Global Warming: The New Religion

[Civettone]

Civvy will make the same point...again. "But the IFCC blah blah blah..." "Ball is lone person of dubious credibility..."

that's indeed what I was going to say.

I see it this way.
I'm not a scientist. I have a scientific question, so I look at what the scientists have to say. Almost all say there is GW and that it is anthropogenic. The ones that don't agree are individuals. The only scientific society doubting the predominant opinion is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists...

Even though I don't like it, I feel myself obligated to follow these as my personal opinions and my common sense are inadequate to answer these complex scientific questions. Because if you don't believe science, why do you even bother to discuss?

And you will always find scientists and reports that go against the current consensus towards GW. In ten or twenty years from now they'll still be around because that's simply the way it works. There are always people who oppose scientific or historic conclusions. They've always been around and always will be.

Are they wrong? Perhaps not. Sometimes a minority of scientists is right. But it's sometimes and once again the odds are confirmed. It is therefore much more likely that there is anthropogenic GW. One can decide to follow the minority but as non-scientist one basically doesn't have the proper knowledge to critically assess this scientific report.

And I know what I'm talking about because I have done some research on prehistoric climate change in my third year studying archaeology. I've always been critical towards this GW as I had learned that the climate is hardly ever stable. But I've read the previous IPCC report and I had to give in from a scientific point of view.

You may bring politics into this but that knife cuts both ways as there are benefits to both sides. I can only speak for Belgium and its neighbouring countries: politicians who advocate harsh measures make themselves unpopular hereby slowing down the decision making process concerning GW and the Kyoto standards. There's also a strong industrial lobby against these GW measures...

why are you not willing to admit that any climate change today is the result of increased sun activity which seems to be well documented.

First, let me ask you why you are considering to accept the sun radiation theory and reject the anthropogenic GW theory out of hand? I'm sure you're aware that even the sun radiation theory is questioned.
But to answer your question, the consensus position (as represented for example by the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report) says that solar radiation may have increased by 0.12 W/m2 since 1750, compared to 1.6 W/m2 for the net anthropogenic forcing.
http://www.ipcc.ch/activity/wg1outlines.pdf

Kris

[Matt308]

Amen, brother.

[Civettone]

Originally Posted by mkloby

People don't seem to realize the adverse costs if we spend billions to attempt to resolve a problem that we cannot simply change. We're talking cutting social programs (GOD NO!!!), military budgets, education, infrastructure expenditures, etc.

Matt, I understand your concern.

But I will try to convince you that we don't need to ruin our way of life or our economy to live in a more ecologically responsible world.

I don't know if you read my comment on that Yale-Harvard (I said oxford-harvard before, my mistake!) report. It took a while to dig it up again but here's a link: Environmental Performance Measurement
What these two gentlemen have done is measure 'environmental sustainability' for 122 countries. What they found out is that the countries that scored the highest on this list, also top other lists such as competitiveness, social welfare, education, etc. This is especially true for the Scandinavian countries which were the first to adopt ecology in their policy.
This can be coincidence but the authors have tried to explain how these are linked, mainly by innovation and technology driven investments. For instance, in Sweden the biggest industrial sector growth came from the ecological industry. Innovation leads to better policy, to long-term thinking. I can't explain it that well but a summary can be found here: http://www.cid.harvard.edu/cr/pdf/GC...%20Summary.pdf

On a more practical note, as far as can be observed now, the current reforms in countries like Belgium, due to Kyoto have caused no slowdown of our economical growth while they will provide a stimulation in the years to come as these investments often lead to a decrease in energy use. Just by better isolation of housing and by subsidizing special lamps and sunpanels the use of electricity and other energy forms can be substantially reduced which is not only good for the environment but also good for the people.

As on the matter of anthropogenic or natural GW, I can only refer to the latest IPCC report which is exhaustive in its scientific argumentation. I've only read the third report of 2001 and was impressed. This one is apparently more exhaustive. However, the final publication isn't ready yet though the conclusions have already been made public.
IPCC AR4 WGI

Kris

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Civettone

that's indeed what I was going to say.

I see it this way.
I'm not a scientist. I have a scientific question, so I look at what the scientists have to say. Almost all say there is GW and that it is anthropogenic. The ones that don't agree are individuals. The only scientific society doubting the predominant opinion is the American Association of Petroleum Geologists...

