"Progress" on Reducing Carbon Emissions

Tim, I'm well aware Earth has gone through periods of cooling and warming before. That neither proves nor disproves the current trends. It's my understanding that temperatures have never before risen so much in such a short time.

 

That seems to be the case for the last 600K years. Certainly enough time to pay attention to such an event, but in the grand scheme of things it's unclear.

 

Of course there are significant negative impacts of a warming climate, but there are many positives as well - particularly of moderately warmer climates. Remember the Holocene "Climate Optimum" was a warm event.

During this period, there is strong evidence of warmer temps than today: "Of 140 sites across the western Arctic, there is clear evidence for warmer-than-present conditions at 120 sites."

 

I don't believe that is necessarily accurate. I just read within the last day or so about rapid (multi-decadal) increases in temperatures (I believe during the last interglacial period). I am not finding the reference at the moment though.

 

Tim, I'm shocked. A simple assertion you can't immediately refute with at least 3 peer-reviewed references? Does that failure put you in danger of being kicked out of the CCDC? (Climate Change Denier's Club)

 

Heh heh. Well, don't tell anyone. They might revoke my membership!

 

Of course there were pre-historic periods with warmer temperatures. But supporting 6 billion needy/greedy people at a certain standard of living will be a major challenge in a changing/warming climate.

The good news: putting a price on carbon will eventually create numerous new green collar jobs and economic activity - if we are smart about it.

 

Temperatures have declined over the last ten years, despite the increase of CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Tamino?s Folly - Temperatures did drop this past decade Watts Up With That?

Yet, in the minds of the climate hysteria-mongers, this means nothing. Anthropogenic Global Warming is 'settled science'.

Quick, turn this crisis over to governments to solve (We all know what a great job THEY do!) Bwahahahahahahahaha. Quickly, before we all die! Tax air, tax water, tax carbon, we have no time to lose!

 

No just tax pollution (carbon).

 

From Viscount Monckton's (the man Al Gore refuses to debate - the sissy) open letter to an unlikely climate ignoramus - John McCain (Barry Hussein Obama's even worse):

[FONT=times new roman,times]Let me summarize the irremediably shaky basis for the UN's alarmist case. It is not based on physical theory. It is not based on real-world observation. It is based on computer modeling, in which - astonishingly - the models are told at the outset the values for the very quantity (temperature response to increased carbon dioxide concentration) that they are expected to find. [/FONT]


[FONT=times new roman,times]Now you will appreciate how ridiculous it is, to any competent mathematician, to hear the IPCC claiming that it is "90% certain" that most of the observed warming during the 50 years before the warming stopped in 1998 is anthropogenic. For a start, a 90% confidence level is not a recognized statistical interval: 95% confidence, or two standard deviations, is a recognized interval, but that would be even more absurd than trying to claim 90% confidence for a proposition that depends absolutely for its validity upon parameters that cannot be measured and can only be guessed: and a proposition that is demonstrated to be false with each successive year during which no further "global warming" takes place. It is regrettable that anyone should seek to make policy, as you have done, on such a manifestly unsound basis. [/FONT]

Read the whole thing. References to peer-reviewed papers are in parenthesis ( ) while non peer-reviewd papers are in brackets [ ].

American Thinker: An open letter from The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley to Senator John McCain about Climate Science and Policy

"Global warming" has stopped for the time being, yet the real crisis, the political drumbeat to give unimaginable power to government to regulate economies, goes on unabated. Wake up! The real threat is government - a threat of which our founders were all too aware.

Brrrr. It's cold outside today here this morning in central Texas. Unseasonably.

 

You can keep quoting the relative handful of deniers all day and night - it doesn't change anything. The vast majority of climate scientists have spoken and the world is moving on with plans to reduce emissions.

 

Why don't you read Lord Monckton's letter and tell all us 'deniers' where he is wrong? Oh, you're not interested in an opposing view? You have no mind of your own? You believe everything that Al Gore and the IPCC tells you? Sorry, it's NOT settled and the deniers are proving (no warming the past decade despite increased CO2) to be correct - whether they are silenced or not.

Here's another handful of 'deniers':

I know YOU won't read it, Fibber, but perhaps someone with an open mind will.

