View Full Version : Cap and trade policy in the US
Cornish Steve
26th June 2009, 23:32
One almighty battle is brewing in the US right now. The Democrats are trying to force through a 'cap and trade' bill that will revolutionise energy policy in the country. It will force businesses and consumers to cut CO2 emissions by 17% over the next decade. Various organisations have conducted surveys to determine the financial impact on the average US household. These estimates range anywhere from $100 to $1,000 a year - which is a high price (tax) to pay for ideology.
Personally, I have no problem encouraging industry to be more responsible about its energy use; however, a few things really disturb me about this bill. In particular, the government is rushing it through without proper debate (just like their so-called stimulus bill). Worse, they are deliberately suppressing input from scientists on their own payroll who claim there's no evidence for man-made global warming. Why would they do that? I can see no reason other than they want to ram through this policy for purely ideological reasons (and thereby increase their control over everyone's daily lives). That's worrying.
It's so disheartening that sensible ideas get lost in stupid political battles like this. Governments just use them as vehicles to suit their own selfish purposes.
Worse, they are deliberately suppressing input from scientists on their own payroll who claim there's no evidence for man-made global warming. Why would they do that?
Oh come on! The majority of people (not just scientists) believe there is man-made global warming. Anyone of any age knows from their own experience the earth is warmer now than when they were a child. Yes, it could be a random natural fluctuation. But it could also be to due to the emissions from modern technology. We have good reason to believe that emissions have a warming effect. Do you believe that emissions can be increased without limit? We may as well start limiting emissions now because it will be inevitable sooner or later. (because emissions can't increase indefinitely) If we do impose controls a little early, no great harm done (we just shifted the burden from future generations to the current generation, a generous act). A little late, maybe catastrophe. My judgment is we've already left it a little late.
Cornish Steve
3rd July 2009, 00:25
Oh come on! The majority of people (not just scientists) believe there is man-made global warming.
Absolutely not true. Many of the scientists involved in early studies about global warming have changed their minds. The example I quoted is of a respected government scientist employed by the new White House, and even his objective opinion is being been ignored.
Anyone of any age knows from their own experience the earth is warmer now than when they were a child.
Science is not based on opinion. It's based on fact. Average temperatures have fallen quite dramatically over the last ten years. Over the previous century, rises in the earth's temperature were closely mapped by rises on other planets and moons in our solar system. You can't tell me that fossil fuels are to blame for the rise in temperature on Pluto! There's very little evidence for man-made global warming on earth.
A little late, maybe catastrophe. My judgment is we've already left it a little late.
It's just that fear that governments are exploiting to control more and more aspects of our lives.
As a matter of interest, on what is your judgment based? Are you a meteorologist? Do you have advanced science degrees? Or were you simply influenced by subtle propaganda in the media? Since this is an emotive subject, credibility and concrete data are very important.
Absolutely not true. Many of the scientists involved in early studies about global warming have changed their minds. The example I quoted is of a respected government scientist employed by the new White House, and even his objective opinion is being been ignored.
How many scientists have changed their minds? You give an example of only one scientist (though without giving a reference). You also say his opinion is objective -- but climate change is an issue that cannot be analyzed with complete objectivity because of the many uncertainties involved. One can only try to minimize the subjectivity when analyzing the subject. Who is this scientist and why should we discard the opinions of 50,000 others because of him? (I made up the number of 50,000 ;))
Science is not based on opinion. It's based on fact.
I'm not going to debate with you the definition of science or whether climate change is a wholly scientific issue. I will just ask what "fact" you claim has been proven?
Average temperatures have fallen quite dramatically over the last ten years.
If average temperatures have fallen dramatically over the last 10 years as you claim, you cannot conclude from that limited data that human influences on the climate can be ignored. The climate is a random, not a deterministic, process so fluctuations up and down around the temperature trend line are to be expected. What is your source of the temperature data, by the way?
