Sister Toldjah!
2/2/2007 - 2:57 pm

For years and years global warming alarmists have been scaring people with their doomsday scenarios, intent on making them feel forced to ‘go green’ in an attempt to turn back the clock on global warming. So imagine my surprise to read today in the USA Today that it’s going to get worse no matter what we do, per the much-discussed IPCC report (emphasis added):

A United Nations report issued today by the world’s top climate scientists said global warning was “very likely” man-made and would bring higher temperatures and a steady rise in sea levels for centuries to come regardless of how much the world slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.

How’s that for escalating the alarmism? We’re doomed, no matter what!

Hat tip: Curt at Flopping Aces, with additional links on global-warming related news at Don Surber’s, and, of course, Memeorandum.

Related: The NYTimes reports that some ‘climate experts’ are complaining that the IPCC’s report is not alarming enough. (Hat tip: Jonathan Adler)

Posted By: Sister Toldjah in: Global Warming
| Email This Post | Print This |   

Trackback URI for this post:
http://sistertoldjah.com/archives/2007/02/02/global-warming-report-very-likely-that-gw-is-man-made-and-its-here-to-stay-no-matter-what-we-do/trackback/

Comments

  1. If it’s “mad-made,” why is Mars experiencing the same thing? Scientists say polar ice caps are melting on that planet, too. Liberals and the MSM can’t survive without a “scare of the week” Chicken Little episode.

    Comment by Bachbone @ 2/2/2007 - 3:58 pm

  2. Liberals and the MSM can’t survive without a “scare of the week” Chicken Little episode.

    Comment by Bachbone

    God, Edited, gratuitous insult. –ST

    Comment by Tom @ 2/2/2007 - 4:46 pm

  3. Sorry, I know I’m getting to be like ants at a picnic with these global warming posts—but I can’t help myself. Sorry for being so predictable. Sister, I think you left out an important point from later in the story:

    And the report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

    …

    Scientists worry that world leaders will take that message in the wrong way and throw up their hands, Trenberth said. That would be wrong, he said. Instead, the scientists urged leaders to reduce emissions and also adapt to a warmer world with wilder weather.

    “The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don’t do something and what will happen if we do something,” co-author Jonathan Overpeck at University of Arizona said. “I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something.”

    Denial, despair and paralysis would clearly be the worst sort of response. In a situation like this, it’s better to be a Republi-can than a Republi-can’t (but enough hilarity for today . . .).

    Comment by Bob @ 2/2/2007 - 5:18 pm

  4. Bob please explain to me this…and I am in all seriousness with this question.

    How do these scientist and yourself explain the variances in temperatures in the past?

    This is hardly the warmest it has been and the earth has gone in cycles of warming and cooling. This is proven through history.

    What I do not understand, if I am to take this seriously, is why now is any different than periods in history where we KNOW that it wasn’t man-made global warming, and yet the earth warmed, then cooled?

    If global warming is man-made, wouldn’t the temperatures be steadily climbing through the history of man?

    That there would be no variations because as the population of man increases, and becomes more industrialized, wouldn’t the effect compund and steadily increase through the years?

    Has that happened?

    I am completely serious with this question Bob, so please answer in your best knowledge.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/2/2007 - 6:11 pm

  5. The reason that CO2 has increased so much within the last 100 years or so is due to (1) the industrial revolution, when people started burning oil and coal in large amounts, especially in industrial processes and for automobiles and airplanes, and (2) the huge increase in world population that’s occurred over that period (the current human population is probably 5 times what it was in 1900). Although there are natural sources of CO2, like that given off by volcanoes (and even us when we breathe), apparently the CO2 produced by industry and automobiles has become a major contributor, mainly over the past 100-200 years.

    The scientists are saying, apparently, that temperatures now are higher than they’ve been over the past 1,300 years. But I think you’re right to say that temperatures may have been higher in much more ancient times. 125,000 years ago, differences in the earth’s orbit apparently caused polar temperatures to be as much as 5º higher than they are now. This is similar to the change that could (according to the IPCC) occur by the end of this century due to global warming. But the thing is, 125,000 years ago, the sea level was also something like 15 or 20 feet higher than it is now. I think the fear is that these kinds of changes happening so quickly, when people are already crowding the planet in such numbers, could create a devastating effect. It’s not that life on earth would end, or that all humanity would perish, but things could become really miserable for billions of people—maybe even us.