As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz.

As chairman of the IPCC, Watson was responsible for propagating the myth that only 1 or 2 percent of scientists did not believe humans were responsible for global warming. Watson, of course, overlooked at least 17,000 scientists who signed a petition cautioning against global warming alarmism – a petition compiled with the assistance of former National Academy of Sciences (NAS) president Dr. Frederick Seitz.

[Civettone]

Matt, isn't it convenient that you forgot to mention who was behind the petition?

Exxon Mobil is the power behind George W. Bush. Exxon Mobil was a large donor of the Republican Party giving over one million dollars, more than all the other oil companies. Ninety-one percent of total contributions went to the Republican Party. In cooperation with the American Petroleum Institute, they started a campaign to undermine the scientific consensus on the threat of climate change as it was established by the ICCP (United States Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). They spent 7 million dollars on this campaign. Exxon Mobil was also a member of the Global Climate Coalition. This lobby-organization has spent millions of dollars against efforts to stop global warming and continues to lobby against climate protection. The aggressive lobbying and the constant denial of global warming of the group caused so much anger that at the end of 1999 and beginning of 2000, a lot of big corporations like Ford, General Motors, and Texaco ended their membership of the Global Climate Coalition. But not Exxon Mobil. They were forced out after the group ended its corporate membership program, announcing that only Trade associations would be eligible for membership. In 1998 Exxon Mobil presented a petition signed by 17,000 so-called "scientists". Among the "scientists" who signed were people like Ginger Spice (Spice Girls) and some actors of the TV series, M.A.S.H. It's not quite clear what the scientific achievements of these people are. It was discovered later that this Exxon Mobil petition was being organized by the "Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine" headquartered in a tin shack!

Boycott call against Exxon Mobil Petition

So far I've pretty much uncovered the bias in every article you've posted so far. But this seems to go on unnoticed. Lucky for you there won't be anyone left after after this weekend to take the effort to unmask them so you can go on spreading these prejudices.

Kris

[Matt308]

In fact, it was former IPCC member, Dr. Richard Lindzen, who blew the whistle on irregularities in both the 2001 summary and report when he testified before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee in May of that year. After stating that the IPCC was created to support negotiations concerning CO2 emission reductions, he gave an astonishing account of the pressure placed upon the scientists who drafted the report.

"...throughout the drafting sessions, IPCC ‘coordinators' would go around insisting that criticism of models be toned down, and that "motherhood" statements be inserted to the effect that models might still be correct despite the cited faults. Refusals were occasionally met with ad hominem attacks. I personally witnessed coauthors forced to assert their "green" credentials in defense of their statements."

He then avowed that the vast majority of scientists contributing to the full report played virtually no role in preparing the summary, nor were they given the opportunity to review and approve its contents. Furthermore, it is this unscientific version only, often written to further political agendas, which becomes the basis of media hype and public understanding:

"Note that almost all reading and coverage of the IPCC is restricted to the highly publicized Summaries for Policymakers which are written by representatives from governments, NGO's and business; the full reports, written by participating scientists, are largely ignored."

Lindzen then addressed the media's frequent misleading references to the participants as the "world's leading climate scientists." He explained that the best science students generally moved into physics, math, and computer science -- not climate science. Furthermore, as with all UN projects, the participation of hundreds of countries (many with no climate research experience) supersedes any requirements for best-of-breed contributor selection. This often gains participants previously unavailable prestige; perhaps leaving them somewhat biased toward the not-so-tacit goals of the IPCC.

"Thus, speaking of 'thousands' of the world's leading climate scientists is not especially meaningful. Even within climate science, most of the top researchers (at least in the US) avoid the IPCC because it is extremely time consuming and non-productive."

[Civettone]

Richard Lintzen is quite a figure. Some years ago he became famous for minimalising the risks of passive smoking. He also works as a consultor for large oil companies. He has been asked several times to go into a scientific discussion with the IPCC's conclusion on global warming though he has failed to do so uptil now. His criticism so far has been very weak:
RealClimate » Lindzen: point by point
Environmental Economics: Richard Lindzen: Climate skeptic or Conspiracy theorist?

