More global warming skepticism expressed in two new books

Posted by: ST on January 30, 2007 at 11:15 am

Noel Sheppard has the details on two new books written in an attempt to debunk man-made global warming theories.

Gotta hand it to anyone who goes against the ‘global warming alarmist’ crowd – it’s like walking into a room full of cultists, all chanting the same thing, never going ‘off message.’

Hat tip: Ffffffish

RSS feed for comments on this post.

44 Responses to “More global warming skepticism expressed in two new books”

Comments

  1. Baklava says:

    They should be prepared for character assassination and accusations about their motives.

    Substance? Leftists never debate substance! I’ll have to see the value of the substance myself.

    Sev?

  2. Ryan says:

    We should create a drinking game for this thread.

    Drink once when:
    -”Peer review” is mentioned
    -Bob posts
    -”Consensus” is mentioned

    :)

  3. Lorica says:

    We would all be passed out drunk after the 1st 10 posts Ryan. =)) – Lorica

  4. sanity says:

    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review
    Peer review

    Ok, aye m gurd t’ goe ‘ow….

    *hick*

  5. Mike says:

    No man-made global warming. Yeah. Good luck with that.
    I’m sure these books by a physicist and an economist will get those climate scientists turned around. Not to mention the “global warming alarmist crowd”, aka the vast majority of the world’s scientific, political and human community.

  6. PCD says:

    Mike,

    Libs like you love to bleat about everyone they can think of thinks your way and you loudly declare such without any attribution. So start being specific. Don’t spout your ill-infomed prejudices.

  7. Ryan says:

    Thanks to sanity I’m hammered.. LOL

    One drink when someone says “vast majority”

  8. Bob says:

    My public is waiting for me! You guys knew I wouldn’t let you down, too. And you already know what I’m going to say, don’t you? Never mind—I’ll say it anyway.

    The item that ST links to starts off on the wrong foot by stating emphatically that, “New Books Scientifically Disprove Man-Made Global Warming Theory.” Typical of this genre of over-hyped conservative propaganda, this headline takes a limited set of data and hypotheses, and tries to imply that it completely undoes all of the body of work that supports the theory of man-made global warming. They would like to imply that these are the latest results, and that scientists working in the field of global warming have no answer to them. That’s simply not true.

    Take as an example the supposed correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. One of these books presents the argument that recent global warming is simply the result of increased solar activity (which varies according to several overlapping solar cycles). This is based on the work of the Danish scientist Svensmark (one of the authors of one of the books in question). But Svensmark’s data was found to have had both questionable use of data and mistakes in basic math that created correlations between solar activity and temperature that did not actually exist. A more comprehensive review of multiple sets of data that was published recently in Nature showed the effects of solar radiation to be insufficient to explain observed global warming over the past several decades. The following is a press release on that review:

    Changes In Solar Brightness Too Weak To Explain Global Warming

    Boulder CO (SPX) Sep 13, 2006

    Changes in the Sun’s brightness over the past millennium have had only a small effect on Earth’s climate, according to a review of existing results and new calculations performed by researchers in the United States, Switzerland, and Germany. The review, led by Peter Foukal (Heliophysics, Inc.), appears in the September 14 issue of Nature. Among the coauthors is Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. NCAR’s primary sponsor is the National Science Foundation.

    “Our results imply that, over the past century, climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the Sun’s brightness,” says Wigley.

    Reconstructions of climate over the past millennium show a warming since the 17th century, which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years. Many recent studies have attributed the bulk of 20th-century global warming to an increase in greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

    Natural internal variability of Earth’s climate system may also have played a role. However, the discussion is complicated by a third possibility: that the Sun’s brightness could have increased.

    The new review in Nature examines the factors observed by astronomers that relate to solar brightness. It then analyzes how those factors have changed along with global temperature over the last 1,000 years.

    Brightness variations are the result of changes in the amount of the Sun’s surface covered by dark sunspots and by bright points called faculae. The sunspots act as thermal plugs, diverting heat from the solar surface, while the faculae act as thermal leaks, allowing heat from subsurface layers to escape more readily. During times of high solar activity, both the sunspots and faculae increase, but the effect of the faculae dominates, leading to an overall increase in brightness.

    The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on

    U. S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.

    The work presented in these books is based on research that may be valid to a point. These effects, like the relationship between solar activity and global temperatures, or between cosmic rays and cloud formation, are likely to be real. But the results are being over-sold by global warming deniers as though they created serious problems for the theory of man-made global warming. These phenomena may help refine the understanding of global climate, but they seem to be too insignificant to explain the degree of warming that’s been observed over the past 30 years.

    I suspect that stories like this are the result of a stepped-up PR campaign being launched by global warming deniers to try to pre-empt the release of the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due out at the end of the week. The new report is expected to present a mountain of new data that supports the theory of man-made climate change. Stay tuned . . .

  9. Baklava says:

    Bob, in your quoted work there was, “which has accelerated dramatically over the past 100 years.

    Are there scientists on your side that explain why the majority of the increase in the last 100 years was before 1940? Before the amount of cars/planes have hit 1/100th the amount of cars/planes today?

    Also Bob – I’m not sure this has ever been asked of you. The .1 degree Celcius increase in temperature over the last 100 years (thus the hockey stick though it was mostly pre 1940) has been a supposed result in the amount of carbon dioxide increase in the atmosphere.

    Here’s the question Bob. Are you ready? What decrease in temperature would result from the United States and the rest of the world FOLLOWING the Kyoto treaty (never mind that economics are now involved and hundreds of billions of dollars of resources would be spent on the issue)? Do you know what the GRAND decrease would be Bob or supposed decrease?

    Now that you’ve answered the question correctly with 1/1000th of a degree celcius. Do you now see Lomborg’s (who is a leftist himself) point that resources should better be spent on helping the world’s poor with health, food, medicine. Many more lives would be saved and improved rather than lowering the earth’s atmosphere 1/1000th of a degree celcius. ALL so that ALARMISTS like yourself can FEEL GOOD? To what end BOB? To what end do you have to go through this to FEEL good? Is it that you must be right? Let’s just say that you are ALL right and you are smarter than the scientists who published this work. Bob is right. YEAH!! Bob is right! Where do we move forward from here bob? What would you do as world president and command of all resources.

    Silly man….

    Try seeing another person’s perspective for once. There are OTHER fields as people have been saying to you – other than climatology. There are economics, policy decision makers, etc. If we had to defer to what one sector wanted on policy issues each time the one sector would ruin this country and our ability to apply resources effectively and priorities would be all out of whack. Do you admit that a little bit?

    It’s bad enough that people seem to have figured out a way to vote for more government funding for a variety of ways instead of keeping the government fiscally responsible. More goodies for everyone. Who will pay for it all? The rich! Until the rich has had their stuff confiscated…. then we can all be equally lazy (communism modified)… because who would want to produce when you are penalized for producing?

  10. Baklava says:

    ..on scientific certainty...

    No matter the field of study the press will claim scientific certainty and it’s up to the Bob’s of the world to look at the opposing evidence and not claim “consensus”.

    Due diligence is better than negligence…

  11. Baklava says:

    Is Psychology science also? Or not?

    Too bad the press is not honest with the Bob’s consumers of the world…

  12. Ryan says:

    Drink.

  13. Marshall Art says:

    Coincidentally, I was listening to an interview with a Canadian journalist (I believe, I was driving. The laundry list of creds host Sandy Rios reported in the intro was long but incomplete–don’t have the dude’s name). He stated a couple of interesting things.

    1. There’s really no such thing as consensus in the scientific worlds. Everyone has their own opinions.

    2. Someone highlighted in the Gore fantasy “An Inconvenient Truth” spoke of some poll that proved consensus. (Keep drinking) It was later found that a look at the poll showed only about 2% agreed with the man-made global warming theory, most wouldn’t commit to saying more than they can’t be certain, and another 1-3% didn’t buy it at all! In other words, crapola.

    3. Since signing the Kyoto treaty, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up 25%. In the same time frame, emissions in the US have gone up only 15%.

    4. The interviewee claims to know two NASA scientists who monitor weather conditions and have seen NO warming at all. This with a massive array of state of the art sensors and other climatology toys.

    5. The ranks of Gore followers amongst scientists and weather experts is growing, but mostly due to the threat of funds being cut off if they argue against man-made global warming.

    This is all a power grab by the type of political creature that is desperate to replace the socialistic government control that has been tossed by clear thinking people. Only the government can save us from global warming and they’re just the crooks to do it. To us.

  14. Baklava says:

    Marshall Art wrote, “3. Since signing the Kyoto treaty, Canada’s greenhouse gas emissions have gone up 25%. In the same time frame, emissions in the US have gone up only 15%.

    Yeah but their intentions are better right? Bush is evil right? Or… are we evil deniers??? Oh my gosh. We better repent and agree with spending hundred of billions in resources to lower the temperature 1/1000th of a degree celcius!! So that I can “feel” good (like Bob).

    Just ribbing you buddy….

  15. Bob says:

    You guys crack me up with your melodramatic posturing. To whit:

    “Many more lives would be saved and improved rather than lowering the earth’s atmosphere 1/1000th of a degree celcius. ALL so that ALARMISTS like yourself can FEEL GOOD? To what end BOB? To what end do you have to go through this to FEEL good? Is it that you must be right? Let’s just say that you are ALL right and you are smarter than the scientists who published this work. Bob is right. YEAH!! Bob is right!”

    Baklava, like I’ve said before, it’s not about me. I think it’s kind of unfortunate that the issue has been politicized so much, because it really makes it hard for us lay persons to sort out and prioritize different aspects of the problem. And I think from what you say, it points out that there are other factors besides the science itself that we need to think about. I think that’s a great point, actually, to consider the question of how best to invest limited resources to get the most benefit to mankind.

    But for now the most pressing issue is refining the science to make the case (or not) that this is a serious enough problem that something needs to be done about it. It would be foolish to assume that everything’s OK simply because that’s what companies like Exxon want everyone to believe. It’s our duty as a scientifically advanced society to put in our due diligence and nail this question down once and for all. If it turns out—as seems overwhelmingly to be the case—that this is a serious enough problem, then we need to have the political will to decide what to do, and then when, and how fast, to do it.

    Perhaps there’s nothing we can do in the short term to completely turn the trend around. But that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t start trying, and start thinking about better ways to address the problem in the future. It’s a matter of responsibility to ourselves and to future generations. Sitting on our a**es and doing nothing might be what Exxon wants us all to do, but under the circumstances that would be unforgiveably careless and irresponsible.

