Sunday, June 15, 2008

"The current state of global warming modeling has been rather poor"

New York City is home to some of the world's most attractive models; it is also home to some of the least attractive ones, presented yearly to the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The current state of global warming modeling has been rather poor, detracting both from research indicating anthropogenic influence and that which contraindicates it. The result is that the debate about climate control, an issue which effects major economic policy decisions, is monopolized by this distraction.

Microsoft Research ecologist Drew Purves acknowledges that this problem is one of the largest ones confronting global warming researchers. He and researchers at Princeton University and universities in Madrid, Spain are calling on the international research community to not throw out modeling or focus on the poor current models, but rather to develop new, better models. In particular, they point out a rather common sense start point -- as forests and other plant populations form the crux of the carbon balance, a better understanding of their effects and how to model them needs to be developed and needs to help form the foundation of future models.

Examining deforestation, forest populations and how they effect the carbon balance is both essential and possible with current technology, believes Purves. While atmospheric equations are important, it's illogical to leave out one of the most important carbon utilities on Earth, forests. Atmospheric dynamics are well known, but forests, with over 1 trillion trees, from 100,000 species, are still a mystery for lack of knowledge. What we do know is that these trees hold as much carbon as is currently in the atmosphere, and additionally support two-thirds of the planet's biodiversity.

Purves and Princeton's Stephen Pacala published a paper "Predictive Models of Forest Dynamics", which explores a new branch of modeling dynamic global vegetation models (DGVMs), which simulates forests in the past, present, and future and their effects on climate. Purves states:
[DGVMs] have shown that forests could be a crucial part of the way the Earth's climate responds to man-made CO2 emissions, but insufficient understanding of forests, and insufficient data and computing power, have made their predictions highly uncertain. This kind of uncertainty helps climate skeptics, who erroneously conclude that because the Earth is a complex but poorly understood system, we should not change our behavior. However, we suggest that the convergence of recently developed mathematical models, improved data sources and new methods in computational data analysis could produce more realistic models. That would give us truly invaluable information to help manage the world's forests and understand their impact on our climate.

Indeed, climate change skeptics are quick to pounce on such models. However, Purves aptly points out that it is counterproductive to merely blast deficient models, rather it is favorable to acknowledge the deficiency and work towards remedying it.

Says Pacala, "Until now, one of the most important pieces of the climate change jigsaw has been missing. We argue that we can significantly further our understanding of forest dynamics if scientists work together to use new computational techniques and data sources - provided governments and others make more data available in useful forms. We feel that these discoveries could unlock the climate change mysteries of forests on a global scale in as little as five years."

The pair's paper appears in the journal Science. Also appearing in the journal is a joint study entitled "Animal vs Wind Dispersal and the Robustness of Tree Species to Deforestation," written by Daniel Montoya from the Universidad de Alcal  in Madrid and Purves in Cambridge, with Miguel A. Rodr¡guez of the Universidad de Alcal  and Miguel A. Zavala of Centro de Investigaci¢n Forestal, Instituto Nacional de Investigaci¢n y Tecnolog¡a Agraria y Alimentaria (INIA-CIFOR) in Madrid. Both papers are available here, from Microsoft.

The new study provides intriguing insight into forest growth and resiliency based on vast data sets collected from 90,000 tree plots in Spain. It found that three common species of tree that are wind pollinated are far more vulnerable to deforestation than others. Also it found that no animal seed disperser existed in the ecosystem anymore, leaving several animal dispersed species very vulnerable.

Montoya explains how this research could be applied to smarter conservation efforts, stating, "By applying various methods in computational data analysis to a large source of forest data, we have confirmed that, in Spain at least, plants with animal-dispersed seeds are less vulnerable to habitat loss, because animals provide trees with an intelligent dispersal mechanism, traveling and distributing seeds between areas of remaining forest. In contrast, a wind dispersal method is more susceptible to habitat loss, as seeds are more likely to fall in inhospitable environments. Using methods like this, conservationists can identify the species at most risk following deforestation, and use this knowledge to develop new strategies to mitigate the effects of widespread habitat loss and help to protect species diversity."