Over the previous century, rises in the earth's temperature were closely mapped by rises on other planets and moons in our solar system. You can't tell me that fossil fuels are to blame for the rise in temperature on Pluto!
Please cite a reference for the above statement. I should like to read about it.
There's very little evidence for man-made global warming on earth.
Many studies have been made on the subject of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs regular meta-analysis on all peer-reviewed published studies. Two of the IPCC conclusions from their Fourth Report 2007 are:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
In the face of that, how can you say there is "very little evidence for man-made climate change"?
It's just that fear that governments are exploiting to control more and more aspects of our lives.
No doubt governments do exploit fear to promote their political agendas so the intelligent person needs to do their own reading (wide reading) and not just believe what they are told.
As a matter of interest, on what is your judgment based?
Mainly on the IPCC Fourth Report 2007, which I have read in its entirety. On what is your judgment based?
Are you a meteorologist? Do you have advanced science degrees? Or were you simply influenced by subtle propaganda in the media? Since this is an emotive subject, credibility and concrete data are very important.
You pack quite a few points into those few sentences. First of all, I resent the implication that the ordinary person cannot read up on the subject and form their own opinion. But since you ask about my own personal qualifications to hold an opinion (damn cheeky!), I have an MSc, I'm a Chartered Engineer, and I specialize in performing risk analysis, especially on issues where there is great uncertainty. So my own personal qualifications are not at all bad. Do I take it from your question that you are a meteorologist with advanced science degrees? Finally, why do you assume I have been "influenced by subtle propaganda in the media" -- are you sure you are not describing yourself there? Actually, I reside in the USA (as you do) where most of the media propaganda has been pushing your claim so if I had been influenced by the propaganda, I would be agreeing with you.
Cornish Steve
3rd July 2009, 13:48
How many scientists have changed their minds?
If you perform a Google search, you'll soon learn that several scientists who produced early reports about global warming later changed their minds. This includes several prominent researchers in their fields. Others have pointed out that some of the famous models used to predict rising temperatures will predict the same even when random numbers are used as input data. In other words, the models were rigged to produce the 'right' answer for ideologues - which is about as unscientific as you can get.
I'm not going to debate with you the definition of science or whether climate change is a wholly scientific issue. I will just ask what "fact" you claim has been proven?
Well, you should. This debate should be one of science, not of political ideology.
If average temperatures have fallen dramatically over the last 10 years as you claim, you cannot conclude from that limited data that human influences on the climate can be ignored. The climate is a random, not a deterministic, process so fluctuations up and down around the temperature trend line are to be expected. What is your source of the temperature data, by the way?
The source? UN data. Government data. It's widely available.
You try to write off ten years of temperatures falling, yet you'll probably ignore the fact that Greenland used to be a green and pleasant land. In other words, temperatures in the past have been much warmer that they are today. You can't have it both ways.
Many studies have been made on the subject of climate change. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) performs regular meta-analysis on all peer-reviewed published studies. Two of the IPCC conclusions from their Fourth Report 2007 are:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.
The probability that this is caused by natural climatic processes alone is less than 5%.
In the face of that, how can you say there is "very little evidence for man-made climate change"?
You need to stop listening to politicians and do some independent research. The science is critically important. As I mentioned before, if global warming is man-made, how come temperature changes on earth are closely linked to temperature changes on Venus, on Mars, on the moons of Jupiter, and on Pluto?
No doubt governments do exploit fear to promote their political agendas so the intelligent person needs to do their own reading (wide reading) and not just believe what they are told.
On this, we are very much agreed. All I ask is that each of remain teachable and not fall foul of government propaganda machines.
Do I take it from your question that you are a meteorologist with advanced science degrees?
PhD in physics.
Thanks for putting your arguments well. There isn't consensus either way on this topic, so more work is needed. What really bugs me, though, is how governments use it to scare us into giving up our freedoms. It's OK to promote responsible behaviour. It's not OK for governments to dictate how we live. And when I see a government suppressing research performed by its own scientists, then you know something is amiss.