    A final point: you just know when people start quibbling about and questioning the validity of the scientific method itself that the global warming deniers must be getting desperate. No such thing as scientific consensus? Bull!

  16. Baklava says:

    Bob wrote, “Baklava, like I’ve said before, it’s not about me. I think it’s kind of unfortunate that the issue has been politicized so much,

    Then deal with the substance and stop politicizing. Do you dispute that following Kyoto would decrease the world temperature 1/1000th of a degree or are you avoiding the substance because of my humor?

    Bob wrote, “But for now the most pressing issue is refining the science to make the case (or not) that this is a serious enough problem that something needs to be done about it.

    Is it? Convince me that the .1 degree celcius change in the last 100 years (most of it before we had 1/100th of the autos/cars – 1940) is a “serious enough problem” to warrant the ridicule that we have received for not backing the Kyoto protocol which will decrease temperatures at best 1/1000th of a degree celcius if followed to the tee.

    There bob goes impugning instead of dealing with substance again by saying, “It would be foolish to assume that everything’s OK simply because that’s what companies like Exxon want everyone to believe.

    Each time you do this bob it doesn’t make you look smarter.

    The crux of the matter is inn this statement of yours bob, “If it turns out—as seems overwhelmingly to be the case—that this is a serious enough problem [NOT], then we need to have the political will to decide what to do [not leftist solutions - which hurt more people then helps], and then when [after an honest debate], and how fast [weighed with other priorities], to do it.

    Bob wrote, “Sitting on our a**es and doing nothing might be what Exxon wants us all to do, but under the circumstances that would be unforgiveably careless and irresponsible.

    Be President of the world. What do we do instead of “sitting on our a**es”? It’s easy to criticize everyone around you for not “caring” and making yourself feel good. Now. Tell us your solution. Let’s do a cost analysis on your proposal while we are at it. Stop casting aspersions and get in the game of solutions along with 1,000 others who are deep in thought daily trying to figure out how we can change the economic/fuel ration that exists.

    Your last paragraph Bob shows your deperation. !!!
    :d

    To me it’s about perspective. Do you have it?

  17. Bob says:

    Baklava, I’m not sure where you’re getting your numbers. 0.1ºC change in 100 years? The IPCC first study said the temperature rise was about 1ºC during the 20th century. The temperature rise is currently about 0.17ºC per decade. The most recent IPCC study is projecting the temperature to rise somewhere between 1.4 to 5.8°C by 2100. So first off, your numbers are way too low—by about a factor of 10. And where are you getting this 1/1000°C supposed change due to following the Kyoto agreement? This is why taking the science seriously is necessary. Otherwise, you’ve got people essentially making sh*t up and trying to blanket the world with misinformation.

    I think the parallels with the tobacco industry are striking. How long were they able to claim that there was no convincing evidence that cigarettes caused cancer? They used the same pseudo-scientific approach to deny what was an obvious trend for decades. Well, Baklava, do cigarettes cause cancer or not? How do we know that they do? The science says so, and the lobbyists were wrong.

    I’m perplexed by your last paragraph. You ask me what is my solution, and suggest that I should join others working to change the economic/fuel ration. What the heck does that mean? It sounds like you tacitly accept the idea that something needs to be done, while denying the science that says there’s a problem. But in any case, you seem to be saying, it doesn’t matter because there’s nothing we can do about it anyway. It seems like you’ve developed multiple protective layers to ensure that you and your sense of denial are safe inside of a little coccoon. Why are you conservatives such passive defeatists, anyway?

  18. Baklava says:

    What the heck does it mean? It means short of lessing economic activity you can’t lower the amount of energy it takes to fuel the economy short of a technological breakthrough that is absent or enviro nuts allowing nuclear reactors. As people become more wealthy they travel more and consume more goods and all of that requires more energy.

    Secondly. You are right that I mixed up the decade/century data.

    However for you to use that fact and then say I’m making stuff up about the 1/1000th of a degree Celcius is not true but true to your pattern of accusations and then sticking to your meme of me not caring and you good.

    Tell me then when countries follow the Kyoto treaty like Cananda and then increase their exhaust more than the U.S’s increase how temperatures will decrease? Let’s just say that Countries followed the caps set forth by Kyoto…. It isn’t an elimination of carbon dioxide output it is only a cap that if followed has the potential of decreasing temperatures a FRACTION of the DEGREE celcius. Are you at least going to admit the FRACTION of a degree with caps followed? If it is a fraction and you admit it then what is YOUR math as to what the fraction is???

  19. Bob says:

    Sorry, Baklava, I didn’t mean that you’re making stuff up. But it seems like a lot of these fly-by-night web sites that some of you guys keep going to for “facts” are making stuff up—or intentionally misconstruing data to suit their needs. OK, you knew I was going to say it sooner or later, so let’s just get it out of the way (get your shot glass ready, sanity). These aren’t peer reviewed sources in reputable scientific journals, so these guys can say anything they want to (sanity—should we call a cab for you, man?).

