71
   

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

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:09 am
Advocate wrote:
Indeed, Hansen has refused to debate out-of-touch contrarians. There is nothing to gain from it. The latter essentially wing it with far-out theories lacking any scientific bases. Reputable scientists, like Hansen, eschew such a waste of time.



A classical response from a true believing zealot who gets his opinions from others and whose mind (such as it is) has been firmly closed for a long time.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:10 am
Lisa Benson's cartoons have been largely focused on AGW lately:

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0812cd.jpg

http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/lb0806cd.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 10:54 am
Advocate wrote:
NASA's Hansen is highly respected and....


And by who would they be?

He sounds like a whacko to me.

I thought we should have scientists in NASA, not political pundits. He has turned science into politics, which is not to be respected. He should be fired, and the irony of it is that if he was, the firers would be charged with being political, when in reality it is Hansen that is the guilty.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:08 am
okie wrote:
He sounds like a whacko to me.

That's because cognitive dissonance prevents you from seriously considering the possibility that your party's party line willfully shuts out reality, personally demonizes scientists when they figure out realities that contradict the party line, and insists that everyone is a parisan whacko unless they say the Republican party line is right at least half of the time.

Like it or not -- among climatologists, meteorologists, and physicists, Hansen has a first class reputation. It's the people who slander him as a whacko are who are almost exclusively political operatives, and almost all of whom haven't researched, or have sloppily researched, what they're talking about.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:13 am
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that Hansen's theories pretty well parallel the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned.
0 Replies
 
hamburger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:25 am
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that Hansen's theories pretty well parallel the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned.


does that automatically disqualifies a scientific study ?

let me adjust slightly ...

Quote:
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned pretty well parallel hansen's theories .


would that be equally unacceptable ?
hbg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:27 am
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
He sounds like a whacko to me.

That's because cognitive dissonance prevents you from seriously considering the possibility that your party's party line willfully shuts out reality, personally demonizes scientists when they figure out realities that contradict the party line, and insists that everyone is a parisan whacko unless they say the Republican party line is right at least half of the time.

Like it or not -- among climatologists, meteorologists, and physicists, Hansen has a first class reputation. It's the people who slander him as a whacko are who are almost exclusively political operatives, and almost all of whom haven't researched, or have sloppily researched, what they're talking about.


And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas? Common sense tells me otherwise. The man has made too many whacked out statements to convince me he is a scientist. He is a cheap political whacko, nothing more. And they are afraid to fire him because it would be "political." Sad.

He wants to put oil companies on trial? He is a nut, plain and simple. And if he had political authority, also very dangerous, possibly another Hitler, who knows?
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 11:31 am
hamburger wrote:
foxfire wrote :

Quote:
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that Hansen's theories pretty well parallel the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned.


does that automatically disqualifies a scientific study ?

let me adjust slightly ...

Quote:
The problem with that theory, Thomas, is that the party line so far as the Bush Administration, John McCain, etc. are concerned pretty well parallel hansen's theories .


would that be equally unacceptable ?
hbg


Thomas's point, I think--he can speak for himself--was that some discredit Hansen's theories purely because 'he doesn't follow the party line'. My post was to discredit Thomas's theory because Hansen actually does pretty well parallel the party line at least as the Bush Administration and John McCain are concerned.

I don't know that Hansen has ever conducted a 'scientific study' on this issue, but he has been extremely vocal and his opinions are in conflict with others that some of us--me anyway--find to be more credible.

That particular conclusion does not need to be politicized or demonized at all, even though I think Hansen is a thoroughly political animal as Okie expressed. (I'm not sure I would characterize Hansen as 'wacko' but I sure would characterize him as opportunistic.)
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 12:40 pm
okie wrote:

And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas? Common sense tells me otherwise. The man has made too many whacked out statements to convince me he is a scientist. He is a cheap political whacko, nothing more. And they are afraid to fire him because it would be "political." Sad.

He wants to put oil companies on trial? He is a nut, plain and simple. And if he had political authority, also very dangerous, possibly another Hitler, who knows?

