Michael Stuart Kelly

Inconvenient Truth versus Inconvenient Swindle

Recommended Posts

Michael, I'll go over this again tomorrow PM when I have the time and I'm cold sober. But are yose saying Lindzen is a man of high integrity and not, too?

Brant,

Not exactly. As a scientist, I am saying that Lindzen is a man of high integrity (from what I have read of him and from Ellen's endorsement, which does count a lot with me). As an accuser of others, his statements have not convinced me.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[Lindzen's] brand of impending doom is Greenie totalitarianism.

Oh, f***. I'll leave go your repeated accusation of "double standards." But where do you get that one?

And re your post #175, Michael, you did not start off innocently asking questions. Talk about re-writing history, and in this case history which is on this very thread. You started off with praise for the Gore film as being well-done in presenting "basic" science. Of course, only later did any of us who are knowledgeable about science catch up to your meaning such incredibly basic things as the difference in reflective rates of light off land and sea. Your comments, from my standpoint, were as if someone had praised Valliant's book because he was so accurate on "basic" details -- such as he got the names right and almost all the dates. (I did notice one date error, which was most likely a typo, in one footnote.) HAD you actually started by asking questions instead of with a hell-raising broadside -- which you then defended for some length of time -- things would have developed much differently than they have.

Ellen

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You started off with praise for the Gore film as being well-done in presenting "basic" science. Of course, only later did any of us who are knowledgeable about science catch up to your meaning such incredibly basic things as the difference in reflective rates of light off land and sea.

Ellen,

I just did a recap top see if I rewrote history. I have to disagree with your appraisal. Here are some quotes from the initial post.

I am probably going to disappoint some people, but I have mixed feelings on both films.

. . .

Please do not consider any of these observations as completely formed views at this point. I am merely reporting on what I saw and my first conclusions on mulling all this over.

. . .

Another very pleasant surprise was the basic science lesson I received from this film. I have never been interested in ecology one way or another, so whenever I have seen the phrase, "global warming," I always assumed that it meant something like the earth getting hotter from the atmosphere all the way down to the core. I was pretty surprised to see that it was merely the weather and the atmosphere (and, to a smaller extent, the ocean). A much better term for me to have understood at my lack-of-interest distance would have been "warming of the earth's weather."

. . .

I learned some really interesting things like how sun rays are trapped in a heavier atmosphere instead of being reflected back to outer space and that this is the major cause of global warming. Nobody can deny that it is at least an important factor, even when they disagree about what causes the heavier atmosphere. So to this extent, the science is solid.

I also learned some fascinating facts. For example, 90% of the rays are reflected off of ice, but the contrary is true for ocean water, where 90% of the rays are absorbed. There is a lot of talk about CO2 emissions, but if I remember correctly, 30% of the CO2 emissions come from forest fires (both accidental and those done for clearing land). Both South America and Africa were the major sources of forest fires. There were oodles of facts like that.

. . .

I simply don't know enough about the science involved at this point to fully endorse or condemn the man-made global warming theory.

. . .

On my level, I simply have to learn more. The door is now open in my head, but where it leads is still unclear.

I don't know how anyone can read statements like those and think I was talking about anything but a beginner's level of understanding.

I was amused at myself, though. Look at the following crap I wrote:

This is a highly charged issue with emotions running full throttle on both sides. But reason is the only method of value here. I think the banner of using reason to examine global warming is the only fully responsible position to take. A mistake on either side, if widely adopted, will have disastrous consequences on a massive scale. Both totalitarianism and destruction of the planet need to be avoided.

The crap wasn't that reason needs to be used or that the issue wasn't highly charged. The crap was buying into a silly pre-evaluation like "disastrous consequences on a massive scale," that the dangers were "totalitarianism" on one end and "destruction of the planet" on the other, and that an actual dichotomy existed.

The error was innocent enough. I thought where there was smoke there was fire. Instead of fire, all I found were mirrors.

(Sorry, couldn't resist the small touch of rhetoric.)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

Al Gore, Climactic Armageddon

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics

By EPW Blog

Wednesday, May 16, 2007

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven "consensus" on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a "climactic Armageddon" ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptics. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics ( Link to pdf version )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great."

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary."

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest."

Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [uN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise.'"

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote.

More to follow...

RCR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...obalwarming.jsp

Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

There is little doubt the air's CO2 concentration has risen significantly since the inception of the Industrial Revolution; and there are few who do not attribute the CO2 increase to the increase in humanity's use of fossil fuels. There is also little doubt the earth has warmed slightly over the same period; but there is no compelling reason to believe that the rise in temperature was caused by the rise in CO2. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that future increases in the air's CO2 content will produce any global warming; for there are numerous problems with the popular hypothesis that links the two phenomena.

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

The observation that two things have risen together for a period of time says nothing about one trend being the cause of the other. To establish a causal relationship it must be demonstrated that the presumed cause precedes the presumed effect. Furthermore, this relationship should be demonstrable over several cycles of increases and decreases in both parameters. And even when these criteria are met, as in the case of solar/climate relationships, many people are unwilling to acknowledge that variations in the presumed cause truly produced the observed analogous variations in the presumed effect.

In thus considering the seven greatest temperature transitions of the past half-million years - three glacial terminations and four glacial inceptions - we note that increases and decreases in atmospheric CO2 concentration not only did not precede the changes in air temperature, they followed them, and by hundreds to thousands of years! There were also long periods of time when atmospheric CO2 remained unchanged, while air temperature dropped, as well as times when the air's CO2 content dropped, while air temperature remained unchanged or actually rose. Hence, the climate history of the past half-million years provides absolutely no evidence to suggest that the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 concentration will lead to significant global warming.

Strong negative climatic feedbacks prohibit catastrophic warming. Strong negative feedbacks play major roles in earth's climate system. If they did not, no life would exist on the planet, for some perturbation would long ago have sent the world careening into a state of cosmic cold or horrendous heat; and we know from the fossil record that neither of these extremes has ever occurred, even over billions of years, and in spite of a large increase in the luminosity of the sun throughout geologic time.

Consider, in this regard, the water vapor that would be added to the atmosphere by enhanced evaporation in a warmer world. The extra moisture would likely lead to the production of more and higher-water-content clouds, both of which consequences would tend to cool the planet by reflecting more solar radiation back to space.

A warmer world would also mean a warmer ocean, which would likely lead to an increase in the productivity of marine algae or phytoplankton. This phenomenon, in turn, would enhance the biotic production of certain sulfur-based substances that diffuse into the air, where they are oxidized and converted into particles that function as cloud condensation nuclei. The resulting increase in the number of cloud-forming particles would thus produce more and smaller cloud droplets, which are more reflective of incoming solar radiation; and this phenomenon would also tend to cool the planet.

All of these warming-induced cloud-related cooling effects are very powerful. It has been shown, for example, that the warming predicted to result from a doubling of the air's CO2 content may be totally countered by: (1) a mere 1% increase in the reflectivity of the planet, or (2) a 10% increase in the amount of the world's low-level clouds, or (3) a 15 to 20% reduction in the mean droplet radius of earth's boundary-layer clouds, or (4) a 20 to 25% increase in cloud liquid water content. In addition, it has been demonstrated that the warming-induced production of high-level clouds over the equatorial oceans almost totally nullifies that region's powerful water vapor greenhouse effect, which supplies much of the temperature increase in the CO2-induced global warming scenario.

Most of these important negative feedbacks are not adequately represented in state-of-the-art climate models. What is more, many related (and totally ignored!) phenomena are set in motion when the land surfaces of the globe warm. In response to the increase in temperature between 25°N latitude and the equator, for example, the soil-to-air flux of various sulfur gases rises by a factor of 25, as a consequence of warmth-induced increases in soil microbial activity; and this phenomenon can lead to the production of more cloud condensation nuclei just as biological processes over the sea do. Clearly, therefore, any number of combinations of these several negative feedbacks could easily thwart the impetus for warming provided by future increases in the air's CO2 content.

Growth-enhancing effects of CO2 create an impetus for cooling. Carbon dioxide is a powerful aerial fertilizer, directly enhancing the growth of almost all terrestrial plants and many aquatic plants as its atmospheric concentration rises. And just as increased algal productivity at sea increases the emission of sulfur gases to the atmosphere, ultimately leading to more and brighter clouds over the world's oceans, so too do CO2-induced increases in terrestrial plant productivity lead to enhanced emissions of various sulfur gases over land, where they likewise ultimately cool the planet. In addition, many non-sulfur-based biogenic materials of the terrestrial environment play major roles as water- and ice-nucleating aerosols; and the airborne presence of these materials should also be enhanced by rising levels of atmospheric CO2. Hence, it is possible that incorporation of this multifaceted CO2-induced cooling effect into the suite of equations that comprise the current generation of global climate models might actually tip the climatic scales in favor of global cooling in the face of continued growth of anthropogenic CO2 emissions.

There is no evidence for warming-induced increases in extreme weather. Proponents of the CO2-induced global warming hypothesis often predict that extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, and hurricanes will become more numerous and/or extreme in a warmer world; however, there is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, many studies have revealed that the numbers and intensities of extreme weather events have remained relatively constant over the last century of modest global warming or have actually declined. Costs of damages from these phenomena, however, have risen dramatically; but this phenomenon has been demonstrated to be the result of evolving societal, demographic and economic factors.

Elevated levels of atmospheric CO2 are a boon to the biosphere. In lieu of global warming, a little of which would in all probability be good for the planet, where do the above considerations leave us? Simply with the biospheric benefits that come from the aerial fertilization effect of atmospheric CO2 enrichment: enhanced plant growth, increased plant water use efficiency, greater food production for both people and animals, plus a host of other biological benefits too numerous to describe in this short statement.

And these benefits are not mere predictions. They are real. Already, in fact, they are evident in long-term tree-ring records, which reveal a history of increasing forest growth rates that have closely paralleled the progression of the Industrial Revolution. They can also be seen in the slow but inexorable spreading of woody plants into areas where only grasses grew before. In fact, the atmosphere itself bears witness to the increasing prowess of the entire biosphere in the yearly expanding amplitude of the its seasonal CO2 cycle. This oscillatory "breath of the biosphere" - its inhalation of CO2, produced by spring and summer terrestrial plant growth, and its exhalation of CO2, produced by fall and winter biomass decomposition - has been documented to be growing greater and greater each year in response to the ever-increasing growth stimulation provided by the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content.

Atmospheric CO2 enrichment brings growth and prosperity to man and nature alike. This, then, is what we truly believe will be the result of the ongoing rise in the air's CO2 content: a reinvigorated biosphere characteristic of those prior periods of earth's history when the air's CO2 concentration was much higher than it is today, coupled with a climate not much different from that of the present. Are we right? Only time will tell. But one thing is certain now: there is much more real-world evidence for the encouraging scenario we paint here than for the doom-and-gloom predictions of apocalypse that are preached by those who blindly follow the manifestly less-than-adequate prognostications of imperfect climate models.

Our policy prescription relative to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is thus to leave well enough alone and let nature and humanity take their inextricably intertwined course. All indications are that both will be well served by the ongoing rise in atmospheric CO2.