    And I think you’re mixing up two completely separate issues. First, there’s the science. The science presents the best evidence for what’s happening, like it or not. Second, there’s what to do about it. Just because people may disagree about what to do (or if to do anything at all) doesn’t mean that they have to reject the scientific consensus (cheers, sanity) out of hand. But that’s what makes this issue so fun to debate, I suppose, because the scientific and political aspects of the problem seem to be so tangled up. I still say that doing nothing at all and assuming (hoping? pretending?) that everything will be OK is irresponsible.

  20. Baklava says:

    Accuse all you want. It is different points of view.

    One of the things I learned in my 50 plus marriage counseling lessons (though it might not seem like it with you) is to listen and see the other person’s perspective. I’ve read all of the things you write and opposing points of view and it seems you are quick to dismiss anything that has an opposing point of view.

    Can you at least admit Bob that it is FACT that the temperature has risen a degree in the last century but it is OPINION on the cause since there are about 100 factors? Water vapor, suns rays (not just brightness), particulates, the earth’s core and plate movement, concrete and asphalt reflectiveness, more vegetation than 200 years ago, human exhalation, oh the list could go on. But some focus SOOO much on fossil fuels that they think following caps in Kyoto will lower us back down a FULL degree. Imagine that magic !! Hey – I wish it was completely clear and not complex – then you folks wouldn’t act like you are good and we are bad. I get sick of it. Leftists are “well intentioned” We get it. Unfortunately the results of their said solutions do not equal a better world it equals a worse world and that’s OUR point. So, thus the argument because we are well intentioned also – no matter how much you don’t accept it.

    You aren’t peer reviewed so you can say anything you want. In fact Bob. I’ll dismiss EVERYTHING you say because you aren’t peer reviewed. In fact why are you here discussing? Because you think you bring something to the table. People do have opinions and either you DEAL with the SUBSTANCE or you too can be dismissed. Deal with it Bob. We were laughing and joking at your expense with the drinking jokes. You ease at dismissal and never seeing another point of view. It’s FUNNY STUFF !!! One day you’ll learn.

    I’m not mixing up two separate issues. That would be you. I’m relaying to you the complexity of pinpointing why the degree change in 100 years. Fact = degree change. Opinion is the reasons why. When I took Critical Thinking class in college it was easily distinguishable what was fact versus opinion but you fail every time.

    Yes. There is a third thing and that is what to do about a problem. That requires perspective and a realization that there is priorities and resources that may or may not be available. When 95-0 Senators vote against Kyoto the press may not like to mention that and they might just like getting their jollies off of hammering Bush but the 95-0 was a fact and my opinion is that the vote went the way it did because Kyoto was BAD LAW.

    BTW, You saying the word consensus in the last paragraph again doesn’t make your assertion consensus. You can say global warming (the 1 degree over 100 years) is man made and that there is a consensus that it is man made but you very well COULD be wrong on that OPINION, and additionally not all scientists agree with that opinion and therefore it is the opposite of consensus.

    BTW again, Consensus is unanimous opinion. Consensus does not mean FACT. Fact and consensus are separate things. Unanimous opinion is still opinion. Critical Thinking teaches you fact versus opinion and neither is one the other.

    BTW a third time. Your last statement was, “I still say that doing nothing at all and ….

    Bob. I’ll ask one more time (let’s see if you avoid again). Let’s say you are president of the world – What is your doing approach. You aren’t doing nothing. SO what IS YOUR solution? Please tell us this time!!! Please be RESPONSIBLE. :-?

  21. Baklava says:

    This:
    BTW, You saying the word consensus in the last paragraph again doesn’t make your assertion consensus.

    Should’ve been this:
    BTW, You saying the word consensus in the last paragraph again doesn’t make your assertion true.

  22. Bob says:

    I admit that my use of “scientific consensus” in the last paragraph was completely gratuitous. I just wanted to see sanity have to take another drink when I said it. By the way, you just said “consensus” three times in your last post, Baklava. I think that should mean three more shots for sanity, even if I didn’t say it myself. It must be about time to open a new bottle by now.

  23. Baklava says:

    Glug.

  24. camojack says:

    Actually, I’ve done a bit of research on this subject:
    Climate changes? :-?

  25. sanity says:

    Harper’s letter dismisses Kyoto as ‘socialist scheme’

    Thought this might be a bit interesting.

    Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a “socialist scheme” designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals.

    ….

    “I’m talking about the ‘battle of Kyoto’ — our campaign to block the job-killing, economy-destroying Kyoto accord.”

    ….

    Canada officially ratified the accord Dec. 17, 2002, under Chrétien’s Liberal government. Harper’s Conservative government, which took power January 2006, has since been accused of ignoring the accord.

    ….

    He writes that it’s based on “tentative and contradictory scientific evidence” and it focuses on carbon dioxide, which is “essential to life.”

    He says Kyoto requires that Canada make significant cuts in emissions, while countries like Russia, India and China face less of a burden.

    Under Kyoto, Canada was required to reduce emissions by six per cent by 2012, while economies in transition, like Russia, were allowed to choose different base years.

    “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations,” Harper’s letter reads.

    He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.

    ….

    In recent weeks, Harper has spoken strongly about the environment, saying he will dramatically revamp his minority government’s much-criticized clean air act.

    His comments come as public-opinion polls indicate the environment has become the number one issue among Canadians.

    Liberal MP Mark Holland told the Canadian Press on Tuesday that the leaked letter shows that Harper isn’t actually committed to climate change.

