View Full Version : No Need to Panic About Global Warming
01-27-2012, 04:56 PM
A candidate for public office in any contemporary democracy may have to consider what, if anything, to do about "global warming." Candidates should understand that the oft-repeated claim that nearly all scientists demand that something dramatic be done to stop global warming is not true. In fact, a large and growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are needed.
In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: "I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement: 'The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth's physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.' In the APS it is OK to discuss whether the mass of the proton changes over time and how a multi-universe behaves, but the evidence of global warming is incontrovertible?"
In spite of a multidecade international campaign to enforce the message that increasing amounts of the "pollutant" carbon dioxide will destroy civilization, large numbers of scientists, many very prominent, share the opinions of Dr. Giaever. And the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year. The reason is a collection of stubborn scientific facts.
Perhaps the most inconvenient fact is the lack of global warming for well over 10 years now. This is known to the warming establishment, as one can see from the 2009 "Climategate" email of climate scientist Kevin Trenberth: "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't." But the warming is only missing if one believes computer models where so-called feedbacks involving water vapor and clouds greatly amplify the small effect of CO2.
The lack of warming for more than a decade—indeed, the smaller-than-predicted warming over the 22 years since the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) began issuing projections—suggests that computer models have greatly exaggerated how much warming additional CO2 can cause. Faced with this embarrassment, those promoting alarm have shifted their drumbeat from warming to weather extremes, to enable anything unusual that happens in our chaotic climate to be ascribed to CO2.
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.
.Although the number of publicly dissenting scientists is growing, many young scientists furtively say that while they also have serious doubts about the global-warming message, they are afraid to speak up for fear of not being promoted—or worse. They have good reason to worry. In 2003, Dr. Chris de Freitas, the editor of the journal Climate Research, dared to publish a peer-reviewed article with the politically incorrect (but factually correct) conclusion that the recent warming is not unusual in the context of climate changes over the past thousand years. The international warming establishment quickly mounted a determined campaign to have Dr. de Freitas removed from his editorial job and fired from his university position. Fortunately, Dr. de Freitas was able to keep his university job.
This is not the way science is supposed to work, but we have seen it before—for example, in the frightening period when Trofim Lysenko hijacked biology in the Soviet Union. Soviet biologists who revealed that they believed in genes, which Lysenko maintained were a bourgeois fiction, were fired from their jobs. Many were sent to the gulag and some were condemned to death.
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."
Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.
Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
A recent study of a wide variety of policy options by Yale economist William Nordhaus showed that nearly the highest benefit-to-cost ratio is achieved for a policy that allows 50 more years of economic growth unimpeded by greenhouse gas controls. This would be especially beneficial to the less-developed parts of the world that would like to share some of the same advantages of material well-being, health and life expectancy that the fully developed parts of the world enjoy now. Many other policy responses would have a negative return on investment. And it is likely that more CO2 and the modest warming that may come with it will be an overall benefit to the planet.
If elected officials feel compelled to "do something" about climate, we recommend supporting the excellent scientists who are increasing our understanding of climate with well-designed instruments on satellites, in the oceans and on land, and in the analysis of observational data. The better we understand climate, the better we can cope with its ever-changing nature, which has complicated human life throughout history. However, much of the huge private and government investment in climate is badly in need of critical review.
Every candidate should support rational measures to protect and improve our environment, but it makes no sense at all to back expensive programs that divert resources from real needs and are based on alarming but untenable claims of "incontrovertible" evidence.
Claude Allegre, former director of the Institute for the Study of the Earth, University of Paris; J. Scott Armstrong, cofounder of the Journal of Forecasting and the International Journal of Forecasting; Jan Breslow, head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University; Roger Cohen, fellow, American Physical Society; Edward David, member, National Academy of Engineering and National Academy of Sciences; William Happer, professor of physics, Princeton; Michael Kelly, professor of technology, University of Cambridge, U.K.; William Kininmonth, former head of climate research at the Australian Bureau of Meteorology; Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric sciences, MIT; James McGrath, professor of chemistry, Virginia Technical University; Rodney Nichols, former president and CEO of the New York Academy of Sciences; Burt Rutan, aerospace engineer, designer of Voyager and SpaceShipOne; Harrison H. Schmitt, Apollo 17 astronaut and former U.S. senator; Nir Shaviv, professor of astrophysics, Hebrew University, Jerusalem; Henk Tennekes, former director, Royal Dutch Meteorological Service; Antonio Zichichi, president of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva.
