Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

[alexey]

Fair enough back at you, but I still find it hard to believe that this panel can say with a straight face they know with 90% certainty human activity is causing global warming. There are so many other variables to consider and so much conjecture in the science.

Science considers all applicable variables that are known to exist. No that does not mean it considers all variables that exist, but neither does that mean there are "other variables" that are known but are not considered.

I’ll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once politics is taken out of the science and someone can prove it.

You essentially stated the reason why following strategies work to keep you off the bandwagon:

1) Putting politics into science (claiming that scientists have agenda)

2) Equating "lack of 100% certainty" to "not knowing" (stating that scientists cannot prove it)

Sounds like you'll be happy to jump on board the bandwagon once those who want you off the bandwagon loose the ability or desire to keep you off.

Look, scientists also said with 100% certainty that the earth was flat,

The Scientific Method did not exist as a mode of inquiry at that point... I know flat earth reference is there for shock effect,but still...

silicon breast implants caused immune deficiencies, margarine was healthier than butter, coffee caused heart problems and pancreatic cancer, Alar caused cancer in children, etc etc.

First of all, you are recalling your personal impressions here. None of those things were said with 100% certainty. At most that kind of certainty was implied by news articles reporting on scientific findings.

Science is not perfect. You can fault it for not being always right, or for not providing answers with 100% certainty... but at the end of the day science is the best tool at our disposal for acquiring knowledge (unless we are dealing with non-scientific issues such as morality, for example - then you may want to turn to the Bible, Philosophy, or what have you) Would you argue against science being the best source of knowledge available to us when it comes to these matters? Are you saying that being wrong about breast implants trashes cridiblity of science when it comes to Global Warming?

[@DCGoldPants]

Maybe we could use a One Percent Doctrine with this issue.

[chomerics]

My thing is, what are extreme temperatures?

As the example said, is farming in Greenland worse for mankind? Sheet of ice in Chicago better?

Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted.

I agree though with DjTj's post wholeheartedly. It seems like there are many other enviornmental problems we need to worry about before climate change. And Larry's point is also correct in that hey if we do work on cleaning the enviornement and people are proven wrong about climate change, who cares, things are better

The big question is, at what cost?

What are the "other" environmental problems that should be high on the list?

[chomerics]

The Kyoto treaty is stupid because it doesn't include India and China. That part of the article I agree with. The rest of it is pretty much baloney.

Yet again, you hit the nail on the head Predicto. . .

[SkinsHokieFan]

Ish, if the Greenland icecap melts, it will raise the sea level on the order of 23 feet. . .that doesn't sound like much until you consider that Florida averages 6ft above sea level. Also consider that 1/4th of the worlds population is in an area that would be under water if it melted.

What are the "other" environmental problems that should be high on the list?

See DjTj's post

And of course, the ice caps have been melting for thousands upon thousands of years. I wonder what was going through the minds of our ancestors at the end of the ice age

"We won't be able to cross the bearing strait!"

"The Penguins will dissapear!"

"Where will those in Florida go ice skating?"

[SkinsHokieFan]

Things are definitely worse, at least in the short run. We have 6 billion people adapted to living in the current conditions.

Do you see what I am saying? The problem is not change per se, the problem is too rapid change, right now, that we as a species are not equipped to handle yet.

.

Is .7 degrees celsius change in temperature over a century rapid change?

I am no weather expert, nor will I pretend to be, but lets put it this way, we are warm blooded for a reason, we adapt

People in Pakistan manage to survive in 120 degree heat every summer

People in Denmark manage to live half the year with no sunlight

You gotta define rapid change to me here. I see your example, but I have not seen evidence outside of the natural weather cycle that shows our weather becoming that much more volitale or extreme

I was told about a decade ago and a contrarian convention that the weather during the 20th century was the exception not the norm. That weather cycles are generally more volitale, and if you look at past data it is evident

So is global warming part of this weather cycle, heating of the earth, or humans? To me, its a combo of all 3, but there has been very little evidence to show rapid change like your example described

I have no problem with protecting the enviornement, none whatsoever, conservation is a very important issue to me. Personally I think doing simple things such as going to your park and cleaning it up each weekend and making sure you recycle and reuse has far more impact then worrying about a .7 degree change in the temperature over a century

[Sarge]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and that for 32 years I was a Professor of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. He can be reached at letters@canadafreepress.com

[portisizzle]

Is .7 degrees celsius change in temperature over a century rapid change?

