Press release from U.S. Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He issued the following statement today as part of an Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee hearing entitled, "Administration Perspectives on United Nations Climate Change Conference in Bali:"
"Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good to have this subcommittee back in action. We started off with a flurry during the first session and along around the summertime, it kind of went into hibernation. So we're glad to have you back on the front lines. "I want to welcome some people here today. I first want to welcome my new ranking member, Mr. Upton. Mr. Upton has been on the committee for quite a number of years. He has made his major contribution as the past subcommittee chairman and ranking member of the Telecommunications and the Internet Subcommittee but he has switched over to Energy and Air Quality with the departure of the former speaker, Mr. Hastert. He's got big shoes to fill - Mr. Hastert, Mr. Hall, who's now ranking member of the Science Committee. I'm very, very happy to have nominated Mr. Upton to this position.
"I also welcome our witness, Mr. Connaughton. He and I have had an ongoing relationship and a number of discussions over I-don't-know-how-many years. He just got back from Bali and we're going to hear his insights. I think it is safe to say that Jim Connaughton is one of the most knowledgeable on the issue for the hearing scheduled today, which is global warming and climate change.
"We've had a lot of hearings about global warming in the last several years. I'm still not convinced that the science and the economics of the issue are settled. I know a lot of people want to move on and look at solutions, but I don't think we can have a very good chance to develop an optimal solution if we don't really understand the problem. There are a large number of skeptics still out there about what causes global warming and what mankind can do about it. I hope some of your hearings this spring touch on that. As I've said before, when we get ready to consider legislation, I have four issues, or goals, that I want to try to meet.
"I do want to keep electricity plentiful and affordable in America. I want to keep our transportation sector viable. It's interesting to know in the euphoria over passing a CAFE increase, at the Detroit auto show this week our manufacturers said that legislation, if implemented, is going to raise the price of an American vehicle approximately $6,000 per car. I want someone to tell me how that helps our economy when the price of automobiles goes up $6,000 per vehicle.
"I want to keep our natural gas prices affordable because many Americans heat their homes with natural gas, cook their meals and we still have an industry that uses natural gas. And obviously, I want to protect American jobs. We can have the most perfect global warming bill in the world and it's not going to do us any good if we raise the unemployment rate five or 10 points.
"You've indicated that you want to introduce a cap-and-trade bill sometime this spring, Mr. Chairman. I hope we can dissuade you from that position. The great experiment in Europe with cap-and-trade so far is an absolute failure. There's no other way to put it. The prices their economies are paying is going up and emissions are going up, too. Now, their apologists say that that's only because they don't have it just right. But I predict that no matter how much they tinker with it, when you're trying to cap-and-trade something as ubiquitous as CO2, most of which is not manmade, it's folly, it's an impossible situation. Hopefully we'll really get into the details of just what a cap-and-trade program would look like here in America.
"I also want to make a point that a number of other people have made. We're in a global economy. We are the world's largest economy but if we do some things that are very draconian on our emissions here in the United States and really all it does is cost us jobs, I'm very skeptical that the rest of the world is going to follow suit. There's no nation in the world, in the last thousand years, when faced with a choice of poverty or a better standard of living for their population, has chosen poverty. And it is absolutely ludicrous, in my opinion, for us to ask China and India and Brazil and Mexico and all of the developing world to adopt some of these very, very stringent controls on CO2 when if they do that, it's an absolute recipe for making sure that their people don't move forward and don't have a better standard of living. We made that choice beginning in the late 1800s and all through the 1900s as we electrified America, put in our transportation system, created an economy literally based on the automobile. The result has been the highest standard of living the world has ever known. So it's silly for us to ask the rest of the world to not move forward as we moved forward in the last 125 years.
"So, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad to have this subcommittee back in action. I do think global warming is a real issue. I do think that to the extent we can do things that make economic sense and environmental sense, we should try to move forward. But I do not believe that we should like lemmings just jump off the cliff in the name of political correctness. With that, Mr. Chairman, I very, very respectfully yield back."
Manmade Antarctic Melting, Indeed
A new study, much hyped by the media, blames humans for escalating ice loss in Antarctica. The media, however, seems to have no idea as to how truly manmade the supposed ice loss may be. "Escalating Ice Loss Found in Antarctica; Sheets Melting in an Area Once Thought to Be Unaffected by Global Warming" was the Washington Post's front-page, above-the-fold headline last Monday (Jan. 14). The headline for the continuation of the article was "Antarctic Ice Loss Could Speed Rise in Ocean Levels."