Editor's Note: The following has been signed by the 16 scientists listed at the end of the article.
I'm not surprised you've been a good little Sturmabteilung trooper and posted this.
I know that scientists look to WSJ op-ed pieces to learn and understand. NOT.
PS - Perhaps you can tell me what expertise Dr. Jan Breslow, (head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University) has in climate science. Any ideas, Hobo?
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2012, 11:40 PM
More proof that UltimateDoDo doesn't know his butt from a gopher hole...
Humans Are by Far the Dominant Cause of Global Warming: A Comprehensive Review of the Science (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2012/01/20/407304/humans-dominant-cause-global-warming-review-science/)
Skeptical Science reviews the scientific literature (http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html), which shows humans are the dominant cause of global warming.
by Dana Nuccitelli
At Skeptical Science, we have several recent studies which have used a number of diverse approaches to tease out the contributions of various natural and human effects to global warming. Here we will review the results of these various studies, and a few others which we have not previously examined, to see what the scientific literature and data have to say about exactly what is causing global warming.
All of these studies, using a wide range of independent methods, provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are the dominant cause of global warming over the past century, and especially over the past 50 to 65 years (Figure 1).
Figure 1: Net human and natural percent contributions to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf)
(T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1)
(S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html)
(LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html)
(HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (http://skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html)
(G12, orange). This has been added to the SkS Climate Graphics Page (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php).
Note that the numbers provided in this summary post are best estimates from each paper. For the sake of simplicity we have not included error bars, but we have provided links to the original research for those who would like to see the uncertainty ranges in each estimate.
A Quick Look at the Various Effects on Global Temperature
Most of the studies discussed below looked at the same few influences on global temperature, because they are the dominant effects.
As we know, human greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions warm the planet by increasing the abundance of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, thus increasing the greenhouse effect (http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm).
Solar activity also warms or cools the planet by increasing or decreasing the amount of radiation reaching the Earth’s atmosphere and surface.
Volcanic activity generally cools the planet over short time frames by releasing sulfate aerosols into the atmosphere, which block sunlight and reduce the amount of solar radiation reaching the surface. However, unlike many greenhouse gases, aerosols are washed out of the atmosphere quickly, mostly after just 1-2 years. Thus the main volcanic impact on long-term temperature changes occur when there is an extended period of particularly high or low volcanic activity.
Human aerosol emissions (primarily sulfur dioxide [SO2]) also tend to cool the planet. The main difference is that unlike volcanoes, humans are constantly pumping large quantities of aerosols in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and biomatter. This allows human aerosol emissions to have a long-term impact on temperatures, as long as we keep burning these fuels. However, because aerosols have a number of different effects (including directly by blocking sunlight, and indirectly by seeding clouds, which both block sunlight and increase the greenhouse effect), the magnitude of their cooling effect is one of the biggest remaining uncertainties in climate science.
The El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO) is an oceanic cycle which alternates between El Niño and La Niña phases. El Niño tends to shift heat from the oceans to the air, causing surface warming (but ocean cooling), whereas La Niña acts in the opposite manner. As we’ll see, a few studies have begun examining whether ENSO has had a long-term impact on global surface temperatures. Because it’s a cycle/oscillation, it tends to have little impact on long-term temperature changes, with the effects of La Niña cancelling out those of El Niño.
There are other effects, but GHGs and SO2 are the two largest human influences, and solar and volcanic activity and ENSO are the dominant natural influences on global temperature. Now let’s see what the scientific literature has to say about the relative influences of each effect.