I am going to post this again, for effect. I want everybody to think about it - Hansen, he advocates putting oil company executives on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature. Yes, he is on record. I say it is time for people with common sense to stand up and say this man is a nut. I am frankly tired of the apologists that apologize for such people, that are frankly dangerous, and whackos. Yes, whacko, I will say it again, Thomas. Call him highly respected if you want, but he is whacko, and he is political, and the stuff he says is dangerous. He should have been fired yesterday.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 01:04 pm
Okie, I am going to respectfully disagree. I don't think he is 'whacko' though I agree he can be dangerous if enough wackos take him seriously. I think he is a pure opportunist riding a wave of a Chicken-Little syndrome concurrently with political motives and a shrinking body of scientists desperate to protect their funding. He is Al Gore's strongest ally and is benefitting enormously from that relationship.

Nasa is out of line on global warming
By Christopher Booker
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 27/07/2008

Considering that the measures recommended by the world's politicians to combat global warming will cost tens of trillions of dollars and involve very drastic changes to our way of life, it might be thought wise to check the reliability of the evidence on which they base their belief that our planet is actually getting hotter.

There are four internationally recognised sources of data on world temperatures, but the one most often cited by supporters of global warming is that run by James Hansen of Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS).

Hansen has been for 20 years the world's leading scientific advocate of global warming (and Al Gore's closest ally). But in the past year a number of expert US scientists have been conducting a public investigation, through scientific blogs, which raises large question marks over the methods used to arrive at his figures.

advertisement
First they noted the increasingly glaring discrepancy between the figures given by GISS, which show temperatures continuing to race upwards, and those given by the other three main data sources, which all show temperatures having fallen since 1998, dropping dramatically in the past year to levels around the average of the past 30 years.

Two sets of data, from satellites, go back to 1979: one produced by Dr Roy Spencer, formerly of Nasa, now at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, the other by Remote Sensing Systems. Their figures correspond closely with those produced by the Hadley Centre for Climate Studies of our own Met Office, based on global surface temperature readings.

Right out on their own, however, are the quite different figures produced by GISS which, strangely for a body sponsored by Nasa, rely not on satellites but also on surface readings. Hansen's latest graph shows temperatures rising since 1880, at accelerating speed in the past 10 years.

Read more from Christopher Booker
The other three all show a flattening out after 2001 and a marked downward plunge of 0.6 degrees Celsius in 2007/8, equivalent to almost all the net warming recorded in the 20th century. (For comparisons see "Is the Earth getting warmer, or colder?" by Steven Goddard on The Register website.)

Even more searching questions have been raised over Hansen's figures by two expert blogs. One is Climate Audit, run by Steve McIntyre, the computer analyst who earlier exposed the notorious "hockeystick" graph that was shamelessly exploited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and Al Gore. (This used a flawed computer model to suppress evidence that the world was hotter in the Middle Ages than today.) The other site is Watts Up With That, run by the meteorologist Anthony Watts.

It was McIntyre who last year forced Hansen to publish revised figures for US surface temperatures, to show that the hottest years of the 20th century were not in the 1990s, as Hansen had claimed, but in the 1930s. He has now shown that Hansen had been adjusting almost all his pre-1970 global temperature figures downwards, by as much as 0.5 degrees, and his post-1970 figures upwards.

Although Hansen claimed that this only resulted from more careful calculations, McIntyre pointed out how odd it was that the adjustments all seemed to confirm his thesis.

Watts meanwhile has also been conducting an exhaustive photographic survey of US surface weather stations, showing how temperature readings on more than half have been skewed upwards by siting thermometers where their readings are magnified by artificial heat-sources, such as asphalt car parks or air-conditioning systems.

All this has raised such doubts over the methodology behind the GISS data that informed observers are calling for it to be independently assessed. Hansen himself is notoriously impatient of any criticism of his methods: earlier this month he appealed to Congress that the leaders of those who question global warming should be put on trial.

