Cooking the Climate Books - Cancel Copenhagen!
There is something rotten in the state of Denmark about to happen in early December. It is called COP-15 -- Conference of Partners -- and is a meeting of those UN IPCC diplomats striving for World Government and universal taxation under the UN; politicians seeking more power to tax and control peoples' existence; environmentalists striving to reduce the world's use of energy and its population; and certain climate scientists. It is all about their efforts to control the world's climate by promoting an unsubstantiated belief in Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW). Their intent is to keep this gravy train hoax alive, and dumping money into their coffers.
With the world's economy at stake as well as our future survival, we need to wake up to what is happening. Almost everything about this AGW hoax is based upon the output of hundreds of computer models -- (fancy, and expensive arcade games), which can be tweaked to produce any desired result, but which cannot model the actual climate for a few hours, never mind 50 years or longer. The Climate is a chaotic system and cannot be so simplistically modeled as there are thousands of unaccounted-for variables. Carbon dioxide, said to be the villain of this charade, has little, if anything to do with any of it. It's always been the sun!
When the real climate did not co-operate -- it's been cooling generally for the last 10 years -- those empirical data which really matter, were swept aside as an inconvenient truth. They are still generally denied in too many circles. Carbon dioxide has little, if anything to do with any of it. The climate is, and has been changing naturally for the last few hundred million years, and will continue to do so when we are no longer here.
At long last, and long overdue; this house of cards is now collapsing with the release of thousands of e-mails and data, either hacked, or deliberately released from the Climate Research Unit (CRU) in the U.K. -- the world's biggest repository of climate data -- by someone fed up of the years of sleight of hand, dishonesty, data manipulation, censorship and character assassination that they could no longer stomach, and which is now being revealed. The debate was never over. It never began, until now! Anthony Watt's web site is at the forefront of this endeavor.
This 'fraud' should have collapsed at least ten years ago, when these climate scientists refused to release their basic data, so that other climate scientists could be persuaded of the same things, and to agree with it all. Why did they not release them as is required in any honest scientific effort? Because -- as is now shown -- they dared not do so! The data do not show what these scientists said they did. The final alarm bell for me, was when Dr. Phil Jones, head of CRU said this some years ago; '...Even if WMO agrees, I will still not pass on the data. We have 25 or so years invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it... Cheers Phil.' This reply was confirmed by Jones when asked by Dr. von Storch. There have been many other alarming signs since then (see: Click Here). It is now obvious that he did not release his work, because there was something wrong with it. That refusal alone, should have stopped all publication of their papers, and caused a strong light to be shone upon their research. It didn't, for by then, politicians, environmentalists, and the gullible media had jumped on this bandwagon. They could smell an easy way of bringing Capitalist society to its knees, and of controlling the world's progress; unlimited power! -- a politician's wildest dream!
The e-mails and data show that these scientists have been selecting, deleting, and manipulating the raw temperature figures to show a relentlessly rising global warming trend, even as it cooled for ten years; they have consistently refused other scientists access to their raw data; they have been trying to avoid freedom of information requests by deleting or hiding publicly funded data (criminal acts); and they have actively sought to prevent the publication of papers by qualified dissenting scientists. They have even tried to have them dismissed from editorial positions in journals, or fired from their jobs. In private, they even admit to it being a travesty, that the models cannot explain the recent cooling:
On Oct 14, 2009, at 10:17 AM, Kevin Trenberth; one of this clique, wrote confidentially:
Hi Tom (Wigley)
How come you do not agree with a statement that says we are no where close to knowing where energy is going or whether clouds are changing to make the planet brighter. We are not close to balancing the energy budget. The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!
Kevin
Others, like Suzuki, clamoured for jail time for dissenters from this orthodoxy. These are the desperate, childish antics of persons who cannot defend the science, but instead, decide to attack the messenger. We expect better from adults, and especially from those with claim to scientific qualifications. As David Hume, the famous Scottish philosopher said: "When men are most sure and arrogant (like Suzuki, who can with 'absolute clarity' see the future) they are commonly most mistaken, giving views to passion without that proper deliberation which alone can secure them from the grossest absurdities."
What were they scared of? Of being found out! Science is supposed to be transparent. Scientific data should not be fudged, manipulated, hidden, cherry-picked or ignored. As a scientist, I want to know if there is something wrong with my data, before, I go public!
