I find that the Libs are the censors in the world. We mustn’t talk about Oil-for-Food bribes or threatened government subsidies for GW acolytes. As the UN punk, Jan Egeland of Norway says, “The US is Stingy.”

In trying to prove that the Bush administration is throttling research into global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists rolled out some breathtakingly bad science.

The group unveiled a supposedly scientific survey of more than 1,600 federal climate scientists as evidence that the administration was engaged in “wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming.”

“The new evidence shows that political interference in climate science is no longer a series of isolated incidents but a system-wide epidemic” Dr. Francesca Grifo, Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program, said in a press release. “Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies.”
Grifo obviously doesn’t’ appreciate the irony when he trots out a poll that is so flawed that it is manifest evidence of exaggeration, incompetence or dishonesty on his group’s part.

More Lies from the Religion of Global Warming

There is plenty of perspective in the above article. Tons of great points. Samuelson writes solutions that I as a conservative talked about saying:

What we really need is a more urgent program of research and development, focusing on nuclear power, electric batteries, alternative fuels and the capture of CO2.

If only taking profits was a good thing we should do it to all sectors of the economy and see what communism brings us economically…

Also, it gets down to what politicians and the Tom’s of the world want to do with this information. What are your solutions? Are they punitive of prosperity and success? Are your solutions based on liberalism (solutions that punish success and move the country from free market to big government even more)?

Nobody here is opposed to the environment or doing things that are not punitive towards success and hard work and prosperity. If you are trying to convince us to adopt those ideas you are using too much energy (CO2) trying to convince us when it is you who should be convinced of our ideas because our ideas help more people and the environment better.

The IPCC reports are widely regarded as the authoritative statements of scientific knowledge about climate change, and as such they carry enormous weight in both the scientific and policy communities. The immense credibility of the IPCC’s reports arises from the credible process that produces it. The reports are based on the peer-reviewed literature and are written by hundreds of expert climate scientists from over 100 countries. The reports then go through multiple layers of review, including expert peer review by thousands of climate scientists who were not authors of the report.

The IPCC’s Third Assessment Report, published in 2001, then went through review by a blue-ribbon panel convened by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which endorsed its findings. The conclusions of the IPCC reports have also been endorsed by the American Geophysical Union, the American Meteorological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and others.

That’s 4 reputable American organizations involved in the GW debate endorsing the IPCC results! What skeptical GW study or paper has gone through this scrutiny or has even attained such endorsements? “None” is the answer. You can try to label the IPCC as biased and “leftist/socialist”, these empty pejoratives are exptected here at ST, but they don’t make convincing arguments for those of us that can seperate politics from science.

This same article addresses some of the points Severian makes in a recent post regarding AR4 supposedly scaling back their “alarmist predictions”, including whether humans are causing GW.

Are humans causing climate change?
Over time, the IPCC’s statements about the contribution of humans to our present-day warming have become much stronger.

1990: “The size of this warming is broadly consistent with prediction of climate models, but it is also of the same magnitude as natural climate variability. Thus the observed increase could be largely due to this natural variability”

1995: “the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the climate”

2001: “most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”

And now … drum roll, please … 2007: “Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations.”

This 2007 statement increases our certainty that humans are the dominant influence on the climate from “likely” (66%) to “very likely” (90%). The statement continues the trend of the IPCC to make ever-stronger statements — a result of ever-stronger underlying science.

For those of you that don’t understand the importance of peer review in science, visit this site.

Ban CO2, ban nuclear, and what’s left to support industrialization? The perfect storm for the greens.

So true. In my searches for enlightenment on this subject today, I found plenty of material on the Greens.

The Kyoto Protocol, although perhaps the most significant global agreement ever to come into force, is actually only a first baby step. Based on the world’s most comprehensive scientific analysis, as represented by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), we have to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions by 60 to 80 percent below 1990 levels just to stabilize today’s already elevated atmospheric greenhouse gas levels.

So Kyoto is just a baby step! Wow. The link above is worth a read. In their opinion, “However, careful analysis shows that implementing the Kyoto protocol is not only affordable, but highly profitable.”

Somehow, I fail to see their logic.

Honestly, great discussions here, everyone!

Actually, it increasingly appears less and less likely. The wheels are falling off the bus, which explains why the pro-AGW proponents are getting ever more strident that it is settled and that anyone who disagrees must be silenced. They realize that their entire house of cards is seriously at risk of collapse.