Supporting references. This brief was written in 1998. References to the voluminous scientific literature that supports the many factual statements of this position paper may be found on our website - www.co2science.org - which we update weekly.

RCR

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...obalwarming.jsp
Carbon Dioxide and Global Warming

Where We Stand on the Issue

C. D. Idso and K. E. Idso

Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change

[snip]

A weak short-term correlation between CO2 and temperature proves nothing about causation. Proponents of the notion that increases in the air's CO2 content lead to global warming point to the past century's weak correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentration and global air temperature as proof of their contention. However, they typically gloss over the fact that correlation does not imply causation, and that a hundred years is not enough time to establish the validity of such a relationship when it comes to earth's temperature history.

A further detail, in addition to those the authors discuss, is one graphically presented in The Great Global Warming Swindle: the largest part of the past century's temperature rise occurred before 1940, prior to the large increase in industrialization since then. And, during the next about 35 years, the temperature decreased before starting the current slower rise (which now seems to be leveling off).

Ellen

___

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record: Last night I saw The Great Global Warming Swindle in its entirety. (I'd previously seen a few segments but not the whole movie.)

I think it does a good job of summarizing points which wipe out the key premise of Gore's case, which is that CO2 increase produces temperature increase (ergo, since humans are producing CO2 in industrial processes, humans are causing the current warming trend; ergo we'd best radically cut CO2 emissions before we produce disaster). The one thing on which I see grounds for objecting is the implication that the sunspot thesis provides the correct alternate hypothesis. Although the correlation there is a good one, this doesn't say, ok, that's "the answer." The movie doesn't say in so many words that sunspot activity is "the answer," but I'd have liked for specific comments to made to the effect that the total set of factors is almost surely very complex and even if sunspot activity turns out to be a major factor, there's much more to be learned.

In regard to the history of the AGW scare, I'm not understanding what's being objected to in the presentation of Margaret Thatcher's role. Is it true that she was the one who started the funding glut for AGW research, and that she's the one who instigated setting up the IPCC? If so, I don't see the complaint, unless it's against the possible overemphasis on the relevance of the miners' strike, plus the whimsical -- but typical British humor -- way in which that subject was brought in: (quoting from memory) "And then two things happened: the temperatures started to rise -- and the miners went on strike."

As to the idea that the movie presents an alternate scare thesis, viz., that of a greenie totalitarian take-over, I don't see that it does this. The claim is made that AGW has become a kind of new religion. I think the claim is true. There's material on how "PC" AGW has become, and on the pressure politicians feel against expressing doubts. Again, I think what's portrayed is true, even more so in Great Britian than in the United States (and what was specifically being talked about was British politics). There's also material on the unpopularity and charges of being in the pay of oil interests which can result for scientific researchers when they challenge the science of "AGW." I know from direct reports that that sort of stuff is going on. However, I don't see a scare-mongering thesis in any or all of this. Nor in the material about the terrible difficulties being posed for Africa's development as an industrialized nation. (The material on Africa sickened me; I'd already heard from John Christy back in 2004 about the horrid threat the CO2-emissions-reduction impetus poses for poor Africans. Seeing footage of the woman hovering over a wood fire, a baby bundled on her back, made me want to cry.)

==

Turning to Dick Lindzen's remarks... I'd been planning for weeks to watch the whole of The Great Global Warming Swindle but hadn't gotten around to doing so. What impelled me at last to play the DVD was Michael's claims as to what Lindzen was saying about widespread corruption of his colleagues by the glut in funds for AGW-related research.

I made note of what Lindzen talked about in each of his appearances -- except possibly one appearance early on. By my count, he appears 5 times, but when we played the movie through in fast-forward looking for a particular section, it seemed to me that there might have been a brief early appearance which I neglected to note. However, even if I did miss a segment, the subject being discussed at that stage wasn't funding.

Here's my list:

(1) A brief comment about the make-up of the "2,500 top scientists" listed as participators by the IPCC: He said that the list includes most anyone asked a question, and that a lot of the people aren't in climate-related fields.

(2) A scientific segment about the troposphere and its not registering as warm of temperatures as should be gotten for the (so-called) greenhouse effect.

The next two comments pertained to funding of research. I made an attempt to copy these verbatim:

(3) [near exact quote] "Prior to Bush the Elder, the spending [in the U.S.] on climate science was about $170 million -- which is reasonable for the field. It jumped to $2 billion a year; more than a factor of 10. A lot of stuff is being done [i'm not sure of the exact wording of that sentence]. A lot of people were brought in who were otherwise not interested, whole cadres whose only interest was that there was global warming."

(4) "We're all competing for funds, and if your field is the focus of concern, you have that much less work rationalizing why your field should be funded. [i'm not sure of the exact wording on the next.] That makes getting the money that much easier."

Immediately following the above comment, Calder fleshed out with a hypothetical which illustrates just the sort of thing I've spoken of in earlier posts as having happened during the "cancer-research" fund glut:

[Calder] "Suppose I want to research the squirrels of Sussex; [continuing with a close paraphrase] if I add something about nut-gathering with reference to global warming, my proposal might be noticed."

(5) A comment that the idea that hurricanes will increase in intensity and frequency if the ice caps were to melt is "purely propaganda" and the opposite of what would happen, since it's the difference in temperature between the tropics and the poles which drives hurricance formation.

That's all. I'm seeing no charges of wholesale scientific corruption (there are particular cases of persons who I know Lindzen thinks are being less than honest, but that's on an individual basis). And by no stretch of imagining do I see where Michael gets the further claim that:

[Lindzen's] brand of impending doom is Greenie totalitarianism.

I'm not aware of any context in which Lindzen has spoken of "impending doom" of any variety. And just on a personal style basis, "doom" prognosticating wouldn't be his style.

