It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.
Those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria are unlikely to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
I don't really care if global warming is the product of overreaction or not. The truth is, we need to reduce our dependence on one carbon dioxide creator in particular – oil. It plays an incontrovertible destabilizing role all over the world. Foreign oil is one of the BIGGEST security problems we face today, and I support anyone who calls for an end to that addiction, up to and including people who want to find alternatives because of global warming. Based on the security dangers alone, we must develop renewable sources of energy, and if those who create "global warming hysteria" as you call it, turn out to be right . . . well, they are doing good on two fronts. They're working toward saving the environment and making the world a safer place – both admirable goals indeed.
O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies
In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities:
For nought so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give
~ Romeo and Juliet: Act 2, Scene 3 lines 15-18
Nice response. I quite agree. Who cares if it's real, or not? Doctors used to tell people to smoke to help reduce stress. Then the tobacco industry denied till it was blue in the face that smoking was damaging or addictive. So, as individuals we have to make our own minds up and try to get to some sort of basic criteria to make value judgments. Things like poverty sucks, landfills are terrible, cities are choked by cars and we've just learnt to tolerate ridiculous levels of pollution, noise, ugliness.
Energy descent can really rectify all these ills of the modern world.
Nevertheless, to refute some later points, the arctic ice has melted to historic levels these last couple of years. Wait and see what it will do this northern summer.
More ice in antarctica was actually predicted, because now that it is not so cold, rather than being the driest continent on earth (because all moisture was locked in ice, too cold for atmospheric water) precipitation is increasing. This precipitation contributes to the ice mass.
Freak cold spells are also within the possibilities of global warming, ever heard of ocean currents changing?
Anyway, what is so terrible, if it is all a load of hooha? who is suffering because of anti-climate change measures?
Sounds like a climate change skeptic agenda to me. I've seen many of the same arguments posted in neocon and libertarian websites. I do note that the Heartland Institute received significant funding from Exxon and numerous other foundations tied to oil and coal. Follow the money and you will always find the real agenda: http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=152
1. I am no skeptic. The point I am trying to make to the uninformed like yourself is, that the cures being proposed are worse than the disease. Just like when the best treatment for cancer was mercury.
2. If you really want to follow the money, you will find out that the ammount spent by global warming alarmists and the US govt. to promote this unproved theory dwarfs any money "big buisness" has spent on research by more than ten to one.
3. If you really believe Al Gore has your best interests in mind, you are truly delusional.
This is a crock. The Fourth Technical Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I, released
February 2007, contains a precise accounting of how much global
warming and cooling various factors have contributed to the net watts
per square meter of radiation the earth is receiving and retaining,
which the TAR concludes is causing the earth to show climate
variation outside of historical natural ranges, with greater than 90
percent confidence that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic
- caused by human activities. See for yourself at www.ipcc.ch -->.
Here is a summary of the contributions to global warming and global
cooling from all factors, natural and anthropogenic, with a time
scale of 650,000 years:
2.30 Watts per square meter from increases of carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, all acting directly as "greenhouse gases."
0.35 W/m2 from tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons
0.34 W/m2 from emissions of halocarbons
0.12 W/m2 from increase in solar irradiance since 1750 - this is
increase in the natural output of the sun John Paul Watson refers to
-0.5 W/m2 from anthropogenic contributions to aerosols: sulphate,
organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust - this is the
man-made pollution exercising a cooling effect which Watson refers to
-0.7 W/m2 indirect cloud albedo forcing - this refers to particulates
acting to seed clouds which then reflect heat back out into space
before reaching the Earth's surface - another anthropogenic cooling factor.
-0.2 W/m2 changes in surface albedo due to land use changes - this is
also an anthropogenic cooling factor representing changes in land
use which cause more radiation to be reflected from the
surface of human-modified land, e.g., a concrete parking lot instead of a
forest
0.1 W/m2 due to deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow - this
is another anthropogenic warming effect due to soot emissions
1.81 Watts per square meter net increase in radiative forcing of
earth's climate
The historic range of parts per million of carbon dioxide, according
to analysis of ice cores, was 180-230 ppm. At the dawn of the
industrial age carbon dioxide levels were 280 ppm. They are now 379
ppm. 62 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase since
1750 has occurred since 1959.
The historic range of methane over 650,000 years pre-industrial is
320 to 790 ppb. The 1750 value was 715 ppb; the 2005 value is 1774,
an increase of 152 percent since pre-industrial times.
As to nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more potent a greenhouse gas
than an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide, the IPCC says: "The
global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a
pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth
rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third
of nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to
agriculture."