Cornish Steve: You didn't provide the citations I requested. All your claims are unsupported.
Cornish Steve
3rd July 2009, 17:38
You want some references:
Global warming on Mars. (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html)
Global warming on Pluto (http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html).
Global warming on Jupiter (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12631330/).
Global warming on a moon of Neptune (http://science.nasa.gov/current/event/mit.htm).
Governments deliberately fudging the numbers (http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/GWvenus.htm).
Letter of resignation from the IPCC (http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html): "I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound."
Scientists who have changed their mind and are now skeptics (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12).
Another scientist changes his mind (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24036736-7583,00.html). "When the facts change, I change my mind."
Global warming models exaggerate and don't fit the facts (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2004/0315humidity.html).
If you'd like, I can quote you plenty of independent sources that show how governments are manipulating data, how the integrity of honest scientists is being questioned, how governments pull funding for scientists who disagree with their global warming story, how Al Gore's analysis is flawed in hundreds of ways, and more.
My PhD research involved the use of computer modeling. On one occasion, my model predicted a peak in the specific heat of a particular substance. This generated enormous excitement because it looked like the model supported a developing theory about a new kind of phase change. When I went back and carefully checked the numbers, I realised that, for a certain range of temperatures, my model was multiplying a very large number by a very small number. In essence, it meant the peak in the graph was the result of rounding; it was imaginary - and so was the prediction of a phase change.
We all know the stories about how the very smallest of changes can radically affect what a model predicts - the wings of a butterfly beating and all that. Once again, it shows how temperamental models can be.
All of the global warming hoopla right now is based on computer models. Some models have been shown to predict a rise in temperatures even when fed random input data. In other words, the models were rigged. Other models are based on assumptions that wildly exaggerate the effects of CO2 or that contradict data when we go and look for it.
In 1953, the retiring president of the British Astronomy Society (if I remember correctly) lamented the fact that science is being turned on its head. Instead of going on a wild adventure looking for data and then interpreting that data, scientists were looking to make a name for themselves by publicizing a new idea and then looking for facts to back up their claim (confirmation bias). The impact of the media has only accelerated that trend. If you want to be famous right now, come up with a model that predicts an even more alarming rise in temperatures. If you want to lose your government funding, interpret data so it shows the government is wrong on global warming.
It's wrong to put scientists in such a situation, and it's worrying that we're falling for the biggest fraud in recent history.
Steve: I've looked at each of your 9 references. I will number them in the order you list them. I will reply separately on your general points.
[1] reports that warming on Mars is happening but gives the explanation that this warming is caused by alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, therefore the warming of Mars is not due to the same cause as the warming on Earth.
[2] reports that Pluto appears to be warming but quotes an astronomy professor involved in the work as saying Pluto's global warming is "likely not connected with that of the Earth".
[3] reports that there are storms on Jupiter that started nearly 90 years ago that are transferring heat from the poles to the equator. It doesn't seem to say that Jupiter is heating up overall.
[4] states a temperature increase on one of the moons of Neptune has been inferred from an observed increase in atmospheric pressure. The scientists involved say that the warming trend could be driven by seasonal changes, which on that moon occur every few hundred years, not annually as on Earth. If so, then the causes are not the same as on Earth.
[5] presents a calculation based upon the average temperatures of Earth and Venus and the relative percentages of greenhouse gases. It makes some assumptions about how to calculate the effective concentration of greenhouse gases. It then makes the assumption that temperature is related to effective concentration of greenhouse gases by a power law. It then predicts that a doubling of CO2 would cause a temperature increase of 0.47C, which it says would not be catastrophic. In any predictive model, one has uncertainties due to lack of knowledge ("epistemic uncertainty") and uncertainties arising from natural unpredictable variation in the system under study ("aleatory uncertainty"). The author of the article (it is not a peer-reviewed paper by the way) does not discuss either type of uncertainty nor does he estimate confidence intervals on his result. Given the several assumptions he has made, and the lack of discussion of uncertainties, I don't think his result has much credibility. Given the uncertainties in this subject, any result should not be a single number but a number with confidence limits, a probability distribution, or best of all an envelope of probability distributions ("p-box").