    “Now, suddenly, because he has seen the polls and realized the political opportunism of going green, the prime minister has launched a new campaign — that of trying to convince Canadians that he actually cares about the environment,” Holland said.

    So which is it, was he right in his feelings and thoughts on Kyoto when he wrote the letter and was adamant against the accord?

    Or now, when e sees the polls and decided now that he is PM that he needs to go with the flow, and his tune is changing?

    That is one thing I think is wrong with polls, while we as citizens have the right to our opinion, our government and others should not be run by polls. The decisions they make for a country should not be based on popular polls, because we as citizens are not privy to most documents, studies and expert advisors that the government has. Not that those are always right, but I have to imagine they have more experience than a group of people polled.

  26. Bob says:

    Sanity, you sound pretty coherent today, considering. I hope you remembered to tip the cabbie. It seems to me that Harper betrays the crux of the issue for those who deny man-made global warming when he says,

    “Kyoto is essentially a socialist scheme to suck money out of wealth-producing nations” Harper’s letter reads.

    He said the accord would cripple the oil and gas industries, which are essential to Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.”

    After all, isn’t the main impetus for the global warming denial lobby coming from oil companies who fear that they might lose money if people started conserving energy? Conservative politicians (here and in Canada) have done their best to give veto power over environmental and energy policies to these industries. They act as though any changes to our current policies would cripple our economies. I suspect that there are lots of things that could be done—such as improving the energy efficiency of cars and power plants—that would not only reduce CO2 emissions, but would actually make our economies more efficient. But whenever such changes might impact the profits of big companies (read: big campaign contributors to conservative politicians) you can always count on the best interests of mankind having to take a back seat. So instead of looking for win-win solutions, we get this typical defeatist inertia and foot-dragging. It’s another perfect example of how conservative politics is inherently incapable of solving problems anymore.

  27. Lorica says:

    Yes incapable, like fixing the economy, adding jobs, improving the standard of living, bringing democracy to Iraq, catching evil terrorists, catching evil men who share nuke secrets with other evil men, getting terrorists who bombed the US in the 90s. Hello Bob?? Prove the problem??? You can’t prove that the climate change is being caused by man anymore than it can be proved that it is outside forces. In the beginning of the last century you had factories burning coal with open smoke stacks. Now everyone who burns coal has to use smoke stack scrubbers, for cleaner air. All you tell me everytime you defend the present concensus is that ALL of the previous fixes didn’t work in any way. Is that the case there Bob?? If so, then why do I still have a catylit”ic” converter on my car? – Lorica

  28. Baklava says:

    Crippling industries is a good way to make more poor people, kill more people through poverty and lack of medicine and health, and make a government incapable of doing much for the environment as it’s priorities have to shift towards helping people due to a recession.

    Kyoto would do more to hurt the environment therefore and hurt people.

    As I’ve said before Bob – you fail to listen – leftists’ solutions would cause MORE problems and hurt the environment. Time and time again we see the results of leftist policies. We UNDERSTAND that you and other leftists are “well intentioned” but for you to continue the meme that we aren’t well intentioned does your argument a disservice. THINKING you struck gold when somebody points out crippling of industries is just your negligent style.

    It IS a problem to cripple industry. Prosperous countries can do more for the environment than struggling countries. As a country prospers it can focus more resources on a better environment. It’s clear that the U.S. has done more for the environment over the last few decades than MOST other countries and even those who have adopted Kyoto.

    Particulates have been almost dropped by 50% in almost every category. Lots of resources have gone towards cleaning up sites. Republicans and Democrats alike “care” about the environment no matter how many Bob’s of the world want to demonize negligently.

    Keep on keeping on with lack of due diligence. Laziness is one way but you could grow up!!!

  29. Baklava says:

    Bob wrote, “They act as though any changes to our current policies would cripple our economies.

    If you mandated a 6% decrease in energy consumption/usage what is the result Bob? Enough with accusations of “acting”. Use common sense and answer the question. Industries would have to use 6% less energy. It is possible through conservation to produce MORE goods and services and actually use less energy but it’s HARD and even HARDER if companies and industries have already been taking conservation steps. What conservation steps are left to give the 6% reduction of energy usage and still meet demand for products and services.

    YOU FAIL bob to realize energy is needed more when an economy grows more and a prosperous country is BETTER equipped at dealing with environmental problems than struggling economies. You have the FAILED outlook that usual leftists have and then you CONTINUE to ACCUSE others concerning their intentions instead of understanding their perspective. That’s a failed way of living. :-"

  30. Baklava says:

    BTW Bob. You FAILED at answering the question that was posed about 3 times to tell us what you’d do if you were world leader concerning the CO2 problem.

    If every country actually followed Kyoto (instead of just signing onto it like Canada and then having higher emission increases than the U.S.) over the next decade nobody can make the case that temperatures would decrease more than 1/1000th of a degree celcius. Show us your math skills and be president for a post for once.

  31. Bob says:

    Baklava, if I were a Republican president I would do whatever Exxon told me to do, such as, continue to deny that global warming is a problem, resist any significant changes to our current wasteful energy policies, suppress information coming from federal research agencies that supports global warming (as many government scientists claim is the case), and perhaps, convene another “energy task force” with industry insiders to plan out future campaigns to augment their already bloated profits (did you read today about Exxon’s record profits?). Of course, the minutes of any such task force meetings would have to be kept secret—why should the American people know what the oil and gas industry has decided is in their “best interests?”