As to the global cooling warnings of the 1950's, they were based on
changes in the earth's tilt and orbit relative to the sun which
always results in a lower amount of solar radiation reaching the
earth. If the atmosphere's heat-retaining qualities had been at
pre-industrial values, then we would have had a colder period in
earth's climate history. However, enough greenhouse gases had
accumulated by 1950 to change global albedo, so the cyclic loss of
solar radiative forcing was more than compensated for by heat
retention due to greenhouse gas increases. We did not experience the
full effect of greenhouse gas heat retention though the 1960s and
1970s because we were putting so many aerosols into the atmosphere
from smokestacks that global warming was being offset by global
shading. Because of the adverse effects of emissions such as
particulates and sulfur and nitrous oxides on biological health and
productivity, we began demanding that sources of air pollution be
abated, which has lowered the gross aerosol load in the atmosphere,
thus producing the fact that the ten hottest planetary years since
the Jurassic era have all occurred in the last 16 years time.
It may provide perspective on some global warming contrarians to
recall that the Flat Earth Society still exists and publishes
information on the internet claiming that the pictures of earth from
space, showing a globe, are fakes, and the NASA moonwalk was actually
filmed on a sound stage in California. Unfortunately, I am not aware
as to whether the Flat Earth Society currently maintains that the
earth is a flat disk being carried on the back of a turtle, and if
so, what the turtle is alleged to be standing on.
Article published Mar 14, 2008
Climate panel on the hot seat
March 14, 2008
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.
However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.
The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.
Thank you for the valuable information. The only thing I would like to point out is that the idea that the ten hottest years in the USA have occured in the last 16 years has been revised by NASA with newer and more accurate measuring methods. The five hottest years on record were, in order 1934, 1998, 2005, 1921 and 1930. This data can be viewed and explained on NASA's web site.
This week, John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, said that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. "The Weather Channel had great promise, and that's all gone now because they've made every mistake in the book on what they've done and how they've done it and it's very sad," Coleman said.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called "the fraud of global warming." He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose. "If the lawyers will take the case - sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming."
And followers of the "global warming" scare might also be interested in a story written by Phil Brennan which ran on Newsmax a couple of weeks ago. Brennan claims that the reports of ice caps melting are nothing but scare mongering by the advocates of global climate change. Personally I believe that there is indeed climate change taking place in the world, not because of anything that people have done to the environment, but because of a natural, normal change that has been occurring in the world throughout the centuries.
What makes the Newsmax story so credible is the fact that it sites several reliable sources, such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to reports from NOAA, the ice cap melting scare is nothing but a load of bunk. Their reports reveal that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost totally back to their original levels.
Not only that, but a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, throwing cold water on the global warming crowd. It's hard to claim that the earth is melting when the ice is increasing, isn't it?
The London Daily Express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged impact on the global climate. But here's the rub - Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. Must have slipped his mind, I guess.
The Express goes on to report that scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has experienced its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper mentions the one exception - Western Europe, which had, until one weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.
All around the world, considerable areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest snowfalls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.
And here are just a few more inconvenient facts: AFP news reports icy temperatures have swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.
In Vietnam, local press reported a record-long spell of cold weather has hit the northern region, which started on Jan. 14, and has killed nearly 60,000 cattle. By Feb. 17, the cold had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.
In the UK the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.
And Athens News reports that a raging snow storm has blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours last Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken sections were also closed.
More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.
Global warming? Phil Brennan ends his column by saying, "If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death."
The Newsmax piece is only the very latest example to shed light on the so-called "global warming" doom and gloom scenario. Another really great source is a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism." The book is loaded with facts from eminent scientists and science organizations worldwide. It's a real eye-opener. But don't expect any of your friends to go along with it - I've never met an alarmist yet who let facts stand in his way of his feelings.
Gotta go now - I need to throw another log onto the fire. : Mark
It’s generally best not to pay any attention to whatever comes from Newsmax. I have not seen a single article from that agency with any credibility. Always full of 90 degree slants and outright misuse of data. Don’t know who owns them but interesting to find out.
When Bush came into office I spent a long time wondering what's behind these sources that I distrust. At times it seems like deliberate disinformation, and others it seems like incompetence. I finally discovered that the two are not mutually exclusive. Those pushing deliberate disinformation and unusally also incompetent.
To unpack that claim a little further for those of you in disbelief: there are little corners of corruption throughout society. Some of it has infiltrated the US intelligence agencies, and is influenced by money and power. Individuals within this network or association have started deliberate disinformation campaigns through various US media publications. Some are more thoroughly corrupted than others.
Anyone know of any good books on this subject? I've learned a little on this but want to understand more.
The CIA runs Newsmax? This is a very interesting idea. I think the point I am trying to make here is that politicians and corporations are siezing on the panic created by us being alarmist and closed minded on this issue. Wal Mart, GE and all its partners are making billions creating a whole cottage industry around global climate change alarmism. Politicians like Al Gore and Gavin Newsome are being adored on the national and world stages. Do you think these entities really have our best interests in mind? I belive that we are creating bigger monsters than we had before. This is an article by Debra Saunders that points out exactly what I have come to learn myself.