It is still too early to suggest that the recent drop in temperatures shown by everyone but him is proof that global warming has stopped. But the fact is that not one of those vaunted computer models predicted what has happened to temperatures in recent years. Yet it is on those models (and Hansen's alarmist figures) that our politicians are basing all their proposals for irrevocably changing our lives.
LINK
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 01:10 pm
You would think that the fact that Hansen was the primary scientific authority for Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" that has been so severely criticized and discredited by so many in the scientific community would at least give the Hansen admirers pause for thought.

Also, the issues Okie raised re 'putting oil executives on trial' also merits a good deal of thought. He whines that he was pressured to repress his views, but he, like Heidi Cullen, seem to think it is okay to repress anybody who doesn't agree with him even as he strongly resists having his own methodology closely examined.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 01:21 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
He sounds like a whacko to me.

That's because cognitive dissonance prevents you from seriously considering the possibility that your party's party line willfully shuts out reality, personally demonizes scientists when they figure out realities that contradict the party line, and insists that everyone is a parisan whacko unless they say the Republican party line is right at least half of the time.

Like it or not -- among climatologists, meteorologists, and physicists, Hansen has a first class reputation. It's the people who slander him as a whacko are who are almost exclusively political operatives, and almost all of whom haven't researched, or have sloppily researched, what they're talking about.


Thomas, I think you have gone over to the dark side. I don't know the prevailing views of "climatologists, meterorologists, and physicists" with respect to this very outspoken individual who has vociferously advocated relatively extreme views of the AGW matter - much closer, for example, to those advocated by Al Gore than the IPCC consensus itself. Moreover, I doubt that you can speak for them either.

The scientific consensus remains that there has been some detectable warming (about 1 deg C) in the past century that is "probably" attributable to human activity; and that CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is a likely associative or causitive factor. However, there is (as yet at least) no conclusive proof for the conjectures, advocated by folks like Hansen, that various "tipping points", from which no return is possible from some cataclysmic forecast outcome, are near or have been passed. Indeed most of these conjectures are known to be based on numerical models that, themselves are known to be unable to accurately predict even near term outcomes of far simpler processes.

There is a lot of selective reporting of facts going on, most of which is understandably associated with the hype on this subject and the irrational fears of credulous consumers of the latest version of "the sky is falling in" theory. Thus reports of glacial melting on the eastern coast of Greenland get far more attention than reports of increased glaciation elsewhere. Similarly, Al Gore's fantasy of increased violent storm activity and the associated increases in property damage on the U.S. Gulf Coast - both alleged to be a result of AGW, all get widely reported; while the simple statistical facts, that storm intensity and frequency continue to follow historical patterns, and that the increased coastal property damage is entirely a predictable result of the vast increases in property development in a coastal region that just a few decades ago was largely empty, - go unreported.
0 Replies
 
High Seas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 01:54 pm
Hansen seems to have lost it completely - now sending ccs to Queen Elizabeth:
Quote:
In a Dec. 19 letter to Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he copied to Queen Elizabeth II, Hansen, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration's top climate scientist, said using more coal without the emission-reducing technology may accelerate floods, droughts and heat waves.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aJDmadzqDkrg&refer=home

It gets funnier: the "emission-reducing technology" for coal plants that Hansen supports can be shown to INCREASE warming by eliminating brown carbon particles in the atmosphere:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080807144244.htm

Quote:
"When you hear about predictions of future warming or changes in precipitation globally, ....... the predictions are based on computer model output that is ignoring brown carbon, ...."
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:04 pm
Hansen makes a lot of sense about the enormity of the "crimes" committed by oil company execs. The crimes are similar to those of the cigarette execs, who lied about the detrimental effects of smoking, or the crimes of Bush, who lied us into a horrible war to steal a country's oil.


Put oil firm chiefs on trial, says leading climate change scientist· Testimony to US Congress will also criticise lobbyists
· 'Revolutionary' policies needed to tackle crisis

Ed Pilkington in New York The Guardian, Monday June 23 2008 Article historyJames Hansen, one of the world's leading climate scientists, will today call for the chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, accusing them of actively spreading doubt about global warming in the same way that tobacco companies blurred the links between smoking and cancer.