    Anyway, I’m not trying to pretend to be an expert. But this is how I understand the situation.

    Comment by Bob @ 2/2/2007 - 8:15 pm

  6. One thing I forgot to mention, too, is that CO2 is now higher than it’s been in something like 650,000 years (this must be from ice core measurements), but may also be as high as it’s been in 40,000,000 years. Isn’t it possible that the potential to raise temperatures is actually even greater than the relatively conservative estimates the IPCC scientists have made?

    Comment by Bob @ 2/2/2007 - 8:35 pm

  7. Although there are natural sources of CO2, like that given off by volcanoes (and even us when we breathe), apparently the CO2 produced by industry and automobiles has become a major contributor, mainly over the past 100-200 years.

    Ok Bob, that was my first indication was that population is very much increased, so why hasn’t the CO2 increased relative to the number increase in population?

    Do you recommend then that we start limiting procreation? Putting a limit to the amount of children a familty can have because of population increases causing increase in CO2?

    People have also blamed, nay in fact, they have in fact said cow flatulence was WORSE than auto CO2 emissions…so do we kill off the cows? Going to give me a discount on steaks? [chuckles] I am doing the bet I can in trying to help end Cow flatulence….until they make a catalytic converter to stick up their rears. [chuckles]

    Another theoritical question, if the population increase is so big, why hasn’t the heat increased. We are all kicking off heat, you stick 100 of us in a room it will definately raise hte temperature there…you get millions of us together, wouldn;t that also equate to a heat increase, even slightly?

    Now, you also mentioned volcanoes, and they have erupted on and off through history, so really bad, enough to blanket the skies for days…even weeks. Through history temperatures have raised and lowered…cycles as you will, even after mass increases in CO2 put out by volcanoes and other debris put into the atmosphere.

    apparently the CO2 produced by industry and automobiles has become a major contributor, mainly over the past 100-200 years.

    That doesn’t seem rightly likely in my opinion, since there is no way we can equal the force and the magintude that has come out of volcano eruptions, and what of those that still smolder, fumes constantly rising in the sky?

    The scientists are saying, apparently, that temperatures now are higher than they’ve been over the past 1,300 years. But I think you’re right to say that temperatures may have been higher in much more ancient times.

    If that is what scientist are saying then they are wrong or got incorrect info to base that on. There have been others that have stated that this is not the hottest its been, that in fact BEFORE man was around as much supposedly to impact the enviroment as much as they say we are, it was indeed warmer than it is now.

    The world is like a top, slowly wobbling back and forth as we spin in the universe. It is just real slow, so we don’t take notice. As wobble, we come closer to the sun at times warming to a degree, other times we are farther away in which we become cooler. Also, our Orbit around the sun is never the same, so that also affects temperature as we are closer at times and farther at others.

    I think the fear is that these kinds of changes happening so quickly, when people are already crowding the planet in such numbers, could create a devastating effect.

    Now doesn’t that fly in the face of scientist that aren’t sure, that their statements are “very likely” man-made, first of all?

    It’s close…but some like to say, close only counts in horseshoes and hand gernades. “Very Likely” is not proof positive.

    Now I will grant you we are contributors to global warming, you would have to be a fool not to recognize that, but I don’t believe we are the MAIN cause of it as most seem to bleat about.

    …regardless of how much the world slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions.

    Even the scientist say seemto think that it is inevitable that the earth wll go through it’s cylces, no matter what we do.

    “The point here is to highlight what will happen if we don’t do something and what will happen if we do something,” co-author Jonathan Overpeck at University of Arizona said. “I can tell if you will decide not to do something the impacts will be much larger than if we do something.”

    Now they can’t state that for a fact because they cannot even agree that global warming as it is, is man-made. We are contributors yes, but not the cause of it.

    Scientist cannot fortell exactly how global warming will affect te earth, because the earth keeps changing, the orbit changes, we are constantly in motion, ect. There are many factors that can change to cause the cycle of warming to begin cooling, then warmin agian…thats why they call it cycles. But again each cycle will be different because of many factors - some of which are man. Some of it.