Grand Gestures, Hot Air and Cold Water
By Debra J. Saunders
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Who says that the issue of global warming is a matter of science, not faith? Just last week, Mayor Gavin Newsom proved belief trumps data. The Chronicle reported that a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission study found that the giant turbines he wanted to put underwater below the Golden Gate Bridge would cost way too much money to install and maintain. They would generate power at a cost of 80 cents to $1.40 per kilowatt hour -- as opposed to Pacific Gas and Electric's 12 cents per hour commercial rate. It seems the turbines would produce only one or two megawatts of power -- not the 38 megawatts Newsom envisioned.
Newsom was unfazed. "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it," Newsom told Chronicle reporter Cecilia Vega.
And: "It's a question of your subjectivity. If you're opposed to (the idea of tidal power) or want to oppose it, you're going to find reasons not to do it. If you're for it and you believe it's something that should be done and can be done, then you're going to find a way to make it happen."
Or to paraphrase Genesis, The Mayor saith: Let there be turbine light, and there was turbine light. And the Mayor saw that the turbine light was good. Forget the debate -- and there still is a debate -- about whether global warming is caused by man or other factors. Everyone can agree that projects that improve energy efficiency and reduce polluting greenhouse gases are good for national security and America's health.
Then why are the biggest global warming believers more interested in their good intentions than they are in achieving results?
In February, the San Jose Mercury News reported on how the Valley Transportation Authority found that the VTA's three zero-emission buses (ZEBs) cost $51.66 per mile to fuel, maintain and operate -- compared to $1.61 per mile for a diesel bus.
No worries. The California Air Resources Board wants to expand ZEBs. CARB regulations mandate that by 2012, 15 percent of buses purchased by larger transit agencies will be ZEBs.
Which makes no sense when transit agencies can purchase hybrid buses -- which reduce foul bus emissions at a fraction of the ZEB cost. VTA General Manager Michael Burns told me that he's not anti-ZEB, but until the technology improves and the price tag decreases, "hybrids would be a better investment." He guess-timated that the VTA could buy six hybrids for the cost of one ZEB -- and the hybrids would do more for air quality today.
"Let's focus on trying to do what we can to not only achieve the long-term goals, but also in the shorter term, to be able to do things that improve air quality," Burns said.
The VTA project has been so expensive, CARB's Gennet Paauwe explained, because it is a demonstration project. When there are more ZEBs, the cost will go down. What about the CARB claim that the next generation of ZEBs will be cheaper to operate than today's diesel buses? She referred me to AC Transit. AC Transit's Clarence Johnson told me the agency will be paying $1.63 per mile more for ZEBs than diesel buses -- and that doesn't include maintenance costs, which will be picked up by project partners.
In the land of Green Giants, money is no object. Despite a projected $233 million deficit next year, Newsom has 25 staffers working on global-warming issues in various agencies.
If Newsom wants to curb carbon emissions, he could stop jetting around the globe, limit city employee travel and turn down the bright lights. Or better yet, as former supporter Wade Randlett told The Chronicle, Newsom could fix Muni so that more San Franciscans want to use public transit.
But fixing Muni won't win Newsom a starring role on the green stage. What will turn heads more at the Davos Economic Forum -- improving public transit or trumpeting that Newsom and his small army are riding the wave of water power? Heeding the PUC study isn't going to get Newsom in a photo next to Virgin's Richard Branson.
This is typical: Plan Newsom proposes that when city staffers fly, their offices pay into a "carbon offset" fund that is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere. They pollute, then use tax money to help someone else to pollute less.
"The loudest, noisiest, bossiest people in this debate have shown no interest in leading by example," noted global-warming skeptic Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's about other people making sacrifices." And other people paying for it.
Okay, I'm guessing GE is making money by creating energy efficient products, but how is Wally World cashing in on global warming? I'm not saying I don't believe you – after all, Walmart would package and sell rat droppings if there were people willing to buy it – but I'd just like to know what specific products they're selling that are directly related to global warming.
According to this post, Wal-Mart has several plans to become more environmentally conscious. They want to:
–get customers to recycle their plastic bags
–get customers to buy Wal-Mart’s 99 cent reusable grocery bags
–[put] compact fluorescent bulbs in all store lighting displays
–[improve] battery efficiency in warehouse forklifts
–[aim] for zero-waste
Other than making some money on reusable bags, I don’t think any of these plans are going to make Wally World stock skyrocket. If you really look at these plans, they mostly focus on reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfills. What’s the problem with that? I personally like the idea of dumping less crap into big holes in the ground – the same ground that houses my drinking water. So again, I see this as a benefit regardless of whether global warming is a conspiracy foisted on us by some giant corprotocracy or a legitimate problem.
March 3rd, 2008
Climate change
It has almost become something of a joke when some "global warming" conference has to be cancelled because of a snowstorm or bitterly cold weather.
But stampedes and hysteria are no joke -- and creating stampedes and hysteria has become a major activity of those hyping a global warming "crisis."