Hansen will use the symbolically charged 20th anniversary of his groundbreaking speech (pdf) to the US Congress - in which he was among the first to sound the alarm over the reality of global warming - to argue that radical steps need to be taken immediately if the "perfect storm" of irreversible climate change is not to become inevitable.

Speaking before Congress again, he will accuse the chief executive officers of companies such as ExxonMobil and Peabody Energy of being fully aware of the disinformation about climate change they are spreading.

In an interview with the Guardian he said: "When you are in that kind of position, as the CEO of one the primary players who have been putting out misinformation even via organisations that affect what gets into school textbooks, then I think that's a crime."

He is also considering personally targeting members of Congress who have a poor track record on climate change in the coming November elections. He will campaign to have several of them unseated. Hansen's speech to Congress on June 23 1988 is seen as a seminal moment in bringing the threat of global warming to the public's attention. At a time when most scientists were still hesitant to speak out, he said the evidence of the greenhouse gas effect was 99% certain, adding "it is time to stop waffling".

He will tell the House select committee on energy independence and global warming this afternoon that he is now 99% certain that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has already risen beyond the safe level.

The current concentration is 385 parts per million and is rising by 2ppm a year. Hansen, who heads Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, says 2009 will be a crucial year, with a new US president and talks on how to follow the Kyoto agreement.

He wants to see a moratorium on new coal-fired power plants, coupled with the creation of a huge grid of low-loss electric power lines buried under ground and spread across America, in order to give wind and solar power a chance of competing. "The new US president would have to take the initiative analogous to Kennedy's decision to go to the moon."

His sharpest words are reserved for the special interests he blames for public confusion about the nature of the global warming threat. "The problem is not political will, it's the alligator shoes - the lobbyists. It's the fact that money talks in Washington, and that democracy is not working the way it's intended to work."

A group seeking to increase pressure on international leaders is launching a campaign today called 350.org. It is taking out full-page adverts in papers such as the New York Times and the Swedish Falukuriren calling for the target level of CO2 to be lowered to 350ppm. The advert has been backed by 150 signatories, including Hansen
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:14 pm
okie wrote:
And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas?

Yes, he is the same man. No, that does not make him a whack. It makes him someone who knows from experience that carefully reasoned expert testimony does not get much traction in politics, and who uses the forum Congress gives him to make a point. None of this subtracts from his credentials as a scientist, any more than Milton Friedman's political activism reduces the quality of his economics.

okie wrote:
He wants to put oil companies on trial? He is a nut, plain and simple.

That's probably what they said the first time someone suggested suing cigarette companies for knowingly lying about cigarettes causing cancer. We'll see if the critics are right this time.

[quote="okie" And if he had political authority, also very dangerous, possibly another Hitler, who knows?[/quote]
Right. Hitler. Of course. I was wondering when you would pull out that old hat.

Foxfyre wrote:
Thomas's point, I think--he can speak for himself--was that some discredit Hansen's theories purely because 'he doesn't follow the party line'. My post was to discredit Thomas's theory because Hansen actually does pretty well parallel the party line at least as the Bush Administration and John McCain are concerned.

Fair enough. Substitute my "contradicts your (okie's) party line" with "contradicts your ideology". This is a semantic matter that I have no interest in fighting about.

georgeob1 wrote:
Thomas, I think you have gone over to the dark side.

What do you mean, "gone over to"? I never was on anybody's side but my own to begin with.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:27 pm
Advocate wrote:
Hansen makes a lot of sense about the enormity of the "crimes" committed by oil company execs. The crimes are similar to those of the cigarette execs, who lied about the detrimental effects of smoking, or the crimes of Bush, who lied us into a horrible war to steal a country's oil.
....

This type of thinking is an example of how some very dangerous thinking has made its way into the political world, and it even has gained a semblance of so-called validity among people that consider themselves sane. I always was mystified as a young person, as to how anything like the holocaust could have happened. Do not mistake what I am going to say here, I do not compare the magnitude of the holocaust with Hansen's strange stances and quotes, but I do compare how that misinformation and demonization of a school of thought can lead to very bad things. As an adult, I have since found out to my own satisfaction how things like that can happen. I have seen things in the military and in the work world that have illustrated to me the tendencies of human nature that have convinced me that such things are still possible in this modern world. It is pretty much a simple matter of getting the masses to fall into line, feed them a line, and furthered by a willing press, peer pressure essentially can bring about some very very weird events that are totally unacceptable to otherwise sane people.

