Global Warming - the Final Word

**DrB0b** · 12-09-2007, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon

I bet the dinosaurs were really POed about the Ice Age, too..

Only the really, really, long-lived ones

**Robski** · 12-09-2007, 02:50 AM

Oh nooooo! He said his name!! That's this discussion out the window. LOL

Tell you what I find funny,
somebody says global warming is not man made because cattle produce more carbon dioxide than all the cars and trucks in the world
and people go, ah well that's ok then it's not our fault and my five litre SUV has less impact than a herd of cattle,
damn it I am enviromentally friendly.
It's just what they want to hear, but hold on how do they measure how much gas all the cattle in the world are producing?
Who is funding this research? Seriously who is funding it?
What is funny though, in a tragi-comic kinda way, cows are domesticated animals, domesticated,
before man came along there wasn't any, well not enough to fill a hot air ballon with gas anyway,
soooo...... that shoots that fucking argument down,
unless you drive an SUV of course.

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 02:53 AM

Robski, I thought you'd be cheering advocating the death of yet another American as you so proudly proclaimed yesterday. Surprising.

**Robski** · 12-09-2007, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Robski, I thought you'd be cheering advocating the death of yet another American as you so proudly proclaimed yesterday. Surprising.

Did I say American, did I mention America? er.... are you American?

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by Robski

Originally Posted by chinthee

Robski, I thought you'd be cheering advocating the death of yet another American as you so proudly proclaimed yesterday. Surprising.

Did I say American, did I mention America? er.... are you American?

I have the luxury of having been born American but living my entire life everywhere else. I can see all sides of the arguments. Al Gore brought the spotlight to this issue, and was preaching to the Americans to modify their lifestyle chiefly as among his goals. Nothing wrong with that.

The issue needs attention. Experts can't agree on the causes yet. But, I suspect strongly that many of the causes are man-made. Having said that, how do you get the Americans to give up their God-given lifestyle? Same story with regard to the rest of the developed world to a lesser degree.

Meanwhile, the developing countries are feeling they came late to the party, and nobody will preach to them.

**Robski** · 12-09-2007, 03:15 AM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by Robski

Originally Posted by chinthee

Robski, I thought you'd be cheering advocating the death of yet another American as you so proudly proclaimed yesterday. Surprising.

Did I say American, did I mention America? er.... are you American?

I have the luxury of having been born American but living my entire life everywhere else. I can see all sides of the arguments. Al Gore brought the spotlight to this issue, and was preaching to the Americans to modify their lifestyle chiefly as among his goals. Nothing wrong with that.

The issue needs attention. Experts can't agree on the causes yet. But, I suspect strongly that many of the causes are man-made. Having said that, how do you get the Americans to give up their God-given lifestyle? Same story with regard to the rest of the developed world to a lesser degree.

Meanwhile, the developing countries are feeling they came late to the party, and nobody will preach to them.

So did I say American? or are you just trying to 'supress' me?

**Dr Zaius** · 12-09-2007, 02:57 AM

^^^ That mans' involvement only weighs merit to our sides' argument that there is a scam involved. His - & not only his - fingers are in the till, for sure.

**Robski** · 12-09-2007, 03:13 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

^^^ That mans' involvement only weighs merit to our sides' argument that there is a scam involved. His - & not only his - fingers are in the till, for sure.

Oh yeh guilty as hell, no pulling the wool over your eyes eh Doc?

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 02:59 AM

Scam eh? Yeah well maybe. But, you have a new emerging class of Chinese, Indian, and others who also want the good life, also want SUVs, and their argument is that now that they have finally arrived, you want to snatch it from them and keep them supressed as usual.

**Dr Zaius** · 12-09-2007, 03:03 AM

Originally Posted by chinthee

you want to snatch it from them and keep them supressed as usual

They're suppressed by their governments or let down by regimes in their own country. What has that got to do with me?

I'm sure the last thing on their minds is saving the planet.

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Originally Posted by chinthee

you want to snatch it from them and keep them supressed as usual

They surpressed by their governments or let down by regimes in their own country. What has that got to do with me?

I'm sure the last thing on their minds is saving the planet.

Exactly. India and China rely heavily on coal power, with some of the world's largest reserves. Not exactly a clean fuel source. Meanwhile, affluence has arrived, and they want to enjoy it and will. The roads in China and India are clogged beyond belief. I know, I spend lots of time in both countries. But, they will not be denied.

Let the Europeans and Americans cut back. They're already enjoyed the good life. Not them.

**attaboy** · 12-09-2007, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by chinthee

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Originally Posted by chinthee

you want to snatch it from them and keep them supressed as usual

They surpressed by their governments or let down by regimes in their own country. What has that got to do with me?