They mobilize like-minded people from a variety of occupations, call them all "scientists" and then claim that "all" the experts agree on a global warming crisis.
Their biggest argument is that there is no argument.
A whole cottage industry has sprung up among people who get grants, government agencies who get appropriations, politicians who get publicity and the perpetually indignant who get something new to be indignant about. It gives teachers something to talk about in school instead of teaching.
Those who bother to check the facts often find that not all those who are called scientists are really scientists and not all of those who are scientists are specialists in climate. But who bothers to check facts these days?
A new and very different conference on global warming will be held in New York City, under the sponsorship of the Heartland Institute, on March 2nd to March 4th -- weather permitting.
It is called an "International Conference on Climate Change." Its subtitle is "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" Among those present will be professors of climatology, along with scientists in other fields and people from other professions.
They come from universities in England, Hungary, and Australia, as well as from the United States and Canada, and include among other dignitaries the president of the Czech Republic.
There will be 98 speakers and 400 participants.
The theme of the conference is that "there is no scientific consensus on the causes or likely consequences of global warming."
Many of the participants in this conference are people who have already expressed skepticism about either the prevailing explanations of current climate change or the dire predictions about future climate change.
These include authors of such books as "Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years" by Fred Singer and Dennis Avery, and "Shattered Consensus," edited by Patrick J. Michaels.
This will be one of the rare opportunities for the media to hear the other side of the story -- for those old-fashioned journalists who still believe that their job is to inform the public, rather than promote an agenda.
The subtitle of the upcoming conference -- "Global Warming: Truth or Swindle?" -- is also the title of a British television program that is now available on DVD in the United States. It is a devastating debunking of the current "global warming" hysteria.
Nobody denies that there is such a thing as a greenhouse effect. If there were not, the side of the planet facing away from the sun would be freezing every night.
There is not even a lot of controversy over temperature readings. What is fundamentally at issue are the explanations, implications and extrapolations of these temperature readings.
The party line of those who say that we are heading for a global warming crisis of epic proportions is that human activities generating carbon dioxide are key factors responsible for the warming that has taken place in recent times.
The problem with this reasoning is that the temperatures rose first and then the carbon dioxide levels rose. Some scientists say that the warming created the increased carbon dioxide, rather than vice versa.
Many natural factors, including variations in the amount of heat put out by the sun, can cause the earth to heat or cool.
The bigger problem is that this has long since become a crusade rather than an exercise in evidence or logic. Too many people are too committed to risk it all on a roll of the dice, which is what turning to empirical evidence is.
Those who have a big stake in global warming hysteria are unlikely to show up at the conference in New York, and unfortunately that includes much of the media.
April 21st, 2008
So what...
I don't really care if global warming is the product of overreaction or not. The truth is, we need to reduce our dependence on one carbon dioxide creator in particular – oil. It plays an incontrovertible destabilizing role all over the world. Foreign oil is one of the BIGGEST security problems we face today, and I support anyone who calls for an end to that addiction, up to and including people who want to find alternatives because of global warming. Based on the security dangers alone, we must develop renewable sources of energy, and if those who create "global warming hysteria" as you call it, turn out to be right . . . well, they are doing good on two fronts. They're working toward saving the environment and making the world a safer place – both admirable goals indeed.
O, mickle is the powerful grace that lies
In herbs, plants, stones, and their true qualities:
For nought so vile that on the earth doth live
But to the earth some special good doth give
~ Romeo and Juliet: Act 2, Scene 3 lines 15-18
June 29th, 2008
Nice response. I quite
Nice response. I quite agree. Who cares if it's real, or not? Doctors used to tell people to smoke to help reduce stress. Then the tobacco industry denied till it was blue in the face that smoking was damaging or addictive. So, as individuals we have to make our own minds up and try to get to some sort of basic criteria to make value judgments. Things like poverty sucks, landfills are terrible, cities are choked by cars and we've just learnt to tolerate ridiculous levels of pollution, noise, ugliness.
Energy descent can really rectify all these ills of the modern world.
Nevertheless, to refute some later points, the arctic ice has melted to historic levels these last couple of years. Wait and see what it will do this northern summer.
More ice in antarctica was actually predicted, because now that it is not so cold, rather than being the driest continent on earth (because all moisture was locked in ice, too cold for atmospheric water) precipitation is increasing. This precipitation contributes to the ice mass.
Freak cold spells are also within the possibilities of global warming, ever heard of ocean currents changing?
Anyway, what is so terrible, if it is all a load of hooha? who is suffering because of anti-climate change measures?
March 27th, 2008
Climate Change Skeptics Keep Trying
Wow Mark1b,
Sounds like a climate change skeptic agenda to me. I've seen many of the same arguments posted in neocon and libertarian websites. I do note that the Heartland Institute received significant funding from Exxon and numerous other foundations tied to oil and coal. Follow the money and you will always find the real agenda: http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=152
Nice try.