    If I were a president who was honest enough to take seriously a mountain of data that pointed out the magnitude of the global warming problem, I would start immediately to identify the quickest and most efficient ways to save energy, like enacting mandatory gas efficiency standards for automobiles, recommending energy-saving measures like the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs for homes and businesses, starting an energy efficiency advisory program to teach people how to be more efficient in their energy use for homes and businesses, study the possibility of increased use of nuclear, hydro-electric, wind and solar energy sources, etc, etc. There’s a lot that could be done, that is currently not being done because certain of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the problem or begin to think creatively what to do about it.

    The passive and defeatist attitude that we can’t possibly do anything meaningful to begin to address the problem because we’ll cripple our economy is BS. Since it’s coming from the same people who deny the scientific evidence itself, it has to be seen as empty propaganda with no evidence to support it. Of course, a comprehensive long-term solution is years away, and it would take an unprecedented amount of international cooperation to achieve. Stabilizing the CO2 level at a reasonably healthy long-term level may not even be achievable in our lifetimes. But if we don’t start, it may be too late. And as the country with the highest per-capita generation of greenhouse gasses, it’s the responsibility of the U.S. to lead the way. Enough passivity and excuse-making. Let’s get busy.

  32. Baklava says:

    I knew you wouldn’t fail to accuse. It’s the liberal way of intolerance.

    1st one) “I would start immediately to identify the quickest and most efficient ways to save energy, like enacting mandatory gas efficiency standards for automobiles,“. Congress has grappled with this for years with no agreement. The President (unlike your insinuated accusation) has proposed a more complex and BETTER way of CAFE which recognizes vehicle weight because there are purposes for vehicles that have 5-8 passenger capacity or more. The proposal isn’t non-existent as negligent liberals like to say but disagreed to because progress can’t exist for liberals. They NEED a problem as opposed to a solution. Victory? Never! Solution? Never! See – I can cast aspersions to.

    2nd one)”recommending energy-saving measures like the use of compact fluorescent light bulbs for homes and businesse” CFL’s are a no-brainer for me. It’s the only light bulb I’ve purchased for the last 5 years. Can’t be used on dimmer switches and many specialty lights and it’s only 5% of the market place. Mandating would be the wrong way to go for our government. Educating would be the right way to go and that can be done free (no government program) if the media wasn’t so negligent in hammering the message to consumers of the media. Doesn’t take government and it doesn’t mean I don’t “care” to say this.

    Bob wrote negligently, “starting an energy efficiency advisory program to teach people how to be more efficient in their energy use for homes and businesses,” The federal government ALREADY does have programs spending tax payer dollars to educate in this area. Good job bob.

    Bob funnily wrote, “study the possibility of increased use of nuclear, hydro-electric, wind and solar energy sources, etc,” Pretty funny stuff. Damn’s are opposed, nuclear is opposed, solar isn’t opposed but who is going to bear the up front cost of making many square miles of solar panels which would cost a fortune. Solar energy costs about 10 times as much as energy created with fossil fuels. Which gets back to my point about resources spent trying to lower the temperature 1/1000th of a degree when the resources could better be spent on food, shelter, medicine.

    Bob confuses the role of the government with the private sector it seems which happens a lot with liberals by saying, “There’s a lot that could be done, that is currently not being done because certain of our leaders refuse to acknowledge the problem or begin to think creatively what to do about it.” Government doing what Bob? Taking money from individuals and business and pouring it into another industry? Government picking winner and loser businesses?

    Bob wrote something nobody said here “The passive and defeatist attitude that we can’t possibly do anything meaningful to begin to address the problem because we’ll cripple our economy is BS.

    There are things we can do but the things liberals ask countries to do are economically horrible and would hurt more people than help people. Socialism is not a method of helping any country be prosperous but is a way of helping them suffer. The President and the Congress have taken steps. I understand you want more done. How about this post of mine to help you understand the role of government and the press. Inefficency (government) and liars (the press) will have the negligent (Bob’s) duped every time.

    To me the real issues is consumers. The American people. Engine technology has doubled in twenty years. Horsepower in a Nissan Sentra used to be 70. Now it is 140+. Almost every car/truck has had the technology go towards efficiency gains but ALSO POWER gains. It is the American consumer (voter) that is to be blamed and instead Bob you like to demonize conservatives. My very lefty neighbor has a Toyota 4 runner 4 wheel drive. Never goes off road. I’ve seen Algore and Kerry stickers on Chevy Suburbans. I applaud people that live within their means and don’t live extravagantly (not the Barbara Streisands of the world). It takes a lot of energy to fly Hollywood types around and heat and cool their 20,000 square foot homes. Solutions have less to do with government (except for some changes to regulations and protections for the environment) and more to do with each person in the world CHOOSING to live wisely.

    Bob wrote, “But if we don’t start, it may be too late” So what kind of car(s) do you drive? How many people in your home and what square foot? Would you be willing to pay 10x the amount for electricity? It’s easy to demonize but as Michael Jackson sang, “start with the man in the mirror”

    Bob wrote without understanding, “And as the country with the highest per-capita generation of greenhouse gasses,” As I’ve said before – the more goods and services that are produced and consumed the more energy it takes. It is a factor of our prosperity that we consumer more energy. Every single on of us purchasing 1/2 as much goods and services would drop the economy by 50% (depression) and the energy needed to do that would be dropped by 50%. For you to fail to understand this basic principle over and over is typical of leftism. Oil is the fuel that drives and economy. There are alternatives that cost quite a bit more and there are alternatives that cost the same but are opposed by enviros.