I'm sure the last thing on their minds is saving the planet.

Exactly. India and China rely heavily on coal power, with some of the world's largest reserves. Not exactly a clean fuel source. Meanwhile, affluence has arrived, and they want to enjoy it and will. The roads in China and India are clogged beyond belief. I know, I spend lots of time in both countries. But, they will not be denied.

Let the Europeans and Americans cut back. They're already enjoyed the good life. Not them.

(highlighted by me)
We're not talking about taking turns on the swing. If the party is over, the party is over for everyone. If we strangle our economies businesses will relocate. They'll take their wealth and knowledge with them if there are less regulated places (like China and India) to set up shop. We'd be enriching our competitors whilst diminishing ourselves.

During the summer I leave the windows open to cool the house. A black soot carried over from China settles on my window sills. China's economy grows at 8-12% a year. They can afford to install scrubbers on their smokestacks. Best to do it now while their economy is still hot.

In school I was taught that 90% of the US's swamps had been drained. Swamps are a source of methane gas. I wonder what horrific effect that has had on our atmosphere not having all that methane bubbling up and escaping into the air. The cows may have picked up the slack and saved us all.

**Dr Zaius** · 12-09-2007, 03:09 AM

China & India will get where they want to go, by hook or by crook, in the end.

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 03:16 AM

^ Don't confuse "supress" with "provoke"

**Robski** · 12-09-2007, 03:21 AM

Originally Posted by chinthee

^ Don't confuse "supress" with "provoke"

That's oppress you doofus!

**chinthee** · 12-09-2007, 03:25 AM

Originally Posted by Robski

Originally Posted by chinthee

^ Don't confuse "supress" with "provoke"

That's oppress you doofus!

**AntRobertson** · 12-09-2007, 09:52 AM

'Global Warming? What Global Warming!?!...'

**Propagator** · 13-09-2007, 01:33 AM

There is climate change but not everyone can point to specific instances of this. In my line of work and with any other people that work the land they will say climate is changeing. Now here I am only speaking about the UK so cannot vouch for any other countries.

Last year for the first time in my horticultural career I was mowing grass throughout the whole year. Bushes and flowers dont know where they are and are blooming later or earlier whichever the case may be and some having two flowerings in the same year. I don't think that we have had a cold winter here for about 5 years now.

OK we have had a very unusual year this year, warm in Jan Feb and March, hot for April and part of May then the rains for a few months, which has meant bumper crops for those that could survive the rains. I could go on with numerous examples, but dont want to bore. Suffice to say that it does affect me in that I have to try and change all my schedules to try and keep gardens neat and tidy - but there aint enough hours in the day

Unforunately the powers to be (those in power and the wanna-bes) are all jumping on the band wagon of this global warning. Wanting to introduce new taxes for this or that and putting it down to making our planet greener. OK if the money that is raised is transparently used for measures against climate change, perhaps little would be said, but we all know that it is another stealth tax to line the coffers of the Government. Take the drastic increase in Passenger Flight Levy Tax which was doubled last year (or this), all on the idea of helping to make out country greener. What bollux, more like 'if the buggers can afford to fly they can give me some more money'.

OK rant over - just my 2ps worth

**Hootad Binky** · 13-09-2007, 02:13 AM

^ Methane is a far stronger greenhouse gas than C02.

Global warming/cooling is a natural process; the worry is that human activity is supercharging the current warming trend, and it's a fact that man-made greenhouse gases are increasing and indeed the planet is heating up. These are facts.

The long-term effects are indeed speculative, but continued species extinction is assured (polar bears, for instance; even Galapagos coral is dying as a result of warming phenomenon like El Nino) as well as warmer water powering stronger hurricanes and melting sea ice and raising water levels.

For better or worse, our grandchildren will find out what the long-term effects will be; we will be largely spared.

Interestingly, "global dimming" caused by airplane contrails may be masking the full effects of global warming:

Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth's surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in 1950s. It is thought to have been caused by an increase in particulates such as sulfur aerosols in the atmosphere due to human action. The effect varied by location, but worldwide it was of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. The trend reversed during the past decade. Global dimming has interfered with the hydrological cycle by reducing evaporation and may have caused droughts in some areas. Global dimming also creates a cooling effect that may have partially masked the effect of greenhouse gases on global warming.

Global dimming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

**attaboy** · 13-09-2007, 03:42 AM

I don't believe we are contributing that extra umph to tip us past some point of no return. It will happen despite what we do either way. Having a clear conscious by acquiescing to new taxes isn't going to save us. If disaster is coming as quickly as they say it is, a person would have to be a fool to rely on the government to save their ass. I recommend owning property with a water source capable of sustaining yourself and the necessary number of family members needed to protect it.