Count me one here to stand up and call some of this stuff for what it is, it is whacko, it is politics not science, and it is dangerous. This stuff I am talking about is the environmental extremism. That is why I think somebody like Hansen is not only very wrong, but it is in fact very dangerous. I have no respect for him at all, and I do not think any reasonable person should either. His views should not receive the light of day, no credence whatsoever, and it is disturbing that otherwise reasonable people do take him seriously as a scientist.

There are in fact people, and some on this forum, that would like to prosecute oil execs, Bush, tobacco execs, etc. The fact is, these people are whackos, and they are dangerous. Thankfully, they are not in power, but if they were it would not be pretty.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:35 pm
Thomas wrote:
okie wrote:
And Hansen the same man that advocates chief executives of large fossil fuel companies to be put on trial for high crimes against humanity and nature, is not a whacko, Thomas?

Yes, he is the same man. No, that does not make him a whack. ...

I think it does. I guess we will just have to disagree. In America, we are supposed to have freedom of thought, Thomas, and I am troubled that anyone would think somebody should be brought on trial for working for a company that produces energy from oil, energy that has fueled the most prosperous living conditions in human history.

Thomas, I think you need to rethink your views on this, unless you are prepared to give up your way of life, which I predict is highly unlikely. Fact is, I am going to bet that Hansen himself is one big giant hypocrit when it comes to energy usage. What kind of car, what kind of house, how does he live, somebody needs to do a little research.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:39 pm
okie wrote:
Thomas, I think you need to rethink your views on this, unless you are prepared to give up your way of life, which I predict is highly unlikely.

I don't see how the first part of this sentence is logically connected to the second. Reality is what reality is, whether I'm prepared for its consequences or not. But you are entitled to think I need to rethink my views. Freedom of thought and all that.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 02:53 pm
It is logically connected, Thomas. We are all part of the modern industrial world, and unless we are willing to give up all the comforts that it has afforded us, I think I am correct in condemning those that demonize the reasons for our comfort as hypocrites, if they are some of the biggest consumers of it.

Face it, oil is one primary reason for how well we are living. The entire world is enjoying the benefits of oil. Instead of singing its praises, what I see instead are people that want to prosecute the people responsible for their lovely lifestyle. Sort of like biting the hand that feeds them. Kind of weird if you ask me.

So I would like to see some research into how well James Hansen is living.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Mon 11 Aug, 2008 03:01 pm
THE DISSENTS OF THE SCIENTIFIC DISSENTERS



Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

194
Biochemistry researcher Dr. Thomas Lavin, who is a physician who holds patents regarding physical, chemical, and biological sciences and has conducted peer-reviewed research and experiments, expressed climate skepticism in 2007. "I first published a peer reviewed paper in 1981, and have been looking at data for 30 years," Lavin wrote to EPW on December 13, 2007. "I am somebody who has designed experiments and looked at data. And if you simply freeze Al Gore's movie when he introduces the CO2 and temperature relationship through geologic time, and look at the graph, the temperature goes up before the CO2 in every one of the six or seven elevations recorded geologically. And this time gap is on the order of a few hundred years," Lavin explained. "Add this to the NASA temperature revision [making 1934 the hottest year in the U.S.] and then add that many of the climate models which predict doom use the old, unrevised NASA data, and you have total garbage in/ garbage out," he wrote. "Before we start regulating who gets to build a factory, and who gets to fly on a private jet, or drive to work, I think the data has to be real and convincing," he added. "This episode in history I think will go down as marking the reverse of Galileo and Copernicus, the end of the Age of Reason, and it's frightening," Lavin concluded.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

195
Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored an August 20, 2007 paper entitled "Probability of Sudden Global Cooling." The study Harris authored found that "the data...clearly shows the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases and it shows that we have reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden cooling climate change. Based on this analysis we can say that there is a probability of 94% of imminent global cooling and the beginning of the coming ice age." He added, "By observation of a number of natural internal processes we can find further support for the coming change and I have referred before to the confirmed slowdown of the Gulf Stream, the effect of major endothermic polar ice melt and forecast reduction in solar activity after 70 years of extreme activity not seen for 8000 years before. The Stratosphere is cooling and ice is building on the South Pole. Climate is becoming unstable. Most of these major natural processes that we are witnessing now are interdependent and occur at the end of each interglacial period, ultimately causing sudden long term cooling."


Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report

197
Frederic Fluteau, a geomagnetism scientist with the Institute de Physique du Globe de Paris, co-authored a paper published on January 30, 2007 in the Earth and Planetary Science Letters. The paper, co-authored with geomagnetism scientist Yves Gallet and scientist Agnes Genevey of the Centre de Research at the Restauration des Musées, found, "Much of the observed increase in global surface temperature over the past 150 years occurred prior to the 1940s and after the 1980s. The main causes invoked are solar variability, changes in atmospheric greenhouse gas content or sulfur due to natural or anthropogenic action, or internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system." The paper also found that "a proposed mechanism involves variations in the geometry of the geomagnetic field (f.i. tilt of the dipole to lower latitudes), resulting in enhanced cosmic-ray induced nucleation of clouds. No forcing factor, be it changes in CO2 concentration in the atmosphere or changes in cosmic ray flux modulated by solar activity and geomagnetism, or possibly other factors, can at present be neglected or shown to be the overwhelming single driver of climate change in past centuries." Le Mouël also served as one of the co-authors.

Quote:

198
Meteorologist Jesse Ferrell of AccuWeather praised the new skeptical UK documentary The Great Global Warming Swindle in an April 2, 2007 blog post. "I will say that this movie has blown the entire [climate] debate open again, or should," Ferrell wrote. "Many people have made up their minds without seeing or hearing all the evidence. If you've seen Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth then you should take the time to watch The Great Global Warming Swindle," he added.

Quote:

199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204
The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition released seven "pillars of wisdom" to counter the UN IPCC climate report. As detailed in the Dominion Post on April 5, 2007, the coalition of prominent scientific skeptics includes: Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer for the IPCC and most recently a visiting scholar at the Beijing Climate Centre; Dr Gerrit van der Lingen, a geologist and paleoclimatologist and former director of Geoscience Research and Investigations New Zealand; Professor Augie Auer (deceased June 2007) of Auckland, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming, and previously MetService chief meteorologist; Professor Bob Carter, a New Zealand-trained geologist with extensive research experience in palaeoclimatology, now at the Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Warwick Hughes, a New Zealand earth scientist living in Pert; and Roger Dewhurst, of Katikati, a consulting environmental geologist and hydrogeologist.
The seven "pillars of wisdom" are:
1. Over the past few thousand years, the climate in many parts of the world has been warmer and cooler than it is now. Civilizations and cultures flourished in the warmer periods.
2. A major driver of climate change is variability in solar effects, such as sunspot cycles, the sun's magnetic field and solar particles.
These may account in great part for climate change during the past century. Evidence suggests warming involving increased carbon dioxide exerts only a minor influence.
3. Since 1998, global temperature has not increased. Projection of solar cycles suggests that cooling could set in and continue to about 2030.
4. Most recent climate and weather events are not unusual; they occur regularly.
For example, in the 1930s the Arctic experienced higher temperatures and had less ice than now.
5. Stories of impending climate disaster are based almost entirely on global climate models.
Not one of these models has shown that it can reliably predict future climate.
6. The Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, would make no measurable difference to world temperatures.
The trillions of dollars that it will cost would be far better spent on solving known problems such as the provision of clean water, reducing air pollution, and fighting malaria and Aids.
7. Climate is constantly changing and the future will include coolings, warmings, floods, droughts, and storms.
The best policy is to make sure we have in place disaster response plans that can deal with weather extremes and can react adaptively to longer-term climate cooling and warming trends.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 12/25/2024 at 10:18:56