Tett et al. (2000)
Tett et al. (2000) (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf) used an “optical detection methodology” with global climate model simulations to try and match the observational data. The inputs into the model included measurements of GHGs in the atmosphere, aerosols from volcanic eruptions, solar irradiance, human aerosol emissions, and atmospheric ozone changes (ozone is another greenhouse gas).
Tett et al. applied their model to global surface temperatures from 1897 to 1997. Their best estimate matched the overall global warming during this period very well; however, it underestimated the warming from 1897 to 1947, and overestimated the warming from 1947 to 1997. For this reason, during the most recent 50 year period in their study (shown in dark blue in Figure 1), the sum of their natural and human global warming contributions is larger than 100%, since their model shows more warming than observed over that period. Over both the 50 and 100 year timeframes, Tett et al. estimated that natural factors have had a slight net cooling effect, and thus human factors have caused more than 100% of the observed global warming.
Meehl et al. (2004)
Meehl et al. 2004 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) used a similar approach to Tett et al., running global climate model simulations using various combinations of the different main factors which influence global temperatures (GHGs, solar activity, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and ozone), and comparing the results to the temperature data from 1890 to 2000. They found that natural factors could account for most of the warming from 1910 to 1940, but simply could not account for the global warming we’ve experienced since the mid-20th Century.
Meehl et al. estimated that approximately 80% of the global warming from 1890 to 2000 was due to human effects. Over the most recent 50 years in their study (1950-2000), natural effects combined for a net cooling, and thus like Tett et al., Meehl et al. concluded that human caused more than 100% of the global warming over that period. Over the past 25 years, nearly 100% of the warming is due to humans, in their estimate.
Stone et al. (2007)
Stone et al. actually published two studies in 2007. The first paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1) examined a set of 62 climate model simulation runs for the time period of 1940 to 2080 (the Dutch Meteorological Institute’s “Challenge Project”). These simulations utilized measurements of GHGs, volcanic aerosols, human aerosols, and solar activity from 1940 to 2005, similar to the Tett and Meehl studies discussed above, and then used projected future emissions from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to project future global warming. Whereas Tett and Meehl examined the climate response to each individual factor (and/or combinaton of factors), Stone compared these 62 climate model runs to a series of energy balance models, each representing the climate’s response to a different effect. Over the 60 year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans caused close to 100% of the observed warming, and the natural factors had a net negative effect. As with Stott, their model did not fit the data perfectly, though they had the opposite result, underestimating the observed warming.
In their second 2007 paper (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3964.1), Stone et al. updated the results from their first paper by including more climate models and more up-to-date data, and examining the timeframe of 1901 to 2005. Over that full 104-year period, Stone et al. estimated that humans and natural effects had each contributed to approximately half of the observed warming. Greenhouse gases contributed to 100% of the observed warming, but half of that effect was offset by the cooling effect of human aerosol emissions. They estimated that solar and volcanic activity were responsible for 37% and 13% of the warming, respectively.
Lean and Rind (2008)
Lean and Rind 2008 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html) used more of a statistical approach than these previous studies, using a multiple linear regression analysis. In this approach, Lean and Rind used measurements of solar, volcanic, and human influences, as well as ENSO, and statistically matched them to the observational temperature data to achieve the best fit. Analyzing what is left over after summing the various contributions shows whether the most significant contributions are being considered.
LR08 did this over various time frames, and found that from 1889 to 2006, humans caused nearly 80% of the observed warming, versus approximately 12% from natural effects. As with the previous studies discussed, this doesn’t add up to exactly 100% because the statistical fit is not perfect, and not every effect on global temperature was taken into consideration. From both 1955 and 1979 to 2005, they estimated that humans have caused close to 100% of the observed warming.
Stott et al. (2010)
Stott et al. (http://www.andywightman.com/docs/metoffice_climatepaper.pdf) (S10) used a somewhat similar approach to LR08, but they used their statistical multiple linear regression results to constrain simulations from five different climate models. S10 calculated regression coefficients for greenhouse gases, other human effects (dominated by aerosols), and natural effects (solar and volcanic), and estimated how much warming each caused over the 20th Century. The average of the five models put the human contribution at 86% of the observed warming, and greenhouse gases at 138%, with a very small natural contribution.
