etcetra have already made up their minds. They've been paid well to do so.

[philbob]

There we have it. For the right this appears to be a personal pissing match. There shouldn't be two sides to this argument. Pollution is harmful - end of story. Again whether you believe or not that human industry is responsible for global warming (and how much) it is still responsible for a host of other problems that need to be cleaned up. This is not a myth or a hoax. Drink dirty river water or eat mercury-laden fish if you want to conduct a simple experiment.

However calling in scientists from both sides of the political spectrum is absurd. The reasons are twofold: firstly this should not be a political issue; secondly, because those scientists on the Right have been sponsored by industry to 'prove' that it's okay to go on polluting as they always have. They're hucksters whose research is entirely based around 'debunking' the accepted science.

I'm not saying that we should stop questioning accepted science either, but unlike those grounbreakers who discovered that pollution is harmful (and how, why, where and two whom) the scientists who 'question' global warming etcetra have already made up their minds. They've been paid well to do so.

your the one who turned it into the pissing match to begin with.
No one is debating that pollution is not harmful that is generally excepted fact. If people really want to reduce pollution, they need to start taking personal responsibity. That would be far more important than anything the egg heads can suggest; just by everyone turning off your lights when you leave the room or walking two blocks to get a coke instead of driving would do wonders.

But at the same time we should go over board to clean up enviromental messes at the expense of bringing over all quality of life up for all the people of the earth espically in the impoversed world(that is where enviromentalist fail.)

Calling in scientist from both sides would be a great idea becuase it would force both sides to work together and reach a common ground that isnt too extream on either side. In additon to that it isnt fair to call them hucksters when they actually do go out and do the research. It is importan to remeber that scientist on both sides are still human and subject to the same follies as the rest of us so the more people with different view points the better (and more acurate results should follow as a result.)l would suggest you read the book

The Final Forest
The Battle for the Last Great Trees
of the Pacific Northwest
by William Dietrich

because your own biases are showing and they do not further the conversation.

Merry Christmass by the way (i just realized it was the 25th in japan

[budgie]

Calling in scientist from both sides would be a great idea becuase it would force both sides to work together and reach a common ground that isnt too extream on either side. It is importan to remeber that scientist on both sides are still human and subject to the same follies as the rest of us so the more people with different view points the better (and more acurate results should follow as a result.)l would suggest you read the book

Merry Christmass by the way (i just realized it was the 25th in japan

Well, on this I can agree. But back to the OP, the choices Obama has made do signal a change away from the Bush policies that generally favoured economic over environmental concerns. Who knows, maybe he will bring in some of 'the other side' to have their say. Since it is America and the energy industry has such powerful lobbyists, it's more than likely they'll have their say in the Congress and Senate anyway when it comes time for the President to push bills through.

Either way I am hopeful this will be the start of a greater effort to reduce emissions and generally improve policy on the environmental front.

Merry Christmas to you too.

[Marshall_Nord]

1) Fossil fuels make the air dirty
2) Industrial waste contaminates water tables, rivers and the ocean
3) As does sewage
4) deforestation destroys species habitat and reduces renewable resources fior future generations.
5) The earth IS getting warmer and these things, if they don't contribute, sure don't help.

All true. What I don't like is the hysteria that quick, brutal change MUST occur NOW or we will all DIE!!! And if you challenge the assumptions, you are WRONG!

[budgie]

The hysteria may only exist in Rush Limbaugh's imagination. There may not need to be quick brutal change now, but it must start now - and from the top on down. This is all people like Al Gore are asking for yet they are derided as scaremongers. Those people who like to call themselves 'conservatives' lap it up because, well, environmentalists are hippies and liberals and so they must be wrong, right?

[helomech]

Al Gore is a first class a_ssclown and a hypocrite-why the fvck would anyone listen to him?I sure as hell don't.
When he starts to practice what he spews forth to the public when it comes to cutting back on whatever seems to making the earth fall apart these days,then and only then will I give him thirty seconds of my time.
Global warming spikes upward when he opens his suck and bellows on about global warming

[Walter Sobchak]

"Most scientists" and "the rest of the World" once believed that the flat Earth was the center of the universe. They had all kinds of supporting evidence to prove it. If anyone disagreed with them, they were considered a religious heretic and were either cast into prison or burned alive. This climate of intolerance actually lead to the perpetuation of this inaccurate view of the natural world.

The same is happening now. Many scientists who have finally put in the requisite amount of scientific study into the whole theory of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming have found it either implausible or that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support it. Many of these same scientists have cited instances where their stand against anthropogenic global warming has earned them threats of bodily harm, political pressure within their institutions (University, foundation, etc.) and fear for their employment. Furthermore, many of the scientists who are changing their stance on anthropogenic global warming say that when they originally signed on, the best evidence available seemed to support it. However, as more data becomes available, scientists are deserting the AGW band wagon. A number of scientists were also pressured to support AGW.

Anthropogenic global warming has the same characteristics as a religion. There is a tendency to adhere as an act of faith. Conversely, scientific investigation is just the opposite, as it is based on testing and re-testing theories and continuing examination of facts. A scientist will go where his or her intellect and impartial examination leads.

Yes, being "green" makes sense. The Earth is getting more crowded and resources more scarce. I am "greener" than 90% of Americans, but I cannot support AGW, based on the limited amount of scientific evidence available.

Lost in this emotional babble are the studies showing fluctuations in the energy emitted by the sun! Lost is an examination of "follow the money" where the sale of carbon offsets, "caps" and other "green" initiatives are concerned. People who claim to not trust their government are ready to surrender their economy and a good deal of their sovereignty based a theory, based on incomplete and largely unproven data.

As for Obama implying that it is all "Bush's fault", let's not forget that the US Senate voted 95-0 during Clinton's administration to not even consider the Kyoto Treaty.

Yes, the world is warming. That's undeniable. This has happened throughout the ages, many times before man ever walked upright. But it's not man's fault...

[budgie]

If you say so, but can't we clean up the world anyway? Environmental Pollution has alwasy been man's fault and in the modern industrial age it has reached epic proportions. The industry-supported studies that show Global Warming is a 'natural cycle' are pushed on us because big business doesn't want to clean up its act at all. If we shouldn't fear man-made climate change, we should at least make sure that argument doesn't distract us from our most pressing environmental concerns. The Right uses such studies to deny the whole environmental movement altogether.

[timetraveller]

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/23/obama%E2%80%99s-science-team-reshaping-our-long-term-future/


...the bullets got all jacked up. Sorry.




The damage to the planet has been on going long before such tests could even be carried , and nobody knew what constant use of fossil fuels etc etc etc and well nuclear weapon useage and testing has harmed the enviroment ...

And the blatent destruction of vast acres of rainforests clearance to make way for cattle/sheep has done to the enviroment .. ever increasin airtravel , millions of cars on the roads

I have seen the effects first hand .. I remember when i young from where i stay you could see Glasgow and beyond as the eye could see , now on a sunny day .. all you see is lingering smog that hangs over the city .

[cx2115]

The Earth is also gettin warmer becuase th sun is buring hotter each year. Eventually it well swell and absorb all the space up to venus and then it will be really hot here. So in the end all our little efforts are futile


Eh, well... not exactly - that's not scheduled to happen for another 3-4 billion years and up until that point the sun's output will remain pretty well constant.

Actually (and relevant to the topic at hand) at the moment the sun might actually be in the cooler part of its cycle... and global warming might be the least of our worries p-):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23583376-7583,00.html

[11 Bravo]

the choices Obama has made do signal a change away from the Bush policies that generally favoured economic over environmental concerns.

Either way I am hopeful this will be the start of a greater effort to reduce emissions and generally improve policy on the environmental front.

Merry Christmas to you too.

Hmmm.....oblahma has made signalsto a change from bush... no kidding. Is it good, you apparently think it stellar. If you have followed this whole global bolagna and carbon credit bunk you will have noticed that only the modern industiral markets like America for one top example will be hamstrung and pillaried. But oddly enough the industrial scene in North America is likely the cleanest industrial environment on the planet. So by hemhorrageing the US industrial complex with BS do-gooder feelgood laws that in the end amount to sqaut as most are simply based on emotinal tree hugging linoleum smoking vision(s)... that is somehow crackerassfantastic ?.
The whole bunk fed by the media elite ( version 2.0 ) makes the western industrial complex out like some mad hatter of hell , when in fact the very parts of the globe that get a break under their goofy scheme are the BIGGEST polluters on the globe. Me thinks me smells some PC illogic in the whole decrepid process. It's all smoke and mirrors in the end as this kind of global politik always is... oh my I meant global bologna my pardon.

[budgie]

I agree Carbon Credits may not be the best system. But the Right Wing media uses that (and the whole if-you-believe-in-Man-Made-Global-Warming-you-must-be-a-flat-Earther illogic) to help deny the entire environmental movement. Something has to be done to give industry an incentive to pollute less, but it will take different models for different industries. Tax-breaks and subsidies for carmakers that produce reduced-emission vehicles for example.

[Walter Sobchak]

If you say so, but can't we clean up the world anyway? Environmental Pollution has alwasy been man's fault and in the modern industrial age it has reached epic proportions. The industry-supported studies that show Global Warming is a 'natural cycle' are pushed on us because big business doesn't want to clean up its act at all. If we shouldn't fear man-made climate change, we should at least make sure that argument doesn't distract us from our most pressing environmental concerns. The Right uses such studies to deny the whole environmental movement altogether.

If that was directed at me, re-read my post! I totally agree. I've been recycling over 30 years! But don't equate AGW with environmentalism. Linking the two concepts is precisely the damage the flat-Earth/AGW adherents are doing to efforts to be less wasteful and cleaning up the planet.


I agree Carbon Credits may not be the best system. But the Right Wing media uses that (and the whole if-you-believe-in-Man-Made-Global-Warming-you-must-be-a-flat-Earther illogic) to help deny the entire environmental movement. Something has to be done to give industry an incentive to pollute less, but it will take different models for different industries. Tax-breaks and subsidies for carmakers that produce reduced-emission vehicles for example.