If true, it would be quite a worrisome situation given that Antarctica contains enough ice to raise ocean levels by about 60 meters, a deluge that would put every major coastal city in the world deep under water and uproot hundreds of millions, if not billions of people.
NASA scientist Eric Rignot reported in Nature Geoscience (Jan. 13) that increased melting had been detected in the ice sheets of western Antarctica, an area where surface temperatures have remained unchanged.
As warming surface temperatures could not be blamed for the ice loss, Rignot hypothesized that the cause may be the flow of warmer waters from the Antarctic Circumpolar Current that circles much of the continent. "Something must be changing the ocean to trigger such changes," Rignot told the Post. "We believe it is related to [manmade global warming]", he added.
Rignot may indeed "believe" that humans are the cause - he is, after all, part of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an organization founded on the belief that humans are causing catastrophic global warming. But the facts belie such beliefs.
First, standard climate alarmism claims that manmade emissions of greenhouse gases are warming surface temperatures. But not only is such warming not being observed in Antarctica, it's actually getting cooler in western Antarctica, according to surface temperature analysis from each of eight NASA stations located there.
Rignot, of course, admits that standard climate alarmism can't possibly explain the western Antarctic melting; that's why he shifted to blaming man for the warmer Antarctic Circumpolar Current. But is this true?
In an effort to support Rignot's hypothesis, Columbia University's Douglas Martinson told The Washington Post that "the [Antarctic Circumpolar Current", which flows about 200 yards below the frigid surface water, began to warm significantly in the 1980s, and that warming in turn caused wind patterns to change in ways that ultimately brought more warm water to shore." But Martinson also admitted to the Post that there is not enough data to say for certain that the process was set in motion by global warming. Truth be told, there is good reason to question Martinson's assertion about the temperature trend, let alone its hypothetical cause.
According to World Climate Report, a 2007 study by University of Washington researchers reported that, although there is much interest among scientists in ocean temperature, "below-surface ocean temperature data are sparse, and the existing data sets involve substantial `interpolation, extrapolation, and averaging' that may compromise the integrity of results from such data sets."
Adding to the mix is the most recent IPCC report, which says that the upper ocean adjacent to west Antarctica warmed by 1 degree Celsius from 1951 to 1994. But global surface temperatures actually declined from 1940 to 1976, even as manmade emissions of carbon dioxide dramatically increased. The bottom line is there is no established linkage between manmade emissions of greenhouse gases and any melting in the western Antarctic.
But then, is there even any net ice loss in the western Antarctic to begin with? While Rignot did use satellite observations of Antarctica's coastline to estimate melting, he compared this real-life data to computer model estimates of Antarctic interior snow accumulation. So the western Antarctic appears to losing mass only when compared to computer models that, when it comes to global climate, are of questionable relevance to the real world. At JunkScience.com, we label these sorts of computer modeling exercises as "PlayStation climatology."
Even if you put faith in climate models, Rignot's don't seem to agree with those of the IPCC, which stated in its most recent assessment, "Current global model studies project that the Antarctic Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased snowfall."
Finally, according to NOAA data presented on the web site of Bill Chapman of the Polar Research Group at the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign), the global level of sea ice has reached about the same level as it was at in 2003. The current change in global sea ice coverage is a positive 1 million square kilometers -- that is, a gain of 1.8 million square kilometers in the Southern Hemisphere netted against a loss of 800,000 square kilometers in the Northern Hemisphere.
It's quite possible that the reported Antarctic melting is manmade -- but the "man" may be Eric Rignot, as opposed to the term's broader connotation.
Source
Journal abstract for the scare study follows -- showing that their observations were of the antarctic coastline only -- which is only a small part of Antarctica. It also shows that their basis of comparison was with an old model, not with actual past observations!
Recent Antarctic ice mass loss from radar interferometry and regional climate modelling
By Eric Rignot et al.