    Finally, we are not global warming skeptics as the media and ‘alarmist’ who would like to squelch speech on it if you don’t agree with them. No one says there is no global warming, we just do not think it is entirely man-made (yes contributed by) and that there are many other factors involved.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/2/2007 - 8:57 pm

  8. So to use a logical argument; if Humans are killing the Earth, then some humans have to be sacrificed or told to live in second-class status so that the elite can fly about as they please, because Al Gore and Hillary can’t fly coach with the riff-raff, and we are all equal, just some of us are so much more equal than others.

    Comment by Tom TB @ 2/2/2007 - 8:58 pm

  9. Just to put it in perspective, sanity, CO2 release from volcanic activity is only about 1% of the amount that humans now produce (I’m not sure how it compares to cow flatulence!). We’re responsible for a huge increase in CO2 being added to the atmosphere—not from breathing, but from cars, fires, power plants, etc.

    And one thing that we haven’t even gotten into is that, yes, world population is part of the problem—especially as previously under-developed countries like India and China prosper and start driving more cars and building more power plants. It seems to me that the world needs to decide at some point whether they want to limit the global population through family planning and birth control, or whether they want it to be limited by natural forces beyond our control as people die like flies from the drought, famine and disease that goes along with over-population. The idea is that over-population is already pushing the planet to the breaking point. Throw all of the potentially devastating (and somewhat unpredictable) effects from global warming into that already dangerous situation, and there could be hell to pay.

    Comment by Bob @ 2/2/2007 - 11:20 pm

  10. Let’s chew on this a bit Bob, this is a decidedly tasty bite:

    World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ”greenhouse gases,” chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ”global warming” severe increases in Earth’s atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.

    To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth’s surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

    Link

    Nice site, even tracks as far back as 1700s, charts and graphs, all the fun stuff.

    Like:

    For example, about 300 years ago, the Earth was experiencing the ”Little Ice Age.” It had descended into this relatively cool period from a warm interval about 1,000 years ago known as the ”Medieval Climate Optimum.” During the Medieval Climate Optimum, temperatures were warm enough to allow the colonization of Greenland. These colonies were abandoned after the onset of colder temperatures. For the past 300 years, global temperatures have been gradually recovering (11). As shown in figure 2, they are still a little below the average for the past 3,000 years. The human historical record does not report ”global warming” catastrophes, even though temperatures have been far higher during much of the last three millennia.

    What causes such variations in Earth’s temperature? The answer may be fluctuations in solar activity. Figure 3 shows the period of warming from the Little Ice Age in greater detail by means of an 11-year moving average of surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere (10). Also shown are solar magnetic cycle lengths for the same period. It is clear that even relatively short, half-century-long fluctuations in temperature correlate well with variations in solar activity. When the cycles are short, the sun is more active, hence brighter; and the Earth is warmer. These variations in the activity of the sun are typical of stars close in mass and age to the sun (13).

    Figure 4 shows the annual average temperatures of the United States as compiled by the National Climate Data Center (12). The most recent upward temperature fluctuation from the Little Ice Age (between 1900 and 1940), as shown in the Northern Hemisphere record of figure 3, is also evident in this record of U.S. temperatures. These temperatures are now near average for the past 103 years, with 1996 and 1997 having been the 42nd and 60th coolest years.

    Decidedly interesting data.

    There is such a thing as the greenhouse effect. Greenhouse gases such as H2O and CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere decrease the escape of terrestrial thermal infrared radiation. Increasing CO2, therefore, effectively increases radiative energy input to the Earth. But what happens to this radiative input is complex: It is redistributed, both vertically and horizontally, by various physical processes, including advection, convection, and diffusion in the atmosphere and ocean.

    When an increase in CO2 increases the radiative input to the atmosphere, how and in which direction does the atmosphere respond? Hypotheses about this response differ and are schematically shown in figure 9. Without the greenhouse effect, the Earth would be about 14 ºC cooler (25). The radiative contribution of doubling atmospheric CO2 is minor, but this radiative greenhouse effect is treated quite differently by different climate hypotheses. The hypotheses that the IPCC has chosen to adopt predict that the effect of CO2 is amplified by the atmosphere (especially water vapor) to produce a large temperature increase (14). Other hypotheses, shown as hypothesis 2, predict the opposite that the atmospheric response will counteract the CO2 increase and result in insignificant changes in global temperature (25-27). The empirical evidence of figures 5-7 favors hypothesis 2. While CO2 has increased substantially, the large temperature increase predicted by the IPCC models has not occurred (see figure 11).