I am no weather expert, nor will I pretend to be, but lets put it this way, we are warm blooded for a reason, we adapt

People in Pakistan manage to survive in 120 degree heat every summer

People in Denmark manage to live half the year with no sunlight

You gotta define rapid change to me here. I see your example, but I have not seen evidence outside of the natural weather cycle that shows our weather becoming that much more volitale or extreme

I was told about a decade ago and a contrarian convention that the weather during the 20th century was the exception not the norm. That weather cycles are generally more volitale, and if you look at past data it is evident

So is global warming part of this weather cycle, heating of the earth, or humans? To me, its a combo of all 3, but there has been very little evidence to show rapid change like your example described

I have no problem with protecting the enviornement, none whatsoever, conservation is a very important issue to me. Personally I think doing simple things such as going to your park and cleaning it up each weekend and making sure you recycle and reuse has far more impact then worrying about a .7 degree change in the temperature over a century

Well said. Humans live in the desert. They also live in Alaska.

[alexey]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball

Dr. Linzen

Dr. Gray

[alexey]

Interesting page

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

and another

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

[Predicto]

Yep. The same handful of names keep popping up, and they all refer to each other.

William Gray, Richard Linzen, Michael Crichton (who is a medical doctor and fiction writer). Same few names, over and over. What a surprise.

Ok, add Tim Ball. Who is Tim Ball? Let's see. Retired for ten years now. Hasn't published a peer-reviewed article in 14 years. Paid by energy firms (technically, he is paid by a public relations firm called "Friends of Science" that is paid by the oil companies - that is how he can say that it is a "lie" that he is paid by oil companies). Here's a nice long article about Mr. Ball and his funding.

http://www.charlesmontgomery.ca/mrcool.html

[Predicto]

Well said. Humans live in the desert. They also live in Alaska.

That is true. However, right now, a lot MORE of them live in the temperate places that currently grow a lot of food. If those places should become less suited to growing food, the disruption to our species will be enormous.

[Sarge]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball

Dr. Linzen

Dr. Gray

Oh. So it's OK to post opinions from people from one side of the arguement but not the other?

I present to you, the other side

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=32abc0b0-802a-23ad-440a-88824bb8e528

The Weather Channel’s most prominent climatologist is advocating that broadcast meteorologists be stripped of their scientific certification if they express skepticism about predictions of manmade catastrophic global warming. This latest call to silence skeptics follows a year (2006) in which skeptics were compared to "Holocaust Deniers" and Nuremberg-style war crimes trials were advocated by several climate alarmists.

The Weather Channel’s (TWC) Heidi Cullen, who hosts the weekly global warming program "The Climate Code," is advocating that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) revoke their "Seal of Approval" for any television weatherman who expresses skepticism that human activity is creating a climate catastrophe.

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. Clearly, the AMS doesn't agree that global warming can be blamed on cyclical weather patterns," Cullen wrote in her December 21 weblog on the Weather Channel Website. [Note: It is also worth taking a look at the comments section at the bottom of Cullen’s blog, very entertaining.] See: http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html This latest call to silence skeptics of manmade global warming has been the subject of discussion at the annual American Meteorological Society’s Annual conference in San Antonio Texas this week. See: http://www.ametsoc.org/meet/annual

"It's like allowing a meteorologist to go on-air and say that hurricanes rotate clockwise and tsunamis are caused by the weather. It's not a political statement...it's just an incorrect statement," Cullen added.

[Predicto]

Sarge, please type in Dr. Tim Ball into Google and do some reading. He is not a published scientist but a hitman for Friends of Science and other similar initiatives.

Can we please agree not to clutter the cyberspace with articles by following individuals:

Dr. Tim Ball

Dr. Linzen

Dr. Gray

I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.

[alexey]

Oh. So it's OK to post opinions from people from one side of the arguement but not the other?

There are suspect activities taking place on either side of the argument. Stating that does not lend credibility to somebody who quit a position at University of Winnipeg to become a scientific gun-for-hire for Friends of Science in 1996, and who's only published work in 34 years since completing his thesis consists of a text called "The Fundamentals of Physical Geography" and a populist non-fiction "Eighteenth-century naturalists of Hudson Bay"

[alexey]

I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.