    Bob wrote, “Enough passivity and excuse-making. Let’s get busy.

    OK. Downsize. Point to us your for sale sign for your house and car!!!

  33. Bob says:

    Baklava, there’s a funny adage that was proposed for discussions like this one called “Godwin’s Law” that says the longer the debate continues the more inevitable it is that someone will compare something to the Nazis. For discussions with conservatives, of course, “Nazi” would have to be replaced by “socialist” (actually, with many conservatives, that often happens right off the bat).

    Since you’re so hyper-sensitive about any direct or implied criticism of the president or conservatives, let me say that, of course, this is a problem that is shared equally by all people in industrialized societies. It goes for Republicans as much as for Chevy Suburban-driving liberals, whoever they may be. Since you asked, I drive a little Japanese car that gets 32 mpg, live in a house of 4 where we keep the thermostat set no higher than 65º and rarely have power bills that exceed $100 per month. I think we’re doing pretty well.

    I don’t understand why this issue is being framed as a conservative-vs-liberal one. In the search for creative solutions, I think that liberals need to re-examine their knee-jerk opposition to things like nuclear or hydroelectric power. Conservatives, for their part, need to refrain from shouting “socialist!” every time it’s suggested that we shouldn’t allow our energy policies to be drafted by energy industry lobbyists. I still think the suggestion that improving energy efficiency in sane and practical ways will result in economic collapse is a crock of BS. Of course, any measures that would result in severe economic hardship shouldn’t be implemented. But don’t try to tell me that there aren’t a lot of things that could be done to make significant changes in our energy use that might even improve our economy, or at least have acceptably small impacts on it.

    And please, tell me where you got this 1/1000 degree figure for implementing the Kyoto treaty, or in any case, why that would necessarily be a problem? Even if all we were able to do for now were to slow or stop the increase in CO2 levels, and any further rise in temperature over the already-elevated current level, that would still be a huge achievement. But in any case, all anyone is suggesting abut Kyoto is that it’s a starting point.

  34. Baklava says:

    Not sensitive. Just pointing out your behavior is typical of leftists. Accuse and attack. Never good solutions.

    You leftists are so high on yourselves you cant allow for non-leftists to actually be “well intentioned”.

    It doesn’t bother me as much as I like bothering you by pointing it out. I’ve dealt with your kind ever since converting from liberalism in 1991. I know what it feels like to be a liberal.

    It’s framed as it is because it’s a leftist solution (which hurts the environment) versus free market and science with perspective based solution. Leftists have such lack of perspective that they can’t see their solutions result in bad results.

    BTW – I do better than you. :) I ride the bus most days! I care more! This is the game you play when you attack others for what you think they care about. NEXT TIME DEAL WITH THE SUBSTANCE INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT DUE TO FUNDING! :-w

    Imagine $1,000 per month electric bills because that is what solar costs. Did you read the links with the costs in the chart or did you continue negligence?

    Conservatives for their part understand the economy better and instead of being sensitive to the socialist statement you should work on understanding how things work in this country and what limits to power are imposed by the constitution on the Congress and the President.

    To what end will you go destroying economies and hurting people with poverty to lower things (let’s just change it to satisfy you) 1/100th of a degree.

    Last thing 95-0 senators disagree with your last sentence. You lose.

  35. sanity says:

    Look, France DEMANDS the US sign Kyoto and the next agreement also after Kyoto runs out after 2012.

    DEMANDS!

    PARIS, Jan. 31 — President Jacques Chirac has demanded that the United States sign both the Kyoto climate protocol and a future agreement that will take effect when the Kyoto accord runs out in 2012.

    ….

    But he warned that if the United States did not sign the agreements, a carbon tax across Europe on imports from nations that have not signed the Kyoto treaty could be imposed to try to force compliance. The European Union is the largest export market for American goods.

    ….

    Trade lawyers have been divided over the legality of a carbon tax, with some saying it would run counter to international trade rules. But Mr. Chirac said other European countries would back it. “I believe we will have all of the European Union” he said.

    ….

    Mr. Chirac’s critics say that despite his comments in support of environmental measures, his record as president is far from green. He angered environmentalists across the globe when he conducted nuclear tests in a Pacific atoll within months of coming into office in 1995. He has been a loyal ally of French farmers and their pollution-causing practices, blocking some proposed Europe-wide reforms.

    Most recently, France’s national plan for allocating carbon emission credits to businesses had to be revised after the European Union rejected it as too generous.

    Link

    So let me get this straight….

    France DEMANDS we sign, but they have been ‘less than green’ in their own country?

    France DEMANDS we sign, or face a carbon tax that could run contrary (meaning illegal) to International Trade Rules. But it’s ok if it is illegal because he thinks most of EU would support it?

    France DEMANDS?

    When they can stop France from burning, and their citizens from being assaulted by muslim rioters…then I will think about listening to what France has to say, but they want to DEMAND, they can kiss our ***.