[6] is a letter of resignation from a scientist who had participated in the Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) because he felt the part of the IPCC in which he had participated had become politicized. While interesting and worrisome, this does not tell us anything about climate change.
[7] is an article by a politician saying that more people are becoming skeptical about climate change. I'm not going to take any notice of this (a) because it's an article by a politician and (b) my views don't depend on how many people think one way and how many the other.
[8] is an article by a scientist, David Evans, who says the "greenhouse signature" is missing. There is a good rebuttal to David Evans at http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/the_australians_war_on_science_16.php.
[9] This article states that the earth warms in response to human emissions of greenhouse gases. Yet you present it as evidence for global warming not being man made. The article seems to undermine rather than support your view.
We all know the stories about how the very smallest of changes can radically affect what a model predicts - the wings of a butterfly beating and all that. Once again, it shows how temperamental models can be.
I totally agree.
In 1953, the retiring president of the British Astronomy Society (if I remember correctly) lamented the fact that science is being turned on its head. Instead of going on a wild adventure looking for data and then interpreting that data, scientists were looking to make a name for themselves by publicizing a new idea and then looking for facts to back up their claim (confirmation bias). The impact of the media has only accelerated that trend. If you want to be famous right now, come up with a model that predicts an even more alarming rise in temperatures. If you want to lose your government funding, interpret data so it shows the government is wrong on global warming.
I don't entirely disagree but it does not mean that man-made global warming is not real.
I somewhat disagree in that I think some people are trying to become famous by interpreting the data to try to show there is no mand-made climate change. And that is enormously appealing to some political groups.
It's wrong to put scientists in such a situation, and it's worrying that we're falling for the biggest fraud in recent history.
While there are certainly many researchers making money out of the climate change scare, I hope at the end of the day it will not turn out to have been a fraud. My gut feeling is it's not a fraud. My armchair logic (on top of my reading) tells me climate change is a very real hazard. But I hope I'm wrong.
Cornish Steve
3rd July 2009, 21:52
Just the facts, Watson, the facts. :)
I was a scientist for long enough to know that what matters are the facts; it's important to separate them from arm-waving. When work is published in the scientific press, it's usually clear which assertions are supported by the data and which ideas are speculation. In the popular press, however, personal, even unfounded, explanations are raised to the level of affirmation. The fact is that, during the 100 years when the earth was warming, these other moons and planets in our solar system were also warming. A while back, I remember reading an article that shows there's some correlation - but I couldn't find it when searching earlier.
When you read some of the quoted articles, though, you'll see statements like "scientists are puzzled why this is; it's suggested that...". In other words, they aren't sure, more work needs to be done, but they're pressed to give an opinion anyway. In the current climate when funding is taken away for challenging the idea of 'man-made global warming', that opinion won't appear that often.
All we ever hear from the government and official news sources is how temperatures are rising, ice is melting, and we're to blame. The truth is that temperatures have dropped dramatically in the last decade, ice in the Antarctic is becoming much thicker, and we probably have little to do with either. The human race has far more to fear from global cooling than from global warming because it would dramatically affect the world's food supply.
If everything is so obvious, why is the current US administration so intent on suppressing opinions contrary to their ideology? Surely we should welcome transparency because we want to get it right.
Cornish Steve
4th July 2009, 03:39
If you'd like to read more about 700+ leading scientists who dissent, this is a good source (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7). They work in climatology, geology, biology, glaciology, biogeography, meteorology, oceanography, economics, chemistry, mathematics, environmental sciences, astrophysics, engineering, physics, and paleoclimatology. Some have won Nobel Prizes and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore.