Ellen

___

Edited by Ellen Stuttle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ Anything about Lindzen nwst, the whole issue comes down to simple contradictories (not, as I surmise you view things, contraries.) The issue is: There are enough facts (A, B, C, etc) to establish that AGW is something necessary for all us humans to do all we can, consumerly (DiCaprio) and politically (Gore), to avoid all possible contribution to such that we presently do...or...there are NOT enough facts. The former is the pro-AGW argument; the latter is the anti-AGW one. Note that the latter is not a 'contrary' view, as if we're aruing 'sides' where there may be some truth-pieces in each, and the disagreement is which has most.

The anti-AGWs argue that the case presented by AGW's is not a solid one. The latter do argue further points which I gather you take issue with, mainly that it is govt-funded bias supporting the pro-AGW. Strictly speaking, MSK, I find this a side-issue, since it's no diff from arguing that an oil company funded an AGW study. I've argued elsewhere that *who* funded whatever studies is irrelevent to the worth of the study. It stands on its own, or, it doesn't.

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK-Correction:

~ Where I wrote "The latter do argue further points..." uh, make that "The former..."

PS: STATE OF FEAR was worth reading. But whether plain sloppy science, govt-bias, or secret-agended corruption is behind either view is, as I've said, a side-issue and irrelevent to the bottom-line issue.

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

I wish this issue were simply as simple as you state, but it isn't. Notice that on this thread, the issue is not global warming at all anymore, but something to do with Lindzen's honor (as if it were in doubt). If you say he takes government money, this gets blown out of proportion to mean that you think he is corrupt and then wholesale this or that. Even if you say he is a man of high integrity (like I did), that's not enough.

I have not had the time to see the film again or research more of Lindzen (I need to check the accuracy of my assertion about the "impending doom" Greenie threat, and even that phrase has been nitpicked to insinuate a different meaning than the one I intended. I need to see whether Lindzen actually stated opposition to catastrophic effects of excessive environmental regulatory laws, or whether it is only people who have aligned with him who are preaching that). But to tell the truth, the issue is so acrimonious, and it gets that way by merely typing his name, that I have practically thrown in the towel. Any pleasure I got out of researching this and trying to discuss it has evaporated.

There was a time I thought some of the things I learned about climatology from both the Gore film and the Swindle film were cool. Now I just think that there is nothing but a bunch of overly-sensitive people around the subject and they make learning anything at all about it very unpleasant.

I am still convinced of the conclusions that I have already arrived at and nothing more: if you want to know about global warming, don't ask scientists nor people who support them. For an ironic example, see the list of scientists who are changing their minds provided above by Christian. Now think about what it must have been like to discuss global warming with some of them a few months ago. I don't know if any of those people were on Michael Crichton's discussion forum, but there is an earlier post of mine that bears repeating.

I found one thing that was highly amusing on his site. There is a discussion forum. I thought I would take a look and see what people were saying about State of Fear. The first thing I noticed was the large number of posts in comparison to the other topics. Then I went to the announcement from the Administrator dated January 27, 2006. This was not from 2 months ago. It was from one year and two month ago. Here is the amusing part about why no new posts were allowed about the topic of global warming or State of Fear:
1. The "discussions" have become repetitive and, at times, circular in logic. We have beat this subject to death -- and then some.

2. It is the same handful of people saying (basically) the same things over and over.

. . .

5. There hasn't been a new thought about this subject posted in the last 6 months. Same old, same old.

This was over a year ago.

Look at what happened there and look at what happened here. Over there they locked the entire section and shut down all discussion. This thread here on OL is still open.

I do have to admit that I was glad Ellen agreed with me about the sunspots part of the Swindle movie being an exaggeration. But we will probably never agree on the degree of lopsidedness and excessive rhetoric of that film. The quotes from Lindzen essentially back what I have been saying, except I use a different, more take-the-covers-off-and-look-see-then-let-facts-fall-where-they-may approach instead of excusing the facts as they are stated. But I am almost afraid to say that, even though the comments about funding are in Lindzen's own words.

I still hold to my position: You fight lies, distortions and even boneheadedness with truth. I personally prefer not to fight lopsided with more lopsided. I prefer objective truth, regardless of who gets favored or criticized by the facts.

This position has brought me nothing but headaches on the global warming issue. I cannot lie, but it is sure a temptation to do so.

Oh yes. And the final point. Anthropogenic global warming versus opposition to anthropogenic global warming is a non-issue. It's just not important in the big picture. The real purpose of the radicals on both sides is to sell fear. That's a really unpopular view, but I don't see any indication out there to the contrary.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ Hmmm. You say "A pox on both their houses", huh? Because everything's segued into 'alarmism' (fear) on both sides, though about different subjects (one, AGW; the other, 'distrust all those AGW-liars who are govt-funded')? Yes, I've noticed, even in the news itself, a bit of a focus-shifting there, but, it's really not got top billing yet...according to the Celebs and anchors commenting on GW anyways. Anyhoo, I understand the frustation in deciding who's correct when both sides point at each other yelling "J'Accuse!" and I really have no interest in THAT kind of mud-fight.

~ Ntl, thanx for the advice, but, I'll stick with the scientists and separate the wheat-from-chaff on my own, as long as the AGW argument sticks to the science of meteorology. As for the politicians and celebs, and their apologists... :lol:

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

MSK:

~ Yes, I've read through most of Crichton's discussion forum, especially all of that one closed off from further comment. He's correct about 'repetitiveness.' The arguments have acquired the flavor of abortion (and, free will) ones. "'Round and 'round she goes, and where she stops nobody knows..." where all circle back to the original spots started, and neither side deals with the arguments of the other side but instead indulge in nothing more than 'rewind-playback' instant replays. Pointless to keep a 'discussion' going or even open when that's all that starts occurring.