Cjryan2000
April 27th, 2008
Climate change skeptics keep trying
1. I am no skeptic. The point I am trying to make to the uninformed like yourself is, that the cures being proposed are worse than the disease. Just like when the best treatment for cancer was mercury.
2. If you really want to follow the money, you will find out that the ammount spent by global warming alarmists and the US govt. to promote this unproved theory dwarfs any money "big buisness" has spent on research by more than ten to one.
3. If you really believe Al Gore has your best interests in mind, you are truly delusional.
Nice try: Mark
March 5th, 2008
Re: Anthropogenic global warming
This is a crock. The Fourth Technical Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group I, released
February 2007, contains a precise accounting of how much global
warming and cooling various factors have contributed to the net watts
per square meter of radiation the earth is receiving and retaining,
which the TAR concludes is causing the earth to show climate
variation outside of historical natural ranges, with greater than 90
percent confidence that the majority of the warming is anthropogenic
- caused by human activities. See for yourself at www.ipcc.ch -->.
Here is a summary of the contributions to global warming and global
cooling from all factors, natural and anthropogenic, with a time
scale of 650,000 years:
2.30 Watts per square meter from increases of carbon dioxide,
methane, and nitrous oxide, all acting directly as "greenhouse gases."
0.35 W/m2 from tropospheric ozone changes due to emissions of
nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, and hydrocarbons
0.34 W/m2 from emissions of halocarbons
0.12 W/m2 from increase in solar irradiance since 1750 - this is
increase in the natural output of the sun John Paul Watson refers to
-0.5 W/m2 from anthropogenic contributions to aerosols: sulphate,
organic carbon, black carbon, nitrate and dust - this is the
man-made pollution exercising a cooling effect which Watson refers to
-0.7 W/m2 indirect cloud albedo forcing - this refers to particulates
acting to seed clouds which then reflect heat back out into space
before reaching the Earth's surface - another anthropogenic cooling factor.
-0.2 W/m2 changes in surface albedo due to land use changes - this is
also an anthropogenic cooling factor representing changes in land
use which cause more radiation to be reflected from the
surface of human-modified land, e.g., a concrete parking lot instead of a
forest
0.1 W/m2 due to deposition of black carbon aerosols on snow - this
is another anthropogenic warming effect due to soot emissions
1.81 Watts per square meter net increase in radiative forcing of
earth's climate
The historic range of parts per million of carbon dioxide, according
to analysis of ice cores, was 180-230 ppm. At the dawn of the
industrial age carbon dioxide levels were 280 ppm. They are now 379
ppm. 62 percent of the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase since
1750 has occurred since 1959.
The historic range of methane over 650,000 years pre-industrial is
320 to 790 ppb. The 1750 value was 715 ppb; the 2005 value is 1774,
an increase of 152 percent since pre-industrial times.
As to nitrous oxide, which is 296 times more potent a greenhouse gas
than an equivalent weight of carbon dioxide, the IPCC says: "The
global atmospheric nitrous oxide concentration increased from a
pre-industrial value of about 270 ppb to 319 ppb in 2005. The growth
rate has been approximately constant since 1980. More than a third
of nitrous oxide emissions are anthropogenic and are primarily due to
agriculture."
As to the global cooling warnings of the 1950's, they were based on
changes in the earth's tilt and orbit relative to the sun which
always results in a lower amount of solar radiation reaching the
earth. If the atmosphere's heat-retaining qualities had been at
pre-industrial values, then we would have had a colder period in
earth's climate history. However, enough greenhouse gases had
accumulated by 1950 to change global albedo, so the cyclic loss of
solar radiative forcing was more than compensated for by heat
retention due to greenhouse gas increases. We did not experience the
full effect of greenhouse gas heat retention though the 1960s and
1970s because we were putting so many aerosols into the atmosphere
from smokestacks that global warming was being offset by global
shading. Because of the adverse effects of emissions such as
particulates and sulfur and nitrous oxides on biological health and
productivity, we began demanding that sources of air pollution be
abated, which has lowered the gross aerosol load in the atmosphere,
thus producing the fact that the ten hottest planetary years since
the Jurassic era have all occurred in the last 16 years time.
It may provide perspective on some global warming contrarians to
recall that the Flat Earth Society still exists and publishes
information on the internet claiming that the pictures of earth from
space, showing a globe, are fakes, and the NASA moonwalk was actually
filmed on a sound stage in California. Unfortunately, I am not aware
as to whether the Flat Earth Society currently maintains that the
earth is a flat disk being carried on the back of a turtle, and if
so, what the turtle is alleged to be standing on.
March 14th, 2008
Climate change
From The Washington Post
Article published Mar 14, 2008
Climate panel on the hot seat
March 14, 2008
By H. Sterling Burnett - More than 20 years ago, climate scientists began to raise alarms over the possibility global temperatures were rising due to human activities, such as deforestation and the burning of fossil fuels.
To better understand this potential threat, the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations created the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 to provide a "comprehensive, objective, scientific, technical and socioeconomic assessment of human-caused climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation."