(...) I also wanted to know how I could remain scientific and weigh the evidence on climate change – this is where it starts to get interesting. I do not have the space here to get into all the details, but my conclusion from Richard’s comments is that every scientist, policy-maker, and news media person who claims to believe that we need to limit CO2 emissions is part of the largest conspiracy ever – Climate Alarmism!

Later that evening in a semi-private conversation (there were two other persons present) I asked him what journals I could read to learn more about climate change. Based on my interpretation of Richard’s comments - I can not trust Science, or Nature and The Journal of Climate is “o.k.” Richard did not suggest another journal. Apparently there is only one journal in the entire world that objectively disseminates scientific evidence on climate change.

We then moved to the question of who will benefit and who will bear the costs of any carbon mitigation policy – I learned that the petroleum industry has no vested interest in whether or not we have a policy to limit CO2 emissions and perhaps even more shocking it is the powerful and well-funded environmental movement that dictates policy decisions. Let me repeat – the environmental lobby has unlimited resources and power and the oil industry has no vested interest in whether we have policies to limit carbon emissions.

I also asked him if every scientist writing that climate change is real and potentially dangerous and thinks we should have limits on CO2 emissions had abandoned their code of ethics – had every single scientist in the world who thinks this is a real problem sold out for the money – his answer – they never had any ethics.

So, I am left to ponder - who do I trust? What should I read? How do I weigh the evidence? My conclusion - I can only trust Richard Lindzen and others who agree with him, I can only read the Journal of Climate and I am supposed to give zero weight to the side of the argument with most of the evidence and all the weight to the side with little evidence. Does that sound like science? In closing, yesterday’s Christian Science Monitor had an article where I learned “a 2004 Science magazine survey of all peer-reviewed scientific studies of climate change showed 928 papers supporting man-made global warming. None denied it.” - must be a conspiracy.


Lindzen is exactly who I had in mind when I talked about individuals are criticizing the IPCC and other large international scientific organisations. There will always be people like Lindzen. But luckily they are far outnumbered and not taken all too seriously by other scientists.

Kris

[Njaco]

$45,000 for a Prius
$250,000 for an electric generating wind mill
$75,000 for solar panels on the roof
$2,000,000,000 for EPA regualtions to prevent cow farts
$5 billion for politicians to make laws to perpetuate their careers
empty pockets, hungry, cold and without a voice ....priceless!

[Matt308]

Civvy and I are like Star Wars...

Yoda (me) versus Count Duku (Civvy).

I am the mild mannered, small statured, understated Jedi with infinite wisdom. Civvy is the arrogant boistrous know-it-all who's curved light saber is suffering from Peyronie's disease.

May the straighter penis win.

[Matt308]

Originally Posted by Njaco

$45,000 for a Prius
$250,000 for an electric generating wind mill
$75,000 for solar panels on the roof
$2,000,000,000 for EPA regualtions to prevent cow farts
$5 billion for politicians to make laws to perpetuate their careers
empty pockets, hungry, cold and without a voice ....priceless!

For that you deserve a medal my friend.

[Njaco]

[shatto]

Originally Posted by pbfoot

Give me a break neither one is is engraved in stone there is validity in both documentaries thats how I make decisions by listening to both sides and making my own thoughts not governed by right left or otherwise .You can't be seriously denying the fact the weather is changing

The question is not that the climate is obeying a law of physics and changing.
The question is: Is man, specifically you in your SUV, causing it?

[pbfoot]

Originally Posted by shatto

The question is not that the climate is obeying a law of physics and changing.
The question is: Is man, specifically you in your SUV, causing it?

I drive a vehicle under 2 liters I have far bigger priorities then a vehicle mind you all my lights are 15w I compost have less then 1/2 garbage pail a week. and how about you junior

[Matt308]

Can't speak for "junior", but I can tell you that I have many CFL bulbs in my main lights and outdoor lights, have a high efficiency heat pump for my house, low flow water faucets, a high efficiency water heater, a 1995 Ford F150 that has only 60k miles on it (because I try to avoid driving it if at all possible), super efficient front loading washer and dryer, and a UN voodoo doll that I poke and prod to make my Prozac feel more effective.

No one has a monopoly on saving Mother Earth (Gaya).

[pbfoot]

I impressed didn't think you had it in you. I use a clothes line it save mega bucks All my electric is supplied by Hydro Electric not an iota of carbon