Microsoft's Purves says it's not just about the trees and animals either; he states, "It is imperative that we create the tools and science to accurately understand the reaction of ecosystems to climate change and other forces - not just for plants and animals, but for our children and succeeding generations."

Purves is the leader of the Computational Science Research at Microsoft Research Cambridge. His multidisciplinary team features ecologists, biologists, neuroscientists, mathematicians and computer scientists. Their goals is to develop novel theories, better models, and better computational resources to tackle societal challenges such as climate change, declining biodiversity, and gaining an understanding of how life functions on a most basic scale.


Note also an October 2007 paper in New Scientist "Climate is too complex for accurate predictions"

All weather is due to global warming

That seems to be the message of the neo-Soviet Leftist site below

The evidence for the consequences of global warming is appearing with alarming frequency. This morning's headlines are filled with tales of deadly weather: "At least four people were killed and about 40 injured when a tornado tore through a Boy Scout camp in western Iowa on Wednesday night"; "two people are dead in northern Kansas after tornadoes cut a diagonal path across the state"; "[t]wo Maryland men with heart conditions died this week" from the East Coast heat wave. These eight deaths come on top of reports earlier this week that the heat wave "claimed the lives of 17 people" and the wave of deadly storms killed 11 more: "six in Michigan, two in Indiana and one each in Iowa and Connecticut," as well as one man in New York.

Tornadoes this year are being reported at record levels. States of emergency have been declared in Minnesota, California, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Michigan because of floods and wildfires. Counties in Iowa, Indiana, Illinois, South Dakota, and Wisconsin have been declared disaster areas due to the historic flooding that has breached dams, inundated towns, and caused major crop damage, sending commodity futures to new records. The floodwaters are continuing down the Mississippi River, with "crests of 10 feet or more above flood level" for "at least the next two weeks."

GLOBAL BOILING: This tragic, deadly, and destructive weather -- not to mention the droughts in Georgia, California, Kansas, North Carolina, Florida, Tennessee, North Dakota, and elsewhere across the country -- are consistent with the changes scientists predicted would come with global warming. Gov. Chet Culver (D-IA) called the three weeks of storms that gave rise to the floods in his state "historic in proportion," saying "very few people could anticipate or prepare for that type of event." Culver is, unfortunately, wrong.

As far back as 1995, analysis by the National Climatic Data Center showed that the United States "had suffered a statistically significant increase in a variety of extreme weather events." In 2007, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that it is "very likely" that man-made global warming will bring an "increase in frequency of hot extremes, heat waves and heavy precipitation." The Nobel Prize-winning panel of thousands of scientists and government officials also found, "Altered frequencies and intensities of extreme weather, together with sea level rise, are expected to have mostly adverse effects on natural and human systems." In 2002, scientists said that "increased precipitation, an expected outcome of climate change, may cause losses of US corn production to double over the next 30 years -- additional damage that could cost agriculture $3 billion per year." Scientists have also found that the "West will see devastating droughts as global warming reduces the amount of mountain snow and causes the snow that does fall to melt earlier in the year."

WAKE-UP CALL?: Of the Memorial Day storms that killed eight people and "led to about $160 million in claims," Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) rose on the Senate floor on June 5 to say, "the storm may serve as a wake-up call to those of us who have become somewhat complacent about severe weather warnings." The next day, Grassley joined 37 of his colleagues to filibuster climate legislation, the Lieberman-Warner Climate Security Act. This week, conservatives filibustered two more bills to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and support renewable energy and energy efficiency. In response to "[T]he most destructive flood in Indiana history," estimated to have caused "$126 million in damages," Gov. Mitch Daniels (R-IN) told reporters that President Bush "called 'simply to inquire about how Hoosiers were getting through this, and to ask me -- as I have asked local officials -- was his level of government doing all it can to support us here and to cooperate with us? I told him, 'So far, so good.'" At the beginning of the month, Bush said he would veto these climate and clean energy bills if they came to his desk, declaring, "I urge the Congress to be very careful about running up enormous costs for future generations of Americans."