Stott et al. also corrobarated their results by looking not only at global, but also regional climate changes by reviewing the body of scientific literature. They note that human influences have been detected in changes in local temperatures, precipitation changes, atmospheric humidity, drought, Arctic ice decline, extreme heat events, ocean heat and salinity changes, and a number of other regional climate impacts.
Huber and Knutti (2011)
Huber and Knutti 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html) implemented a very interesting approach in their study, utilizing the principle of conservation of energy for the global energy budget to quantify the various contributions to the observed global warming from 1850 and 1950 to the 2000s. Huber and Knutti took the estimated global heat content increase (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=46) since 1850, calculated how much of the increase is due to various estimated radiative forcings, and partition the increase between increasing ocean heat content and outgoing longwave radiation. More than 85% of the global heat uptake has gone into the oceans (http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics.php?g=12), so by including this data, their study is particularly robust.
Huber and Knutti estimate that since 1850 and 1950, approximately 75% and 100% of the observed global warming is due to human influences, respectively.
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011)
Foster and Rahmstorf (2011; FR11) (http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html) implemented a very similar statistical approach to that in Lean and Rind (2008). The main difference is that FR11 examined five different temperature data sets, including satellites, and only looked at the data from 1979 to 2010 (the satellite temperature record begins in 1979). They also limited their analysis to the three main natural influences on global temperatures – solar and volcanic activity, and ENSO. What remains once those three effects are filtered out is predominantly, but not entirely due to human effects. For our purposes, we will classify this remainder as the human contribution, since FR11 removed the three largest natural effects.
Using the temperature data from the British Hadley Centre (which was used by LR08, and is the most frequently-used temperature data set in these studies), FR11 found that the three natural effects in their analysis exerted a small net cooling effect from 1979 to 2010, and therefore the leftover influence, which is predominantly due to human effects, is responsible for more than 100% of the observed global warming over that time frame.
One key aspect of this type of study is that it makes no assumptions about various possible solar effects on global temperatures. Any solar effect (either direct or indirect) which is correlated to solar activity (i.e. solar irradiance, solar magnetic field [and thus galactic cosmic rays (http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm)], ultraviolet [UV] radiation, etc.) is accounted for in the linear regression. Both Lean and Rind and Foster and Rahmstorf found that solar activity has played a very small role in the observed global warming.
Gillett et al. (2012)
Similar to S10, Gillett et al. (http://skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html) applied a statistical multiple linear regression approach to a climate model – the second generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2). They used data for human greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions, land use changes, solar activity, ozone, and volcanic aerosol emissions. In their attribution they grouped some of the effects together into ‘natural’, ‘greenhouse gas’, and ‘other’. The authors estimated the effects of each over three timeframes: 1851-2010, 1951-2000, and 1961-2010. For their attributions over the most recent 50 years, we took the average of the latter two, and used their ‘other’ category as an estimate for the influence of human aerosol emissions (which will result in somewhat of an underestimate, since most ‘other’ effects are in the warming direction).
Gillett et al. estimated that over both timeframes, humans are responsible for greater than 100% of the observed warming.
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-27-2012, 11:40 PM
Human-Caused Global Warming Consensus
The agreement between these studies using a variety of different methods and approaches is quite remarkable. Every study concluded that over the most recent 100-150 year period examined, humans are responsible for at least 50% of the observed warming, and most estimates put the human contribution between 75 and 90% over that period (Figure 2). Over the most recent 25-65 years, every study put the human contribution at a minimum of 98%, and most put it at well above 100%, because natural factors have probably had a small net cooling effect over recent decades (Figures 3 and 4).
Additionally, in every study over every time frame examined, the two largest factors influencing global temperatures were human-caused: (1) GHGs, followed by (2) human aerosol emissions. This is a dangerous situation because as we clean our air and reduce our SO2 emissions, their cooling effect will dissipate, revealing more of the underlying GHG-caused global warming trend. Note that not all studies broke out the effects the same way (i.e. only examining ‘natural’ and not solar or volcanic effects individually), which is the reason some bars appear to be missing from Figures 2 to 4.