The Deniers: The World Renowned Scientists Who Stood Up Against Global Warming Hysteria, Political Persecution, and Fraud

By Lawrence Solomon
Richard Vigilante Books, 2008, 240 pages
$27.95, ISBN 978-0980076318
Editor's note: The July issue of Environment & Climate News published H. Sterling Burnett's review of the groundbreaking new book The Deniers. The book is so important, and so universally acclaimed, that we believe it merits additional analysis. The following review, by Heartland Institute Science Director Jay Lehr, Ph.D., provides further insights to supplement Dr. Burnett's analysis of the book.
​

Lawrence Solomon, a longtime environmental activist, began wondering a few years ago how it could be that some scientists were questioning the apparently solid consensus that humans are causing a global warming crisis. He began seeking them out, and interviewing them on the topic.
Before long, Solomon came to realize a substantial number of the world's leading scientists are making a very strong case that humans are not causing any sort of global warming crisis.
In 2006 he began publishing his interviews with these leading scientists in Canada's National Post newspaper. In his outstanding new book, The Deniers, Solomon presents the best of these interviews, while sharing additional insights for which his newspaper columns did not have room. Solomon's book breaks new ground in the global warming discussion, presenting the most important scientific evidence in the words of the scientists themselves.
The Deniers is not just a series of interviews and vignettes, however. Solomon carefully divides the information gleaned from his prestigious dissenters into chapters asking the very questions most of us have on our minds, and he allows the scientists' own words to answer the questions collectively.

Scientists Persecuted
All of the "dissenters" profiled in the book are recognized leaders in their fields, with many even active in the official body that oversees most of the world's climate change research, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Thus the book provides absorbing insight into both the scientific issues and the ferocious political and media battles being waged about global warming.
Solomon shows how noble scientists have suffered for their integrity and how attack dogs have mounted an all-out campaign against these scientists, portraying them as hacks bought by profit-mad oil companies or as non-credentialed cranks and lunatics.

Elite Scientific Resumes
The book offers well-written brief biographies of each of their illustrious careers. Here is a sample of the dozens of scientists the author interviewed, with a very condensed indication of who they are and what they believe:

Claude Allegre, Ph.D.
A member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and French Academy of Science, Allegre was among the first scientists to sound the alarm on potential dangers from global warming. His view now: "The cause of this climate change is unknown."

Richard Lindzen, Ph.D.
A professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a member of the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, Lindzen says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."

Habibullo Abdussamatov, Ph.D.
Head of the space research laboratory of the Russian Academy of Science's Pulkova Observatory and head of the International Space Station's Astrometria Project, Abdussamatov reports, "the common view that man's industrial activity is a deciding factor in global warming has emerged from misinterpretation of cause and effect relations."

Richard Toi, Ph.D.
Principal researcher at the Institute for Environmental Studies at Vrije Universiteit and adjunct professor at the Carnegie Mellon University Center for Integrated Study of the Human Dimensions of Global Change, Toi calls the IPCC reports "preposterous ... alarmist and incompetent."

Sami Solanki, Ph.D.
Director and scientific member at the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Solanki argues changes in the sun's state, not human activity, may be the principal cause of global warming. Says Solanki, "The sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures."

Freeman Dyson, Ph.D.
A professor at Princeton University and one of the most eminent physicists in the world, Dyson reports the models used to justify global warming are "full of fudge factors" and "do not begin to describe the real world."

Eigil Friis-Christensen, Ph.D.
Director of the Danish National Space Center and vice president of the International Association of Geomagnetism and Aeronomy, Friis-Christensen argues changes in the sun's behavior could very well account for most of the warming during the past century.

Necessary Second Opinion
Global warming has become a critical question for citizens who must decide whether the cures being bandied about are not in fact worse than the disease.
In matters of health, most intelligent citizens seek a second opinion before undergoing a serious medical procedure, but in the case of global warming, a second opinion is exactly what global warming activists do not want you to seek, for fear it will reduce the effectiveness of their fear-mongering. Therefore, we are treated to a continuous drumbeat of the words, "the science is settled."
All the scientists Solomon interviews in his book are prominent in climate science and are not just nitpicking over the interpretation of some small piece of data. Throughout the book Solomon artistically includes boxes of highlighted quotes from his subjects, taken from their own publications. Here is one from Lindzen:
"How can a barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global temperature since the late 19th century possibly gain public acceptance as the source of recent weather catastrophes? And how can it translate into unlikely claims about future catastrophes? The answer has much to do with misunderstanding the science of climate, plus a willingness to debase climate science into a triangle of alarmism.
"Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policymakers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes."