'TURNING THE KNOB': Although the deadly weather has been front-page news all season, and news channels dedicate hours of coverage to "Extreme Weather," the media are strangely reluctant to discuss severe weather events in the context of climate change. Perhaps some of the reason is the virulent response from the right wing whenever a journalist or scientist dares to discuss how "the upsurge in the number and power of the deadly storms could be related to a warming climate." In a rare instance of good coverage, ABC's Good Morning America ran a segment on Monday about the East Coast heat wave that noted "90 records have been tied or broken" across the East and interviewed eminent climatologist Dr. Stephen Schneider. Schneider explained, "While this heat wave like all other heat waves is made by Mother Nature, we've been fooling around by turning the knob and making a little bit hotter." Schneider then pointed out that we are making the climate hotter through carbon dioxide and methane emissions. In response, the right-wing media outlet Newsbusters wrote that Schneider "Blames Greenhouse Gases for Current Heat Wave," saying, "[G]lobal warming activists have another way to frighten the public -- using steamy weather to suggest human greenhouse gas emissions are worsening a heat wave."


Environmentalists Seize Green Moral High Ground Ignoring Science

By Dr. Tim Ball

The first qualification on my resume now is "Environmentalist". Actually, it is a title everyone can put after their name. We are all environmentalists to greater or lesser degrees. It is an outrage that certain people and groups have usurped this title and implied that only they care about the environment. While this series of articles has shown the role the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in manipulating climate science it has succeeded within the dominance of environmentalism over the western view of the world.

The message the IPCC pushed suited the environmentalists so it was able to hide its activities amid the usurped moral high ground. They could isolate those who dared to question the science as anti-environment or paid by the oil companies who were the cause of the major problem of climate change. While this was happening politicians were being convinced of the need for action, in most cases by the bureaucrats who were members of the IPCC representing their country. Politicians didn't understand the science and were easily bullied--besides they all wanted to be green.

The Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory that human CO2 was causing warming/climate change was never tested primarily due to the actions of the IPCC. Rather the organization was set up by Maurice Strong through the UN to perpetuate the unproven theory. The IPCC mandate was defined so that they only looked at human causes of climate change, but generally the media and the public believe they are looking at scientifically natural climate change in total. Rules guaranteed the message to the media They created the illusion that open, peer reviewed science was being practiced. They guaranteed the pre-eminence of the political message over the science by writing a rule to release the Summary for Policymakers (SPM) before the Science Report.

Another rule required the Science Report agree with the Summary. The final product achieved the result of deception in full daylight because as David Wojick, UN IPCC expert reviewer explained, Glaring omissions are only glaring to experts, so the "policymakers"-including the press and the public-who read the SPM will not realize they are being told only one side of a story. But the scientists who drafted the SPM know the truth, as revealed by the sometimes artful way they conceal it. What is systematically omitted from the SPM are precisely the uncertainties and positive counter evidence that might negate the human interference theory. Instead of assessing these objections, the Summary confidently asserts just those findings that support its case. In short, this is advocacy, not assessment.

Starting in 1990, the IPCC produced Reports each increasing the probability there was clear evidence of a human cause of initially global warming and then climate change. Claim after claim was discredited but this did not stop the process. By the release of the 2001 Report, a deadly combination of events were driving the misconceptions forward overriding any attempts to point out the errors, omissions, and deliberate misdirections. The media had bought into the unproven theory and amplified the hysteria; massive amounts of government funding were driving research in a singular but wrong direction; scientists who challenged were attacked and effectively marginalized; national environmental policies were introduced often by bureaucrats who were national representatives on the IPCC; Al Gore's movie based on the false information of the IPCC fooled people on a global scale; unnecessary and potentially destructive policies were promoted such as the Kyoto Protocol, as necessary to save the planet. It is not surprising climate hysteria took hold and reason went out the window.