Here are some comments from these scientists, many of whom chose to leave the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than continue the masquerade. It takes courage to stand up against the world's governments and put your entire career and reputation at risk.
I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion. Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming. Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akedemi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former member of Greenpeace.
The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over our lives, incomes and decision making. Award-winning NASA astronaut/geologist and moon-walker Jack Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and US Geological Survey.
The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models that do not include, for example, [the effects of] solar activity. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists. Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming. U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC. The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium, which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’ Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control. It became an ideology, which is concerning. Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
How are these scientists treated for daring to challenge unsubstantiated government dogma? Let me quote: Dr. William M. Briggs, a climate statistician who serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee, explained that his colleagues described “absolute horror stories of what happened to them when they tried getting papers published that explored non-‘consensus’ views.” In a March 4, 2008 report, Briggs described the behaviour as “outrageous and unethical. I was shocked.”
Thanks, Steve. I will take a look at the cited report.
Average temperatures have fallen quite dramatically over the last ten years.
Temperature data are available at http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/uahncdc.lt. I copied the page, pasted it into Excel, and plotted the data (see graph). These data are molecular sounding unit satellite data for the last 29 years. You will see that the 29-year trend is upwards (global average temperature increasing by 0.13C per year on average). Temperatures spiked in 1998 due to El Nino. Since then temperatures have been relatively flat but still amongst the warmest in the 29 year record. Your claim that "average temperatures have fallen quite dramatically in the last 10 years is therefore completely wrong.
http://cvs.fileave.com/temperature_plot.gif
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 00:13
I was looking for a chart I came across several months ago, but for the moment let me quote this excerpt from a US government site:
All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously. A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down. […] Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
And here's a chart for the previous 20 year period:
http://images.dailytech.com/nimage/7390_hadcrut.jpg
What your chart doesn't show is that (if I remember correctly) 3 of the 5 hottest days in the previous 100 years were in the 1930s.
... ice in the Antarctic is becoming much thicker...
You can't use regional data to disprove a global trend.
In any case, NASA said Antartic ice has been losing mass,http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/mar/HQ_06085_arctic_ice.html.
I see the Arctic ice is getting thinner, http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2009-04-06-arctic-sea-ice_N.htm, and at a faster rate than predicted by the IPCC Fourth Report.
The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year time. For all sources, it's the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down.
The figures you quote seems to be from the high in January 07 to the low in January 08. The data I plotted gives +0.59C (Jan 07) and -0.05C (Jan 08) for a range of 0.64C, which is consistent with your numbers. The problem is not with the numbers you quote but with the interpretation you give.
It is not "the single fastest temperature change every recorded, either up or down". Looking at data points 12 months apart, there were 7 larger swings in the last 29 years. The largest was a swing from -0.21C in April 97 to +0.76C in April 98, for a total range of +0.88C. I think you can see that spike in your graph as well as in mine. So what you are looking at from 2007 to 2008 is a fairly normal annual oscillation. And by the way, the temperature came back up again in 2009 after that dip in 2008.
I know the interpretation you gave is not your own because the exact same words are to be found on a number of anti-AGW websites, including the blogs of Rush Limbaugh and James Inhofe.
What a low opinion these politicians must have of people's intelligence that they present a graph and expect people not to be able to read it correctly. I'm surprised that you, with your PhD in Physics, were apparently taken in by the misleading interpretation given.
I am sure there are lots of skeptics of integrity out there but it is clear that there are also many people who want to deny the AGW problem exists irrespective of the evidence -- these include the fossil fuel companies, the large users of fossil fuels, and conservatives who don't like government interference in business.
Here are some comments from these scientists, many of whom chose to leave the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rather than continue the masquerade. It takes courage to stand up against the world's governments and put your entire career and reputation at risk.
I am sure there are lots of honest people in the skeptic camp but no doubt also some who are being taken care of quite nicely by the fossil fuel companies and others who see it as easier to make a name by dissenting than agreeing.
Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.