Large uncertainties remain in the current and future contribution to sea level rise from Antarctica. Climate warming may increase snowfall in the continent's interior but enhance glacier discharge at the coast where warmer air and ocean temperatures erode the buttressing ice shelves. Here, we use satellite interferometric synthetic-aperture radar observations from 1992 to 2006 covering 85% of Antarctica's coastline to estimate the total mass flux into the ocean. We compare the mass fluxes from large drainage basin units with interior snow accumulation calculated from a regional atmospheric climate model for 1980 to 2004. In East Antarctica, small glacier losses in Wilkes Land and glacier gains at the mouths of the Filchner and Ross ice shelves combine to a near-zero loss of 4~60 Gt yr-1 in 2006. In the Peninsula, losses increased by 140% to reach 60~46 Gt yr-1 in 2006. Losses are concentrated along narrow channels occupied by outlet glaciers and are caused by ongoing and past glacier acceleration. Changes in glacier flow therefore have a significant, if not dominant impact on ice sheet mass balance.
Nature Geoscience, 13 January 2008
Global Warming: The Coming Skeptic's Revival
The recent U.S. Senate committee report listing 400 scientists who last year openly disputed Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming claims does indeed appear to yield a consensus. But their consensus is not based in the dubious assertion that a plenary rise in the earth's temperature described as Global Warming is a settled scientific theory. Neither is this consensus grounded in the bogus claim that the polar bear population is at risk and should be declared an endangered species due to the threat posed by Global Warming; or the incorrect thesis that hurricanes and Global Warming are indisputably linked.
It is also not based on the claim that due to Global Warming, the earth's glaciers are melting at an unprecedented rate, which - defying basic laws of chemistry and physics - will eventually cause a massive deluge of coastal sections of the United States, Canada and perhaps other countries, the likes of which have not been heard of since biblical times; or on the purported claim that the most advanced computer models, which are famously incapable of duplicating the legion of natural and artificial variables that regulate even local climate, are fully adequate to forecast the impending global doom so ominously predicted by Al Gore in his movie "An Inconvenient Truth".
And most emphatically, this consensus is not rooted in the infuriating declaration that Global Warming skeptics comprise only a half a dozen or so misguided sell outs to the oil industry, barely outnumbering the few remaining members of the Flat Earth Society, as has been disdainfully stated by the guru of Global Warming hysterics himself.
According to the collective assessment of this eminent group of scientists, no such testimonials meet the most rudimentary standards of good scientific inquiry, or have any basis on fact; therefore no consensus is to be found among the 400 scientists that are listed on this report , other than the nearly unanimous agreement that the claim of Global Warming as a legitimate threat to humanity is more an ideological juggernaut than a proven scientific certainty, fueled predominantly by the politics of fear from the left, and amply lavished with the continued financial support from unwitting governments and moral support from the main stream media.
This diverse assembly of Anthropogenic Global Warming skeptics (or Holocaust deniers as Ellen Goodman from the Boston Globe would call them) include experts from the fields of paleontology, chemistry, Chemical engineering, Mathematics, Physics, Agriculture, Astrophysics, Oceanography, Atmospheric Science, Geology, Meteorology, and Economics, to name a few. Many of them are also recent converts who once called themselves staunch believers in A.G.W.
A good number of them are former draft reviewers of the United Nations Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change report they have now happily disowned as dangerously speculative, as it portends to mandate drastic policy measures for signatories from world governments in order to stop the impending catastrophe presumably looming in the horizon.
Their collective body of work on the science of Global Climate consists of thousands of research studies and peer reviewed papers in myriad reputable scientific publications and academic institutions.
Their consensus is based in the scientifically verifiable notion that - stop the presses - periodic Hemispheric warming (and cooling) of the earth are natural cyclical phenomena, caused primarily by fluctuations in the sun's electro-magnetic radiation, water vapor, and a host of other culprits meaner than the rise in carbon dioxide levels, which is actually an effect rather than a cause of warming. This natural cycle has taken place - and will continue to take place - over millennia. This means that the net impact that man - in all his industrial fury - has over any significant climate variations, is no more distinguishable - as a contributing former meteorologist puts it - than a "fart in a hurricane".
The scientists have also expressed concern over how their voices are being suppressed, by a media that routinely ridicules them for having contrarian views. They also contend that stripped of its thin veneer of scientific legitimacy, the theory of A.G.W. is nothing more than an ideological doctrine, and a dangerous one at that, for it tries to set itself as authoritative, arbitrarily excluding other dissenting views, by questioning the motives and belittling the academic credentials of those who express any suspicion of its tenets, and generously rewarding those who espouse them, while healthy debate is summarily stifled on an issue that could have serious and lasting global economic and social repercussions.