Willis Eschenbach, in his extremely revealing and ongoing fight to obtain data, over several years, from Jones under the FOI act, stated it this way (bracketed comment, mine): 'The scientific model works like this:
- A scientist makes claims, and reveals the data and methods he used to come to his conclusions.
Obviously, if the data or the methods are kept secret, the claims cannot be verified. Attacking other scientist's claims, (by using their own data) is what scientists do. This adversarial system is the heart of science.'
Science advances through skepticism, and through openness and transparency, not by being mangled by an inquisition intent on protecting their particular truth.
With trillions of dollars and the stability of our society at stake, should we not try to find out as much as we can about this controversial AGW subject in open debate and through full disclosure, rather than try to muzzle those who disagree with it and call them names and threaten them? Good science will stand on its own and survive such scrutiny. Rotten science will not! Expose this abomination to the killing light of open scrutiny! Let the real debate begin, as it never started.
I am waiting to see when Al Gore's acolytes, David Suzuki and others, sheepishly and shamefacedly request entry to the schools to correct the years of errors they fed gullible teachers and their students about this scam. It will never happen, but it should be demanded!
Remember, the opposite of skeptic is gullible. I prefer to be known as a skeptic.
Comments
'Is there a reason for this self-congratulatory ramble? I'm sorry, but I read more political bias and fixed-mind opinion than analysis here.'
I don't believe that I was being self congratulatory, I was trying to set the record straight about the various unscientific shenanigans that have gone on behind the scenes for many years, and that are just now seing the light of day. The main stream media is still largely silent on this issue. If you really want to see political bias, then the way THEY have handled this issue is IT. I am merely trying to let the broader readership see that there is another story waiting to be revealed.
As an aside, Anthony Watts' web site has a tremendous article on the state of the Arctic from 1922 (long before the present hysteria got going), with other readers providing data for comparable years. It reads as though it were released yesterday by the IPCC goons as a propaganda piece.
I hope the readers here are following what is happening in Europe this winter. Of course weather, is not climate, unless it happens to be a warm snap of a couple of days duration. Cold which kills tens to hundreds of thousands, and might last for a few weeks, doesn't count.
Your anonymous author is like many who have conflated a so-called scientific issue with a political-religious one. Since God is dead for most of these folks, HE needed to be replaced with something, and that something was the new pseudo-religion of climate worship. That is why the vehemence we have both experienced in these discussions exists. There is only one thing worse than being called out to be a gullible fool, and that is to know you were an acolyte at the false church besides. Only a fool would put explosives in his underwear, try to blow himself up and expect he was going to receive 72 virgins plus 28 handsome boys in the afterlife, but as experience dictates, there are indeed fools born every minute.
The IPCC has been run by this fellow, and he's not about to leave go of the golden goose. Mark my words, the fools in the press who have been beating this drum for the past decade are in no mood either to come out of their closets and admit they've been suckered. Ideally, in all their worlds this constitutes a "nothing to see here, now move along" moment and the quieter everyone is on it, the better for them and their ilk. That is why we need to NEVER stop the opposition, as you eloquently put it, "Science advances through skepticism, and through openness and transparency". To rescue science, we need to reintroduce the scientific process and decry this abomination for what it is, and has been since the beginning, a farce.
Now, the rent seekers have been exposed in their own e-mails as being less than scientifically pure, and their data somewhat questionable in too many ways.
Unfortunately, as in any religion, there will be those who will hang on to the myth of AGW for a few more years and to continue to worship the high priests like Gore and Hansen, who have grown fat off this. Politicians will let go of it reluctantly, as soon as it threatens to become embarrassing, and to cost them their jobs, as it seems to be about to do.
I've been trying to give the CRU e-mail issue a particularly wide berth w.r.t. impartiality for obvious reasons. I think to just say "it's nothing" is wrong-minded without investigating the facts of the files. On the other hand, anti-AGW types simply proclaiming that the e-mails are a damning scandal does not make that so either. It IS wrong that this information was obtained illegally, but given that the deed is done, the information is obviously worth perusing.
Anyway, in looking at some of the material, I am not particularly impressed. If you look at the top 10 e-mails that the AGW skeptics (See? I'm not using 'denier' anymore.) trot out as the indictments to the system, they really don't seem to be that bad. They ALL have reasonable explanations behind them. Unprofessional? Snippy? Snarky? Yes, they are all of those things.