The risks associated with anthropogenic global warming should be assessed scientifically not on the basis of anecdotes.
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 03:11
I wish I had the time to find the graphs etc. to back up my previous statements, but it is July 4 today, I am days away from launching my company's product, and I'm just a little stretched for time. :) I posted the graph above as it shows the very sudden drop in temperatures we've experienced, but I will try to find the one that shows how the recent drop is comparable to the rise in the previous century.
The point I've been making is how governments are suppressing good science. A large number of scientists are now skeptics of man-made global warming, but they suffer consequences for standing up and saying so. Al Gore, for example, equates them to "flat earth" proponents. Just think about that: a politician and non-scientist having the gall to tell some of the world's leading scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner of physics and some scientists who shared Gore's award but who have since changed their minds, that they are akin to "flat earth" proponents. It's nothing short of preposterous - yet it's Al and friends who dominate the airwaves and generate billions in funding.
From the perspective of science, it seems a majority of scientists now believe man has little to do with global warming. A sizable number of scientists believe we could be in for a period of global cooling (which would be far more disastrous). Yet the governments of the world are suppressing this information. Why? Because it very much suits their purpose. The power of government grows exponentially, and it will be very difficult to undo that particular trend.
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 03:21
OK. Here is a graph of global temperatures over the previous 50 years. You can see that the recent temperature drop has taken us back to where we started. (Still looking to the 100-year chart I saw a while ago.)
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArchaeologyMag_files/image007.jpg
And remember that three of the five years in the 20th century with the highest temperatures were in the 1930s (which isn't even shown on this chart).
As for ice melting in the Arctic, compare current melting with what happened in previous years - from 1500. Global warming in the 1920s, for example, was most definitely not caused by CO2 - so why believe it's any different today?
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/ArchaeologyMag_files/image034.jpg
And as you pointed out yourself, the recent buildup of ice in the Antarctic is significant.
It's clear to most scientists that the sun cycle is the primary cause of such effects - and it's almost certainly the cause of any global warming today. The preponderance of evidence is that it is not man-made.
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 03:37
But let's not get distracted by "my charts are better than your charts". Let's get back to the comments of hundreds of scientists who believe the UN and governments of the world are deliberately sabotaging science for the sake of ideology. To repeat some of the quotes I mentioned above:
I am a skeptic. Global warming has become a new religion. Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly. As a scientist I remain skeptical. Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called "among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years."
Warming fears are the worst scientific scandal in history. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists. U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
So far, real measurements give no ground for concern about a catastrophic future warming. Dr. Jarl Ahlbeck, a chemical engineer at Abo Akedemi University in Finland, author of 200 scientific publications and former member of Greenpeace.
The 'global warming scare' is being used as a political tool to increase government control over our lives, incomes and decision making. Award-winning NASA astronaut/geologist and moon-walker Jack Schmitt, who flew on the Apollo 17 mission and formerly of the Norwegian Geological Survey and US Geological Survey.
The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models that do not include, for example, [the effects of] solar activity. Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn't listen to others. It doesn't have open minds. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists. Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into anthropogenic global warming. U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will. Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
Earth has cooled since 1998 in defiance of the predictions by the UN-IPCC. The global temperature for 2007 was the coldest in a decade and the coldest of the millennium, which is why ‘global warming’ is now called ‘climate change.’ Climatologist Dr. Richard Keen of the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado.
Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact. Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
Many [scientists] are now searching for a way to back out quietly (from promoting warming fears), without having their professional careers ruined. Atmospheric physicist James A. Peden, formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh, Pa.
Creating an ideology pegged to carbon dioxide is a dangerous nonsense. The present alarm on climate change is an instrument of social control. It became an ideology, which is concerning. Environmental Scientist Professor Delgado Domingos of Portugal, the founder of the Numerical Weather Forecast group, has more than 150 published articles.
The [global warming] scaremongering has its justification in the fact that it is something that generates funds. Award-winning Paleontologist Dr. Eduardo Tonni, of the Committee for Scientific Research in Buenos Aires and head of the Paleontology Department at the University of La Plata.
What is your response to these leading scientists of the world? Do you trust Al Gore and UN politicians more than these researchers?
You can see that the recent temperature drop has taken us back to where we started.
Yes, but you are comparing a recent low point with an early high (or highish) point, which is a very odd thing to do. One does not determine trends by picking two points at random! Why don't you add a regression line? You would find that the regression line has positive slope.
Just out of curiosity, why is the mean temperature of the order of (-)16C?
What is your response to these leading scientists of the world? Do you trust Al Gore and UN politicians more than these researchers?
Those quotes were collated by conservative/libertarian US politicians to support their agenda. They have not chosen to collect opinions from those scientists who are convinced that AGW is a real problem.
The deliberate misinterpretation of the temperature graph exposed in this thread shows that these politicians are only too willing to use bad science to achieve their ends.
A sizable number of scientists believe we could be in for a period of global cooling (which would be far more disastrous). Yet the governments of the world are suppressing this information. Why? Because it very much suits their purpose. The power of government grows exponentially, and it will be very difficult to undo that particular trend.
I don't put it past any government to suppress information -- nor do I put it past the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation on the risks of anthropogenic global warming.
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 21:44
I don't put it past any government to suppress information -- nor do I put it past the fossil fuel industry to spread misinformation on the risks of anthropogenic global warming.
None of the scientists I quoted above are on the payroll of the fossil fuel industry. Many, on the other hand, work (or worked) for governments or for Al Gore or the UN's IPCC. They are sick and tired of how their work is being undermined, funding is pulled when you disagree with the propaganda, and misinformation is being pushed through the popular media in order to create panic. This is a classic case of governments manipulating a situation in order to assume greater power. We're fools if we let them get away with it.
Cornish Steve
5th July 2009, 21:46
Those quotes were collated by conservative/libertarian US politicians to support their agenda.
Let's restate that: The quotes come from a report created by members of the US Congress and made available through the US government's own website. The last time I checked, no libertarians are members of Congress, and not all the report's authors can be classed as conservative.
Stop trying to use politics to dismiss valid statements by some of the world's top scientists. Plenty of people in authority are smearing their reputations as it is.
Let's restate that: The quotes come from a report created by members of the US Congress and made available through the US government's own website. The last time I checked, no libertarians are members of Congress, and not all the report's authors can be classed as conservative.
Stop trying to use politics to dismiss valid statements by some of the world's top scientists. Plenty of people in authority are smearing their reputations as it is.
The report's authors are not stated as far as I can see. However, it is published by the office of James Inhofe, a Republican senator, an extreme conservative, and the nation's most prominent denier of man-made global warming. Inhofe has stated that the idea of man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated. He has likened it to the Nazi hoax on the German people about the Jews.
This report, emanating from Inhofe's office, is a collection of quotations from people on one side of the global warming debate - Inhofe's side of the debate. It is a political. not a scientific, document.
What you call valid statements by top scientists are, in this report, just expressions of personal opinion. The personal opinions of top scientists on the other side of the debate did not make it into Inhofe's report.
Such a selective compilation of quotations is of little or no use to anyone wanting to make an informed judgment on whether global warming has a significant man-made component.
Cornish Steve
6th July 2009, 00:08
Such a selective compilation of quotations is of little or no use to anyone wanting to make an informed judgment on whether global warming has a significant man-made component.
Then maybe it helps to redress the balance. At a recent scientific conference related to global warming, two-thirds of scientists attending were skeptics of man-made causes (and it was not a gathering based on ideology). You'd never believe that when listening to Al Gore compare them with 'flat earth' proponents.
The only answer to propaganda is transparency and the right to hear all sides of an argument. The governments of the world are trying to suppress the words of their opponents on this issue - and that ought to cause genuine alarm. Thank goodness for an Internet that is (or, at least, appears to be) genuinely free.