Much to their regret, it appears that vast sums of money will continue to be misspent by ill-informed bureaucracies intent on funding quixotic attempts to solve a problem that never existed and alleviate an apocalyptic crisis that will never transpire, the prophetic summons of which - to their astonishment - earned Al Gore an appendix in the pages of history as a proud recipient of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.
Additionally, these scientists affirm that most of their colleagues concur with them but will simply not speak out because they fear their livelihoods will be affected by the withdrawal of research grants, as it has already happened to some who have expressed skepticism on the issue.
But primarily, and justifiable so, these scientists are most concerned with the damage that is being done to the credibility and reputation of the scientific endeavor by many of their profit and public recognition driven colleagues and questionable sources of wisdom like Al Gore, who use their political platform, celebrity status, and the media to promote a theory which, curiously enough, is so fiercely guarded from exposure to legitimate scientific scrutiny.
Thus they hope that as the science of Global Climate evolves, and as the dire prediction of Global Warming alarmists fail to come to pass, perhaps they will again be granted a better forum, and healthy debate will resume - as it should in all the sciences.
As for Al Gore, other than taking the opportunity to admit he has some serious explaining to do to the scientific community, not to mention his adoring liberal fans and the rest of the world, he should probably return to doing whatever it is he does when he is not combing his hair or polishing his many ill-gotten accolades so decoratively arrayed on his fire place mantel.
Source
You couldn't make this stuff up: "Global warming protest frosted with snow"
It snowed, but they still came. A heavy snowfall blanketed a global warming protest outside the State House in Annapolis this morning, but it did not dampen the shouts of about 400 activists who urged lawmakers to pass the nation's toughest greenhouse gas control law. As supporters waved signs, chanted and banged drums, 18 legislators walked down a symbolic green carpet to sign up as co-sporsors to a bill that would mandate that all businesses in Maryland cut emissions of global warming pollution by 25 percent by 2020 and 90 percent by 2050.
"We are going to pass this bill this year," said State Sen. Paul Pinsky, a Democrat from Prince George's County and chairman of the senate's environmental matters subcommittee. "We are not going to rest, we are not going to stop....We are going to keep going until we pass this bill." Pinsky and co-author Del. Kumar Barve, the house Democratic leader, proposed a similar but unsuccessful Global Warming Solutions Act last year. It would have created a system of financial rewards and punishments (known as a "cap and trade" system) to force all businesses to reduce their emissions.
The Maryland legislature over the last two year has approved more limited cuts in carbon dioxide pollution from coal-fired power plants and cars. Together, these add up to an expected 25 percent reduction.
The Maryland Chamber of Commerce, Constellation Energy and many Republicans oppose the 90 percent mandate, saying such aggressive regulation could cripple the states economy if other states don't have such limits. "It would be harmful for employment," said Senate Republican Leader David R. Brinkley. "We have a conscientious business community, and nobody wants to contribute to pollution, but these guys are intent on making Maryland uncompetitive."
Rob Gould, a spokesman for Constellation Energy, the state's biggest owner of power plants, said federal or international regulation of greenhouse gases makes more sense. And he suggested that power shortages could result from excessive state regulation. "Constellation Energy is very supportive of federal and international regulation. Our concern with last year's bill was that it limited the ability to trade to sources inside Maryland. Given that the only way to reduce CO2 from non-nuclear power plants is to run those plants less, our concern remains that a single small state like Maryland cannot meet these aggressive targets without reliability impacts occurring." ....
Many of the protesters who endured the cold to chant "Stop Global Warming!" said they didn't think the snowfall conflicted with their message. Davey Rogner, a 22 year old student at the University of Maryland College Park, beat on an African Djembe drum to rev up the crowd. He said the snow was a "gift" to remind eveyone about how rarely Maryland has been blanketed with beautiful white in recent years as temperatures have increased. "Its only the second snow of the year, which is very sad," said Rogner, from Silver Spring. "Global warming is the most improtant issue of our generation. The state of Maryland should be taking a leadership role in it, because of our vulerability with all our shoreline." Barve said the snow was a good sign: "At least we have weather appropriate for winter time, finally." ....
A nonpartisan analysis of last year's proposal, by the Maryland Department of Legislative Services, said the law would impose new regulations on "all businesses, small and large" across the state. "Accordingly, costs could increase significantly, but any such increase cannot be reliability calculated at this time."