The switch from global warming to climate change began about 2002 as natural events did not agree with what the computer models had predicted. However, the model predictions of future warming held sway while climate change allowed them to point to any event as proof. Warmer. colder, wetter, drier, more severe weather less severe, it didn't matter now it was all due to humans. Now they had established the practice of claiming natural events as unnatural so they could never appear wrong. This drew public attention away from the failure of the model predictions, but some experts doggedly maintained their focus. For example, Dr Donald Dubois noted, "If the major climate models that are having a major impact on public policy were documented and put in the public domain, other qualified professionals around the world would be interested in looking into the validity of these models. Right now, climate science is a black box that is highly questionable with unstated assumptions and model inputs." Or, as Dr. David Wojick explained, "The public is not well served by this constant drumbeat of false alarms fed by computer models manipulated by advocates."

False assumptions guaranteed failure of the models, but manipulation and deception were achieved by what was left out. Exclusions, especially of solar activities achieved the objective of keeping the focus on CO2. The problem is CO2 is not causing global warming or climate change at all. Unfortunately, politics has not caught up with the science primarily due to the machinations of the IPCC and a few scientists, mostly government employees, who continue to blindly and religiously push CO2 as the problem.

What is wrong with the CO2 argument? Well most people have no understanding of climate science overall or the facts about CO2. The IPCC have also effectively made it the sole cause of climate change. AGW advocates and governments talk about reducing greenhouse gases, but they mean CO2. Few know it is less than 4% of all the greenhouse gases and the human portion is just a fraction of the 4%. Indeed, the amount we produce is within the error factor of the estimates of three natural sources.


1. Respiration Humans, Animals, Phytoplankton 43.5 - 52 Gt C/ year

2. Ocean Outgassing (Tropical Areas) 90 - 100 Gt C/year

3. Volcanoes, Soil degassing 0.5 - 2 Gt C/ year

4. Soil Bacteria, Decomposition 50 - 60 Gt C/ year

5. Forest cutting, Forest fires 0.6 - 2.6 Gt C/year

Anthropogenic emissions (2005) 7.5 - 7.5 Gt C/year

TOTAL 192 to 224 Gt C/ year

The table shows the range of estimates of natural CO2 and human production in 2005 (Gt C/year is Gigatons of Carbon per year). Accuracy has not improved since. Notice the human contribution is within the error range of three (1, 2, & 4) of the natural sources. The total error range is almost 5 times the amount of total human production. If we play the carbon tax game we can reduce that by 50 percent to 3.75 Gt C/year net because we remove half of what we produce through agriculture and reforestation. In other words, if everyone left the planet but one scientist remained to measure the difference in atmospheric CO2 she would not be able to measure any difference.

Many problems exist with the AGW theory, but there is one that destroys it completely. The most fundamental assumption of the theory is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. In fact, every record for any time period and any duration shows that exactly the opposite happens - temperature increases before CO2. This assumption is still programmed into the computer models so they continue to show that a CO2 increase causes a temperature increase. They dare not change this because it will take the focus away from CO2.

Now the social and economic damage of soaring energy and food prices, which are a direct result of policies based on IPCC reports are emerging and the evidence continues to show CO2 is not the problem. Those responsible are already making excuses or deserting the sinking ship. For example New Scientist reports on Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium - Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England; "I don't want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain." Why is he saying this now? Where we was he when politicians were being misled by the IPCC? But his concern and explanation show he doesn't understand the science of climate change. "...he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC's predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. They fear that if the IPCC's predictions turn out to be wrong, it will provoke a crisis in confidence that undermines the whole climate change debate. The crisis in confidence about the climate debate is good news--it is the certainty of people like Palmer and the IPCC that have created the crisis and will create the loss of credibility. The larger problem is the loss of credibility for science on all issues especially the environment.

Emeritus Professor Garth Paltridge explains what is happening. "Basically, the problem is that the research community has gone so far along the path of frightening the life out of the man in the street that to recant publicly even part of the story would massively damage the reputation and political clout of science in general. And so, like corpuscles in the blood, researchers all over the world now rush in overwhelming numbers to repel infection by any idea that threatens the carefully cultivated belief in climatic disaster."

We now know how a small group through the IPCC created a completely false picture supposedly based on science. Some have described what the IPCC achieved is similar to Lysenkoism. The Skeptics Dictionary explains, Under Lysenko's guidance, science was guided not by the most likely theories, backed by appropriately controlled experiments, but by the desired ideology. Science was practiced in the service of the State, or more precisely, in the service of ideology. Lysenko's version of genetics dominated and seriously diverted Soviet science from 1948 to 1965 when it was finally rejected. Certainly the concept that human CO2 was causing warming and climate change was based on a unproven theory used by people with an ideology. They used instruments of state to dominate the science. They also attacked and abused anyone who dared to pursue proper science.

Some see all the symptoms of what Irving Janis defines as Groupthink in the behavior of the IPCC group. Groupthink is a condition that can develop in groups that are extremely task-oriented and goal-driven. Interestingly, Maurice Strong identified the group and their purpose in 1990: "What if a small group of these world leaders were to conclude the principal risk to the earth comes from the actions of the rich countries?...In order to save the planet, the group decides: Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring this about?" There is no doubt climate science was used and abused to achieve this political agenda. The eight features of Groupthink Janis identified appear to have direct application to the group that control the IPCC. Several of them are also part of the group Professor Wegman's report to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) on the hockey stick identifies many of the features of Groupthink. It certainly is in line with the definition of a cabal discussed in Part 7 of this series.

The small group who have controlled the IPCC are unlikely to change their tune. This is partly because of the eighth symptom of "Self-appointed Mindguards" who protect the group from assault by troublesome ideas. The work of William Connolley in defending the group is well documented. Similarly, Gavin Schmidt and others at the web site Realclimate function as self-appointed Mindguards

There is also the problem Leo Tolstoi identified some 100 years ago. "I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives."

A measure of the degree of disconnect of the current IPCC leadership was provided in a speech at Cambridge University on May 14, 2008 by Vice Chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate, Professor Mohan Munasinghe. In the midst of starvation, food riots, wildly escalating energy costs and serious disruption to world economies all precipitated by the policies designed to deal with the false belief CO2 is a problem we get this from the Vice Chair of IPCC. "Climate change will lead to a "fortress world" in which the rich lock themselves away in gated communities and the poor must fend for themselves in shattered environments, unless governments act quickly to curb greenhouse gas emissions. " How can he be so wrong? The events he predicts are already happening. The people are already suffering but the cause is policy implemented because of the IPCC Reports. Groupthink is mostly about fooling yourself, but it is easier when you believe you are among the few who care about the environment.


Global Warming My Ass

Well, I was going to take down the Christmas lights today. But now I may as well plug `em in. When I woke up and looked out the bedroom window this morning, my reaction was enough to propel both of my kids out of their beds. "Dad, what's the matter?" asked Rusty, reacting to the string of epithets flowing from my room. "Did you have that dream again, where you were a sex slave for Condoleeza Rice?"

"No. Look out the window." He looked. "Whoa! Wouldn't it be cool if we had a snow day?" he said, eyes widening.

Tomorrow's the last day of school at John Colter Elementary. The kids are on the verge of three straight months of "snow days." But instead of bundling up swimsuits and beach towels for a pool party, I'm digging out recently-stored snow boots and winter coats. I can't see out the front window because the birch tree in the front yard is humped over by the weight of the snow, touching the ground.

The tomato and pepper plants in our backyard garden surely will not survive this, will they? I can see deer on the hill behind our house, scratching their heads and double-checking the date on their complimentary Field & Stream calendars.

But who do I complain to? What can I do? How am I supposed to get my revenge for this cruel joke? I mean, I've done my time, man. I trudged through seven long months of this winter wonderland bullshit. I've already made the switch from whiskey to gin. I've already gotten two sunburns this year. Criminy. Like the rest of Missoula, I'll just continue with my day, trying to avoid the inevitable string of fender benders resulting from carefree drivers who fail to remember how slick the roads get when the snow meets the oil on the asphalt.

I know the white stuff will be gone by tomorrow, or even later today. But I still feel like throwing a tantrum, because it just isn't fair. I should be playing golf. I can't throw horse shoes when the pits are full of snow. It makes me livid to have to crank on the heat: I've earned a lower power bill after writing a half dozen $300+ checks to those ruthless criminals at Northwestern Energy. Maybe the Republicans are right. Maybe this whole global warming thing is a fairy tale.


Global Warming: Man Made or Natural Cycle?

Over the last hundred years the Earth has been warming. This warming is believed to lead to many issues such as drought, weather extremes and famine. The man made global warming theory states that man made CO2 is causing Earth to warm at an alarming rate; thus, the warming will continue. While some scientists believe CO2 is the culprit, other scientists believe the world's warming and cooling happens in cycles due to various factors. Some of these scientists believe that Earth is starting a cooling trend after a long warming trend. Therefore, the trillion dollar question is global warming caused by CO2 or is this Earth's natural cycle?

Carbon dioxide is the gas that is responsible for global warming under the man made global warming theory. CO2 is also a part of everyday life. Therefore, this gas should not be confused with smog, which creates a low level ozone layer that can be harmful to humans. CO2 is less than 2% of the world's atmosphere. Meanwhile 93% of all CO2 is stored in the world's oceans; the rest is stored the biosphere in things like plants. Oceans move CO2 into the atmosphere and then remove it as continual cycle. Warmer waters, like tropical waters, store less CO2 than colder arctic or deep waters. As CO2 increases in the Earth's atmosphere, the oceans work harder to remove it. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have increased 30% since the pre-industrial era. The ocean has also increased its absorption of CO2 from roughly 2.0 Pg of CO2 in the 1980s to 2.4 Pg in the 1990s. Along with the oceans increased CO2 absorption, plants and trees also take in more CO2. This extra absorption of CO2 increases crop yields and plant growth.

The question arises if man is increasing the CO2 significantly or if the oceans are naturally warming and releasing more CO2 as a part of a cycle? Unfortunately, most graphs shown in news articles only go back 120 years, starting in the 1880s. One glance at these graphs and a person could easily deduce that man and industrialization has caused global warming. Many seem to forget that the last ice age was over 100,000 years ago, so looking at the last 120 years for temperature change seems inadequate. Archeologists have found cities under the oceans, such as the one in India that is 9500 years old. This indicates that the Earth must have been warming for some time, possibly including many warming and cooling cycles. Going back 2000 years paints a better picture than the 120 year "hockey stick" graph. In the Middle Ages the temperature deviation was the same as today. This period did not have industry that created man made CO2.

Another interesting fact is that even though man made CO2 has exponentially increasing from 1950 to today, temperature from 1940 to 1980 decreased. Scientists back in the 1970s believed that pollution was causing global cooling. The real problem is that any model based off a lower point, like 1880s temperature, would make the model appear that the earth is on fire. Instead of using incomplete models, models need to include a couple of temperature cycles to fully understand how the Earth behaves.

At least 70-80% of the Earth's warming effect comes from water vapor and clouds not CO2. CO2 traps about 10-20% of the world's heat. Other contributors to warming include high altitude cirrus clouds and sunspots. Cirrus clouds block radiant heat from escaping the Earth's atmosphere. Sunspots have been known throughout history to have an effect on the Earth's temperature. From 1645 to 1715 there were very few sunspots recorded. This also was a period referred to as the little ice age. Over the last 60 years, our sun has been very active with a record number of sun spots recorded. This could also be the reason that ice caps on Mars are melting and other planets in our solar system are experiencing warming, like Jupiter.

By studying models that are more inclusive, scientists are now worried about the warming trend reversing. The Antarctic Ice Sheet is growing at a record pace. The media seems to focus on just the Wilkins ice sheet, which is only 0.01% of Antarctica's ice cover. The rest of the ice cover is returning 60% faster than last year at 4.0 square km. Even Greenland is seeing a 15 year high in ice levels between Canada and itself. In the US this spring has been much cooler than normal for most of the country. These events are leading more and more scientists to believe the Earth is in for a cooling trend. If global cooling occurs, agricultural life could change as we know it. This could lead to a worldwide food shortage and a displacement of millions of people.

Currently, the United States Congress is debating a potential five trillion dollar energy policy. This policy will place carbon caps on corporations. This will raise cost of energy significantly. Money raised from these caps would be redistributed to more expensive renewable energy projects. The poor will suffer the most as they will have to contend with rising food prices, rising gas prices and now rising energy costs. With so many factors causing global warming, the anti- CO2 movement seems very reckless and will cause many people to suffer.