Don't play the straw-man card on the "right wing media" unless you want to look at the corollary of that argument and point out the "other media" and their unwillingness to transparently examine the whole question of anthropogenic global warming. For example, have you ever heard the word "anthropogenic" used in a news story before? Of course not, because there is a concerted effort to see all global warming as the same. Period. No questions asked.

As far as the "flat Earth" comparison, it's the blind-faith adherence by the AGW-believers, without tolerating any dissenting opinion, which gives their quasi-religious movement the feeling of the "let's burn the heretics" inquisition. Remember, scientists are only human and can be influenced by fear of the the lunatic fringe, as was evidenced by the fact that Galileo was forced to recant his heliocentrism and spent the last years of his life under house arrest.

As the family of Man, we owe it to ourselves to pursue the truth in all things, especially something as flimsily supported as anthropogenic global warming.

[Hellfish]

If you say so, but can't we clean up the world anyway? Environmental Pollution has alwasy been man's fault and in the modern industrial age it has reached epic proportions. The industry-supported studies that show Global Warming is a 'natural cycle' are pushed on us because big business doesn't want to clean up its act at all. If we shouldn't fear man-made climate change, we should at least make sure that argument doesn't distract us from our most pressing environmental concerns. The Right uses such studies to deny the whole environmental movement altogether.


x2. I think the warming is part of a natural cycle, though I'm sure pollution is not helping.

I'm more interested in just cleaning up the air, improving quality of life, and trying to preserve what little nature we have left.

[paracrusader]

*sarcasm on*
If we continue to cause climate change, the polar ice caps will melt and the land bridge between Alaska and Russia will eventually disappear. Imagine the consequences for migrating herds of wooly mammoths - we could see them extinct in our lifetime. That's not even to mention the impact of warming climates on the population on giant sloths or sabre-toothed tigers. For gods sake, go green- do it for the wooly mammoths!

For that matter, didn't our ancestors cause the last ice age, the break-up of Pangea, and the extinction of Dinosaurs? When will we learn?

[Chimera]

Here is what I think of when someone comes up with his SAVE THE PLANETTT!!! ****:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=ljNDbKpusT0

[Mackie]

1) Fossil fuels make the air dirty
2) Industrial waste contaminates water tables, rivers and the ocean
3) As does sewage
4) deforestation destroys species habitat and reduces renewable resources fior future generations.
5) The earth IS getting warmer and these things, if they don't contribute, sure don't help.


6) Fossil fuels make the country dependent on partnerships with "axis of evil"
7) green energy creates jobs in the US and not in Saudi Arabia.
8) green energy keeps oil price down

[11 Bravo]

6) Fossil fuels make the country dependent on partnerships with "axis of evil"
7) green energy creates jobs in the US and not in Saudi Arabia.
8) green energy keeps oil price down

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientific-illiteracy-all-the-rage-among-the-glitterati-1212406.html


Mackie ; Are you one of the types in this link ?.

[11 Bravo]

As the family of Man, we owe it to ourselves to pursue the truth in all things, especially something as flimsily supported as anthropogenic global warming.

That's some quaint arrogance there good fella. Let's just go for flimsy evidence simply because it feels so cool , oh er ah globally warm is what I think I meant.

[Walter Sobchak]

That's some quaint arrogance there good fella. Let's just go for flimsy evidence simply because it feels so cool , oh er ah globally warm is what I think I meant.

Well, buy into this all the way, and your grandchildren will be living like your great, great grandparents lived, except without all the personal freedoms.

The US Senate decided not to even consider the Kyoto Treaty, because it would devastate the economy. The vote was 95-0, with five conveniently not present.

Follow the money. Pursue the science. The perfect example is this desire to base all power needs on "wind and solar"; in the abstract, it feels so gooooood, but what about those 5 or 10 or 20 or 30 days a year - depending on where you live - when neither of those are sustainable? Back to candles? Or, do you have a standby fossil-fuel back-up system on line? A system that takes 2-3 days to bring fully on line?

The devil is in the details. I don't trust my government or your government enough to mortgage my future and the futures of my children on a theory that is being disproven more every year.

Personally, I'm for sane sustainability.

[Walter Sobchak]

Not to beat a dead horse, but a story originally published in Australia sums up the whole hocus-pocus of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It includes endnotes and links to sources, which are themselves well-documented and compelling.




Promoting Anthropogenic Global Warming


The media promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008
by David Evans David Evans, a CFACT advisor who served as a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.

Kevin Rudd has failed to see through the vested interests that promote anthropogenic global warming (AGW), the theory that human emissions of carbon cause global warming. Though masquerading as "science based", the promoters of AGW have a medieval outlook and are in fact anti-science. Meanwhile carbon is innocent, and the political class is plunging ahead with making us poorer because they do not understand what science really is or what the real science is.

The Renaissance began when the absolute authority of the church and ancient texts was overthrown. Science then evolved as our most reliable method for acquiring knowledge, free of superstition and political authority. Suppose you wanted to know whether big cannonballs or small cannonballs fell faster. In medieval times you argued theoretically with what could be gleaned from the Bible, the works of Aristotle, or maybe a Papal announcement. In the Renaissance you ignored the authorities and simply dropped cannon balls from a tower and observed what happened - this was science, where empirical evidence trumps theory.

From 1975 to 2001 the global temperature trended up. How do you empirically determine the cause of this global warming? It turns out we can learn a lot simply by observing where the warming occurred: each possible cause of global warming heats the atmosphere differently, heating some parts before others. The pattern of warming is the cause's "signature".

The signature of an increased greenhouse effect consists of two features: a hotspot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics, and a combination of broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming. The signature of ozone depletion consists just of the second feature. These signatures are theoretically derived by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and are integral to our understanding of how the atmosphere works. [1]

We have been observing temperatures in the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes - weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. The radiosonde measurements for 1979-1999 show broad stratospheric cooling and broad tropospheric warming, but they show no tropical hotspot. Not even a small one. [2]

Empirically, we therefore know that an increased greenhouse effect was not a significant cause of the recent global warming. (Either that or the signatures from the IPCC are wrong, so its climate models and predictions are rubbish anyway.)

Human carbon emissions were occurring at the time but the greenhouse effect did not increase. Therefore human carbon emissions did not increase the greenhouse effect, and did not cause global warming. So AGW is wrong, and carbon is innocent. Suspect exonerated - wrong signature.

Alarmist scientists (supporters of AGW) objected that the radiosonde thermometers were not accurate and maybe the hotspot was there but went undetected. But there were hundreds of radiosondes, so statistically this is unlikely. They have also suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, and use the radiosonde wind measurements instead. When combined with a theory about wind shear they estimated the temperatures on their computers - and say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hotspot. But thermometers are designed to measure temperature, so it's a bit of a stretch to claim that wind gauges are accidentally better at it. Serious alarmist scientists do not claim that the hotspot was found, only that we might have missed it. The obvious conclusion is that the hotspot was too weak to be easily detected. We cannot collect any more data from the past warming, and there is no sign of the hotspot in the data that was collected - so the occasional claims that appear on the Internet that the hotspot has been found are simply wrong. [3]

So can we tell from the observed warming pattern what did cause the global warming? Unfortunately we have little idea of the signatures of some of the suspects, such as cosmic rays or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, so we cannot say except to note that ozone depletion was one of the causes.

Is there any observational evidence in favor of AGW? As of 2003, none at all.

The only supporting evidence for AGW was the old ice core data. The old ice core data, gathered from 1985, showed that in the past half million years, through several global warmings and coolings, the earth's temperature and atmospheric carbon levels rose and fell in lockstep. AGW was coming into vogue in the 1980s, so it was widely assumed that it was the carbon changes causing the temperature changes.

By the late 1990s ice core techniques had improved. In the old ice cores the data points were a few thousand years apart, but in the new ice core data they were only a few hundred years apart. In the early 1990s, New Scientist magazine anticipated that the higher-resolution data would seal the case for AGW.

But the opposite occurred. By 2003 it had been established to everyone's satisfaction that temperature changes preceded corresponding carbon changes by an average of 800 years: so temperature changes caused carbon changes - a warmer ocean supports more carbon in the atmosphere, after delays due to mixing. [4] So the ice core data no longer supported AGW. The alarmists failed to effectively notify the public.

After several prominent public claims by skeptics in 2008 that there is no evidence left for AGW, alarmist scientists offered only two points.

First, laboratory tests prove that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But that observation tells us nothing about how much the global temperature changes if extra carbon enters the real, complicated atmosphere. Every emitted carbon atom raises the global temperature, but the missing hotspot shows that the effect is negligible.

Second, computer models. Computer models are just huge concatenations of calculations that, individually, could have been performed on a handheld calculator. They are theory, not evidence.

Governments have spent over $50 billion on climate research since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence for AGW. [5]

So if there is no evidence to support AGW, and the missing hotspot shows that AGW is wrong, why does most of the world still believe in AGW?

Part of the answer is that science changed direction after a large constituency of vested interests had invested in AGW. The old ice core data provided support from 1985, the IPCC was established by the UN in 1988 to look into human changes to climate, and the Kyoto Protocol was negotiated in 1997 to limit carbon emissions. By 1999 the western political class were doing something, the western media were rallying behind "saving the planet", and scientists were being paid by governments to research the effects of human-caused global warming.

But then the evidence took science off in a different direction: the new ice core data in 2003, the missing hotspot in 2007, and the global temperature has stopped trending up since 2001 [6]. Governments, the media, and many scientists did not notice.

The remainder of the answer for the current belief in AGW is darker and more political. An offbeat theory in the 1970s, AGW was adopted by a group of about 45 atmospheric modelers and physicists. That group dominated climate science journals, peer reviewed each others papers, and hindered competing ideas by underhand methods [7]. AGW gained political support from proponents of nuclear power, and vice-president Gore appointed AGW supporters to science positions in the USA.