More here
It's all happened before: An explanation from psychology of why the global warming cult shows little response to contrary evidence
On noting the unfazed response of the demonstrators above to their patently ludicrous situation, I thought it was time to draw attention to some old wisdom from psychology. Problematical global warming is a prophecy, not a reality, so studies of what adherents to prophecies do when the evidence is against them are very relevant:
In studying this phenomenon, credit must be given to Leon Festinger for his cognitive dissonance theory, as developed in his book When Prophecy Fails, originally published in 1956 and co-authored by Festinger, Henry W. Riecken and Stanley Schachter. The authors comprised a research team who conducted a study of a small cult-following of a Mrs. Marian Keech, a housewife who claimed to receive messages from aliens via automatic writing. The message of the aliens was one of a coming world cataclysm, but with the hope of surviving for the elect who listened to them through Keech and selected other mediums. What Festinger and his associates demonstrated in the end was that the failure of prophecy often has the opposite effect of what the average person might expect; the cult following often gets stronger and the members even more convinced of the truth of their actions and beliefs! This unique paradox is the focus of attention in this article.
Festinger observes:
"A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.
"We have all experienced the futility of trying to change a strong conviction, especially if the convinced person has some investment in his belief. We are familiar with the variety of ingenious defenses with which people protect their convictions, managing to keep them unscathed through the most devastating attacks.
"But man's resourcefulness goes beyond simply protecting a belief. Suppose an individual believes something with his whole heart; suppose further that he has a commitment to this belief, that he has taken irrevocable actions because of it; finally, suppose that he is presented with evidence, unequivocal and undeniable evidence, that his belief is wrong: what will happen? The individual will frequently emerge, not only unshaken, but even more convinced of the truth of his beliefs than ever before. Indeed, he may even show a new fervor about convincing and converting other people to his view.
When Prophecy Fails focuses on the failure of prophecies to come true, termed disconfirmation by Festinger, and the accompanied renewal of energy and faith in their source of divine guidance. His theory presupposes the cult having certain identifying features, such as:
(a) belief held with deep conviction along with respective actions taken,
(b) the belief or prediction must be specific enough to be disconfirmed (i.e., it didn't happen),
(c) the believer is a member of a group of like-minded believers who support one another and even proselytize. All of these characteristics were present in the saucer cult.
Of particular interest in Festinger's book is how the followers of Mrs. Keech reacted to each disconfirmation (failed date). Little attempt was made to deny the failure. The strength to continue in the movement was derived, not largely from the rationalizations , but from the very energy of the group itself and its dedication to the cause. This explains why proselytizing was so successful later in reinforcing the group's sagging belief system. Festinger relates:
"But whatever explanation is made it is still by itself not sufficient. The dissonance is too important and though they may try to hide it, even from themselves, the believers still know that the prediction was false and all their preparations were in vain. The dissonance cannot be eliminated completely by denying or rationalizing the disconfirmation. But there is a way in which the remaining dissonance can be reduced. If more and more people can be persuaded that the system of belief is correct, then clearly it must, after all, be correct. Consider the extreme case: if everyone in the whole world believed something there would be no question at all as to the validity of this belief. It is for this reason that we observe the increase in proselytizing following disconfirmation. If the proselytizing proves successful, then by gathering more adherents and effectively surrounding himself with supporters, the believer reduces dissonance to the point where he can live with it."
In the end, the members of the flying saucer cult did not give up their faith in the Guardians from outer space with their promises of a new world. Despite numerous prophecies and the resultant disappointment accentuated by many personal sacrifices, the group remained strong. Summarizing the final stages of the flying saucer cult, Festinger says:
"Summarizing the evidence on the effect that disconfirmation had on the conviction of group members, we find that, of the eleven members of the Lake City group who faced unequivocal disconfirmation, only two, Kurt Freund and Arthur Bergen, both of whom were lightly committed to begin with, completely gave up their belief in Mrs. Keech's writings. Five members of the group, the Posts, the Armstrongs, and Mrs. Keech, all of whom entered the pre-cataclysm period strongly convinced and heavily committed, passed through this period of disconfirmation and its aftermath with their faith firm, unshaken, and lasting. Cleo Armstrong and Bob Eastman, who had come to Lake City heavily committed but with their conviction shaken by Ella Lowell, emerged from the disconfirmation of December 21 more strongly convinced than before..."
Excerpt above from here
***************************************
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.
*****************************************
Jim Hansen and his twin
No comments:
Post a Comment