IPCC reports have predicted average world temperatures will increase dramatically, leading to the spread of tropical diseases, severe drought, the rapid melting of the world's glaciers and ice caps, and rising sea levels. However, several assessments of the IPCC's work have shown the techniques and methods used to derive its climate predictions are fundamentally flawed.
In a 2001 report, the IPCC published an image commonly referred to as the "hockey stick." This graph showed relatively stable temperatures from A.D. 1000 to 1900, with temperatures rising steeply from 1900 to 2000. The IPCC and public figures, such as former Vice President Al Gore, have used the hockey stick to support the conclusion that human energy use over the last 100 years has caused unprecedented rise global warming.
However, several studies cast doubt on the accuracy of the hockey stick, and in 2006 Congress requested an independent analysis of it. A panel of statisticians chaired by Edward J. Wegman, of George Mason University, found significant problems with the methods of statistical analysis used by the researchers and with the IPCC's peer review process. For example, the researchers who created the hockey stick used the wrong time scale to establish the mean temperature to compare with recorded temperatures of the last century. Because the mean temperature was low, the recent temperature rise seemed unusual and dramatic. This error was not discovered in part because statisticians were never consulted.
Furthermore, the community of specialists in ancient climates from which the peer reviewers were drawn was small and many of them had ties to the original authors — 43 paleoclimatologists had previously coauthored papers with the lead researcher who constructed the hockey stick.
These problems led Mr. Wegman's team to conclude that the idea that the planet is experiencing unprecedented global warming "cannot be supported."
The IPCC published its Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 predicting global warming will lead to widespread catastrophe if not mitigated, yet failed to provide the most basic requirement for effective climate policy: accurate temperature statistics. A number of weaknesses in the measurements include the fact temperatures aren't recorded from large areas of the Earth's surface and many weather stations once in undeveloped areas are now surrounded by buildings, parking lots and other heat-trapping structures resulting in an urban-heat-island effect.
Even using accurate temperature data, sound forecasting methods are required to predict climate change. Over time, forecasting researchers have compiled 140 principles that can be applied to a broad range of disciplines, including science, sociology, economics and politics.
In a recent NCPA study, Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong used these principles to audit the climate forecasts in the Fourth Assessment Report. Messrs. Green and Armstrong found the IPCC clearly violated 60 of the 127 principles relevant in assessing the IPCC predictions. Indeed, it could only be clearly established that the IPCC followed 17 of the more than 127 forecasting principles critical to making sound predictions.
A good example of a principle clearly violated is "Make sure forecasts are independent of politics." Politics shapes the IPCC from beginning to end. Legislators, policymakers and/or diplomatic appointees select (or approve) the scientists — at least the lead scientists — who make up the IPCC. In addition, the summary and the final draft of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report was written in collaboration with political appointees and subject to their approval.
Sadly, Mr. Green and Mr. Armstrong found no evidence the IPCC was even aware of the vast literature on scientific forecasting methods, much less applied the principles.
The IPCC and its defenders often argue that critics who are not climate scientists are unqualified to judge the validity of their work. However, climate predictions rely on methods, data and evidence from other fields of expertise, including statistical analysis and forecasting. Thus, the work of the IPCC is open to analysis and criticism from other disciplines.
The IPCC's policy recommendations are based on flawed statistical analyses and procedures that violate general forecasting principles. Policymakers should take this into account before enacting laws to counter global warming — which economists point out would have severe economic consequences.
H. Sterling Burnett is a senior fellow with the National Center for Policy Analysis, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research institute in Dallas.
March 8th, 2008
Anthropogenic global warming
Thank you for the valuable information. The only thing I would like to point out is that the idea that the ten hottest years in the USA have occured in the last 16 years has been revised by NASA with newer and more accurate measuring methods. The five hottest years on record were, in order 1934, 1998, 2005, 1921 and 1930. This data can be viewed and explained on NASA's web site.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
March 7th, 2008
New evidence
This week, John Coleman, the founder of the Weather Channel, said that he is highly critical of global warming alarmism at the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change in New York. "The Weather Channel had great promise, and that's all gone now because they've made every mistake in the book on what they've done and how they've done it and it's very sad," Coleman said.
Coleman also told the audience his strategy for exposing what he called "the fraud of global warming." He advocated suing those who sell carbon credits, which would force global warming alarmists to give a more honest account of the policies they propose. "If the lawyers will take the case - sue the people who sell carbon credits. That includes Al Gore. That lawsuit would get so much publicity, so much media attention. And as the experts went to the media stand to testify, I feel like that could become the vehicle to finally put some light on the fraud of global warming."
And followers of the "global warming" scare might also be interested in a story written by Phil Brennan which ran on Newsmax a couple of weeks ago. Brennan claims that the reports of ice caps melting are nothing but scare mongering by the advocates of global climate change. Personally I believe that there is indeed climate change taking place in the world, not because of anything that people have done to the environment, but because of a natural, normal change that has been occurring in the world throughout the centuries.