AGW grabbed control of climate funding in key western countries. Lack of diversity in science funding has been a major problem since government took over funding science in WWII. Science is like a courtroom - protagonists put forward their best cases, and out of the argument some truth emerges. But if only one side is funded and heard, then truth tends not to emerge. This happened in climate science, which is almost completely government funded and has been dominated by AGW for two decades. Skeptics are mainly scientists who are retired or who have moved on to other areas - their funding no longer depends on allegiance to AGW. The alarmists are full time, well funded, and hog the megaphone.

AGW was always promoted as being supported by nearly all scientists (though polls and history do not support this). Counting numbers of supporters and creating a bandwagon effect by announcing you are in the majority is a political tactic.

AGW always advanced principally by political means; as a scientific theory it was always weak, and now the evidence contradicts it. It's like a return to medieval times, where authority rules and evidence is ignored. Notice how the proponents of AGW don't want to talk about evidence of the causes? Anything but evidence of cause - attack people's motives, someone else "has the evidence", theoretical models, evidence that global warming is occurring, how important they are, what credentials they have, how worthy they are, the dog ate my evidence, "the science is settled", polar bears, anything. Talking about the evidence of the cause of global warming does not advance their cause. Politics says AGW is correct; science says it is wrong.

Science demands evidence. Evidence trumps theory, no matter what the political authority of those promoting the theory, even if they dress up in lab coats and have job titles that say "scientist". The hotspot is missing and there is no evidence for AGW. The alarmists cannot ignore this and continue to play political games forever. They are entitled to argue the case for AGW, but they should also acknowledge the evidence and inform the political class that AGW appears to be wrong - even if it means risking their status and their jobs (and yes, we scientists are also people who have kids and mortgages).

There are two central lies in the political promotion of AGW.

The first appears in Gore's movie. He gave the old ice core data as the sole reason for believing AGW (the rest of the movie presents evidence that global warming occurred, a separate issue). He said that increases in carbon caused increases in temperature in the past warming events. But Gore made his movie in 2005, two years after the new ice core data had established the opposite! Gore's weasel words when he introduced that segment show he knew what he was about to say was false. Who would have believed his pitch if he added "and each temperature rise occurred 800 years before the corresponding rise in carbon that caused it"? [8]

The second lie is the hockey stick graph, which presented the last thousand years of global temperature as the flat handle of a hockey stick and the next hundred as the sharply rising blade [9]. The hockey stick graph was heavily promoted by the IPCC in 2001, and the IPCC even adopted it as its logo before it got discredited. It is significant because most non-scientist AGW supporters seem to believe some version of the hockey stick. When the IPCC "scientists" who produced the graph were asked to show their data for past temperatures, they refused (true scientists share data). But one of those scientists was a British academic and subject to the British Freedom of Information Act, and after two years of stonewalling all was revealed. It showed they had grossly skewed the data (even omitting inconvenient data to a folder labeled "Censored"), and that the computer program used to process the data had the hockey stick shape built into it - you could feed it stock market data instead of tree ring data and you would still get a hockey stick! In reality it was warmer in the Middle Ages than today, and there was a mini ice age around 1700 from which we have since been warming ever since. [10] Finally, the sharply rising blade of the hockey stick is contradicted so far by actual temperatures, which from 2001 to 2008 have been flat - something all of the climate models got wrong.

Among non-scientists, AGW appeals strongly to two groups. Those who support big government love the idea of carbon regulations - if you control carbon emissions then you control most human activity. And those who like to feel morally superior to the bulk of their fellow citizens by virtue of a belief (the "warm inner glow" and moral vanity of the politically correct) are firmly attached to AGW. These groups are politically adept, are planning to spend your money and tell you how to eat, travel and how to live, and they are strenuously avoiding the evidence.

The media has avoided presenting information that undermines AGW, until recently. Instead they promoted alarmism, and discredited skeptics as being in the pay of big oil - while giving a free pass to Gore, who made a movie based on an obvious lie then made millions selling carbon offsets. The media is very keen to present evidence that global warming is occurring, but have you noticed how quiet it is on evidence that carbon emissions caused it?

In 2007 almost no one in the west knew that the hotspot was missing, that there was no evidence for AGW, that temperatures had been flat for six years, that the hockey stick was a fraud, or that Al Gore lied when he gave the old ice core data as a reason for blaming carbon. But due to the Internet the public is gradually finding out anyway, which risks further discrediting many media outlets. Why buy a newspaper if it's not going to tell you the actual news?

And as the public become generally aware, what politician is going to risk being so ideologically stupid as to unnecessarily wreck the economy by slashing carbon emissions? Hmmm, Kevin Rudd?

Endnotes

[1] The IPCC published several signatures in IPCC Assessment Report 4, 2007, Chapter 9, Figure 9.1, page 675: http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch09.pdf

[2] The US CCSP published the observed changes in atmospheric temperatures for 1979 � 1999 in part E of Figure 5.7 on page 116 in 2006: http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap5.pdf

[3] See http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf for links to debates, further commentary, and arguments from alarmist scientists.

[4] Callion's 2003 paper is at http://icebubbles.ucsd.edu/Publications/CaillonTermIII.pdf, and a colorful but informative and link-filled presentation is at http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/07/carbon-dioxide-and-temperatures-ice.html.

[5] The US has spent about $30b (http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/USGCRP-CCSP_Budget_History_Table_2.pdf) and other western countries combined have presumably spent about as much again. The UK will not release its sending figures. See also http://joannenova.com.au/2008/12/02/big-government-outspends-big-oil-1000-to-1.

[6] Look at the data from the four bodies that produce global temperature records. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but only goes back to 1979; satellites operate 24/7, measuring everywhere except the poles. Land based thermometer readings are corrupted by the urban heat island effect-and they show temperatures rising faster in areas with higher populations (see http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm and http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/). 1. Remote Sensing Systems in California. Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/RSSglobe.html). 2. University of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH). Uses only satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UAHMSUglobe.html). 3. The Hadley Centre in the UK uses a mix of satellite data and land-based thermometers: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCRUG.html). 4. The Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) at NASA uses land-based thermometers (plus a few ocean thermometers), but no satellite data: www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/GISSglobal.html).

[7] For many examples from an impeccable scientist in the trenches, see http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0809/0809.3762.pdf.

[8] A British judge ruled that when Gore presented the ice core graphs of temperature and carbon in his movie, "the two graphs do not establish what Mr Gore asserts". The nine errors found by the judge in Gore's movie are summarized in the graphic at http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23416151-details/Judge+attacks+nine+errors+in+Al+Gore%27s+%27alarmist%27+climate+change+film/article.do.

[9] The Australian Department of Climate Change still sports the hockey stick on its website in 2008: http://www.climatechange.gov.au/science/faq/question2.html. Hear from the scientist who uncovered the fraud: http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/PDF/conf05mckitrick.pdf.

[10] What the combined mass of independent researchers say about the historical past in 2007 is in Figure 3 at http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm (the last blue downtick seems to be due to using 30 year averages with the last period ending in about 1975, the end of the last cooling).

First published in abc.net.au (http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2451051.htm).

[Jobu]

So now that the whole MMGW sham is being exposed, Obama decides to make it federal policy?


:cantbeli:

[budgie]

What sham being exposed? In terms of the scientific community the naysayers are only a drop in the ocean. The vast majority still accepts that human industry is a large contributor to global warming.

Just because they're the majority as well doesn't make them 'flat-earthers' whom new ground-breaking 'research' has proven to be wrong: scientists from ancient Greece, to Persia, the Arab world and even Late Medieval Europe knew the Earth was round. Thirty odd years ago, it was scientists who discovered we were doing it harm.

[11 Bravo]

What sham being exposed? In terms of the scientific community the naysayers are only a drop in the ocean. tha vast majority still accepts that human industry is a large contributor to global warming.

Just because they're the majority as well doesn't make them 'flat-earthers' whom new ground-breaking 'research' has proven to be wrong: scientists from ancient Greece, to Persia, the Arab world and even Late Medieval Europe knew the Earth was round. Thirty odd years ago, it was scientists who discovered we were doing it harm.

As the Great Ronald Reagan said : "There you go again". It is a sham , and slowly it's being exposed for the tool it is for those that use it. The naysayers are a drop in the bucket you say...oddly I don't know an intelligent soul who buys it , but then again sheeple gobble up the media elite version 2.0 of global bologna with absolutely no concept of what it is and how it's distorted by the loud squeaky wheel crowd. Was it not the infamous Minister of propaganda Under Hitler that said something like "telling a lie often and loudly makes it truth". It's just that easy to feed soma to dimwitted sheeple , they know it and they're doing it on global bologna in spades, but their veneer is cracking.... the light is shining in on their "little" white lie.

[11 Bravo]

So now that the whole MMGW sham is being exposed, Obama decides to make it federal policy?


:cantbeli:


Oblahma has to give some payback to the global bologna oblahmatons that got him in the catbird seat. He can't upset the soma cart for his sheeple now.

[brainplay]

What sham being exposed? In terms of the scientific community the naysayers are only a drop in the ocean. tha vast majority still accepts that human industry is a large contributor to global warming.

Not neccesarily. The tides are turning and since new information on the data gathering processes and the interpretation of the IPCC report have come out, many have begun been questioning the "consensus" (which didn't happen).

What everyone agrees on, including the AGW skeptics like myself is that human industry contributes to POLLUTION which doesn't necessarily mean AGW. I'm all for strict regulations to cut back on smog, acid rain, etc. But taking a case to court to declare carbon dioxide (CO2) as pollution is just nuts.

[supercoolone]

Change it is guys, but you don't have to like it. The Right can whine all they want about 'groupthink' and a 'global warming hoax', but even if you don't believe Al Gore's dire predictions, even if you want to accept fossil fuel industry 'studies' on how it's a 'natural' warming cycle, here are some facts:

1) Fossil fuels make the air dirty
2) Industrial waste contaminates water tables, rivers and the ocean
3) As does sewage
4) deforestation destroys species habitat and reduces renewable resources fior future generations.
5) The earth IS getting warmer and these things, if they don't contribute, sure don't help.

This is not a left/right issue. You don't have to be against conservation just because the left is for it. The fact is to keep the world a clean and beautiful place for future generations we do have to better manage our use of its resources and find cleaner ways to maintain our lifestyles. To reduce this global problem to a mere pissing match between two American political parties does no service to anyone.