~ R. Bidinotto's site keeps a regular set of 'updates' going though, re latest science arguments and findings (as well as "J'Accuse" additions); worthwhile, I'd say. Additionally, if still interested, you might find this (a series) worth spending time on...

Lies, or, Statistics?

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Addendum:

~ Just 'on general principle', given this sub-forum, many (including you, Mike...should you find the time :) ), will find this site interesting. Some may recognize the name Jerry Pournelle, a noted SF writer, but, wrote for years a (long) column in BYTE mag (he's quite the computer guru), and is very opinionated on mucho many things. Quite logical in most of his arguments whether pro or con, and clearly has a sarcastic tinge at times.

~ Yes: he's touched on GW and AGW (as well as B[ovine]GW) as well as Stem-Cell research.

J-Pournelle

~ Happy reading!

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Hmmm. You say "A pox on both their houses", huh? Because everything's segued into 'alarmism' (fear) on both sides, though about different subjects (one, AGW; the other, 'distrust all those AGW-liars who are govt-funded')?

. . .

Ntl, thanx for the advice, but, I'll stick with the scientists and separate the wheat-from-chaff on my own, as long as the AGW argument sticks to the science of meteorology. As for the politicians and celebs, and their apologists... :lol:

John,

In reverse order. I am not saying ignore scientists (and supporters). I am saying if you want to get a well-rounded overview of the global warming issue, do not rely on them. They fight with each other too much and the mud-slinging is waist deep. If you go to them for a well-rounded overview, they will try to suck you into the fight and get really pissed at you if you do not join.

I suggest an intellectual in the sense Rand meant in For the New Intellectual: some writer you trust who filters through all the technical stuff and controversies and presents a summary for laypeople. The best one I have found for myself so far is Michael Crichton. You seem to like Pournelle. I would never suggest politicians or celebrities (I presume you mean actors, singers and so forth) or their apologists. I have too much emotional attachment to my toilet paper to give it up for a pretty face.

On the "pox on both their houses" stance, if the idea is for me to advocate a cause, that is correct. Pox on them both. They are selling fear simply because a major social issue doesn't exist. Before I elaborate, I need to correct (or expand on) something I said before:

Green side fear: Mankind is destroying the planet.

Remedy: Enact restrictive laws, but pretend it is something else.

Anti-Green side fear: The Greens are threatening us with a totalitarian government.

Remedy: Allow businesses to have government protected monopolies and no accountability for damage done to individuals (and the environment when property is actually polluted beyond use or destroyed), but pretend it is something else.

I projected the "totalitarian government" idea as a logical consequence of the emotional appeals that are made by the anti-Green side. Just like the Greenies show cuddly polar bears and other cute animals facing extinction to play on heartstrings, the anti-Green side presents images of dire poverty and devastation in third world countries, attributable to (1) not allowing carbon fuel based technology to be used, and (2) restrictions on things like DDT (which resulted in runaway malaria in several countries). Both the polar bear and the third world country images are facts. But they come with strong emotional impacts and that is why they are used.

The emotional impact the Greenies use is to induce you to think that greedy companies and elites will destroy all that is beautiful on the planet for money if they are not halted, and even threaten the existence of mankind. That's also the premise they use against anti-Greenie scientists to smear them: the insinuation is that if a scientist receives money from oil companies, he is on the take and selling the world down the drain to boot.

Bottom line: Is it possible that man is destroying the world through carbon emissions? No. The science presented backing this is woefully incomplete and lopsided.

On the anti-Greenie side, all those heartbreaking images of poverty and suffering are to induce you to think that if restrictive government environmental regulations are left unchecked, they will result in a totalitarian government (or governments) that will return us to the dark ages. This is not stated explicitly, but it is easily understood by just about everybody. People on this side basically portray the scientists on the Greenie side serving this goal, but excused because they are blind or in survival mode where they can't help themselves because of power abuse by big bad government. But there is some smearing, too, and it gets colorful.

Bottom line: Is it possible that man will enact laws that will take him back to the dark ages? No. He might blow the world up to get there, but the powers that be will not allow him to revert to the dark ages by decree.

Now here is the real reason for my "pox" and it is in Lindzen's words:

(3) [near exact quote] "Prior to Bush the Elder, the spending [in the U.S.] on climate science was about $170 million -- which is reasonable for the field. It jumped to $2 billion a year; more than a factor of 10. A lot of stuff is being done [i'm not sure of the exact wording of that sentence]. A lot of people were brought in who were otherwise not interested, whole cadres whose only interest was that there was global warming."

(4) "We're all competing for funds, and if your field is the focus of concern, you have that much less work rationalizing why your field should be funded. [i'm not sure of the exact wording on the next.] That makes getting the money that much easier."

I have not seen the Swindle movie again (which is where the quotes came from), but this is accurate from what I remember.

So look at it. There are two billion dollars a year out there just waiting to be spent and scientists are competing for it. I am not making this up or even uncovering it. Lindzen said it out loud and very clearly. Others have, too. It's all over the Internet.

But I do ask an obvious question. Is there any reason to believe that only one side of this debate wants the money without strings attached? Heh. I don't think so. They all want it.

Here's another obvious question. Are scientists more civil and rational than normal human beings on something like that? Heh again. Look at all the name-calling and bickering and you will see just how normal they are as human beings. Some of them go out of their way to show you just how really really really normal they can get when money is involved, too. :)

When I look at the big picture, I see this: two billion per annum is a lot of money, but it is certainly is not a major issue unless you are a scientist. The world's top banks are worth much more than that. Ditto for the world's top companies. As a big picture comparison, think about what the war in Iraq is costing. Or welfare. Or any number of issues.