Worthless Computer Models
In his interview, Dyson points out from long experience that models packed with numerous "fudge factors" are worthless.
As a mathematician and physicist, Dyson is known for the unification of three versions of quantum electrodynamics, as well as for contributions to space flight and the development of a safe nuclear reactor used today by hospitals and universities around the world. But today he is known more widely as a scientific heretic for disagreeing with claims of a central human role in global warming.
In his 2005 winter commencement address at the University of Michigan, Dyson said the mathematical computer models on which the alarmist claims are based "do a very poor job of describing the clouds, the dust, the chemistry, and the biology of fields, farms, and forests. They do not begin to describe the real world that we live in."

Solar Influence Ignored
In Solomon's interview with Friis-Christensen, the scientist states he was originally optimistic about the work IPCC would do in studying the sun's influence on climate change. To his surprise, however, IPCC refused to consider the sun's effect on the Earth's climate as a topic worthy of investigation. IPCC conceived its task only as investigating potential human causes of climate change.
That is a huge omission, Abdussamatov points out. He notes there has been global warming on other planets and moons in the solar system, and this demonstrates other forces may be at work regarding the Earth's moderate recent warming. "Mars has global warming, but without a greenhouse and without the participation of Martians," he observes.
Abdussamatov, at the pinnacle of Russia's scientific establishment, is one of the world's most eminent critics of the notion carbon dioxide is driving global warming. He argues these "parallel global-warmings observed simultaneously on Mars and on Earth--can only be a straight line consequence of the effect of the one same factor: a long-time change in solar irradiance."

Cooling Coming Soon
Abdussamatov believes the recent global warming will be short-lived and that we are actually on the brink of a global cooling, and likely a severe one. He argues Earth has hit its temperature ceiling, demonstrated by cooling currently occurring in the upper layers of the world's oceans.
In addition, Abddussamatov notes, solar irradiance has begun to fall, likely ushering in a protracted cooling period beginning in 2012-2015.
The lowest depth of the solar irradiance reaching Earth will occur around 2041 (plus or minus 11 years), Abdussamatov estimates, and will inevitably lead to a deep freeze around 2055-60. The freeze will last into the twenty-second century before temperatures rise again. For now, he says, "we continue to bask in the remains of heat that the planet accumulated over the twentieth century."
This is an excellent book. It is written for non-scientists, and I guarantee you will understand every word. It will inspire you as you witness the courage of the deniers to take a stand and endure the wrath of global warming activists for having the audacity to report sound science.

And you, Fibber, can keep denying that there is another point of view held by TENS of THOUSANDS of scientists, but it won't change the REALITY of the situation:

Global Warming Petition Project

If this 'crisis' is truly of such earth-shattering significance, why is there no willingness on the part of the climate change, hysteria-mongers to openly debate their conclusions? Because they SAY it's 'settled' and that's that. Better ask yourself why there is no open debate on this matter rather than to blindly accept what politicians tell you.

 

I hope you and the deniers are right and the IPCC is wrong. I can't fathom how that could be, but it would sure be fortunate for us if the Earth wasn't warming.

Meanwhile, given the long list of expensive, negative effects of warming, I guess we better be prudent and lower emissions just in case.

Besides, over and above mitigating GW, there are so many benefits to: a) getting off fossil fuels, b) electrifying transportation and c) increasing the amount of renewable sources of energy.

Just off the top of my head, here are a few:

- Less respiratory illness/cancers from pollution - which harms millions of people DAILY.
- a smarter, stronger, more reliable electric grid.
- electric transportation is more efficient (and in the long run, cheaper)
- less noise pollution as the ICE hopefully disappears.
- domestic energy is of course an important goal - no funding of terrorist producing States.
- new technologies, lead to knew economic activity and jobs. Jobs that can't be exported overseas.