I don't agree with your points, the opposite will provide better results. The human species must make attempts at sequestering carbon underground, in landfills. On the demand side, this would entail a massive consumer society so that we can fill up the landfills as quickly as possible with carbon containing products, like from trees. We all do our part on Christmas by double wrapping presents with excess heavy weight wrapping paper. On the supply side, trees must be planted and cut down as quickly as possible since trees sequester carbon, I believe IKEA does its part by producing cheap wood furniture that quickly breaks and is sequestered in landfills. Also, we need to produce as much canned soda as possible since this also sequester carbonic acid. roflroflrofl Ask not what I should put in the landfill, but ask the landfill how much you can put in. roflroflrofl

[budgie]

The naysayers are a drop in the bucket you say...oddly I don't know an intelligent soul who buys it , but then again sheeple gobble up the media elite version 2.0 of global bologna with absolutely no concept of what it is

Oddly subjective. Technically you could disqualify anyone from being intelligent just because they believed in global warming, if you wanted to.


Was it not the infamous Minister of propaganda Under Hitler that said something like "telling a lie often and loudly makes it truth".

It strikes me as just what the Right seems to want to achieve with such shrill denial of widely accepted data.

The scientists who believe that global warming -or at least Man's part in it - is a sham are a small group, oddly aligned to the energy lobby in Washington (and to a lesser extent other developed nations). They may even be growing as a faction, but get back to us when they have a majority. By then the planet should be four or five degrees hotter anyway.

[deagle]

i just hope he doesn't lose focus on the short-term

[Walter Sobchak]

What sham being exposed? In terms of the scientific community the naysayers are only a drop in the ocean. The vast majority still accepts that human industry is a large contributor to global warming.

Just because they're the majority as well doesn't make them 'flat-earthers' whom new ground-breaking 'research' has proven to be wrong: scientists from ancient Greece, to Persia, the Arab world and even Late Medieval Europe knew the Earth was round. Thirty odd years ago, it was scientists who discovered we were doing it harm.

Again, follow the money. The scientists who buy into this are well-funded by governments who want to (a.) take more of your freedom away by controlling, "carbon" creation, and (b.) create more taxes and regulations, so as to create a permanent underclass of government-dependent citizens. When you fund "scientific research" to reach a predetermined conclusion that's dishonest and obscures the real truth. Therein, lies the real "big lie".

I don't think you read the piece I posted from Australia. Simply put, the cat's out of the bag. One of the seven errors in "An Inconvenient Truth" that the British Court said had to be identified before showing to schoolchildren is the ignoring of the 2003 ice core data. It moved the AGW proponents science 180 degrees.

As for the "majority" of scientists who believe in AGW, no one ever seems to have any data to support that. The last time I heard the Al Gore (Manbearpig?) speak, he quoted that number, "as liter-a-lly thousands". Is that two or 900 thousand? Does a physicist have a valid opinion, or his pretty much like yours and mine? How about a genetecist? I've seen two eminent ones from Standford on one list of believers. I smell funding here...

As for "get back to me" when the the scientists who believe AGW is not real are in the majority, that smacks of the "American Idolizing" of science; let's vote to see it it's real! The majority of scientists once believed that disease was caused by "bad air", that bleeding a patient was good for them, that women had two more ribs than men and that women were mentally inferior to men. Majority rule in the sciences is the antithesis of the logic, research and scientific examination.


This is not a left/right issue. You don't have to be against conservation just because the left is for it. The fact is to keep the world a clean and beautiful place for future generations we do have to better manage our use of its resources and find cleaner ways to maintain our lifestyles. To reduce this global problem to a mere pissing match between two American political parties does no service to anyone.You are the one who brings up party politics. I'm conservative by nature, but I have always driven fuel efficient cars, I've recycled since before you were born, I eschew urbanization, I conserve energy and don't use pesticides/chemicals in the garden. Being green and recycling doesn't mean you have to destroy your lifestyle and your economy by buying into the whole manmade global warming scheme. Those two are only linked because powerful people have chosen to do so. You are buying into it and, and as I mentioned, demonizing those who don't.

I can be "green" and still have a woodstove, run the grill and mow the yard; I can be environmentally responsible, use moderation and properly dispose of the waste. However, as carbon-producing activities, they will likely be taxed, regulated or prohibited, all for the sake of a "theory".

When science and politics mix, it's never good. Galileo found that out. When you start paying more taxes and higher utility bills because of "carbon offsets" and the shutting down of coal-fired power plants, and you see China and India spewing ever more amounts of carbon into the atmosphere... and you don't have the money to pay your natural gas bill, even though it's freezing outside, you'll say, "Let's take another look at this manmade global warming thing."

Of course, someday some bright young scientist will figure out that it's really the sun doing all this, but by then the bureaucracy of AGW will be so entrenched that nothing short of an new ice age will get them to admit that they were wrong.

Oh, well... you all wuz warned. I'm done...

[11 Bravo]

Oddly subjective. Technically you could disqualify anyone from being intelligent just because they believed in global warming, if you wanted to.



It strikes me as just what the Right seems to want to achieve with such shrill denial of widely accepted data.

The scientists who believe that global warming -or at least Man's part in it - is a sham are a small group, oddly aligned to the energy lobby in Washington (and to a lesser extent other developed nations). They may even be growing as a faction, but get back to us when they have a majority. By then the planet should be four or five degrees hotter anyway.

Technically you could disqualify yourself with your imperious the sky is falling belief.
It strikes me that the left has their head in the GLOBAL BOLOGNA SALAD and won't stop tossing it for love nor reality ( follow the money ).
Can you in any way prove your muse that scientists and meteorologists are all aligned with the "big energy lobby" and are somehow a "small group"...your narrow vision is creeping in here again.
So smug.."get back to us when they are the majority"....so very smug mob rules. So do you have any proof or understanding of your conjecture about the planet being four to five degrees warmer by your hypothetical timeline...that my friend is global warming right there with that windbag of wasted breath.

[11 Bravo]

Again, follow the money. The scientists who buy into this are well-funded by governments who want to (a.) take more of your freedom away by controlling, "carbon" creation, and (b.) create more taxes and regulations, so as to create a permanent underclass of government-dependent citizens. When you fund "scientific research" to reach a predetermined conclusion that's dishonest and obscures the real truth.

I don't think you read the piece I posted from Australia. Simply put, the cat's out of the bag. One of the seven errors in "An Inconvenient Truth" that the British Court said had to be identified before showing to schoolchildren is the ignoring of the 2003 ice core data. It moved the AGW proponents science 180 degrees.

As for the "majority" of scientists who believe in AGW, no one ever seems to have any data to support that. The last time I heard the Al Gore (Manbearpig?) speak, he quoted that number, "as liter-a-lly thousands". Is that two or 900 thousand? Does a physicist have a valid opinion, or his pretty much like yours and mine? How about a genetecist? I've seen two eminent ones from Standford on one list of believers. I smell funding here...

As for "get back to me" when the the scientists who believe AGW is not real are in the majority, that smacks of the "American Idolizing" of science; let's vote to see it it's real! The majority of scientists once believed that disease was caused by "bad air", that bleeding a patient was good for them, that women had two more ribs than men and that women were mentally inferior to men. Majority rule in the sciences is the antithesis of the logic, research and scientific examination.

When science and politics mix, it's never good. Galileo found that out. When you start paying more taxes and higher utility bills because of "carbon offsets" and the shutting down of coal-fired power plants, and you see China and India spewing ever more amounts of carbon into the atmosphere... and you don't have the money to pay your natural gas bill, even though it's freezing outside, you'll say, "Let's take another look at this manmade global warming thing."

Of course, someday some bright young scientist will figure out that it's really the sun doing all this, but by then the bureaucracy of AGW will be so entrenched that nothing short of an new ice age will get them to admit that they were wrong.

Oh, well... you all wuz warned. I'm done...

Walter I could hardly agree with you more. Althoug
hI am also partial to Einstiens Theory of Crustal displacement of the earth , which has yet to be disproven mathmetically. Coupled with the cycles of the sun it explains the geological history of the earth so much more clear... where global bologna just smacks of bologna science.

[Jobu]

Budgie's a MMGW dead-ender hehe.

Heck, I know a guy who still thinks we're all going to die from SARS.

[budgie]

You are the one who brings up party politics.

I can be "green" and still have a woodstove, run the grill and mow the yard; I can be environmentally responsible, use moderation and properly dispose of the waste. However, as carbon-producing activities, they will likely be taxed, regulated or prohibited, all for the sake of a "theory".



Well, there is a reason that this aspect of science is in the political thread. It has already been politicized - long before I touched on it. Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that most people here who prefer the data that disproves man-made global warming also seem to identify with conservatism and the GOP? Among Americans at least, environmental concerns have been split along party lines.

I think your personal attitude towards conservation is very sensible and level headed. I agree Carbon Credits may not be the best idea: in fact I too am suspicious of such a system when the more simple solution appears to be just to find less polluting energy sources and technologies to drive our undustries and support our lifestyles. But just because we may not like Carbon Credits, again, doesn't make Global warming itself a sham.

[egg taco]

We've known for decades about man-made global warming and the vast majority of the world and the scientific community accepts the science. Yet a few powerful industries manage to fund their own "studies" than run against the general wisom and that provides ammunition for the ideologues to challenge reality: "Don't accpet the global warning scam," they tell us, "That's for liberals and hippies!"

Well hopefully, this time someone will be on hand to listen to the "liberals and Hippies".


My posi rearend has a helluva time gettin' traction in all of this 'man-made-global-warming". Last week I couldn't even back outta' my driveway.

I dispute the above emboldened claim. More and more scientists are standing up to this ideologically driven agenda. Global warming theology is beginning to crumble under it's own weight and none too soon, imo.

[Walter Sobchak]

Well, there is a reason that this aspect of science is in the political thread. It has already been politicized - long before I touched on it. Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that most people here who prefer the data that disproves man-made global warming also seem to identify with conservatism and the GOP? Among Americans at least, environmental concerns have been split along party lines.

Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that most of the people who believe in the the science that supports anthropogenic global warming are politically left of center and believe in bigger government and seem to identify with the Democratic party, the Green Party, and the Socialist Workers Party?

Oh, and lest you get carried away with the GOP brush, I identify myself politically with the Libertarians, who also think AGW is not supported by real good science.


I think your personal attitude towards conservation is very sensible and level headed. I agree Carbon Credits may not be the best idea: in fact I too am suspicious of such a system when the more simple solution appears to be just to find less polluting energy sources and technologies to drive our industries and support our lifestyles. But just because we may not like Carbon Credits, again, doesn't make Global warming itself a sham.Be suspicious of a system that wants to control carbon through massive taxes, curbing your freedom to produce carbon emissions and stopping economic development in its tracks. And it's not the "carbon credits" or any one thing that scares me; it's the totality the whole package: bigger government, less freedom, loss of national sovereignty and proportionally greater impact on poor countries.

Believe me when I say that I believe that based on the limited data we have that there may indeed be global warming, but based on emerging data to the contrary, I don't believe that it's man-made. However, if something was discovered tomorrow that proves that in all likelihood that global warm is man-made, then I would embrace it, regardless of politics. But the science... the pure research and conclusions are taking the whole "proof" paradigm in the opposite direction.

Too many people are thinking with their emotions and not their minds! "Global Warming" has become the new mantra for being cool. "Green is the new Black", says one ad campaign. It's the flavor of the month, so the politicians are on board, the people who stand to make a killing are on board and the "scientists" who are getting well-funded are on board. Intellectually, someone needs to question this bandwagon before it takes us over a cliff...

If the shoe was on the other foot, I'd still be skeptical, because true science doesn't lie.

[Jurinko]

The vast majority still accepts that human industry is a large contributor to global warming.

I would not be so sure..

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6

I didn´t follow the issue in the past too much, acceptimg "conventional wisdom" that CO2 sux and warms us up, until I read how the "hockey stick" was artificially created by Mann, medieval warm period was covered up and then it went on and on.
2008 is the coldest year since 1998 despite CO2 continues to rise. 1940-1970 period was cooling down, despite CO2 rose. 1850-1940 was strongly warming up, despite CO2 was almost not increasing. The only period where it plays together is 1970-2000, 30 years from 160 when we have somehow exact temperature measurement.

[Dr_Fünke]

Be suspicious of a system that wants to control carbon through massive taxes, curbing your freedom to produce carbon emissions and stopping economic development in its tracks. And it's not the "carbon credits" or any one thing that scares me; it's the totality the whole package: bigger government, less freedom, loss of national sovereignty and proportionally greater impact on poor countries.

wow

the fact that you equate freedom with being able to release as much carbon into the air as you want suggests that your views aren't to be taken *too* seriously on this issue.


Believe me when I say that I believe that based on the limited data we have that there may indeed be global warming, but based on emerging data to the contrary, I don't believe that it's man-made. However, if something was discovered tomorrow that proves that in all likelihood that global warm is man-made, then I would embrace it, regardless of politics. But the science... the pure research and conclusions are taking the whole "proof" paradigm in the opposite direction.science isn't about absolutes, so nobody is going to give you certainty. scientists can only ever suggest a truth, with the probability of that suggestion being determined by the weight of the evidence behind it, and it's most certainly in favor of man's activities contributing to rising global tempretures

it's a bit reminiscint of the ID debate imo, what with all these claims that 'the tide of opinion is turning'


the people who stand to make a killing are on boardyou mean like the people who want to deliver us sustainable, zero emissions energy? yeah i hope they don't have their way.

seems very strange that a libertarian-small government type would be cynical or afraid of venture capitalists pouring their money into a 21st century business model. maybe we can get the government to step in and stop them!



Too many people are thinking with their emotions and not their minds! seems more like a case of many on the right wing brushing off grave concern about the mass destruction of our habitat which could eventually spell the end of our way of life (at the very least!) as some kind of emotional disturbance. nothing new. they've always had a healthy disrespect for science and conservation.

[gazell]

This is all really simple, nobody denies other factors, but CO2 emissions are the most significant in the current GW, more correctly, Climate Change. The more we emit with other GHGs, the worse it's going to get.

This is no conspiracy or politics. Scientists have not been disagreeing on this for decades. They debate the detail of how fast, how much, etc. Even climate models have been tested on 'hindcast', none bulls-eye, but all very, very close at all times, I'd call that a reasonably good shot. Anyway, predictions of the 80s are materialising as we speak, what more proof do you need still?

If you want to follow the money, you can read the report 'Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, all the 70 pages of it, about how big money created a 'debate' where there was none :http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

It's time we stopped bitching and made some constructive plans and acted and no, re-cycling won't do it.

We have to do a lot more, more befitting to a military forum, to discuss this in terms of defence and warfare:http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National Security and the Threat of Climate Change.pdf (http://securityandclimate.cna.org/report/National%20Security%20and%20the%20Threat%20of%20Climate%20Change.pdf)



2008 is the coldest year since 1998 despite CO2 continues to rise.

Check out La Nina, also 2000. There are a lot of individual weather events, not the same as long term climate trends.

[Walter Sobchak]

wow

the fact that you equate freedom with being able to release as much carbon into the air as you want suggests that your views aren't to be taken *too* seriously on this issue.

I never suggested that; read it again. Laws that govern pollution are good and can be made within the framework of maintaining healthy clean air. Fossil-fuel emissions cannot be made carbon-free. In fact, the normal respiration and eventual deterioration of carbon-based life forms (including you) will emit carbon back into its natural state.

What I take issue with is the regulation, via law or more unfairly, through taxation, of everyday human activities. Is my natural gas grill going to destroy the planet? How about if I choose to drive to work one day a week instead of take mass transit? What about running a gas-powered lawnmower, versus an electric one, which just pushes the emissions someplace else? Anyone who would see this as rampant, irresponsible carbon emissions cannot be be taken *too* seriously!


science isn't about absolutes, so nobody is going to give you certainty. scientists can only ever suggest a truth, with the probability of that suggestion being determined by the weight of the evidence behind it, and it's most certainly in favor of man's activities contributing to rising global temperatures.

it's a bit reminiscent of the ID debate imo, what with all these claims that 'the tide of opinion is turning'

Science is about reaching absolutes, otherwise it is just a theory. In fact, a real scientist will tell you that if you have a hypothesis and your examination of that hypothesis proves it 999 times out of 1000, then there is still something wrong with your hypothesis. So, I beg to differ with you there.

Ad for the "ID debate", you got me there, doc.


you mean like the people who want to deliver us sustainable, zero emissions energy? yeah i hope they don't have their way.

Again, you are making ridiculous conclusions. Alternative energy is something we need to achieve. But what is "zero emissions", really? Wind? Solar? Geo-thermal? Nuclear? What else? Remember, to truly achieve "zero emissions", you can't burn anything.

Wind energy is based on "averages". There is "average" sustainable wind energy in such-and-such location 300 days. What about the other 65 days? In April 2008, the huge wind farms in west Texas were becalmed, which is very unusual. However, my utility, who is heavily invested in wind energy added almost 100 dollars to my 78-dollar electric bill, because they had to buy electricity on the open market. Much of that was from natural-gas and coal-fired power plants. The point is that with the power needs of a country like the US, it's almost impossible build that many windmills where there would be a statistical assurance of sustainable wind 24/7/365.

How about solar? It doesn't work too well at night. Only better storage battery technology or storing it as potential energy will solve that problem.

Geo-thermal? That's a good idea, if you live in Iceland. However, some of the crap that Gaia punches out of the ground with her hot water is worse than the stuff coming out of the smoke stacks in China!

Nuclear? I'm a big proponent of nuclear, but most of the AGW believers also hate nuclear. (Unless we can harness the power of platitudes or the energy of invective can't they create any power.) I think the French have got the whole nuclear power solution exactly right.


seems very strange that a libertarian-small government type would be cynical or afraid of venture capitalists pouring their money into a 21st century business model. maybe we can get the government to step in and stop them!

No, your conclusion is strange; who said anything about venture capitalists doing or not doing anything? The free market should be the main player in all this, because that is where real solutuions come from! Government sure as hell can't do anything but screw things up. My problem is when that government buys into this whole AGW theory and starts destroying venture capital by taxing and regulating something (i.e.: carbon) that is a normal by-product of an industrial society.

In fact, speaking of the free-market, you and the other AGW-believers can set the example for the rest of us by buying carbon off-sets the next time you fly! You can even buy them to off-set your life-style. They are for sale, right now! Put your money where your mouth is. Or, are you just waiting for it to be passed into law before you act upon your convictions?


seems more like a case of many on the right wing brushing off grave concern about the mass destruction of our habitat which could eventually spell the end of our way of life (at the very least!) as some kind of emotional disturbance. nothing new. they've always had a healthy disrespect for science and conservation.

Ah... your political bias came out in the last paragraph! And you try to equate environmentalism and "destruction of habitat" with "anthropogenic global warming". You guys are totally brainwashed!

Yes, there is destruction of habitat. Preservation of habitat, wildlife, watersheds, marshlands, etc... is a good thing. We have laws and systems in place to help with that. Everyone who is reasonable can agree on that, whether the Earth is getting warmer, staying cooler or not doing squat. Separate environmentalism in your mind from any concept of global warming.

And, there is global warming. At least there is evidence that there may be some global warming over the the recent past. I can even accept that.

However, (now, here comes the really important point) the debate is whether the aforementioned global warming is made by man, or not. I don't think it is, based on good, scientific evidence. It's probably the sun, which will require a helluva good set of regulations to control. I think global warming has been politicized and subjected to histrionics to the point that it has taken on the trappings of a new, global religion.