What makes the Newsmax story so credible is the fact that it sites several reliable sources, such as the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). According to reports from NOAA, the ice cap melting scare is nothing but a load of bunk. Their reports reveal that almost all the allegedly "lost" ice has come back. A NOAA report shows that ice levels which had shrunk from 5 million square miles in January 2007 to just 1.5 million square miles in October, are almost totally back to their original levels.
Not only that, but a Feb. 18 report in the London Daily Express showed that there is nearly a third more ice in Antarctica than usual, throwing cold water on the global warming crowd. It's hard to claim that the earth is melting when the ice is increasing, isn't it?
The London Daily Express recalls the photograph of polar bears clinging on to a melting iceberg which has been widely hailed as proof of the need to fight climate change and has been used by former Vice President Al Gore during his "Inconvenient Truth" lectures about mankind's alleged impact on the global climate. But here's the rub - Gore fails to mention that the photograph was taken in the month of August when melting is normal. Or that the polar bear population has soared in recent years. Must have slipped his mind, I guess.
The Express goes on to report that scientists are saying the northern Hemisphere has experienced its coldest winter in decades, adding that snow cover across the area is at its greatest since 1966. The newspaper mentions the one exception - Western Europe, which had, until one weekend when temperatures plunged to as low as -10 C in some places, been basking in unseasonably warm weather.
All around the world, considerable areas have been buried under some of the heaviest snowfalls in decades. Central and southern China, the United States, and Canada were hit hard by snowstorms. In China, snowfall was so heavy that over 100,000 houses collapsed under the weight of snow. Jerusalem, Damascus, Amman, and northern Saudi Arabia report the heaviest snowfalls in years and below-zero temperatures. In Afghanistan, snow and freezing weather killed 120 people. Even Baghdad had a snowstorm, the first in the memory of most residents.
And here are just a few more inconvenient facts: AFP news reports icy temperatures have swept through south China, stranding 180,000 people and leading to widespread power cuts just as the area was recovering from the worst weather in 50 years. The latest cold snap has taken a severe toll in usually temperate Yunnan province, which has been struck by heavy snowfalls since Thursday, a government official from the provincial disaster relief office told AFP.
In Vietnam, local press reported a record-long spell of cold weather has hit the northern region, which started on Jan. 14, and has killed nearly 60,000 cattle. By Feb. 17, the cold had killed a total of 59,962 cattle in the region, including 7,349 in the Ha Giang province, 6,400 in Lao Cai, and 5,571 in Bac Can province, said Hoang Kim Giao, director of the Animal Husbandry Department under the Vietnamese Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, according to the Pioneer newspaper.
In the UK the temperatures plunged to -10 C in central England, according to the Express, which reports that experts say that February could end up as one of the coldest in Britain in the past 10 years with the freezing night-time conditions expected to stay around a frigid -8 C until at least the middle of the week. And the BBC reports that a bus company's efforts to cut global warming emissions have led to services being disrupted by cold weather.
And Athens News reports that a raging snow storm has blanketed most of Greece over the weekend and continued into the early morning hours last Monday, plunging the country into sub-zero temperatures. The agency reported that public transport buses were at a standstill on Monday in the wider Athens area, while ships remained in ports, public services remained closed, and schools and courthouses in the more severely-stricken sections were also closed.
More than 100 villages were snowed-in on the island of Crete and temperatures in Athens dropped to -6 C before dawn, while the coldest temperatures were recorded in Kozani, Grevena, Kastoria and Florina, where they plunged to -12 C.
Global warming? Phil Brennan ends his column by saying, "If global warming gets any worse we'll all freeze to death."
The Newsmax piece is only the very latest example to shed light on the so-called "global warming" doom and gloom scenario. Another really great source is a book called "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism." The book is loaded with facts from eminent scientists and science organizations worldwide. It's a real eye-opener. But don't expect any of your friends to go along with it - I've never met an alarmist yet who let facts stand in his way of his feelings.
Gotta go now - I need to throw another log onto the fire. : Mark
March 7th, 2008
Re: New evidence
It’s generally best not to pay any attention to whatever comes from Newsmax. I have not seen a single article from that agency with any credibility. Always full of 90 degree slants and outright misuse of data. Don’t know who owns them but interesting to find out.
Jason
March 7th, 2008
Re: New evidence
March 8th, 2008
sources
The CIA runs Newsmax? This is a very interesting idea. I think the point I am trying to make here is that politicians and corporations are siezing on the panic created by us being alarmist and closed minded on this issue. Wal Mart, GE and all its partners are making billions creating a whole cottage industry around global climate change alarmism. Politicians like Al Gore and Gavin Newsome are being adored on the national and world stages. Do you think these entities really have our best interests in mind? I belive that we are creating bigger monsters than we had before. This is an article by Debra Saunders that points out exactly what I have come to learn myself.