Figure 2: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf) (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1) (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html) (LR08, purple), Stott et al. 2010 (http://www.andywightman.com/docs/metoffice_climatepaper.pdf) (S10, gray), and Huber and Knutti 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html) (HR11, light blue).
Figure 3: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 50-65 years according to Tett et al. 2000 (http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/nph-iarticle_query?2000ESASP.463..201T&data_type=PDF_HIGH&whole_paper=YES&type=PRINTER&filetype=.pdf) (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3966.1) (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html) (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/huber-and-knutti-quantify-man-made-global-warming.html) (HK11, light blue), and Gillett et al. 2012 (http://skepticalscience.com/gillett-estimate-human-and-natural-global-warming.html) (G12, orange).
Figure 4: Percent contributions of various effects to the observed global surface warming over the past 100-150 years according to Meehl et al. 2004 (http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282004%29017%3C3721%3ACONAAF%3E2.0.CO%3B2) (M04, red), Lean and Rind 2008 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/lean-and-rind-estimate-man-made-and-natural-global-warming.html) (LR08, purple), and Foster and Rahmstorf 2011 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/foster-and-rahmstorf-measure-global-warming-signal.html)
There was a period of warming between 1910 and 1940 (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-early-20th-century-advanced.htm) which was predominantly caused by increasing solar activity and an extended period of low volcanic activity, with some contribution by human effects. However, since mid-century, solar activity has been flat, there has been moderate volcanic activity, and ENSO has had little net impact on global temperatures. All the while GHGs kept increasing, and became the dominant effect on global temperature changes, as Figures 3 and 4 illustrate.
A wide variety of statistical and physical approaches all arrived at the same conclusion: that humans are the dominant cause of the global warming over the past century, and particularly over the past 50 years. This robust scientific evidence is why there is a consensus among scientific experts that humans are the dominant cause of global warming (http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm).
– Dana Nuccitelli, in a piece first published at Skeptical Science. (http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-comprehensive-review-of-the-causes-of-global-warming.html)
It’s “Extremely Likely That at Least 74% of Observed Warming Since 1950″ Was Manmade; It’s Highly Likely All of It Was (http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2011/12/05/382209/observed-warming-since-1950-was-manmade/)
01-28-2012, 09:10 AM
Since those scientists don't follow the global warming scares, they will be deemed "not real scientists." Only those that believe man is causing GW, or GC, climate change, or whatever new catchy phrase dreamed up next are the "real" scientists.
Since those scientists don't follow the global warming scares, they will be deemed "not real scientists."
Perhaps you can tell me what expertise Dr. Jan Breslow, (head of the Laboratory of Biochemical Genetics and Metabolism, Rockefeller University, and one of the signees of the WSJ op-ed) has in climate science.
Only those that believe man is causing GW, or GC, climate change, or whatever new catchy phrase dreamed up next are the "real" scientists.
It was GOP spin doctor Frank Luntz who decided that Republicans should speak of "climate change" instead of "global warming" because it sounded less dangerous. It's your side that's playing the propaganda game, son.
01-28-2012, 09:28 AM
Climate Change is the proper terminology because as the Earths weather changes we get more then just added heat. Some places get cooler winters, more rain, less rain, bigger storms etc etc. Climate Change fits it better. Warming is one part of it.
Stupid argument anyways because if people are the cause we can't stop the changing climate. Population and growth with outpace any changes you can force on the American consumer.
01-28-2012, 02:58 PM
01-28-2012, 03:07 PM
Nothing will be done now that politics has ruined it.
Nothing will be done now that politics has ruined it.
You're right - the perceived threat to corporate profits represented by climate science assured that the science itself would be attacked and dismissed.
Funny thing is that the climate system doesn't give a **** about profits or politics.