If I am blaspheming your religion, I'm sorry. When you show me proof that global warming is man-made, I'll don the mantle of AGW and become a zealot in the fold of His Most High Goreness, smiting the carbon emitters with the holy sword of righteous carbon fidelity. But until then, I'm not going to buy into this whole notion of dismantling industrial society and becoming some sort of neo-paleolithic peasant who sleeps in his cold cottage while the Al Gores of the world live in their mansions and fly around in their G7s telling the unwashed masses how bad they are because they like to grill a burger once a week, have cows that fart without remorse or have a wood stove. You'll just have to burn me at the stake and sell my meager possessions to offset the carbon that my corpse puts into the atmosphere! :)

[Walter Sobchak]

If you want to follow the money, you can read the report 'Smoke, Mirrors and Hot Air, all the 70 pages of it, about how big money created a 'debate' where there was none :http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/exxon_report.pdf

This document had me until I got to the title page! The Union of Concerned Scientists is made up of scientists, yes, and all sorts of political crackpots. Anyone can join. My mother, a writer and a true New deal liberal in every sense, was a member in the 1970s. She finally quit when they society became a shrill proponent of unilateral disarmament by the west.

I've seen this report before. It's a lot of bull, written for a mass audience. Don't be fooled by the word "scientist". You'll see a lot the members' names and the "Member, Union of Concerned Scientists" all over any cause celebre.

[Dr_Fünke]

In fact, the normal respiration and eventual deterioration of carbon-based life forms (including you) will emit carbon back into its natural state.

i guess there is nothing to worry about then and we can continue to belch as much carbon into the air as possible!


What I take issue with is the regulation, via law or more unfairly, through taxation, of everyday human activities. Is my natural gas grill going to destroy the planet? How about if I choose to drive to work one day a week instead of take mass transit? What about running a gas-powered lawnmower, versus an electric one, which just pushes the emissions someplace else? Anyone who would see this as rampant, irresponsible carbon emissions cannot be be taken *too* seriously!walter, who is taxing you for using your grill?

the issue is with big business/industry


Science is about reaching absolutes, otherwise it is just a theory. In fact, a real scientist will tell you that if you have a hypothesis and your examination of that hypothesis proves it 999 times out of 1000, then there is still something wrong with your hypothesis. So, I beg to differ with you there.nope.

a scientist resigned to certainty is a dogmatist. there is no such thing as an 'absolute' as far as the scientific method is concerned, only suggestions of truth.


Again, you are making ridiculous conclusions. Alternative energy is something we need to achieve. But what is "zero emissions", really? Wind? Solar? Geo-thermal? Nuclear? What else? Remember, to truly achieve "zero emissions", you can't burn anything.yes, everybody knows what we mean by zero emissions


Nuclear? I'm a big proponent of nuclear, but most of the AGW believers also hate nuclear. (Unless we can harness the power of platitudes or the energy of invective can't they create any power.) I think the French have got the whole nuclear power solution exactly right.nuclear power is not clean, efficient or cheap. anybody with half a brain would be against either starting it or expanding it.


Ah... your political bias came out in the last paragraph! my political bias?

"Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that most of the people who believe in the the science that supports anthropogenic global warming are politically left of center and believe in bigger government and seem to identify with the Democratic party, the Green Party, and the Socialist Workers Party?"

are you suggesting that you have no political bias?



And you try to equate environmentalism and "destruction of habitat" with "anthropogenic global warming". You guys are totally brainwashed! if you accept global warming then you accept the ramifactions it has on the environment

what exactly do you find strange about that?



When you show me proof that global warming is man-made, IPCC fourth assessment report.

can you point me towards something which proves this alleged swag of evidence pointing to swing of the pendulum in the other direction?

because i have not read one single 'debunking' piece that has either

a)made it past peer review
b)didn't dismiss all other science as left-wing conspiracy

[Walter Sobchak]

i guess there is nothing to worry about then and we can continue to belch as much carbon into the air as possible!

Never said that; suggest you re-read.



walter, who is taxing you for using your grill?

the issue is with big business/industry

One of the considerations before the UN commission that handles this is to limit unregulated, "personal" sources of carbon emissions. On C-SPAN the house committee on the environment was discussing emission standards for lawn equipment and standards for cooking appliances. Check the Congressional record, October or November 2008.

Industry and business already meet rigorous emission standards, excluding carbon. When they get taxed for their "carbon output" you better believe it will be an issue for all of us. It will cost millions of jobs, especially in developing nations, raise prices of everything and do nothing to clean the air of carbon.


a scientist resigned to certainty is a dogmatist. there is no such thing as an 'absolute' as far as the scientific method is concerned, only suggestions of truth.

Fuzzy math... now fuzzy science? Take that attitude into any lab or testing facility and see where "suggestions" gets you. The scientific method is as close to certainty as is possible. You know nothing can be absolutely, 100% certain; that is why the scientific method evolved.


yes, everybody knows what we mean by zero emissions

nuclear power is not clean, efficient or cheap. anybody with half a brain would be against either starting it or expanding it.

"Zero emissions" is impossible in any industrial process. However, it has become a platitude, a mantra for people who feel good about clean energy independence but have never thought past their feelings and thought about exactly what it means to achieve it. Those nasty details do clutter up the mind!

I'll help you, doc: What "zero emissions" means is creating energy without the use of any chemical processes. No fire, no oxidation... nada. It means using the stored energy from the sun without any intermediate storage of BTU through fossil fuels.

That leaves wind... solar and geo-thermal, with all their limitations and uncertainties.

And nuclear. Oh, wait! The only real alternative to fossil fuels is off the table. It's too scary! We can visualize the world powered by windmills and solar facilities and geo-thermal, but we can't visualize a proven, viable technology in use the world over. We can do annnnnnnything, except make nuclear power a viable energy source. It's a compromise that both sides could live with and a viable (versus, theoretical) alternative! But no... not in my backyard, right?

Like the man says, the devil is in the details.


my political bias?

"Doesn't it strike you as a little suspicious that most of the people who believe in the the science that supports anthropogenic global warming are politically left of center and believe in bigger government and seem to identify with the Democratic party, the Green Party, and the Socialist Workers Party?"

are you suggesting that you have no political bias?

No, I was just pointing out yours, because you (and others) seem unable to discuss the facts or merits of anything without going into the political generalities. Sure, I'm political, but let's try and set politics aside for the moment and talk about the issue, not who we're aligned with on election day.


if you accept global warming then you accept the ramifications it has on the environment

what exactly do you find strange about that?

I accept global warming as a natural phenomenon. It has happened many other times over the history of the Earth and we are still here. The Earth still functions. If species are wiped out by climate change, new ones will take their place. Global warming killed the woolly mammoth, but the elephant evolved.

I can be an environmentalist and not buy into anthropogenic global warming. I do it every day.


IPCC fourth assessment report.

I've read parts of it. A masterpiece of political circumspection but no "proof".


can you point me towards something which proves this alleged swag of evidence pointing to swing of the pendulum in the other direction?

because i have not read one single 'debunking' piece that has either

a)made it past peer review
b)didn't dismiss all other science as left-wing conspiracy

My "proof" is as "compelling" as yours. Re-read my earlier posts; there are links in there.

I guess only time will tell who is right. Until them, I'm not convinced, and I'll obviously never convince you or others. In that way, it is kind of like religion.

By the way... does your computer have a <shift> key? Just wondering... :)

[11 Bravo]

Walter ; Thanks for the eloquent rationalization of the REAL global bologna intent. That Budgie and funkensteen miss that mark is clear. Emotionally crying wolf cannot sell keep up selling "junk science" or make me ever trust sods like Algore.
The whole warm bologna crowd are sheeple.... even the "leaders" and mouthpeices of this political garbage. Was it not even a or the minister of environment in the UK that publicly said he believed global bologna was junk science ?. Humpty dumptyhas fallen off the wall....and all the algoreskis and his minions can't put it back together again.

[gazell]

OH, Sammy, DUP. :roll: He also wants to ban the gay parade in Belfast and whatever else not. His knowledge of this topic is non-existent or he is flat lying even about basic, commonly available, not hard to read data like last few years' temperatures...:cantbeli:

This kind of frothing mouth argument is likely to get stronger in the near future, I believe.



And nuclear. Oh, wait! The only real alternative to fossil fuels is off the table. It's too scary!


I agree with you there, Walter. I can't see any other clean source at the moment that can deliver our energy needs and then yes, too many people are beyond reason scared of it. That's another battle to fight against a brick wall if we ever get over this first one, so we are quite likely fuked.:-(

[budgie]

This document had me until I got to the title page! The Union of Concerned Scientists is made up of scientists, yes, and all sorts of political crackpots. Anyone can join.

Easy to dismiss them all as crackpots isn't it? Shame they are not "intelligent" enough to see through the 'ruse' of global warming.

What is interesting about the document is that of the 80-odd pages, the appendix comprises two-thirds: something like fifty pages of evidence, documents, scientific study and leaked memos that help prove the case that the energy lobby seeks to muddy our understanding of global warming with cherry-picked research and a campaign of disinformation. The best response from the Right is "They're all nuts".

I'm not surprised it scares you.

And if that scares you, I hope (and it's a thin one) that Obama's stance on climate change is enough of an about-face from the past few years to make you crap yourself. That would be a good sign the environmental situation is improving. Unfortunately I don't have the documentation to back that up....

[egg taco]

Global Warming = Theology. Take it for what it is.

[wildcat]

Global Warming ha ha ha ha ha, suckers.

Global Warming being man made is the biggest joke every. CO2 is a trace gas, and has no impact on the planet heating up. there is 0.038% CO2 in the the atmosphere.

[Walter Sobchak]

Easy to dismiss them all as crackpots isn't it? Shame they are not "intelligent" enough to see through the 'ruse' of global warming.

What is interesting about the document is that of the 80-odd pages, the appendix comprises two-thirds: something like fifty pages of evidence, documents, scientific study and leaked memos that help prove the case that the energy lobby seeks to muddy our understanding of global warming with cherry-picked research and a campaign of disinformation. The best response from the Right is "They're all nuts".

I'm not surprised it scares you.

And if that scares you, I hope (and it's a thin one) that Obama's stance on climate change is enough of an about-face from the past few years to make you crap yourself. That would be a good sign the environmental situation is improving. Unfortunately I don't have the documentation to back that up....