The latest IPCC report is a prime example. Despite a desire to make this appear catastrophic, and despite what I have to assume are deliberate actions to not accept the most current data about the fact the oceans have been cooling for the past 3 years, and the influence of the suns energy and magnetic field on earth’s temperature, the IPCC has had to scale back their alarmist predictions. Predictions for temperature rise and sea level rise have been reduced by over 1/3rd from the last report, and to get that they have had to manipulate their confidence intervals, going from the statistically significant .99, to the more dubious .95, and now finally to .90. To the lay person, this sounds pretty “confident” but to any statistician or anyone who uses this kind of math regularly, this translates into “no proof at all.” They also have assigned a verbal tag of “more likely than not” for things that are believed to have a probability of coming true of 33-66%. That’s about a 50/50 chance, which no gambler will ever tell you is “more likely than not.”

So, even with ignoring new data, and skewing the “facts” they have, they have been forced to reduce their predictions significantly. Add to that the recent work by Svensmark on solar magnetic field, cosmic rays, and low cloud formation, which by itself shows that this effect can account for well over 2/3 of the observed warming over the past century, and you see that the role of CO2 in climate change and warming keeps being reduced in scope.

But that’s not what the IPCC mouthpieces, the politicians who stand to gain from this, and the media are saying, they keep trumpeting how it’s now “certain,” when in fact CO2 is being proven to be of less and less importance.

It would if going with leftist solutions. Sorry for the label but it’s the only way to describe them. “Taking” profits of oil companies is a sure way to cripple or at least negatively affect our economy.

Tom states an opinion that I disagree with, “The problem with AEI supported “science” is that it is masquerading a political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate,” Deal with the substance instead of dismissing the facts they present. You can accuse them of stuff but your accusations are unsupported by facts. So then the accusations become irresponsible.

Tom wrote, “So kudos to the MSM for reporting on this.” It’d be fine if they simply reported. But then they inserted/asserted opinions unsupported by fact. It is simple that all scientists need to live and all scientists need money to spend a year’s worth of time reviewing work that is complex and 1,000’s of pages of research. To ask somebody to be a martyr and penniless as they displace their current work is ridiculous and not reasonable. The IPCC scientists got paid for their work. Are they too guilty of something? Let the debate begin in earnest is what I say. More information is better than less. Accusations don’t help.

Tom wrote, “So I say, lets assume it’s true, start acting now, and if we’re wrong, we can all go back to coal and oil.”

Over the 100 year period we’ve seen 1 degree change. We’ve seen life expectancy in the U.S. increase by 30 years. We have more forest in the U.S. than the 1800’s by large margins. We grow more food. Who is to say the world should roll back temperatures .1 degree by spending 100’s of billions of dollars? Maybe the 100’s of billions of dollars is better spent on medicine, food, shelter for the poor in the countries around the world. Do you consider me “caring” then? Or do you think people like me are uncaring because we simply disagree with those who want solutions that hurt our economy? The steps we should take should be market oriented that keep our nation prosperous.

The questions you raise are important ones. If the industrialized countries can’t all agree, there is an imbalance created in the Global economy for those countries that refuse to reduce emissions. Obviously China and India would have an advantage- in the short term. They would argue, however, that the US and other countries that have been industrialized for such a longer time have enjoyed the benefits of a carbon-based economy (indeed, we invented it) and therefore these are the countries that can most afford to move toward a low carbon economy. I would agree. As always, we need to lead.

I disagree with you that that a decision to move from a heavily carbon-based economy means that we have to cripple our economy to do so. We just need to do it thoughtfully and rationally. Which leads back to the original posting here by ST. The problem with AEI supported “science” is that it is masquerading a political campaign as though it were part of a legitimate scientific debate, as Bob states in an earlier post. So kudos to the MSM for reporting on this.

Dissenting opinions in the science community should be welcomed and debated. And they have been. At some point, however, we need to move on and determine what, if anything to do about GW. A 100% consensus on the science of this will not be attained for a long time. The longer we continue to debate the science, the less time we may have to correct this potential problem. So I say, lets assume it’s true, start acting now, and if we’re wrong, we can all go back to coal and oil.

Respectfully, no. No matter how scientific you get this is opinion based. An earth that is 1 degree warmer than 100 years ago can produce more vegetation right? There might be less deaths from cold spells in Minneapolis, etc.

Bob then wrote, “If so, then we proceed to work on political solutions.”