    ….

    The computer climate models upon which ”global warming” is based have substantial uncertainties. This is not surprising, since the climate is a coupled, non-linear dynamical system in layman’s terms, a very complex one. Figure 10 summarizes some of the difficulties by comparing the radiative CO2 greenhouse effect with correction factors and uncertainties in some of the parameters in the computer climate calculations. Other factors, too, such as the effects of volcanoes, cannot now be reliably computer modeled.

    ….

    In effect, an experiment has been performed on the Earth during the past half-century an experiment that includes all of the complex factors and feedback effects that determine the Earth’s temperature and climate. Since 1940, atmospheric GHGs have risen substantially. Yet atmospheric temperatures have not risen. In fact, during the 19 years with the highest atmospheric levels of CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have fallen.

    ….

    Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise (26, 30).

    ….

    At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth’s atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations. Each hypothesis must be judged by empirical results. The global warming hypothesis has been thoroughly evaluated. It does not agree with the data and is, therefore, not validated.

    Very, very informative site.

    If anyone is wanting to it is chock FULL of data that cover every range of what we all have been talking about adn might be helpful in this debate…..but it is WAY to much information to lay out here piece meal, so you will have to read the rest by going there.

    Interesting read none the less.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2007 - 12:03 am

  11. Not ot bring up another sorely beaten subject, but the amount of hype and vigor thrown at this model that global warming theorists are hyping remind me alot of Embryonic Stem Cell Research.

    This too is in its infancy, just the same as computer climate modeling, and even though there is no definitive data that they can point to exclusively, they are going on THEORY and CONJECTURE at this time with computer modeling….just like Embryonic Stem Cells. embryonic STemm Cells are ’supposed’ to be the cure all, do anything, make you get up and walk….but they just can’t prove it, and they can;t get it to work….

    But they are still 100% behind something that has caused failure after failure, but that doesn’t matter…it is the IDEA that they are behind and not the empirical data.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2007 - 12:10 am

  12. I’m not doomed, I live at the five hundred foot level. Besides, I have a fair selection of firearms and, more important, a reasonable pile of ammo. So when the Mad Max post apocalyptic meltdown hits, I’m cool. The mutant biker gangs are going to give me a wide berth.

    The pantywaist lefties are doomed, though, because they are: A) cowards and B) cowards. Oh well. The mutant bikers will be happy enough wearing their skins anyway, and it won’t cost them what it would to mess with me and my neighbors.

    Comment by Steve Skubinna @ 2/3/2007 - 12:42 am

  13. Great stuff, Sanity. Nationalpost.com has a series of articles regarding global warming deniers. There is much about which we can be justifiably suspicious regarding those who trumpet the global warming message. I have a sneaking feeling that by the end of the century, we’ll have experienced no changes of consequence in Earth’s climatology.

    Comment by Marshall Art @ 2/3/2007 - 3:29 am

  14. My favorite tactic of the global warmist community is when they show us pictures of glaciers breaking off into the sea. Then they panic and say “oh my God the glaciers are receding!!!! We are all doomed!!!!” Anyone that knows anything about glaciers, knows that glaciers are living entities that are always moving. They break off into the sea because the end of them has no where else to go. Just look at the snow or ice on the roof of your house sometime. I am no scientist, but I have delved into the matter a bit, and if global warming is manmade and CO2 emissions were rising dramatically shouldn’t we be seeing an increase in clouds and rain?

    Comment by arcman @ 2/3/2007 - 8:25 am

  15. I must say I kinda like Bob’s “Logan Run” solution to Global Warming:

    “It seems to me that the world needs to decide at some point whether they want to limit the global population through family planning and birth control”

    How about we just take those of retirement age and get rid of them? It would actually kill (no pun intended) two birds with one stone. First, the reduction in CO2 emmissions would be reduced solving the global warming problem, and second with no one of retirement age no need for Social Security. Problem solved!!!