It's amazing that when someone has an honest disagreement with your position, that your logic gets thinner and the ad hominem attacks get shriller. Instead of participating in the grade-school scatological (maybe, scat-illogical?) one-upmanship, I will just say that I question your "evidence"; you've shown me nothing new or refuted anything.

Your whole reliance on generalizations and attacks on "the usual suspects" just shows that what you actually know is only what you've heard or believe (which invites the 'religion' comparison). If you ever want to convert skeptics of AGW or anything in which you believe, you need to deal in coherent arguments. I'm still waiting for something compelling that I haven't seen. If I have an epiphany about man-made global warming, it won't be to your credit. Sorry!

I'll go out on a limb here and say we're probably not going to convince one another.

So, there you go, sport...

[egg taco]

haven't seen. If I have an epiphany about man-made global warming, it won't be to your credit. Sorry!


Bahahahaha!!! You blaspheme!! How dare you!! rofl

[11 Bravo]

I once had an epiphany about epiphanies...and it made me see global bologna not as a fried bologna sandwhich , but what it is... fried mind science with fuzzy math and fuzzy weather talking points and oh yeah a zealous hoodwinked quasi religious following mindset. Abe Lincoln said I believe :

You can fool all of the people some of the time
You can fool some of the people all of the time
But you can't fool all the people all of the time.

[gazell]

CO2 is a trace gas, and has no impact on the planet heating up.

That's the most stupid 'bolshevic' argument I've heard yet. How much plutonium are you willing to put in your dinner?rofl

there is 0.038% CO2 in the the atmosphere.

Well, in the literature it is most commonly referred to as part per million, but 380ppm or so is meaningless on its own. The point is, based on past climatic anomalies, that it should be somewhere between 250 - 300 ppm. There is the debate on how much will actually cause fatal damage of no return.

And yes, the Sun is in a cool period and the heat from the Earth is steady, there is no excess of volcanic activity. So what else than gh effect? Please, you wise ones, do tell!

BTW it's not a yesterday's problem and discovery, have you heard of smog?

But all deniers are welcome to present their evidence, that it was actually ET or Yeti farting, you have a hard task tough.p-)

[budgie]

I'll go out on a limb here and say we're probably not going to convince one another.

So, there you go, sport...

Well that part is fair enough. Personally I haven't done any research because I'm not a scientist. I rely - as you probably do - on research by people who know more than me, but we're both still choosing which research to believe, I guess. That makes it a religion for boths sides if it does for any at all.

I will say I do believe much of what the paper Gazell presented says about the energy lobby seeking to confuse the issue with non-peer-reviewed science of their own. If that doesn't convince you, I don't have any more compelling evidence. That paper, like other aspects of the global warming 'debate' (and I remind you that the debate is largely within America's halls of power as most of the rest of the developed west has much weaker energy lobbies) is something we can choose to believe or not. Again, we have chosen to "agree to disagree."

The scat thing was a childish attempt at humour. A genuine ad hominem attack would be, for example, dismissing a body of scientists and academics as a bunch of crackpots in order to silence their argument. Which is no doubt what will be done to the following Wikipedia page:

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


Writing in the National Review in 1997, Ron Bailey said, "Militia members are famously worried that black helicopters are practicing maneuvers with blue-helmeted UN troops in a plot to take over America. But the actual peril is more subtle. A small cadre of obscure international bureaucrats are hard at work devising a system of 'global governance' that is slowly gaining control over ordinary Americans' lives.

Maurice Strong, a 68-year-old Canadian, is the 'indispensable man' at the center of this creeping UN power grab. Bailey notes that Strong's most prominent and influential role to date was as Chairman of the Earth Summit which gave rise to the UN Framework Convention on Global Climate Change, and asserts that proposals to restrict emissions of greenhouse gases (then under negotiation) would cost the US "$90 billion to $400 billion annually in lost Gross Domestic Product and a loss of between 600,000 and 3.5 million jobs.

While I'm not accusing anyone here of subscribing to "black helicopter" fears, the idea that a Global Warming conspiracy, carbon credits and Kyoto are a means to hobble America's economy and to undermine the contstitutional freedoms of Americans by regulating their government from afar has been bandied about on this thread already.

The Wiki page contains a clearing house of sources about the alleged hoax and it's interesting to note their connection to big business and the Bush administration. It seems that these groups (see the document Gazell posted on ExxonMobil) have a vested interest in making Americans think that Global Warming is a hoax pertetrated by hippies and communists to undermine their way of life. It's no suprise that it appeals to Libertarians and "True Conservatives", as its is a common fear among them that the American Way is under threat. They've got more than a few people convinced it is their patriotic duty to decry the idea of man-made global warming and well, if they can cite a handful of scientific "studies" along the way it might just add a lick of legitimacy to their claims.

This in theory should allow the big-time polluting industries to go on as before without the loss in profits that cleaning their act up would bring. Thankfully, most other civilised governments have already started to go "green" and don't subscribe to the hoax theory. Hopefully the Obama administration will move in the same direction (though with such powerful energy lobbies in Washington they may find it hard).

[Dr_Fünke]

from this:


Science is about reaching absolutes, otherwise it is just a theory
to this:


The scientific method is as close to certainty as is possible. You know nothing can be absolutely, 100% certain; that is why the scientific method evolved.
i think your going to have to make your mind up one of these days, walter :)


"Zero emissions" is impossible in any industrial process. However, it has become a platitude, a mantra for people who feel good about clean energy independence but have never thought past their feelings and thought about exactly what it means to achieve it. Those nasty details do clutter up the mind!or it can be just a quick way of saying of abbreviating a form of technology.


And nuclear. Oh, wait! The only real alternative to fossil fuels is off the table. It's too scary! We can visualize the world powered by windmills and solar facilities and geo-thermal, but we can't visualize a proven, viable technology in use the world over. We can do annnnnnnything, except make nuclear power a viable energy source. It's a compromise that both sides could live with and a viable (versus, theoretical) alternative! But no... not in my backyard, right?whats viable about it?

the fact that uranium is finite, reactors don't last long and take ages to be built, produces a waste hazard for us to deal with or that the whole industry need to be propped up with gazillions of corporate welfare?

how does that not betray your libertarian philosophy, walter?


and all of this in an age where better options exist.



I've read parts of it.how can you come to the conclusion that it doesn't carry weight when you haven't read it all yet?


My "proof" is as "compelling" as yours.
all i saw was an opinion piece. how about something that's actually made it past peer review and been published?



I guess only time will tell who is right. Until them, I'm not convinced, and I'll obviously never convince you or others.when some data to support your position causes a massive turn around from the science community then i'll accept that. this hasn't happened yet



By the way... does your computer have a <shift> key? Just wondering... :)yes it does, but if i used it then there is a chance i wouldn't be able to bait spelling and grammar nazis :)

[Walter Sobchak]

from this:


to this:


i think your going to have to make your mind up one of these days, walter :)

or it can be just a quick way of saying of abbreviating a form of technology.

whats viable about it?

the fact that uranium is finite, reactors don't last long and take ages to be built, produces a waste hazard for us to deal with or that the whole industry need to be propped up with gazillions of corporate welfare?

how does that not betray your libertarian philosophy, walter?


and all of this in an age where better options exist.


how can you come to the conclusion that it doesn't carry weight when you haven't read it all yet?

all i saw was an opinion piece. how about something that's actually made it past peer review and been published?


when some data to support your position causes a massive turn around from the science community then i'll accept that. this hasn't happened yet

yes it does, but if i used it then there is a chance i wouldn't be able to bait spelling and grammar nazis :)

You're obviously a liberal arts major or some non-technical person, otherwise you would grasp an argument when you see one and be able to do something with it other than engage in trite, meaningless sophistry. Explaining the scientific method or anything to someone who is more interested in "baiting" is useless. Circular arguments are pointless...

I could repost what I have already posted and try and explain again, but at this point my time is worth more than that.

As far as not capitalizing or punctuating, that's just lazy writing or ignorance of the mechanics of communication. Which is it with you? Oh, I'm sorry, you already said what it is: "baiting". I guess that makes you a master.... uhhhh, no, I won't even go there.

[Walter Sobchak]

Well that part is fair enough. Personally I haven't done any research because I'm not a scientist. I rely - as you probably do - on research by people who know more than me, but we're both still choosing which research to believe, I guess. That makes it a religion for boths sides if it does for any at all.

Not at all. I've weighed as much evidence on both sides as I can. A few years ago, I believed that it was possible. However, as more data becomes available and more people desert the AGW ship, I'm not convinced it is man-made. The other side is absolutely convinced that it is. Like I said before - you may've forgotten - if there is compelling evidence offered that it IS man-made, then I am ready to embrace that, too. I've seen no such willingness from the other side. The attacks from the "believers" defies logic and reason.


I will say I do believe much of what the paper Gazell presented says about the energy lobby seeking to confuse the issue with non-peer-reviewed science of their own. If that doesn't convince you, I don't have any more compelling evidence. That paper, like other aspects of the global warming 'debate' (and I remind you that the debate is largely within America's halls of power as most of the rest of the developed west has much weaker energy lobbies) is something we can choose to believe or not. Again, we have chosen to "agree to disagree."

The so-called "energy lobby" is using legal (personally I don't like the lobbying of lawmakers) means to get their voices heard. The term "energy lobby" is tossed around like it's some evil life force. What about the "Global Warming" lobby? Is discussing that in play? Hell, everyone wants to have their voices heard. You act like there is something wrong with that. You don't think Al Gore and his companies do a little bit of lobbying?


The scat thing was a childish attempt at humour. A genuine ad hominem attack would be, for example, dismissing a body of scientists and academics as a bunch of crackpots in order to silence their argument. Which is no doubt what will be done to the following Wikipedia page:

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


While I'm not accusing anyone here of subscribing to "black helicopter" fears, the idea that a Global Warming conspiracy, carbon credits and Kyoto are a means to hobble America's economy and to undermine the contstitutional freedoms of Americans by regulating their government from afar has been bandied about on this thread already.