    By the way, they want to tax like a liberal? Tell me, what would it do to them if we cut or severly taxed them in response?

    Since when does France tell other countries how and what to do and what treaties they need to sign?

    Since when did France grow a pair of balls?

  36. Bob says:

    Attention: got a Ph.D. and a “professional opinion” for hire? Exxon wants you!

    Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study

    The Guardian

    Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world’s largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

    Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

    Apparently JunkScience.com needs new material, since legitimate scientific evidence to to counter the new IPCC study is so hard to come by. I like the part about how travel expenses are also included. These guys really treat their shills well, I must say.

  37. tom says:

    baklava sez:
    Not sensitive. Just pointing out your behavior is typical of leftists. Accuse and attack. Never good solutions

    No irony here. And not sensitive? Doesn’t look that way to me.

    Bob, you’ll come to see that arguments here are US vs THEM, Convservative vs. Librul. There is total silence when you point out the way this admin has handled this issue with it’s secretive “energy task forces”. Baklava can’t even seperate the scientific from the political components of this issue asserting that because 95 senators voted against Kyoto, anthro-induced global warming can’t be true! I guess you “lose”, Bob!

  38. Great White Rat says:

    the release of the latest report from the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due out at the end of the week. The new report is expected to present a mountain of new data that supports the theory of man-made climate change. Stay tuned . . .

    Given that the UN is now basically a forum where tinpot dictators and anti-semites try to come up with new and better way of destroying liberty and prosperity, any report produced under its imprimatur is highly suspect.

    It has roughly the same credibility as if the KKK hired a collection of like-minded social scientists and had them issue a report ‘proving’ Jews and blacks are inferior. It would, of course, be properly ‘peer reviewed’ internally (drink, everyone!), but I’d still think it to be bunk.

  39. tom says:

    Here are some climate scientists views on the Avery/Singer book.

    LINK

  40. Bob says:

    The IPCC is the moral equivalent of the KKK? No, sorry, GWR–not buyin’ it. These are mainstream scientists here, not political extremists. Their reports could even be said to be conservative, in the best sense of the word (as in, “prudent and restrained,” not as in, “having anything in common with Tom DeLay or Rush Limbaugh”).

  41. Great White Rat says:

    Interesting link, Tom, once one peels away the extra ‘http’ you inserted and gets to the article. A few takeaway points from it:

    (1) The GW priest, Archer, disdains Avery and Singer, for using models that don’t account for certain factors, and then dives in this bit of non-sequitur:

    The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean.

    Got that? You’re supposed to infer cause and effect because one happens at the same time as the other. You could just have easily have written: the rising of the sun in the east has been noted, and it is consistent with my rooster crowing in the morning. Talk about jumping to conclusions….

    (2) There’s a good deal of sprited debate in the commentary, but there’s one point the GW alarmists, despite their one-sided control of the board, are never able to refute: GW is based entirely on projections which cannot be forecast with complete accuracy. It’s amusing that the most common rebuttal is to accuse those who point this out as being of the same mindframe as people who believe in a geocentric universe or a flat earth, despite the fact that both have been proven wrong. Einstein’s brilliance can conceive of relativity, and that’s still a theory, but when divinity-school dropout Al Gore pontificates about global warming, well, then, that has to be a fact.

    (3) Another pot-meets-kettle moment: the GW choir is all over Avery for his background as an economist, not as a climate scientist. By the time they finish, we have environmentalists lecturing on economic details.

    (4) Point of curiosity: who funds this RealClimate organization, anyway? For some reason, they don’t seem to get into those details on their site. I mean, if Bob can paint everyone who demurs on any point of the GW debate as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Big Oil, might we lift this rock a little and see if anything unsavory crawls out?

  42. Great White Rat says:

    The IPCC is the moral equivalent of the KKK?

    Bob, you missed the point. I deliberately used an extremist comparison to highlight the concept, but let’s take it down a step and go through it slowly.

    If a paper doubting the global warming claims were found to be financed by Exxon, you’d be first in line to sneer at it. You wouldn’t care one bit about the authors’ credentials or methodology – you’d see only that check from Exxon as the reason for the conclusions.

    And when I see a pro-global warming study released that is paid for by the UN, I have the same reaction. Before I’d accept anything in that document, you’d have to present me with incontrovertible proof that the conclusions were not pre-packaged and edited by the people who cut the check for the study.

    And as far as moral equivalence, I have no opinion on IPCC specifically, but the UN sure as hell is the moral equivalent of the KKK on some very real levels. But that’s another topic for another time.

  43. tom says:

    GWR – sorry for the sloppy link.

    To your 1st point, Avery is not proving cause and effect here, he is saying this global heat imbalance is “consistent with”. Like hearing the rooster crow might be compatible with the sun rising. This is not arguable.

    2nd point: of course projections are never provable at the time they are projected, speaking of non sequiturs.

    On your third point I must agree, but as to who funds the RealClimate site- I take them at their word. From the “About” section:

    The contributors to this site do so in a personal capacity during their spare time and their posts do not represent the views of the organizations for which they work, nor the agencies which fund them. The contributors are solely responsible for the content of the site and receive no remuneration for their contributions.

    Also, your comparison of the possible intentions of the IPCC and Exxon are laughable. What do thousands of scientists in hundreds of countries have to gain financially by “promoting” GW? Why so cynical?