    Seriously though, I think there are 2 other reasons not touched on here why the fervor over global warming continues. First, the scientist that want to muzzle those scientists skeptical of global warming would lose much federal funding if it were proven that the problem isn’t as dire as they say. The skeptic scientist are almost all funded by private entities. Second, the governments/civilians (Al Gore) are all anti-capitalist, anit-free market, anti- American communists. How else do you explain the fact the Kyoto accord focused mainly on America curbing it’s greenhouse gas output while excluding China and India.

    Global Warming is all junk science designed by liberal enviro-wackos and America haters to try and destroy our economy. Heck, 30 years ago Time (now a huge global warming fear mongerer) had a cover stating we were head for another “Ice Age”.

    Comment by T-Bone @ 2/3/2007 - 10:04 am

  16. BBC News had their little spot on Global Warming, a few nights ago, wherein they had a “scientist” expounding on the melting of glaciers (and ignoring the fact that some glaciers around the world are growing). He showed images of the Greenland Ice Cap as it has shrunk, and said, “We expected the Greenland Ice Cap to last a thousand years!”

    What was ignored, of course, was the fact that the Greenland Ice Cap was ever so much smaller … a thousand years ago! The Vikings planted a colony there at a time when we were in a warm period. Only the cooling of the earth made that colony perish later on.

    The earth warms and cools and humans can do not one thing about it.

    Comment by benning @ 2/3/2007 - 7:02 pm

  17. Sanity stumbled on a mine of fools gold at the OISM site. Is this really what you’re going to base your beliefs on? A 10 year old propaganda effort? Get out the tinfoil hats, folks. This self-published “study”, headed by bio-chemist (not climatologist) Arthur Robinson, is published in no scientific journals and never peer reviewed. This is what passes for science for GW deniers? OISM is a group describing itself as “a small research institute” studying “biochemistry, diagnostic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging.” According to the website PR Watch, OISM “also markets a home-schooling kit for ‘parents concerned about socialism in the public schools’ and publishes books on how to survive nuclear war.” This “institute” has one paid position – Robinson. Quite a wide range of expertise here! He’s even got his 22 year old son, who has no apparent scientific credentials, listed as an author.

    OISM is best known for their Global Warming Petition. A little background on OISMs petition: In 1998 a mass mailing was sent out to various science departments with a “paper” that was full of deception and half-truths but was formatted to look like a paper appearing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It was accompanied by a letter from Frederick Seitz, who is an elderly physicist and was a former President of NAS some 30 years ago but is now, frankly, an extreme anti-environmentalist.
    The deception was so extreme that NAS took the unusual step of issuing a statement noting that the paper being circulated had not appeared in the Proceedings of the NAS, the mailing was in no way associated with NAS, and furthermore that the paper’s conclusions were not in line with studies by the Academy. The NAS response from a press release: “The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.”
    This petition was run like an old Soviet-style election: The recipients were bombarded with propaganda and then asked to vote but only the YES votes were recorded.
    All of this happened 10 years ago before what the general opinion of the peer-reviewed scientific community was- and many of the veterinarians, dentists – even pesticide industry PR employees - that signed this petition were likely to be deceived by such a stunt. When questioned in 1998, OISM’s Arthur Robinson admitted that only 2,100 signers of the Oregon Petition had identified themselves as physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, or meteorologists, “and of those the greatest number are physicists.”

    I find it laughable how some are quick to discredit government scientists in favor of those funded privately. Gee, I wonder who is more likely to be influenced? How about we stick to real science? Like this:

    On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of 21 assessments that concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and stratospheric ozone). The study said that observed patterns of change over the past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, though it did not state what percentage of climate change might be anthropogenic in nature.

    This is just the first. The balance of these assessments are scheduled to follow in the next 2 years. Stay tuned.

    Comment by tom @ 2/3/2007 - 8:10 pm

  18. I find it funny though tom, you go on and on about the WHO they are but you are not debating or even contradicting what they are giving as facts though.

    You go on about credentials, and peer reviews, but again you do not debate or even dispute the data they have iussued.

    I also like the fatc that you say A 10 year old propaganda effort?, isn’t that what most of the alarmists, beat on their chests and rip out their hair climatologists (which again is in its infancy) has said that the owrld is doomed in a sense in such a short time? How many times have we heard the “we have 10 years before major tragedy strikes!!! DOOOOOOMMEDDDDD, we’re dooomed!!!”

    I did not say I base what I think just on that, but I did find it interesting that alot of the data seems to be very plausible in which global warming alarmists don’t even want to CONSIDER other possible solutions, and the peer reviewed and yadda yadda, Climatology as it stated is in its INFANCY, and can be fallible - hence I brought up the similiarity of the almost woshipable support this mirrors in Embryonic Stem Cells, something that is also in its infancy, but because of the possiblities, not facts, people blindly seem to support it.

    I do not blindy support anything tom. I do recognize we are a contributing factor in global warming, but I also believe we are a small contributing factor and that global positioning of the earth as we make our ever changing run around the sun, the wobble of the earth as we go, and other MAJOR factors play a bigger increase or decrease in temperatures than that of man-made.

    Remember when global warming was said to have an increase in hurricane activity, and we would see much more of the devastation of hurricanes like Katrina this last year? They were wrong. It is not an exact science and you and others need to quit treating it as such.

    Again, climatology is in its infancy, it still has a long way to go, and even then there are factors that they will not be able to use computer models for, volcano activity, the amount of CO2 and other particles put up by volcanos, population increases or decreases, changes in emissions, plant life that converts CO2, ect. There are thousands of variables and there are some of them no scientists can accurately predict, and if you think they can then you are the fool.

    But after reading your posting I see no debate of the actual data; I only see that you condemn the group. Don’t trust them because they aren’t peer reviewed, ect.

    How about their data though? Did you even bother to look at it or because it did not agree with how global warming alarmists look at it, did you jump into trash their credibility mode?

    Debate is not trashing anothers credibility, but listening and looking at what they have offered to you and then deciding on how to discuss the ideas set forward, even if you do not agree with them.

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2007 - 9:26 pm

  19. Done, sanity. Is there anything I can do to help on the formatting? –ST

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2007 - 10:22 pm

  20. NO, not sure what happened, everythig after the blockquote before just up and disappeared on me when I posted.

    Should have copied it all before posting just incase, oh well, live and learn and such.

    Thank you for the clean up.

    [chuckles]

    Comment by sanity @ 2/3/2007 - 10:54 pm

  21. Well, Sanity, they may be using facts, but they are are using them selectively and drawing incorrect conclusions. I am no expert in this field, and neither are you, obviously. This is why I will insist on looking at WHO is behind a given scientific opinion, as well as WHO may have reviewed that scientist’s study. The peer review process aims to make authors meet the standards of their discipline, and of science in general. The study you are clinging to fails to do so, and is therefore largely ignored by the legitimate scientific community.

    If you are interested in a dispute of Robinson’s “facts”, as you call them, you can start here at naturalscience.com. One concluding comment(from actual climatologists!) reads:

    We may agree with Robinson and Robinson on one point. There may be more serious issues than global warming that threaten continued advances in the quality of life for humankind. One of these is the attempt by Robinson and Robinson to misinform the general public about the scientific process and what is known and unknown in the frontiers of science.

    You ask: How many times have we heard the “we have 10 years before major tragedy strikes!!! DOOOOOOMMEDDDDD, we’re dooomed!!!” I answer: none. Point me to an article that states so. More hyperbole, I assume.

    Did you skip my second-to-last paragraph? Your president’s specially commissioned Science Program concluded that there is clear evidence of human influences on the climate system which directly rebuts Robinsons Summary statement: “The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth’s temperature shows no man-made warming trend”.

    No one contends this is an exact science, but when overwhelming majorities of scientists endorse a position, I think it is prudent to listen. The IPCC’s latest report included 600 authors from 40 countries and over 620 expert reviewers. You’re going to eschew that for 10 year-old pseudo science paper?

    Comment by tom @ 2/3/2007 - 11:56 pm

  22. PR Watch (PRW) is a quarterly put out by the leftist Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), which was founded by John Stauber, who is also Exec. Director of the quarterly. PRW is staffed by a coterie of leftists associated with the University of Wisconsin and/or living in the vicinity of Madison, who are anti-conservative, anti-capitalism, blame-America-first, environmental extremists.