 

I agree wholeheartedly that unneccesary pollution be diminished, but not at the expense of relinquishing free-market economies to government control.

Perhaps you can't imagine how the 'thousands of scientists' of the IPCC could be wrong. Here's some help:

Climate Realist: The IPCC '2500 Scientists' Myth

Yeah, I know, it's another link to a 'denier' blog. Forgive me. But read it. You may learn something of which most people are completely unaware.

 

Free-markets?!! HA HA HA. Yeah, l love how well deregulation has served us lately.

The markets must be regulated to serve the greater good. You can't leave it to the greed and stupidity of investment bankers and their cronies.

The free market is dead. Long live regulation!

 

There are no free markets.

 

I think the OPEC countries are going to be under the cosh too. Many of the banks over there bought into the subprime investment "vehicles" and the drop in crude prices will hurt them as well.

 

This goes beyond what we are discussing, but includes elements we have raised:

Do Facts Matter?
Thomas Sowell
Friday, October 03, 2008


Abraham Lincoln said, "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you can't fool all the people all the time."
Unfortunately, the future of this country, as well as the fate of the Western world, depends on how many people can be fooled on election day, just a few weeks from now.
Right now, the polls indicate that a whole lot of the people are being fooled a whole lot of the time.
The current financial bailout crisis has propelled Barack Obama back into a substantial lead over John McCain-- which is astonishing in view of which man and which party has had the most to do with bringing on this crisis.
It raises the question: Do facts matter? Or is Obama's rhetoric and the media's spin enough to make facts irrelevant?
Fact Number One: It was liberal Democrats, led by Senator Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, who for years-- including the present year-- denied that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taking big risks that could lead to a financial crisis.
It was Senator Dodd, Congressman Frank and other liberal Democrats who for years refused requests from the Bush administration to set up an agency to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
It was liberal Democrats, again led by Dodd and Frank, who for years pushed for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans, which are at the heart of today's financial crisis.
Alan Greenspan warned them four years ago. So did the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers to the President. So did Bush's Secretary of the Treasury, five years ago.
Yet, today, what are we hearing? That it was the Bush administration "right-wing ideology" of "de-regulation" that set the stage for the financial crisis. Do facts matter?
We also hear that it is the free market that is to blame. But the facts show that it was the government that pressured financial institutions in general to lend to subprime borrowers, with such things as the Community Reinvestment Act and, later, threats of legal action by then Attorney General Janet Reno if the feds did not like the statistics on who was getting loans and who wasn't.
Is that the free market? Or do facts not matter?
Then there is the question of being against the "greed" of CEOs and for "the people." Franklin Raines made $90 million while he was head of Fannie Mae and mismanaging that institution into crisis.
Who in Congress defended Franklin Raines? Liberal Democrats, including Maxine Waters and the Congressional Black Caucus, at least one of whom referred to the "lynching" of Raines, as if it was racist to hold him to the same standard as white CEOs.
Even after he was deposed as head of Fannie Mae, Franklin Raines was consulted this year by the Obama campaign for his advice on housing!
The Washington Post criticized the McCain campaign for calling Raines an adviser to Obama, even though that fact was reported in the Washington Post itself on July 16th. The technicality and the spin here is that Raines is not officially listed as an adviser. But someone who advises is an adviser, whether or not his name appears on a letterhead.
The tie between Barack Obama and Franklin Raines is not all one-way. Obama has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae's financial contributions, right after Senator Christopher Dodd.
But ties between Obama and Raines? Not if you read the mainstream media.
Facts don't matter much politically if they are not reported.
The media alone are not alone in keeping the facts from the public. Republicans, for reasons unknown, don't seem to know what it is to counter-attack. They deserve to lose.
But the country does not deserve to be put in the hands of a glib and cocky know-it-all, who has accomplished absolutely nothing beyond the advancement of his own career with rhetoric, and who has for years allied himself with a succession of people who have openly expressed their hatred of America.

Copyright © 2008 Salem Web Network. All Rights Reserved.

 

Sadly, it's looking more and more like this thread belongs in the political forum.