The Wiki page contains a clearing house of sources about the alleged hoax and it's interesting to note their connection to big business and the Bush administration. It seems that these groups (see the document Gazell posted on ExxonMobil) have a vested interest in making Americans think that Global Warming is a hoax pertetrated by hippies and communists to undermine their way of life. It's no suprise that it appeals to Libertarians and "True Conservatives", as its is a common fear among them that the American Way is under threat. They've got more than a few people convinced it is their patriotic duty to decry the idea of man-made global warming and well, if they can cite a handful of scientific "studies" along the way it might just add a lick of legitimacy to their claims.

This in theory should allow the big-time polluting industries to go on as before without the loss in profits that cleaning their act up would bring. Thankfully, most other civilized governments have already started to go "green" and don't subscribe to the hoax theory. Hopefully the Obama administration will move in the same direction (though with such powerful energy lobbies in Washington they may find it hard).

I honestly don't think you read the freaking article that you posted! It doesn't say a word about anyone being a crackpot or mentions hippies. It even ties part of the AGW movement to G.H.W. Bush!

It casts no aspersions on anyone. In fact, it was written in a very evenhanded manner, and put forth the REASONS why the persons who do not believe in AGW take that position. Furthermore, it does a good job of describing the persons behind AGW and their ties to groups and persons favoring World governance.

It is very evenhanded in discussing the "overheated rhetoric". It states in part:
It has been widely observed that the debate over climate change has given rise to "overheated rhetoric" on both sides.Statements that global warming is a "hoax" or "fraud" may, in some cases, be instances of such rhetoric, intended to emphasize a claim that advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory are egregiously wrong, rather than seriously-intended claims of deliberate dishonesty by a large group of scientists and others.
I agree. I think you're just seriously wrong, but not dishonest. I think the ones who are dishonest are the ones who have a vested interest in that particular agenda. And lastly, the tie to "one world" government proponents is unequivocal.

At what point are the proponents of AGW considered "big business". Look what just came out today!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5439366.ece

They're spending millions to plant trees in Africa and people are just cutting them down for firewood!

Follow the money... it will surely flow from our pockets!

[gazell]

At what point are the proponents of AGW considered "big business".

What proponents, ie, environmentalists, business, politicians use science for does not say much about the science, ie climatology. It does not prove the science a hoax. I can't see too much wrong with these movements though except for the extremists amongst them.

A lot of businesses that are effected will line up. Like the wine making industry in the Med.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article5439366.ece

They're spending millions to plant trees in Africa and people are just cutting them down for firewood!

You don't think they are cold there, do you? (Only kiddingp-))

There are non-working projects in all fields, I'm sure. It was monitored, didn't work, funds are getting withdrawn, that's a good thing, no?

I think, we lose less by trying to make things better where the most vulnerable people are than having an influx of refugees in other places.

Follow the money... it will surely flow from our pockets!


I think so, yes, absolutely spot on , Sir. It will cost us all a lot of money, any whichever way, the longer we mess about, probably the more so. And those, who only pay the price financially, will be the lucky ones.

'The corps has estimated that to move Newtok could cost $130 million because of its remoteness, climate and topography. That comes to almost $413,000 for each of the 315 residents. Not that anyone is offering to pay.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/27/us/27newtok.html

http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/speeches/rajendra-pachauri-poznan-01-december-08.pdf

[Walter Sobchak]

This is from a very Left wing blog, the Huffington Post. The writer, Harold Ambler, sets forth the arguments against anthropogenic global warming in simple, layman's terms. He says that Al Gore owes him (he's an Obama supporter) and everyone else an apology for the carbon hoax.

He further adds, what I have been trying to say all along:

To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.
(the bold type is my addition)

Here is the link to the full article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.html

He's not a member of some right-wing group or a lobbyist for the "energy lobby". He's just part of the growing tide against AGW.

Oh, if you don't like what he says, contact him, not me...

[budgie]

Wow so at least one person on the 'left' agrees with you. That must mean all Global Warming is a sham. Thank you.

Let's recouch the debate in layman's terms.

Decades of research have shown than the Earth is warming at an alarming rate and in direct response to polluting human industries. In the late nineties, fearful of the financial impact of being forced to clean up their act, big polluters in the United States began hard campaigning, with the help of a few industry-sponsored studies, to deny that industry is the cause of Global Warming or even that the Earth is warming at all.

This was trumpeted by the Bush administration and sold to the public as good science and proof that Global warming is un-American. The Reason? they don't want the Carbon Credit system. In fact they didn't want any system that might curtail economic activity in the energy sector.

So suddenly a handful of scientists that had hitherto had challenged the scientific establishment on Global Warming got thrust into the spotlight. It became a left-right issue (money does that) and people who identify with the right or left now had two sets of science to follow, depending on their politics. Meanwhile the Earth is getting hotter, according to most scientists around the world. But they're not red, white and blue Republicans so what do they know?

[Jobu]

Sorry budgie, that's not the debate nor is it anywhere near the facts.

The earth is warming at an alarming rate? Really? I beg to differ.
A handful of scientists suddenly challenged the "scientific establishment?" LOL, nonsense.

Your summary of the debate is nothing but a summary of your imagination.

[budgie]

Speaking of having nothing to do with the debate that last post was almost entirely an opinion about me, not the topic. Since I now consider the thread properly derailed, I'll retreat to my 'imagination' - one I share with the majority of the scientific community and educated people around the world. Enjoy.

[11 Bravo]

Speaking of having nothing to do with the debate that last post was almost entirely an opinion about me, not the topic. Since I now consider the thread properly derailed, I'll retreat to my 'imagination' - one I share with the majority of the scientific community and educated people around the world. Enjoy.

There you go again with the me and my majority thing. Stick your head in the sand yet again. If you cared to look into the opposite of what you believe of this bologna... you just might have the epiphany you seem so keen on avoiding.

[Dr_Fünke]

You're obviously a liberal arts major or some non-technical person, otherwise you would grasp an argument when you see one and be able to do something with it other than engage in trite, meaningless sophistry. Explaining the scientific method or anything to someone who is more interested in "baiting" is useless. Circular arguments are pointless...

I could repost what I have already posted and try and explain again, but at this point my time is worth more than that.

come on walter, you can't get all stroppy when somebody asks you for a peer reviewed article to support your position AND behave as if you've got something to teach us about science in the same paragraph.


that's just not cricket.

[budgie]

There you go again with the me and my majority thing. Stick your head in the sand yet again. If you cared to look into the opposite of what you believe of this bologna... you just might have the epiphany you seem so keen on avoiding.

Oh please,

Your lot display the classic Conspiracy Theorist Pathos: "The rest of you sheeple　are fooled but me and my little circle know the truth!"

[Jobu]

Speaking of having nothing to do with the debate that last post was almost entirely an opinion about me, not the topic. Since I now consider the thread properly derailed, I'll retreat to my 'imagination' - one I share with the majority of the scientific community and educated people around the world. Enjoy.



Actually I specifically referenced two examples of nonsense from your post and only two because I didn't want to reprint what seemed to be a stream of hallucination essay in its entirety as it was pretty much all bunk.

[gazell]

Just managed to squeeze sumwot in, before change of office, the innocent victims:

'Officials weighing federal applications by utilities to build new coal-fired power plants cannot consider their greenhouse gas output, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/environmental_protection_agency/index.html?inline=nyt-org) ruled late Thursday. Some environmentalists fear the decision will clear the way for the approval of several such plants in the last days of the Bush administration.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/19/business/19coal.html?_r=1&ref=business



This is from a very Left wing blog, the Huffington Post. The writer, Harold Ambler, sets forth the arguments against anthropogenic global warming in simple, layman's terms. He says that Al Gore owes him (he's an Obama supporter) and everyone else an apology for the carbon hoax.

He further adds, what I have been trying to say all along:
To be told, as I have been, by Mr. Gore, again and again, that carbon dioxide is a grave threat to humankind is not just annoying, by the way, although it is that! To re-tool our economies in an effort to suppress carbon dioxide and its imaginary effect on climate, when other, graver problems exist is, simply put, wrong. Particulate pollution, such as that causing the Asian brown cloud, is a real problem. Two billion people on Earth living without electricity, in darkened huts and hovels polluted by charcoal smoke, is a real problem.

So, let us indeed start a Manhattan Project-like mission to create alternative sources of energy. And, in the meantime, let us neither cripple our own economy by mislabeling carbon dioxide a pollutant nor discourage development in the Third World, where suffering continues unabated, day after day.


Bless him, Effington Post could really book him in for a coal fuel combustion crash course...:cantbeli:

Well, he can think CO2 is rose water, but then what is he worried about charcoal burning for and where on earth he thinks brown cloud comes from?:roll:

BTW, this is CO2 and temperature graph for the last 650,000 years, not that it is the most effective GHG, but there is just too much of it, due to human emissions:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Co2-temperature-plot.svg/800px-Co2-temperature-plot.svg.png

Other than that, CO2, half of which - as of current - gets absorbed by sea and land, is making the sea water way too acidic, big bother on top.

Of course the Arctic is melting because there is no warming...:roll:

And the permafrost is near melt - that's about 9C+ in the last few years in the area - as there is no warming...:roll: Unfortunately, when it does, we are in real ****, as it's going to let methane to escape into the atmosphere and this one is about 20 times as potent GHG as CO2...:roll:

[Eye]

I have found chart with global temperatures from 2500BC.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

Source:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

[shocker1]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GehK7Q_QxPc

[gazell]

I have found chart with global temperatures from 2500BC.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/GTEMPS.gif

Source:
http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

And? would you like to analyse it or just accept that everybody knows that there were climatic changes before and all know there were different reasons for it. Have you got a point?

I think Eye, you should keep out of remotely scientific topics, unless you have a question.:)

[Eye]

And? would you like to analyse it or just accept that everybody knows that there were climatic changes before and all know there were different reasons for it. Have you got a point?

I think Eye, you should keep out of remotely scientific topics, unless you have a question.:)
I was sure it's obvious, but we learn all the time.
Human activity couldn't have any connection with climate changes in historical times.
I will remember to write even such obvious conclusions especially for You p-)