01-28-2012, 03:25 PM
80 degrees in Long Beach today! Its like summer time in southern ca! Got a gig tonight, I can tell people want to get out and party. Or as Spider would say, dem barflys are out tonight cutthemdown!
Lets just enjoy it until the liberals cool the earth and ruin the party!
01-28-2012, 03:26 PM
In fact America so evil how do we know that we aren't planning global warming. I heard that our country fares pretty good under most models. Eastern China not so much, mideast, probably not a good thing etc etc.
Cmon this is just Americas plan to turn every city into beachtown usa! all the ladies will be in bikinis all yr, cmon man this is good stuff. ;)
01-28-2012, 03:26 PM
Murdoch's ass-rag (http://www.npr.org/2011/07/22/138588497/how-has-wall-street-journal-fared-under-murdoch) aka The Wall Street Journal is comparing the wrong people to Lysenko. Deniers of man-made climate change are like Lysenko in that they reject science in favor of ideology.
But the most amazing and telling evidence of the bias of the Wall Street Journal in this field is the fact that 255 members of the United States National Academy of Sciences wrote a comparable (but scientifically accurate) essay on the realities of climate change and on the need for improved and serious public debate around the issue, offered it to the Wall Street Journal, and were turned down.
When Murdoch bought the WSJ it was a must-read paper for businessmen and traders, and now it's quickly becoming the Fox News of paper.
For kicks, look up any name of the scientists that signed the letter. I don't see any climate experts, but I see a lot of well-funded names :)
William Happer is chair of the board of directors at the George C. Marshall Institute, a nonprofit conservative think tank known for its attempts to highlight uncertainties about causes of global warming.
Claude Allègre. A geologist (funny how geologists are always at the forefront of climate change denial...that surely has not connection whatsoever to the fact that they are mostly employed by oil companies...no siree), but his scientific career is rather undistinguished, and was mostly marked by a controversy with the godfather of modern vulcanology, Haroun Tazieff, over whether Guadeloupe had to be evacuated during an eruption in 1976. Tazieff was right.
Above all however, Allègre is a politician. He is a fixture of the French Socialist Party and was a (notoriously awful) Education Minister in the 90s. And in the later years he's mostly signified himself as the voice of climate change denial in France. He's dismissed his critics as "zeroes" and "idiots".
L.A. BRONCOS FAN
01-28-2012, 04:34 PM
Deniers of man-made climate change are like Lysenko in that they reject science in favor of ideology.
That's just what these people do - whether the issue is climate change or you-fill-in-the-blank.
01-28-2012, 05:16 PM
You guys worry about it too much. Just go buy an electric car and be a trailblazer on your block! Get some crappy light bulb that save energy, etc etc. All these graphs probably add to global warming because LABF gets all hot under the collar. Chill out I saw these amps at the NAMM show that are like 10 watts and sound great. You can throw away those 100 watt ones now and save the planet. Just don't do it on a Rosewood guitar, they were protesting those outside so as a good liberal you must not use them.
01-28-2012, 06:36 PM
the real reason behind global warming is overpopulation.
just like it is the reason behind most of our ills.
limit birth. its the only way. ;)
02-19-2012, 04:06 PM
It is almost possible to dismiss Michael Mann's account of a vast conspiracy by the fossil fuel industry to harrass scientists and befuddle the public. His story of that campaign, and his own journey from naive computer geek to battle-hardened climate ninja, seems overwrought, maybe even paranoid.
But now comes the unauthorized release of documents showing how a libertarian think tank, the Heartland Institute, which has in the past been supported by Exxon, spent millions on lavish conferences attacking scientists and concocting projects to counter science teaching for kindergarteners.
Mann's story of what he calls the climate wars, the fight by powerful entrenched interests to undermine and twist the science meant to guide government policy, starts to seem pretty much on the money. He's telling it in a book out on March 6, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines.
"They see scientists like me who are trying to communicate the potential dangers of continued fossil fuel burning to the public as a threat. That means we are subject to attacks, some of them quite personal, some of them dishonest," Mann said in an interview conducted in and around State College, home of Penn State University, where he is a professor.