**kingwilly** · 13-09-2007, 08:01 AM

here go - check this

Andrew Bolt

Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 08:51am

The Hudson Institute’s Dennis Avery and prominent climate physicist S. Fred Singer have combed through the global warming science:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that
1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that
2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance…
3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly;
4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings;
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Not that you’ve seen much of this research reported in the media, addicted as it is to catastrophe and the new faith.

**DrB0b** · 13-09-2007, 10:24 AM

Double post.

**DrB0b** · 13-09-2007, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by kingwilly

here go - check this

Andrew Bolt

Thursday, September 13, 2007 at 08:51am

The Hudson Institute’s Dennis Avery and prominent climate physicist S. Fred Singer have combed through the global warming science:

A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that
1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that
2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun’s irradiance…
3) sea levels are failing to rise importantly;
4) that our storms and droughts are becoming fewer and milder with this warming as they did during previous global warmings;
5) that human deaths will be reduced with warming because cold kills twice as many people as heat; and 6) that corals, trees, birds, mammals, and butterflies are adapting well to the routine reality of changing climate.

Not that you’ve seen much of this research reported in the media, addicted as it is to catastrophe and the new faith.

Bullshit, the media is full of Singers and Avery's work. While the media does love disasters it also like to make it's readers/viewers feel smart by pointing out that the doom-mongering poindexters aren't as clever as they think.

There are thousands of scientists who agree on the problem of global warming yet the people who don't want to believe ignore all of them and fall back on the very few, almost invariably corporate supported scientists who do. Asking these "scientists" for their opinion is akin to asking Keruk his opinion on increasing the number of synagogues in the world. Every time I see an article like this I check any references I can find to the quoted authorities, I suggest you do too and stop believing things just because they say what you want to hear. I doubt it will happen, people are just too damn ignorant - in a world where the majority of people believe the universe is controlled by malignant sky demons it's just too much to hope that they'll actually make an attempt to understand anything outside their preconceived notions.

Singer is a corporate shill for the oil companies

S. Fred Singer
Affiliations

1989- Director and President, Science and Environmental Policy Project, a foundation-funded, independent research group, incorporated in 1992, to advance environment and health policies through sound science. SEPP is a non-profit, education organization.
1993- Member of the board of the International Center for a Scientific Ecology.
1994- Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies at George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.
2002 Advisory Board Member, American Council on Science and Health
Editorial Advisory Board, The Cato Institute
Adjunct Scholar, National Center for Policy Analysis
Adjunct Fellow, Frontiers of Freedom
2006- Member of the Science Advisory Committee for the Natural Resources Stewardship Project.

It should be noted that, according to Environmental Defense, October 26, 2005: [3]

The Cato Institute received $55,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The National Center for Policy Analysis received $105,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The Frontiers of Freedom organizations received $282,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.
The American Council on Science and Health received $35,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002-2003.

Avery is primarily a food scientist, before he jumped on the Global warming bandwagon (strangely, it's the global-warming deniers who make lots of money from it rather than the oft-repeated myth about scientists who believe in global warming making the whole thing up so they can get huge wads of free research cash) he was most famous for saying that organic food was more dangerous than food treated with pesticides. He's part of the Hudson institute, where do they get their funding?

The Hudson Institute's IRS Form 990 for the financial year ending on September 30, 2003 showed total revenue of $9.34 million, including over $146,000 in government grants. Other known funders listed in the institute's 2002 annual report include:

Ag Processing Inc
American Crop Protection Association
American Cyanamid
Archer Daniels Midland
Cargill
Ciba-Geigy
ConAgra Foods
Conrad Black
CropLife International
DowElanco
DuPont
Eli Lilly and Company
Exxon Mobil
Fannie Mae
General Electric Fund
Heinz
IBM
Lilly Endowment
McDonald's
Merck
Microsoft
Monsanto
National Agricultural Chemical Association
Nichols-Dezenhall Communications Management Group
Novartis
PayPal
PhRMA
PriceWaterhouseCoopers
Procter & Gamble
Sunkist Growers
Syngenta Crop Protection
United Agri Products
Westfield Corporation

Follow the money.

Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air
RealClimate » Avery and Singer: Unstoppable hot air

— david @ 4:28 PM
Filed under:

Last week I attended a talk by Dennis Avery, author with Fred Singer of Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years (there is a summary here). The talk (and tasty lunch) was sponsored by the Heartland Institute, and was apparently enthusiastically received by its audience. Still whoozy from a bit of contention during the question period, a perplexed member of the audience told me privately that he thought a Point/CounterPoint discussion might be useful (he didn't know I wrote for realclimate; it was just a hypothetical thought). But here’s my attempt to accommodate.
Note: The Points are paraphrases from the slides and my notes from Avery’s talk.

Point. The existence of the medieval warm and the Little Ice Age climate intervals, and the 1500 year D-O cycles in glacial climate, proves that the warming in the past decades is a natural phenomenon, not caused by human industry at all.

CounterPoint. The existence of climate changes in the past is not news to the climate change scientific community; there is a whole chapter about it in the upcoming IPCC Scientific Assessment. Nor do past, natural variations in climate negate the global warming forecast. Most past climate changes, like the glacial interglacial cycle, can be explained based on changes in solar heating and greenhouse gases, but the warming in the last few decades cannot be explained without the impact of human-released greenhouse gases. Avery was very careful to crop his temperature plots at 1985, rather than show the data to 2005.

Point. Hundreds of researchers have published on the Little Ice Age and Medieval warm climates, proving that there is no scientific consensus on global warming.

CounterPoint. Natural and human-induced climate changes both exist. Studying one does not imply disbelief in the other.

Point. Human populations of Europe and India thrived during the medieval warm time, so clearly warming is good for us.

CounterPoint. No one asserts that the present-day warmth is a calamity, although perhaps some residents of Tuvalu or New Orleans might feel differently, and the Mayans may have been less than enthusiastic about the medieval climate. The projected temperature for 2100 under business-as-usual is another matter entirely, warmer than the Earth has been in millions of years.

Point. NASA identified a huge energy hole over the tropical Pacific, which sucked out as much heat as doubling CO2. NASA scientists asked modelers to replicate this, and they failed, by 200-400%, even when they knew the answer in advance!

CounterPoint. This appears to be a reference to Chen et al., 2002. Satellite data from the equatorial Pacific showed an increase in IR heat flux to space of about 5 W/m2 from 1985 to 2005, and a decrease in reflected visible light of about 2 W/m2, leaving a 3 W/m2 change in net heat flux.
Avery’s implicit promise would seem to be that with rising CO2, the heavens will part and let the excess energy out, a Lindzenesque mechanism to nullify global warming. The measured change in heat fluxes in the equatorial Pacific is indeed comparable to the radiative effect of doubling CO2 but the CO2 number is a global average, while the equatorial Pacific is just one region. The measurements probably reflect a regional rearrangement of cloud cover or ocean temperature, a decadal variation with no clear implication at all for the global mean heat budget of the Earth. The global heat imbalance has been inferred (Hansen et al, Science, 2005), and it is consistent with rising greenhouse gas concentrations and transient heating of the ocean.
A word about models in science (as opposed to in think-tank economics, Mr. Avery’s home turf). Models would have little use if they were so easy to bend into any answer we thought we knew about in advance. One can always be critical of models, but there is no model that avoids global warming by parting the heavens, or that is exquisitely sensitive to solar variability but insensitive to CO2, the worlds that Mr. Avery wishes for.
Avery’s talk also dusted off many of the good old good ones, like the cosmic-ray / cloud connection, the temperature lead of CO2 through the deglaciation, the Antarctic warming, the cooling during the period 1940-1970, the now-resolved satellite temperature discrepancy from ground temperatures, and even the ancient CO2 band saturation myth.
In addition to Chen, Avery offered to us the work of Maureen Raymo and Gerard Bond. Bond didn't think his work cast any doubt on the possibility of anthropogenic warming, neither do Raymo or Chen. Hint: if you want to sound like you know what you're talking about, the accent on the fourth syllable of foraminifera, not foraminifera.

Point. Environmentalists do what they do because they miss having their mommies reading Grimm’s Fairy Tales to them. They like getting all scared.

CounterPoint. To hybrid-phrase Thomas Jefferson and Richard Feynman, I tremble for humanity when I reflect that nature cannot be fooled. You're damn right I’m scared.

**Dr Zaius** · 13-09-2007, 08:09 AM

Good article, KW.

**kingwilly** · 13-09-2007, 08:19 AM

cheers,

i've been well surprised at this sudden (ie last year or two) carry on re: global warming....

instead of spending billions of dollars tryign to prevent something that we may or not be causing and may or may not be able to do anythign about

we (humanity) should spend that money on dealing with any and all changes that do occur.

Thread: Global Warming - the Final Word

Thread Tools

Display

Hybrid View

Scientists who take money from Exxon-Mobil say Global warming OK. Surprise!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions