Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Sans commentaire:




http://www.dailytech.com/Bad+News+for+Global+Warming+Alarmists/article5914.htm

You know a bit more about Weather Channel host Heidi Cullen's scientific background?

To be fair, Mr Svensmark seems to be for real. He has yet to persuade a lot of his colleagures, but he seems to be a serious physicist.

Walter - never heard of her, but I do know this one:

yesterday's 'globe and mail' (canada's major newspaper) published an article under the heading of

ARE SCIENTISTS EVOLVING INTO CLIMATE CRUSADERS ? (link to article) .

since it is a three-page report i won't post it here - please use the link .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

these scientists recently helped draft and circulate a letter - signed by 90 scientists - which was sent to canadian prime-minister harper .
while they do not want to sound alarmist , they feel that they cannot sit idly by .
dr. mcbean said : "i don't think the earth is going to be unlivable in 100 years " .
but he also said that he worried about the future for his two grandchildren .

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
not being a scientist my opinion is a very simple one :
if we are wrong about global warming and the temperatures stay relatively normal , we may indeed have wasted some monies on becoming more energy efficient and being concerned about the earth's environment .
if we do nothing about global warming and the earth becomes environmentally devastated , the cost both in lives and money lost would be much higher .

it's like looking at the seatbeltts and airbags in my car :
sure they cost extra money ; the seatbelt can at times even be inconvenient , but in a crash i stand a much better chance of surviving .

so i'd be quite willing to pay extra to keep the earth as healthy as possible .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i'll provide links for some of the scientists interviewed and being quoted in the article to make it easier for you to check their credentials .

DR. GORDON MCBEAN
Gordon McBean is a Professor in the Departments of Geography and Political Science and holds the Research Chair in policy at the Institute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction, at The University of Western Ontario, London, Canada. After being a scientist in Environment Canada, he was Professor of Atmospheric and Oceanographic Sciences at UBC until 1994. From 1994 to 2000, he was Assistant Deputy Minister responsible for the Meteorological Service of Environment Canada. As ADM, he was responsible for climate, weather and air quality sciences and services in the federal government and was a member of the Canadian delegation to Kyoto and other meetings.

DR. ANDREW WEAVER
Dr. Weaver's research focuses upon the large-scale ocean circulation and the role of the oceans in climate, with a special emphasis upon three-dimensional numerical modelling. Recent themes include the stability and variability of the global thermohaline circulation, and feedbacks within the coupled air-sea-ice climate system, along with possible implications for both past and future climates. In collaboration with his research associates and graduate students, a hierarchy of numerical models is being developed which range from simple conceptual models to applications of the finite element and semi-Lagrangian techniques to ocean models, and fully coupled climate models with simple atmospheres.

He has recently become interested in examining paleoclimate using coupled atmosphere ocean models. Other recent projects include an analysis of the role of flux adjustments in coupled models and the role of boundary layer versus interior mixing in governing the dynamics of the thermohaline circulation.

DR. KEN DENMAN
Senior Research Scientist
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis

Research Interests
interactions between marine planktonic ecosystems, ocean biogeochemical processes and a changing climate
developing coupled physical-biogeochemical models of the ocean, including carbon cycling and marine foodwebs

DR. ROSS MCKITRICK
Senior Fellow, The Fraser Institute

Professor McKitrick holds a BA in economics from Queen's University, and an MA and Ph.D. in economics from the University of British Columbia. He was appointed Assistant Professor in the Department of Economics at the University of Guelph in 1996 and Associate Professor in 2000. His area of specialization is environmental economics and policy analysis. His current research areas include empirical modeling of the relationship between economic growth and pollution emissions; the impact of economic activity on the measurement of surface temperatures; and the climate change policy debate.

Professor McKitrick has made invited academic presentations in Canada, the US and Europe, as well as professional briefings to the Canadian Parliamentary Finance Committee, and to government staff at the US Congress and Senate. He has published scholarly articles in The Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Economic Modeling, The Canadian Journal of Economics, Environmental and Resource Economics and other journals, as well as commentaries in newspapers and other public forums.

here is the link to the fifteen page LETTER TO PRIME MINISTER HARPER calling on him to develop a national climate-change strategy for canada .

hamburger, there is only one wrong assumption with your reasoning, but that wrong assumption basically renders your reasoning unworkable.

If man is causing catastophic global warming simply by emitting CO2, then we would need to reduce CO2 far more than we are now. The little extra money or the seatbelt you talk about will accomplish nothing, or so little that it is meaningless. It is akin to plugging 10 holes in a boat that has 1,000 holes in it, as the 1,000 holes grow larger and more than make up for the plugging of the 10 holes. Even as countries institute measures to limit CO2, it will merely slightly limit the growth of CO2, not put any serious dent into it. If you seriously think what little CO2 that man produces, which is about 1/4 of one percent of all greenhouse gas produced is going to cause terrible problems, then you will need to get on board with some very draconian measures, certainly far, far more than a little extra money or a seatbelt. Therein is your reasoning flawed. The reasoning is nothing more than a feel good attitude, but does nothing about what you perceive the problem to be. If you really believed what you say, you would be advocating something far more serious than a little extra money.

Personally, I see no reason to institute draconian measures that would likely kill far more people than the perceived global warming, in my opinion, and further, I don't think there is any compelling evidence that we are causing the problem. Instituting measures to cure cancer may require radiation or chemotherapy that might kill the patient, but if the patient does not have cancer, then the treatment is worse than the ill. If you merely wish to place a bandaid on the patient to cure the cancer to make yourself feel better, I suppose that is harmless, but it really has nothing to do with any potential cancer.

Well, since 46% of government scientists weren't allowed by the Bush administration even to use the terms "global warming" or "climate change", I'm quite contend that at least we can discuss it here.

Bush administration accused of doctoring scientists' reports on climate change

This is the key quote I noticed in your link, Walter:

"They also complain of a reduction in funding for climate research since the 1990s."

It usually boils down to money as being what they are actually mad about, doesn't it?

Well, when that is what you get from reading that report ... ...

See No Dissent, Call It Science
By Debra Saunders

It is a sign of how politicized global warming has become when a father's push for his daughter's junior high school science class to present both sides of the global warming controversy becomes a national story -- with the father being portrayed as the villain.

To recap, Frosty Hardison, the parent of a seventh-grader who attends school in Federal Way, Wash., was troubled to learn that science teacher Kay Walls had planned on showing her class Al Gore's global-warming pic "An Inconvenient Truth" -- without presenting any contrary information.

Hardison is an evangelical Christian who, as The Washington Post reported, sees global warming as "one of the signs" of Judgment Day. That is, Hardison fits the sort of stereotype bound to attract national media attention under the rubric: religious zealot fights science in schools.

The school board put a moratorium on showing the movie -- since lifted -- while it investigated whether Wells was violating a school policy requiring that, when class materials "show bias," educators "point out the biases, and present additional information and perspectives to balance those biases."

On the one hand, it is a sad commentary that districts see a need to restrict teachers' ability to communicate -- and that this country has become so sensitive that parents feel a need to muzzle what teachers can say in class. On the other hand, we've all seen teachers who think their political views are gospel.

In this case, Walls told The Washington Post that she could not find any authoritative articles that counter "An Inconvenient Truth" -- other than a 32-year-old Newsweek article. CNN apparently went to the same school as Walls, as it aired a segment in which University of Maryland Professor Phil Arkin asserted, "I don't think there is legitimately an actual opposing viewpoint to the 'Inconvenient Truth' film."

Allow me to present a few names. Massachusetts Institute of Technollogy's Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology Richard S. Lindzen complained to the Boston Globe about the "shrill alarmism" of Gore's flick. Neil Frank, who was considered authoritative when he was the director of the National Hurricane Center, told The Washington Post that global warming is "a hoax." Hurricane expert William Gray of Colorado State University believes the Earth will start to cool within 10 years.

University of Virginia professor emeritus Fred Singer co-authored a book, "Unstoppable Global Warming -- Every 1,500 Years," that argues that global warming is not human-induced but based on a solar cycle. Last year, 60 Canadian scientists signed a letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in which they argued that there is no consensus among climate scientists.

Odd, isn't it? Global warming believers heap scorn on religious zealots for not valuing science and knowledge. Yet the thrust of their argument to prove apocalyptic global warming relies on denying the existence of views and scientists who clearly exist.

A Boston Globe editorial mischaracterized the controversy as the mischief of some parents objecting "to having their children see" "An Inconvenient Truth" -- despite the fact that Hardison had told The Seattle Times that he wanted the teacher to present "a whole broad spectrum of facts." Buying into the teacher's argument that she cannot find heterodox articles, the editorial suggested that Walls find her "balancing 'data' in Michael Crichton's novel 'State of Fear.' It's science fiction." That was supposed to be clever.

It is fascinating to watch Gore's acolytes belittle Crichton for being a novelist, apparently undaunted by the fact that they're getting their science from a movie and a politician. At least Crichton is a Harvard Medical School graduate -- which suggests that he has some appreciation for the scientific method. When Gore took natural science classes at Harvard, The Washington Post has reported, he received a D as a sophomore and a C+ in his senior year.

Over the phone Monday, Lindzen remarked on Gore's grades, as he noted that global warming believers have tried to argue that there has been consensus since 1988 -- when fewer scientists believed in climatic apocalypse. And those who deny that credible scientists have opposing views are "expressing their will, not their finding. They want this to be so, so they'll ignore anything else."

So who is the real zealot -- the father who said he is happy both sides will be shown? Or the teacher who denies the existence of scientists with heterodox views?

Okie. You are absolutely right -- the Bush Administration's cutting of funding for science is key to the entire problem we now face. It shows how little regard the current administration has for the sciences in general and for specific sciences like climatology that go against the grain of these oil-men.

Perhaps if the funding hadn't been cut, we'd be in a much better position to analyze the problems of global warming... and what better way for the bullies in the White House to stifle warnings of any king than by drying up the funding??

Cutting out dollars and cutting words out of reports are part & parcel with the Bush Administration. Good call, you obviously understand this administration well.

The Bush administration has not cut funding for science. I would be very surprised if it had cut funding for climate research. It might not have allocated as much as the scientists who get paid to conduct climate research have requested, but in liberalspeak, not providing all that is asked for is a cut.

LOOK HERE

Well, my information is just what is reported in the media ... I read on- and offline.

Could you perhaps give some sources which oppose what is printed/published there?

Right on, Foxfyre, Liberal speak definition of a cut is when the increase in funding does not meet what they requested. Example, my parents cut my allowance when I requested it be doubled, but they cut it to a 25% increase. (Note: That did not happen of course because I never got an allowance in the first place.) I haven't bothered to check and see whether climate research has been actually cut, but I am skeptical also.

And Walter plucks the one line from my post that he can attack and ignores the pertinent qualifier and the link. How do they do that with a straight face?

Anyhow on the subject of funding

URL=http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html]OIL COMPANY FUNDING[/URL][/URL]

And excerpted from a book report:

THE SATANIC GASSES (Book reporting prior to ANY Bush budget)

A potentially informative and constructive debate about the costs and benefits of global warming has been lost to "political dramatization," argue the authors of a new Cato Institute book.

. . . . The authors find that government funding of research has corrupted the scientific process as scientists compete for funding in a politically charged envi-ronment. Total federal spending on global climate change research has ballooned from a few million dollars to $2.1 billion annually in the last 15 years. . .



SOURCE

And ignoring all this information, here's the other side of the argument from MOTHER JONES

I won't stand such stupid remarks about me, Foxfyre.

I read a couple of printed and only published US media per day and only found what I remarked above.

Since you have different sources it well could be be that mine were wrong, not only biased as usually (though The Wshington Times reported that online and printed, too).


How do you suggest that I pose my questions in future without getting such such responses?

Thanks.

Some love to attack research funded by energy companies, but what about political interests funding research? In such cases, the researchers need certain answers to perpetuate their funding, and many have a political bias to begin with. I think phony science funded by political interests is more dangerous, because political interests have more power to influence policy based on phony science than energy companies do. Energy companies cannot confiscate my money, but government can, and then do with it whatever they please.

And I see that in your dragging a red herring over all this, we get totally beyond the fact that the BUSH ADMINSTRATION CHANGES THE WORDS ON SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTS, which was, after all, the real point.