The governments of the world are trying to suppress the words of their opponents on this issue - and that ought to cause genuine alarm. Thank goodness for an Internet that is (or, at least, appears to be) genuinely free.
Coming back to science, it is my understanding that models have been unable to reproduce global warming over the last 100 years by modeling natural sources of warming alone. Is it your claim that models have been developed that consider only natural sources and which fit the observations? If so, perhaps you would suggest a good reference (scientific, not political, please!)?
Cornish Steve
6th July 2009, 01:00
Let's go back to one of the scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Manuel_Velasco_Herrera) quoted earlier. The models used by the IPCC deliberately exclude the impact of solar activity, whereas very many scientists believe the sun cycle is at least a contributing factor if not the only real factor in changing temperature patterns.
As I mentioned before, I modeled system behaviour as part of my physics research. Perhaps the most critical decision is deciding which factors to include and which to exclude. For example, should particle sizes be estimated based on a normal or log-normal distribution? You try one, then the other, and see what difference it makes. If the difference is negligible, you can choose one and move on.
What you don't do is deliberately exclude a factor that many leading scientists believe to be important. When you do something like that, it's clear what you're trying to do: You're starting with a preconceived notion and you're building a model designed to 'prove' your notion. Such an approach totally undermines the scientific method.
Add to this the fact that some of the early famous papers about global warming used a model that would predict rapid warming even using random input data and you begin to get a clear picture of what's going on. More and more scientists see through the farce and won't be a party to it. Some of us have a conscience.
So no actual peer reviewed papers to show that global warming can be explained by considering only natural souces?
Cornish Steve
6th July 2009, 02:03
Oh, come on. :rolleyes: Do you honestly think members of this business forum should go searching the latest scientific abstracts to quote from specific journal papers? There are thousands of papers on the subject, from all perspectives. I've already quoted many scientists who have published peer-reviewed articles on the subject. Do you really want journal name, year, volume, and page numbers?!
You need only read the shock-horror headlines when another set of scientists publish results that contradict government ideology to know the debate is raging in the world of science right now. Despite the desires of global warming alarmists, the issue will not go away because scientists are, at heart, very objective people and will not be bullied. Plus, from the very fact that so many have changed their minds on this, you can see that scientists tend to be rather more teachable than those with a political agenda.
If you want a truly scientific discussion on the matter, I'm sure there are science forums that will satisfy your need. These are business forums - even though we do get into an amazingly wide variety of side topics. :)
OK, Steve, let's leave it at that. You've made lots of assertions that you've failed to back up with any evidence, in my opinion.
Cornish Steve
6th July 2009, 02:49
Similar to what Holmes said in his first meeting with Professor Moriarty, I can agree with the former but not the latter. :)
Then let's agree to disgaree :). This is my last post on this thread. Bye and good luck!
wilfredw
6th July 2009, 08:50
See Steve, you've met someone with good counter arguments :)
Cornish Steve
6th July 2009, 12:46
See Steve, you've met someone with good counter arguments :)
I have no problem with someone who argues objectively and is prepared to see both sides. It's the ideologues who believe everything the government throws at them that begin to irritate. Our friend in this thread has strong opinions, but at least he/she comes across as reasonable and possibly even open to change if the facts become indisputable. Were that more shared that attitude.
Cornish Steve
15th July 2009, 13:36
Here's what cap-and-trade in the US really means.
Goldman Sachs, the large investment firm, made more than $2 billion in profit last year, paid its CEO over $40 million, and paid precisely zero in federal income tax. They happen to own 10% of the Chicago Climate Exchange, where all cap-and-trade deals must be made and they'll earn commissions. Oh, and don't you know, they donated almost $1 million to President Obama's campaign. Then there's Al Gore, whose personal net worth has increased to more than $100 million since he decided to lead the man-made global warming fraud.
Does it now begin to make sense? Follow the money.