There is another economic consideration. People on the Greenie side are investing heavily in alternate fuels like ethanol, so even if they get a small government restriction passed against oil products, they stand to make a lot of money. (Don't think the oil companies will suffer, though. They are investing, too.)

That's it, John. There ain't no more.

There is no earth-shattering crusade to be fought. There is nothing of major social importance under consideration. I admit there are some minor issues about the weather and development of alternate fuels that are interesting, but the heated passionate level of the rhetoric (and bitter acrimony) on both sides would lead you to believe that the future of the world and/or civilization as we know it is at stake. That's crap. The future of specific people's pockets as they know it is what is really at stake. That's why they are fighting. All the inflated rhetoric merely hides the fact that different people want to make some money.

And it is government money to boot—or money made from government regulations.

In Objectivism, there is a term for the two sides of the global warming controversy: false dichotomy.

~ Just 'on general principle', given this sub-forum, many (including you, Mike...should you find the time :) ), will find this site interesting. Some may recognize the name Jerry Pournelle, a noted SF writer, but, wrote for years a (long) column in BYTE mag (he's quite the computer guru), and is very opinionated on mucho many things. Quite logical in most of his arguments whether pro or con, and clearly has a sarcastic tinge at times.

~ Yes: he's touched on GW and AGW (as well as B[ovine]GW) as well as Stem-Cell research.

J-Pournelle

I will look over Pournelle's blog in more depth as time goes on. I gave it a touch and go look right now and it looks like fun. I burst out laughing when I clicked on the link to "Intellectual Property" (something I am interested in) and it took me to an entry dated March 29, 2007. Here is how the entry started:

There is a long discussion on the future of ebooks and copyright at

http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-stati...book_marke.html

and it's a good example of why I almost never read blogs. The discussion is in chronological order, but there's no order to the discussions.

That applies to me reading his blog. :)

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This perhaps deserves a new heading: Inconvenient Facts vs. "Inconvenient Truth." It was forwarded to me by a friend, and it is from the Cato Institute....reb

> Date: Wed, 23 May 2007 19:28:04 -0700

> Subject: Gore Outrage on Larry King

>

> From Cato today:

>

> Here's the transcript of a Q/A by Al Gore last night on Larry King Live.

>

> UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Vice President Al Gore, what issues caused by

> climate change globally are likely to affect the United States

> security in the next 10 years?

>

> KING: Al?

>

> GORE: You know, even a one-meter increase, even a three-foot increase

> in sea level would cause tens of millions of climate refugees.

>

> If Greenland were to break up and slip into the sea or West

> Antarctica, or half of either and half of both, it would be a 20-feet

> increase, and that would lead to more than 450 million climate

> refugees.

>

> The direct impacts on the U.S. have already begun. Today, 49 percent

> of America is in conditions of drought or near drought. And we have

> had droughts in the past, but the odds of serious droughts increase

> when the average temperatures go up, as they have been going up.

>

> We have fires in California, in Florida, in other states,

> unprecedented fire season last year, directly correlated with higher

> temperatures, which dry out the soils, dry out the vegetation.

>

> We have a very serious threat of losing enough soil moisture in a

> hotter world that agriculture here in the United States would be

> greatly affected. Now, the list is too long to give you here, but

> look, these issues are more important than Anna Nicole Smith and Paris

> Hilton, and they are not being talked about.

>

>

>

> FACT 1. There is not one shred of evidence in the refereed scientific

> literature speaking of a three-foot increase in sea level in ten

> years. The best estimates from the United Nations Intergovernmental

> Panel on Climate Change range from 0.8 to 1.7 INCHES.

>

> FACT 2. There is no trend towards increasing drought area in the

> United States that is related to planetary warming. We have good data

> on drought area back to 1895. The correlation between the area of the

> U.S. under drought and planetary temperature is statistically ZERO.

>

> FACT 3. As the mean planetary temperature has warmed since 1975, U.S.

> crop yields have INCREASED significantly, just as they did during the

> period of cooling from 1945 through 1975, or during the warming from

> 1910 to 1945.

>

> It is a true outrage that Gore can get away with this on live

> television and not be called out by the inconvenient facts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roger,

I have some mixed reactions to your post.

This first is full agreement about the speculative nonsense Gore mentioned. On reading it, I translated it to a metaphor in my mind (I couldn't help it).

"If my aunt had testicles, she would be my uncle. But don't laugh. As she gets older, her voice has gotten lower and she has started getting a mustache. We should keep an eye on that and stop reading comic books. This is damn serious."

:)

The second reaction has to do with freedom of speech. Gore is free to state his nonsense, just as anyone else is free to rebut it or state their nonsense. That is one of the greatnesses of our country. Paraphrasing a phrase usually attributed to Voltaire, I do not agree with what Gore said, but I would fight to the death for his right to say it.

The third has to do with the nature of the King's talk show. I doubt anyone will take something said there as gospel. King's thing is interviewing high-profile personalities and getting their views. I have never heard about him being influential one way or the other in shaping public opinion. Opinion-wise, his show is a mishmash of conflicting views.

He even slips on a banana peel at times. I can recall one call-in to King from Oprah endorsing a book called A Million Little Pieces by James Frey that was falsely sold as a memoir instead of fiction. (I even wrote a small review of that book way before it's validity was in called into doubt.) It was completely debunked by a website, (The Smoking Gun), and both Oprah and King issued apologies. Life went on and Frey still made millions (but more-or-less sank his career as an author—so far, at least).

Gore's scientific conclusions will eventually be debunked. In fact, the Internet is aiding this greatly (as with Frey). Truth always wins out in the end, anyway. Then King will chuckle and think, "That was just Al being Al." And some people will still produce wealth while others will still hug trees.

So while I share your opinion about the inaccuracy (and even silliness) of Gore's fantasy, I personally don't share the outrage. Lot's of nonsense is presented on TV. I doubt that particular pronouncement made much of a difference.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

I find it hard to comprehend your reaction in post #191. You started off this thread with a tremendous amount of emotional ire directed against the manner in which you believed that the opponents of catastrophic man-made global warming were addressing their case. But when Gore is seen presenting gross hyperbole and willfully misrepresenting facts on a nationally televised show, you just shrug and dismiss everything by saying that it's not important because that widely watched venue is not taken seriously by anyone and does not influence public perceptions! Where is the ire directed against Al????

Regards,

--

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where is the ire directed against Al????

Jeff,

After reading and discussing a lot, my quote below should say it.

There is no earth-shattering crusade to be fought. There is nothing of major social importance under consideration.

If that bothers you, I am in good company that goes even further.

So it was refreshing to hear Michael Chricton say the following (this is taken from a transcript of his interview provided on the site):
CHARLIE ROSE: Well. Al Gore.

MICHAEL CRICHTON: I like him very much. He`s just wrong on this issue.

CHARLIE ROSE: He`s wrong?

MICHAEL CRICHTON: He`s wrong on this issue. That`s my opinion.

. . .

CHARLIE ROSE: So Al Gore`s movie and book express rank prejudices?

MICHAEL CRICHTON: That`s my view, sure. I mean, he`s making arguments -- I mean, I love the guy. And he`s making arguments for which there is no data. There just isn`t.

Crichton likes him a lot. He even said he should be President. I personally don't have much of an opinion on Gore one way or the other. He's just another politician. I think it's silly to demonize him.

There is no ire, Jeff. Just love of fact and truth. Gore's premises are wrong on the AGW issue. He has been overly-selective with data and grossly overstated his case. Of that I'm sure.

That's enough.

You started off this thread with a tremendous amount of emotional ire directed against the manner in which you believed that the opponents of catastrophic man-made global warming were addressing their case.

Ire? Nah. I don't like public moral condemnations as ceremony and I don't like what they do to people. You might have mistaken my opinions on that as ire.

I originally thought the condemnatory tone a bad choice for the Swindle film in terms of persuasive power. I still do. A far better and more persuasive case can be made.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

I just reread my opening post. Could you please give me a quote where I expressed ire? I couldn't find any.

I would like to make sure my words are not misunderstood. So I would like the chance to explain them if they are vague or retract them if they are wrong.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I just reread my opening post. Could you please give me a quote where I expressed ire? I couldn't find any.

Michael:

Here are a few from post #15:

"Then, when The Great Global Warming Swindle was released and was shrilly embraced by our side in a manner bordering on irrationality..."

"Frankly, I felt betrayed by our own intellectuals. I felt set up. They are not trusting our independent rational minds to come to the proper conclusions. "

"If they cannot persuade me any longer now that I have looked, one who is on their side, how in hell are they going to persuade someone from the other side?"

"But how in hell can I help fight that threat when what I have learned from my own side is wrong and/or misleading?"

"I don't know what makes me madder: empty environmentalist rhetoric or empty anti-environmentalist rhetoric."

This seems like ire to me. And it is this tone directed against what you call "our side" that I am having trouble reconciling with the very moderating tone you always extend to Al Gore. I believe that you have now clearly stated that you believe that Gore is simply mistaken in his presentation of the facts while the rest of us who oppose his agenda are engaged in smear campaign based upon emotional propaganda that is divorced from a strict adherence to the facts. I do not agree with that assessment.

Regards,

--

Jeff

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Michael:

By the way, what does AGW stand for? I assumed it meant Anti-Global Warming, but you appear to be using it as though it stands for the Global-Warming position.

--

Jeff

Edited by Jeffery Small

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Michael:

By the way, what does AGW stand for? I assumed it meant Anti-Global Warming, but you appear to be using it as though it stands for the Global-Warming position.

--

Jeff

Jeff,

AGW stands for anthropogenic global warming. People should always define their acronyms :-).

Jim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff,

Now we are getting somewhere. Before anything else, the following is from Post 56:

AGW (anthropogenic global warming)

Yes I was over the top in those comments. I had just visited several places on the net where the discussion was running furiously and I was appalled and upset. I had also never paid much attention to global warming before all that. In my mind, it was something like "save the whales" or "endangered species"—something really remote from my life and concerns.

I don't know if helps to define terms at this stage, after everything that has run, but here is what I had (and have) in mind when I use the term "intellectual." It is in the sense that Rand did in For the New Intellectual (pp. 26-27).

The professional intellectual is the field agent of the army whose commander-in-chief is the philosopher. The intellectual carries the application of philosophical principles to every field of human endeavor. He sets a society's course by transmitting ideas from the "ivory tower" of the philosopher to the university professor—to the writer—to the artist—to the newspaperman—to the politician—to the movie maker—to the night-club singer—to the man in the street. The intellectual's specific professions are in the field of the sciences that study man, the so-called "humanities," but for that very reason his influence extends to all other professions. Those who deal with the sciences studying nature have to rely on the intellectual for philosophical guidance and information: for moral values, for social theories, for political premises, for psychological tenets and, above all, for the principles of epistemology, that crucial branch of philosophy which studies man's means of knowledge sad makes an other sciences possible, The intellectual is the eyes, ears and voice of a free society: it is his job to observe the events of the world, to evaluate their meaning and to inform the men in all the other fields. A free society has to be an informed society. In the stagnation of feudalism, with castes and guilds of serfs repeating the same motions generation after generation, the services of traveling minstrels chanting the same old legends were sufficient. But In the racing torrent of progress which is capitalism, where the free choices of individual men determine their own lives and the course of the entire economy, where opportunities are unlimited, where discoveries are constant, where the achievements of every profession affect all the others, men need a knowledge wider than their particular specialties, they need those who can point the way to the better mousetrap—or the better cyclotron, or the better symphony, or the better view of existence. The more specialized and diversified a society, the greater its need for the integrating power of knowledge; but the acquisition of knowledge on so wide a scale is a full-time profession. A free society has to count on the honor of its intellectuals: it has to expect them to be as efficient, reliable, precise and objective as the printing presses and the television sets that carry their voices.

After I started looking at things, including the two movies, I started remembering everything I had read on AGW. The only images that came to mind were very derogatory. (I rarely read anything on this from liberals. Once I perceived it was by them, I would move on without bothering to even skim it.) This "derogatory only" image aligned with the acrimonious discussions that I had just seen where people slung pages of data at each other in addition to name-calling. This even aligned with the condemnatory form of the Swindle movie.

All this shocked mightily with the Gore movie and gave me great pause. All my previous learning had prepared me for something quite different. The following is from an email I wrote recently that explains my mentality better than I can right now.

I probably made a mistake in trying to anticipate the heavy-handed intimidation that I saw at other places, fearing in advance what would happen, and expressed myself a bit aggressively at the outset.

But let's see what happened. Since you found no ire in Post 1, I believe you think it was not so bad. Between Post 1 and Post 15 are 13 posts.

Post 2 - From Brant. He said he would not see either film and he had a very negative view of Gore.

Post 3 - From me. I mentioned Michael Shermer's reaction to show that I wasn't just going on feeling or fad, that others were asking the same questions.

Post 4 - From Brant. He said he wasn't impressed with Shermer and that AGW was bunk.

Post 5 - From Steve Reed. He compared Gore's film to Nazi propaganda and made some technical comments and then some derogatory comments in general against the film.

Post 6 - From Christian. He said, "Uh huh." Then he copy/pasted an entire article against Gore's film from Patrick Michaels.

Post 7 - From Christian. Without comment. He copy/pasted an entire article against Gore's film from Roy Spencer.

Post 8 - From Christian. Without comment. He copy/pasted an entire article against Gore's film from Robert C. Balling Jr.

Post 9 - From Christian. Without comment. He copy/pasted a short article from Paul Joseph Watson (basically a rhetorical and derogatory question to Gore).

Post 10 - From Chris Grieb. He was happy Gore's movie was being debunked.

Post 11 - From Christian. He quoted me and said, "Uh huh." Then he provided three links giving statistics on population growth with some text copy/pasted from them.

Post 12 - From you. You high-fived Christian.

Post 13 - From Christian. He quoted me and then basically restated the position about clouds given in the Swindle movie. He also gave 3 links to scientific papers.

Post 14 - [Note: Added later on June 4 as it was overlooked] From me to Christian, stating familiarity with much of what he posted and awareness of much of the same from AGW scientists.

Now, Jeff, if you are really interested in understanding where I was coming from (and I do hope your desire is that, and not to win some kind of rhetorical game), try to see all that through my eyes at the time.

As I mentioned more times than I can remember, I did not have the technical competence to judge which scientist was correct. I did know there was was a rebuttal by an honorable scientist for every single paper that was linked or posted. Out of 13 posts, 11 were vehemently against either Gore or the movie and the other two were by me. Not one addressed any of my concerns. If you look at the time-stamps, you will see that all this was rapid-fire.

Can you possibly see where someone in my position would see intimidation? I didn't know how to stop the flood. So I got mad and went over the top. This was exactly what I had feared and I was irritated that after all that initial hard work and looking forward to learning something, I did not see a rational discussion coming. What I saw coming was a verbal battle like I had seen elsewhere, not a discussion.

And I was right.

Even so, look what I wrote to you.

Point well taken. I certainly don't want to give the impression that I think anyone on our side is the enemy. Apologies all round if that is the case.

I don't remember anyone apologizing to me for misrepresenting my words, insinuating horrible things about me, saying basically that I was muddle-headed, treating me like an enemy, etc., etc., etc. I don't even remember anyone correcting their own mistakes, except for a long, unnecessarily drawn out discussion over what was meant by the word "science" for laypeople.

Anyway, that is my context. I was interested in discussion and explanations. What I got was a crusade and attempt at conversion (and shouting down). That ticked me off.

Still, I apologize once again for any misunderstanding on my part. I do not think the posters on this thread are any kind of enemy and I never did. I regret insinuating that.

Now back to the ire. I have none.

I have discovered what I wanted. This whole subject is essentially a non-issue in the big picture.

I do wish I had learned that in this environment, but it was not possible. So I did it on my own. Like any independent thinker should when he is not satisfied.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

~ Boy! After reading all this followup after (though irrelevent to) my last comment, *I*m certainly all ired up!

Prob is, I'm not sure what about.

MSK: what IS 'the big picture'? GW? AGW? BGW? the advocates/anti-adv's of each/any/all? wha'? I'm getting Mad-As-Hell-And-I'm-Not-Gonna-Take-It-Anymore...but...I don't know what to be mad at in your view of all this. Bush? Hillary? Paris?

LLAP

J:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John,

Big picture: war, social security, etc. There are gazillions at stake in the big picture.

On this level (AGW), there are about two billion in research grants. And some minor inconvenience if some pesky laws pass. And of course the profits to lawyers, media and politicians from selling fear.

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...