It kind of reminded my of a biography of Bill Gates I read. In retrospect, I figured out it was attempting to be a "Bill Dearest" type of thing, looking for scandal and intrigue. But in the end, it really didn't have that much in it. Exposed to scrutiny, his life really didn't seem that horrific and quite comparable to many of us, if we had the magnifying lens applied to us. The CRU e-mails seem to be much the same thing.
Anyway, time well tell, at least for me. Should they prove damning and destructive and derailing of AGW, then that will be apparent in the next few years. But probably not to you. Should they be a blip on the radar that soon fades, you will likely blame the complacent media for burying the "story of the century".
But it is the core of humanity to want it both ways; a trade system that can exploit huge imbalances between certain countries, but at the same time repelling efforts at a global system aimed at addressing those same imbalances.
Go to the searchable source yourself, don't just skip to your usual suspects and their apologetics about this. For instance there is a very convincing youtube video where the sycophant, er I mean spokesperson Sinclair talks about lots of scientists using the word, "trick" and claiming there is nothing at all wrong with that. Unfortunately as glib as he is, he neglects to mention none of those self-same scientists using the word "HIDE" as in hiding a trend. One only needs to look out the window at record cold all over the world to satisfy themselves that the models are COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY WRONG!!! CO2 has been increasing for the past decade, and IF it were a driver of climate, it clearly is driving the WRONG WAY!
Now you know from privileged information that it would be in my personal and business self interest to jump on this bandwagon starting years ago. However my personal ethics would never allow that, riches be damned. If this were valid science I would have known it and would happily go along, but early on, like John and others, I saw too many warning signs that something was indeed rotten in the state of Denmark and the tricks and techniques used, including but not limited to suborning the peer review process (so that people like you could refuse to look at anything that wasn't peer reviewed) told me everything I needed to know about the so-called validity of their claims. REAL scientists don't need to "game" the system! They HAPPILY divulge their data and allow others to replicate them to validate their theories. They happily debate their results with dissenters. THIS is how science works! AGW isn't science, never was, never will be, it is only politics.
As I said before, the publicizing of private communications is not too wonderful, but given they are now available, it makes sense to look them over. (I remember VP Dick Cheney insisting on keeping communications in developing a national energy policy under wraps. I don't know why this courtesy can't be extended to scientists as well. And as far as I know, Cheney's salary was paid for with tax dollars, and nothing they talked about was (or should have been) classified.)
And now, in addition to the entire scientific community, the press is in on the fix too? I dunno; you are drifting perilously close to the WTC 7 mindset.
FWIW, I agree 100% that all models should be published and data provided. It was wrong of the CRU to not come clean with that (just like Cheney should have come clean and just said: "Oops, we are running out of oil. The only verifiable untapped reserves are under Saddam Hussein's feet. QED, we need to get rid of him." I could have respected that, and I think the public has a right to know that.)
If the CRU information proves relevant, perhaps the consensus agreement among scientists will change. We'll see.
A cold snap does not a global warming trend break (or make). If we'd been having a very mild winter, you'd chalk it up to a weather variation. As humans, we are very bad at registering this stuff rationally. Instead, look at frost dates from 20-30 years ago on seed packets. They've been getting earlier and earlier for quite some time.
And if 385 ppm CO2 is fine, then what would be a concern? 450? 500? 800? 1000? This is just like the people that think 12 Billion people on the planet would just be "fine". That's very unlikely to be the case. "Business as usual" will give us 800-1000 ppm by the end of the century. That level is high enough to cause breathing problems in some people.
I don't see how accusing Cheney of anything has the slightest thing to do with AGW. Also, why would Cheney need to say 'Oops we are running out of oil' when it wasn't happening. you might want to take a look north at the oil sands, other offshore developments (when allowed, even ANWAR when allowed) and gas developments in Bakken and elsewhere. The only time we might run out of oil is when politicians do that to us. As oil stocks are diminished, gas stocks will take over (who'd have thought that, twenty years ago?) and then nuclear I expect, but that is many decades ahead. And what has any of this to do with climate? Please don't change the subject.
Get off this use of the word 'consensus'. If it is consensus, it is not science. If it is science, it is not consensus.