Fighting emissions from cars and factories is a very noble cause. Pollution can cause all sorts of problems like asthma. To say the world is warming because of humans is a very bold claim. Lots of factors go into warming the Earth. To focus on just one, CO2 is very na‹ve. It can also be very dangerous as it sacrifices our economic stability and standard of living. Doubling the price of gasoline over the last few years has caused food costs to shoot up; fishermen and truckers to be put out of business; and many low income people to suffer. Now, Congress is debating to do the same thing to electricity prices.


Geologist: 'Earth has had massive changes in temperature unrelated to carbon dioxide'

Comment from Australia

The booming Northern Territory economy is at risk of being "destroyed" by government policy responses to climate change, an academic has said. There will be winners and losers under the system and reducing carbon dioxide emissions is expected to cost industry a lot of money.

But University of Adelaide mining geology professor Ian Plimer says all the expense will be for nothing, as climate change cannot be stopped -- and it isn't even caused by human-created carbon dioxide. "There is no relationship between carbon dioxide produced by industry and climate change," he said.

Professor Plimer said the scientific community had not reached any kind of consensus that carbon dioxide causes global warming. "There's no such thing as surety in science -- 32,000 North American scientists signed a document saying humans don't create global warming whereas the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change only has 2500 scientists saying it does."

Professor Plimer said other factors influenced climate change, such as volcanic eruptions, variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun and the sun's own heat-producing cycle -- none of which had anything to do with human activity. "There's a huge body of evidence showing no correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming," he said.

"Through the geological record we can look back in time and show the Earth has had massive changes in temperature unrelated to carbon dioxide." "Why make massive economic decisions when the science is extraordinarily uncertain?"

Professor Plimer said a misallocation of capital due to government greenhouse gas policies had the ability to destroy industry. "We've had a hint as to what rising energy costs do to food and fuel costs," he said. "If we want to restructure the economy on ambiguous information then we have a suicide wish and will totally destroy the economy. "In Darwin, you'd better look for a cave to live in -- because that's going to be your economy."

Professor Plimer said the only reason the climate change ""scare scenario" had become so popular was because of widespread scientific ignorance.

But Environment Centre NT spokesman Justin Tutty said Professor Plimer was at odds with the "overwhelming" weight of consensus led by the IPCC. "The IPCC's solid analysis has led business and industry groups, such as the Business Council of Australia, to realise the costs of policies to cut emissions are more acceptable than the economic costs of inaction," he said. "Now that the NT Government has come to the table, committing to develop a climate change policy, we hope real progress can be made to reduce the carbon burden of the Territory's future economy."

Mr Tutty said the document Professor Plimer cited had been roundly discredited for "having a very loose methodology". "It's a bit of a stretch to compare an unvetted online petition with a forum of experts appointed by the world's governments," he said.

But Professor Plimer said a lot of the signatories had been senior scientists. "I know many of them personally," he said. His comments come after the Territory Government released a discussion paper on climate change issues last week.



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 is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.


1 comment:

John A said...

To paraphrase Microsoft Research ecologist Drew Purves "Our models don't work because they leave out trees [and ocean currents and wossname, that big bright thing in the sky, and the history of climate during human existence except as shown by the idiotic "hockey stick"] but the conclusions we draw must be true since we are proud of our work. We just need to do more manipulation."

AGW is based on speculation about the last 120-130 years, and since a major change has been industrialization the conclusion was that it maust also be the cause of all change. Can they say hubris? Expand the time line to 1200 years, and both the Medieval Warm and the Little Ice Age show up - how much CO2 was being generated during these periods? Go back 12000 years, and we find humans walking from Denmark to England where there is now the North Sea. How did we do that? Boy, we're powerful!

If the climate is on the verge of a long-term (more than a few decades) change, we might well be better advised to prepare for a change in either direction (yes, a lot of things can be done that will ameliorate either warming or cooling) than pounding our chests and saying "Behold almighty humanity!" while Nature does to us what it did to King Canute - ignore us.