Even if I didn’t change the no to yes for the 1st question I would agree in all cases we should be kind to our environment and seek to alter it as least as we can and we have increased CO2 output. Mind you – the solutions should ALWAYS be non-leftist/socialist and should seek to not only improve the environment but not hurt people and businesses. This CAN be done. Every solution that I’ve heard from leftist politicians and even you Bob would hurt more people than it would help. My solutions? They would be:
1) Allow the power producers to invest and build nuclear energy plants.
2) Invest funds to seek to find a use for CO2 – carbon is needed in most molecules – oxygen is needed also – is there a process of separation or joining of other elements that would benefit humans and be something an industry would invest in because people would pay for?
3) Limit each movie’s impact on the environment by 80% requiring the savings to pay those in Hollywood who make less than minimum wage double (joking about the last phrase)
4) Insert caps on horsepower and torque for all vehicles between 10 and 6,000 lbs to 20 lbs per horsepower or more and 30 lbs per foot pound of torque or more – after all – what do we need with gobs of power Americans??? – Just highlighting here how it isn’t Bush’s or any “politicians” fault like the Bob’s of the world like to accuse – it’s the American public and their every increasing appetite for bigger homes and more powerful autos – including the ones with Gore and Kerry bumper stickers. If there is anyone to “blame” it is the people in a capitalistic society. What is capitalism? People choosing who gets what resources – as opposed to socialism which is the government choosing who gets what resources. Does the government know best? Is freedom better? Yes ! Freedom with limits imposed by regulations is what America has chosen. Much of the regulation is overboard though. Don’t assume you know which regulations I’m against or for.
5) Use highway funds to make new lanes so that there is less congestion/pollution.

Bob wrote, “wants to use the political difficulties that dealing with the problem would entail as another reason to do nothing.”

I am the expert on what I want. Your statement about what I want is incorrect. I do not want leftist solutions which do not understand the economic environment and would hurt more people like Hillary’s plan to TAKE profits from energy producers. If there is not incentive (no profit) why would anyone invest in energy. When you take people’s “profits”, the next year you go for their profits why would there be any? You want to see depression? Buy onto Hillary’s plan.

Bob without reading comprehension wrote, “People keep saying that taking steps will “cripple” our economy.” No. Taking leftist steps.

Bob asks for proof that leftists’ solutions cause harm, “Where’s the proof for that assumption?” There are whole threads devoted to that topic.

Bob wrote, “And as I understand it, TXMarco, the US and the EU are still putting out more greenhouse emissions than China.” That narrow classification indicates irresponsibility by economies that produce so much and where the people have a very high standard of living. But a high level look shows that the EU and U.S. are much more responsible and put out less particulates, carbon monoxide, and other contaminates by far than South America, China or Africa. We do not need to apologize for being more prosperous or using more energy. We do a lot of good with our wealth and feed, shelter and help more people around the globe than any other nation. If the absense of our good – darkness would descend – the world’s security would be nil with evil reigning. Just like banning guns in Washington D.C. made the law abiders suffer because the evil were able to run rampant producing more murders per capita for a long time. Our prosperity provides a need for world security and the world benefits from the security we provide. We do more FOR the environment than most other nations.

I think that we need to separate the scientific from the political parts of the problem. First we have to establish as best we can the magnitude of the problem. Is global warming a significant enough threat (from a scientific standpoint) that something needs to be done about it? If so, then we proceed to work on political solutions. It seems to me that the GW skeptic side (I changed my terminology just for you, Baklava) wants to use the political difficulties that dealing with the problem would entail as another reason to do nothing. Taking a defeatist attitude that nothing significant can be done achieves the same objective in the end as denying that GW is a problem. People keep saying that taking steps will “cripple” our economy. Where’s the proof for that assumption? Where do these estimates that say taking measures will only change the temperature by .001 – .1 degree shift come from? Giving up so easily just seems a little too convenient.

And as I understand it, TXMarco, the US and the EU are still putting out more greenhouse emissions than China. As the top emitter of all, it doesn’t seem unfair at all to me that the US should be expected to shoulder a significant burden. But the issue you raise does seem like a critical one going forward. Even if China and India are not currently the top emitters, they may soon outpace the US and the EU. And it may be that they won’t be any more willing to hold themselves to emissions caps than the US is. Maybe we are just screwed no matter what. But I’d hate to see defeatism keep us (the entire world) from doing things that may make a significant difference, even if they don’t completely solve the problem.