Seed packet science - if there is any sense or validity to what you say - is neither climate nor weather. A lot of earlier planting dates are because of new seed varieties, and since when did seed companies market seeds or packets with local information that might apply to 100 different 'frost' dates, for 100 different climate zones and altitudes? Utter nonsense! It is a case of planter beware, but then gardeners are all optimists I find, and always try to get a jump on the weather.
Back to the books Jim and look up the data on carbon dioxide and human health. We thrive when plants grow best (food, and lots of it), and that is well above 600 ppm carbon dioxide. I told Len all of this in the comments after my previous article on AGW. Humans can tolerate several thousand ppm without harm - even the normal level indoors in our homes is at least 600 ppm unless you have a very leaky house; much higher, if you seal it up too tight. Stop inventing stuff to scare the little kiddies and the weak minded Jim! You did this before and were well criticised for it.
I think Cheney had a right to private discussions about energy just as scientists have a right to private discussions about their work. I was just pointing out that Cheney made an effort to keep these discussions private, probably for valid and obvious reasons. The point is that it can be embarrassing for professionals to let others see "how the sausage is made".
And it's true, we are not running out of oil. My mistake. We have, however, peaked in production. World oil production peaked in July, 2008. We've just had an economic slump to cover up that little fact.
So I guess a bunch of people saying its cold right now is a consensus too, isn't it? And so also not science.
A frost-line is not dependent on any seed variety! It's the rough latitude when a grower can expect the final frost of the year. They've been moving northward for decades.
Changes in hardiness zones between 1990 and 2006
http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/pdfs/iaq.pdf states that indoor CO2 levels should be 1000 ppm or lower (page 112-113) for maximal comfort of people. I will agree that 1000 ppm may be on the edge of when some people feel discomfort, but that does seem to be the case. One shouldn't be exposed to more than 5000 ppm for an extended length of time. So your "several thousand ppm" claim is also not valid.
Anyway, most of your rebuttals are provably wrong -- not your best effort.
This is privileged information for private consumption? When Cheney hosted the energy committee, MANY of the participants refused to participate UNLESS the results were kept secret. When Exxon tells someone their 10 year plan that is a TREMENDOUS advantage to everyone in the stockmarket to know where they are going and what they are doing. The advantage to the market is a disadvantage to Exxon. THAT is why the energy meeting and results were kept secret.
Leaving the caps key on does not make a scandal. We can't do anything but wait to see what the fallout of the CRU e-mails will be.
So Exxon can share their secrets with Conoco and Shell Oil and BP, but not the public? Isn't that, um, collusion? Frankly, I'm not sure what big secret they would have other than their reserve numbers are exaggerated, and even I knew that already.
I am the principal energy manager at a division for a large aerospace company. When I teach energy conservation best practices to employees, I avoid any mention of climate change or global warming. In regards to the environment I stick with the basics: clean air, clean water, and clean food sources. In spite of the fact my company has signed up with Climate Leaders and have set very ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals.
This puts me at odds with the prevailing energy policy of my company. If I announced publicly that I am an AGW sceptic, I would probably lose my job.
Such as it is being in the defense industry, I deal with DOE, EPA and Climate Leaders. If our leadership did not support AGW, it could damage our ability to secure contracts.
It appears to me that the Al Gore crowd and present administration has got us over the barrel.
My mantra is "Energy Independence". First off open up domestic drilling in ANWAR and off the West coast (CA). With new technologies and oversight mechanisms in place, we can begin to drill for oil again - responsibly. Build more nuclear power plants. (never been a death in the USA from a nuclear power plant malfunction including 3 mile island). Of course wind, solar and stationary fuel cells need to be developed in parallel.
The AGW fervor has become insidous. It is the new 'cult'. But beware if you are beholden to institutions that toe the AGW line and you do not get on board. You could go out of business.
Is it that CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not increasing?
Is it that humans are not causing that increase?
or
Is it that CO2 in the atmosphere does not absorb heat radiated from the earth?
1. How much carbon dioxide should we aim for in the atmosphere and why? If there is an optimum level, please tell me what it is and how you arrived at that figure.
2. What is the optimum global temperature? I know that such an ephemeral figure is nonsense and means nothing, but perhaps you can persuade me otherwise. Is warmer than now better, or is colder? Considering that several hundred thousand people might die prematurely from cold in Europe and Asia this winter, please take that into account in your answer.