Grand Gestures, Hot Air and Cold Water
By Debra J. Saunders
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Who says that the issue of global warming is a matter of science, not faith? Just last week, Mayor Gavin Newsom proved belief trumps data. The Chronicle reported that a San Francisco Public Utilities Commission study found that the giant turbines he wanted to put underwater below the Golden Gate Bridge would cost way too much money to install and maintain. They would generate power at a cost of 80 cents to $1.40 per kilowatt hour -- as opposed to Pacific Gas and Electric's 12 cents per hour commercial rate. It seems the turbines would produce only one or two megawatts of power -- not the 38 megawatts Newsom envisioned.
Newsom was unfazed. "I don't care about the arguments against it. I care about the arguments for it," Newsom told Chronicle reporter Cecilia Vega.
And: "It's a question of your subjectivity. If you're opposed to (the idea of tidal power) or want to oppose it, you're going to find reasons not to do it. If you're for it and you believe it's something that should be done and can be done, then you're going to find a way to make it happen."
Or to paraphrase Genesis, The Mayor saith: Let there be turbine light, and there was turbine light. And the Mayor saw that the turbine light was good. Forget the debate -- and there still is a debate -- about whether global warming is caused by man or other factors. Everyone can agree that projects that improve energy efficiency and reduce polluting greenhouse gases are good for national security and America's health.
Then why are the biggest global warming believers more interested in their good intentions than they are in achieving results?
In February, the San Jose Mercury News reported on how the Valley Transportation Authority found that the VTA's three zero-emission buses (ZEBs) cost $51.66 per mile to fuel, maintain and operate -- compared to $1.61 per mile for a diesel bus.
No worries. The California Air Resources Board wants to expand ZEBs. CARB regulations mandate that by 2012, 15 percent of buses purchased by larger transit agencies will be ZEBs.
Which makes no sense when transit agencies can purchase hybrid buses -- which reduce foul bus emissions at a fraction of the ZEB cost. VTA General Manager Michael Burns told me that he's not anti-ZEB, but until the technology improves and the price tag decreases, "hybrids would be a better investment." He guess-timated that the VTA could buy six hybrids for the cost of one ZEB -- and the hybrids would do more for air quality today.
"Let's focus on trying to do what we can to not only achieve the long-term goals, but also in the shorter term, to be able to do things that improve air quality," Burns said.
The VTA project has been so expensive, CARB's Gennet Paauwe explained, because it is a demonstration project. When there are more ZEBs, the cost will go down. What about the CARB claim that the next generation of ZEBs will be cheaper to operate than today's diesel buses? She referred me to AC Transit. AC Transit's Clarence Johnson told me the agency will be paying $1.63 per mile more for ZEBs than diesel buses -- and that doesn't include maintenance costs, which will be picked up by project partners.
In the land of Green Giants, money is no object. Despite a projected $233 million deficit next year, Newsom has 25 staffers working on global-warming issues in various agencies.
If Newsom wants to curb carbon emissions, he could stop jetting around the globe, limit city employee travel and turn down the bright lights. Or better yet, as former supporter Wade Randlett told The Chronicle, Newsom could fix Muni so that more San Franciscans want to use public transit.
But fixing Muni won't win Newsom a starring role on the green stage. What will turn heads more at the Davos Economic Forum -- improving public transit or trumpeting that Newsom and his small army are riding the wave of water power? Heeding the PUC study isn't going to get Newsom in a photo next to Virgin's Richard Branson.
This is typical: Plan Newsom proposes that when city staffers fly, their offices pay into a "carbon offset" fund that is supposed to reduce greenhouse gases elsewhere. They pollute, then use tax money to help someone else to pollute less.
"The loudest, noisiest, bossiest people in this debate have shown no interest in leading by example," noted global-warming skeptic Chris Horner of the Competitive Enterprise Institute. "It's about other people making sacrifices." And other people paying for it.
April 29th, 2008
Fill me in...
Okay, I'm guessing GE is making money by creating energy efficient products, but how is Wally World cashing in on global warming? I'm not saying I don't believe you – after all, Walmart would package and sell rat droppings if there were people willing to buy it – but I'd just like to know what specific products they're selling that are directly related to global warming.
April 30th, 2008
Well, I found this...
I decided to do a little research on the Wal-Mart, global warming conspiracy connection, and the only thing I found was this:
http://cashflow.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2008/03/13/walmarts-lee-scott-hist...
According to this post, Wal-Mart has several plans to become more environmentally conscious. They want to:
Other than making some money on reusable bags, I don’t think any of these plans are going to make Wally World stock skyrocket. If you really look at these plans, they mostly focus on reducing the amount of waste being sent to landfills. What’s the problem with that? I personally like the idea of dumping less crap into big holes in the ground – the same ground that houses my drinking water. So again, I see this as a benefit regardless of whether global warming is a conspiracy foisted on us by some giant corprotocracy or a legitimate problem.