Yes my bad, I was too quick on the trigger putting Dr. Linzen in there. He is one of a handful of real scientists who disagree with the Global Warming concensus.

[Johnny Punani]

I disagree. Dr. Linzen is a frequently published scientist who actually works in the field. He may be wrong, he may be virtually alone, but he is actually in there studying this stuff. Ball and Gray are just old farts making speeches and enjoying the attention it gets them. Linzen is not.

Of course, the fact that there were 900 plus peer reviewed articles published in recent years that found global warming to be reality and pretty much only a couple disagree (including Linzen's) - that might tell us something too.

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

[portisizzle]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

{crickets chirping}

[chomerics]

See DjTj's post

And of course, the ice caps have been melting for thousands upon thousands of years. I wonder what was going through the minds of our ancestors at the end of the ice age

Please, they are melting faster and the melt period is accelerating. To frame the question like that is almost as bad as the ID crowd saying "well prove this". The greenland caps ARE melting faster then we previously thought, and current estimations put it at something like 200 years before they are gone.

"We won't be able to cross the bearing strait!"

"The Penguins will dissapear!"

"Where will those in Florida go ice skating?"

Why don't you try to actually discuss the issue. Plugging your fingers in your ears and screaming lalalalalalala I can't hear you is akin to saying you have no argument.

[chomerics]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

Johnny, yes he is "virtually alone" in his thinking, and it should come as no surprise who the people are funded by. That was the point of the article.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

[portisizzle]

Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

Answer his question first......

[chomerics]

Answer his question first......

And who are you the question police???

If I was to give an answer, I would say around 280ppm, which I believe was the level around the 1850's before the industrial revolution.

What is the correlation between the CO2 levels and temperature? Why does the earth's global temperature mimic the CO2 levels throughout the history of the past million or so years? Those are questions to ask as well. . .

[Predicto]

Quit being dishonest. He isn't "virtually alone" in his thinking. There are many meteorologists and climatologist who question the validity of AGW and it's effects.

I am not being dishonest.

In December 2004, an article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[2] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". The abstracts were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". It was also pointed out, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

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

Percentage wise, the number of experts who doubt manmade global climate change is very small. There is legitimate debate about the ultimate amount effect of that change, of course. No one can predict the future with certainty, we can only make best estimates based on the information before us.

I have a question for all the pro AGW people out there. Since you believe global warming is caused from manmade CO2 emissions, what level of CO2 in the atmosphere should we be at?

I have no idea of specific numbers, as I am not an expert in this field. I probably could find some answers for you on Google. Why do you ask?

[portisizzle]

If I was to give an answer, I would say around 280ppm, which I believe was the level around the 1850's before the industrial revolution.

.

How do we do this. And don't pull the answer out of your behind.

Show me......and keep the politics out of this for a minute.

[Johnny Punani]

Johnny, yes he is "virtually alone" in his thinking, and it should come as no surprise who the people are funded by. That was the point of the article.

Better yet, answer this question, is there evidence that the earths temperature is linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere? Yes or no.

And Alexy posted the exact same graph with the temp increase PRECEDINGthe CO2 increase. Anyway, let's look at that graph and assume it is correct. The correlation is very close in reguards to time between CO2 increase and temp increase. We should have seen a large increase in temps but the temps have been stable for the last 10,000 yrs accoring to the graph.

You have MS powerpoint?

Watch this...

http://media.myfoxphilly.com/images/gw.ppt

Some very strong correlations there...

So we question the reasoning of those based on their funding correct? If that is the case they why aren't you questioning the reasoning for those on the other side of the arguement who receive funding by groups who are pushing this for political/economic reasons? We all know Kyoto had some very disturbing socialist aspects included in it including wealth distribution via trading of CO2 sinks from wealthy-industrialized nations to poorer-unindustrialized ones. Also, Universities and Ecological groups have received funding to produce studies and reports on GW. I'm sure they enjoy the funding they are receiving.

So, the question still stands. And it is the correct question since you already believe there is too much CO2 in the atmosphere. Anyone who believes in AGW, what is the correct amount of CO2 we should have in the atmosphere?