    Mr. Stauber, while still in high school, “…organized to stop the U.S. war in Vietnam and for the first Earth Day.” Among his writings are: “Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq and Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing is Turning American Into a One-Party State.”

    Judith Siers-Poisson is Assoc. Director for both CMD and PRW. Her bio says she is “… proudly French by marriage, especially when they refuse to go along with American-led wars.” Her graduate degree is from Univ. of Wisconsin-Madison (UW-M).

    CMD Senior Researcher Diane Farsetta’s graduate degree is also from UW-M. Her bio says she is, “…a founding member of Madison Women for Peace; a Code Pink Affiliate.”

    CMD staffer Anne Landman is an anti-tobacco activist who “…sends information on new document discoveries to thousands of tobacco control advocates worldwide.” Her husband, Dr. Stanton A. Glantz, is Prof. of Medicine and Director of the Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education, at Univ. of California-San Francisco. Both reside in Colorado “…in an energy-efficient solar home made of over 4,000 used automobile tires and 900 pounds of aluminum cans.”

    CMD webmaster Patricia Barden’s bio says she “…is both an environmental and gay/lesbian rights activist.”

    CMD staffer Bob Burton’s bio says, “… he worked until the early 1990’s as a researcher and campaigner on energy, mining and forestry issues for The Wilderness Society in Australia.”

    CMD staffer Conor Kenney, according to his bio, was “…an activist with the Washington Student Public Interest Research Group.” He also worked for “Congress Watch,” which is in favor of public funding for elections, single payer government funded health care for all Americans, price controls on prescription drugs, and against privatized Medicare.

    Tom wants to talk about “propaganda efforts” of OISM, but puts total faith in the leftist PR Watch. Yet according to their own staff bios, none of them has a degree even remotely related to climatology, either. Is that tin-foil hat Tom sees a mirror reflection of one he’s wearing?

    S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery have authored a book, “Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years,” in which they say Earth is going through a slight warming that is part of a well established cycle associated with our sun’s activity. It’s not harmful, dangerous or a doomsday scenario. And lest our tin-foil hat seer(s) claim(s) Singer and Avery unqualified, herewith their vitae: Singer is a climate physicist, professor emeritus of environmental science at Univ. of Virginia, distinguished research prof. at George Mason Univ., and founding dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Univ. of Miami. He was also first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service, and served five years as vice-chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres. Avery is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and former senior analyst at the U.S. State Department who has written extensively on the environment.

    Finally, as I posted above: if global warming is man-made, why, according to scientists, are polar caps receding on Mars?

    Comment by Bachbone @ 2/4/2007 - 2:59 am

  23. Nice bit of research Bachbone, but I fail to see the parallel here. Does one need to be a climatolgist to report on the credentials of a climatologist?

    PR Watch simply cited some facts about who OISM is. These facts about OISM have not been disputed and simply give background on the scientist and his thesis. PR Watch did not publish a scientific theory that they presume to hold up to the scruitiny of the science communitiy. (OISM apparently didn’t either). So your comparison here appears to be a strawman. Two different things. Apples, Oranges. Obviously PR Watch has a bias- and they should. A scientific paper, however, should not. I am just trying to seperate real science (see IPCC), from semi-informed opinion.

    I do have faith in the leftist PR Watch. Were any of the facts about OISM they cited not true? If you can point to any misstatements of fact here, I would gladly reconsider my opinion.

    Regarding Singer and Avery: I haven’t read their book, but I plan to. These are qualified scientists, that seem to hold a minority viewpoint (human activity has little to do with GW) in their community, but that itself doesn’t discredit their theory of a climate cycle. For opposing viewpoints, you could start at Real Climate. This is good, albeit technical, site that gives time to both advocates and skeptics of GW.

    Finally, as to your Mars-related question, I haven’t read anthing about this before now. Here is an interesting explanation. Hope it helps.

    Comment by tom @ 2/4/2007 - 4:39 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Comment moderation is in use. Please do not submit your comment twice. If you are new to this site please make sure to read my policy on comments and trackbacks before submitting your comment/trackback.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.