But since CO2 got people to Kyoto and 45,000 to Copenhagen (and soon to Mexico City) I would like to point out that the amount of coal (the primary villain) burned annually since 1990 (the Kyoto base year) has increased by 70%. Yes, up 70%. Did the media ever mention this fact? Wasn’t it supposed to go down? Rather it accelerated. Today there are many more coal burning plants. There are more, not fewer, people without electric service. The enlightened propose these
folks use carbon free power. How utterly asinine when they don’t have base load plants. How many coal -burning plants? – thousands, and not one is capturing CO2. And don’t we have more than 10 million more cars on the road than just one year ago?
I am also convinced that even if we diligently apply all the schemes yet proposed it will all be fatuous unless population is drastically reduced.
As for drilling for oil in ANWAR and off the US West Coast, forget it. Yes, there might be oil in both places, but even Al Gore knows that it doesn't amount to anything.
Jeff,
I agree one should honor agreements. Perhaps Cheney made agreements that he shouldn't have made. I don't know all the rules, but closed-door sessions of Congress are pretty well codified. They don't just doing them on a whim.
Mark,
Reasonable people can debate the reality of AGW, or more practically, what should be done about it. In my thinking, the long and short of AGW is that it puts coal in a very unfavorable light. Well, coal's not that great a fuel anyway, for reasons above and beyond CO2. I agree we should have more nuclear power. As coal plants age, phase them out and replace them with nuclear power. I don't think that's a prescription for economic disaster.
As for the PC aspect of AGW, I agree that's a problem. I was at a meeting where Bob Lutz (GM) said he thought AGW was not real (then he cited a mistaken statistic). I don't agree with them, but a company can have a policy that employees can or can not agree with, but I suppose they are supposed to support it. If you can support replacing coal with nuclear power, then you aren't at odds with people that believe in AGW.
But you are mistaken in thinking that we can drill our way to energy independence. Not going to happen. Best bet in the short term would be to get PHEVs to work and adopt NG as a vehicle fuel. That could reduce gasoline demand in small vehicles by 80%.
John,
I will take a swing at answering your questions, though the formatter tends to get confused when I try to make lists. 1) Not exactly sure, but definitely under 500 ppm. I think 350 ppm is too optimistic. 450 ppm might be doable. Why? Because we are playing Russian Roulette with the planet's atmosphere and the coal that would be burned can be relatively easily displaced with nuclear power. I don't think you'd like a doctor injecting you with some huge chemical just because you can't prove it would be harmful. 2) The optimum global temperature is the present temperature. Why? Because humanity has pretty much filled the globe and any CHANGE in the present temperature will create new winners and new losers. The losers will want compensation, but the winners will insist their benefit is a "gift from God". Translation, more wars, more economic hardship, more environmental degradation (because species cannot easily migrate in our humanity-filled, concreted world). Any economic benefits from a change in temperature at this point would be outweighed by the economic costs for 7 Billion people to adapt to it.
Don,
You are 100% right that Peak Oil will affect many more of us long before global warming ever will. Perhaps the real stupidity of COP15 is that it was not a peak oil conference, or at least not a peak oil conference as well. As I've stated before, I think history will show that global oil production peaked in July, 2008. For many reasons, I hope that I am wrong, in which case, I'm sure Jeff or John will rub my nose in it. But I don't think that's the case.
Also, you comment about coal plants is important. A big economic issue with coal is the cost of shutting down a coal plant before it's lifetime is up. I can understand this, but I have little sympathy for any that were built after Kyoto (1997). It's reasonable to phase them out. It's not reasonable to build them now and then not expect economic consequences when we start to limit CO2 output. It makes no economic sense to capture CO2 from burning coal. You are better off leaving the (unburned) coal in the ground.
Fred,
As mentioned above, I second your comment on ANWR (Anwar is the first name of an Egyptian President). Since it's the last major reserve we know of in the U.S., shouldn't we perhaps save it for an emergency or for our children? I'm reminded of the Gary Larson cartoon of a bunch of dogs sitting in a lifeboat, all staring at a box marked "food". They all have one paw eagerly raised to the sky. The caption reads: "OK, who votes that we all eat ALL of the food right now?"
Those billions of people who have no electric power whatsoever are in that situation only because for the last hundred years there was no money to build the cheapest power plants. Now we say, “Let them eat cake.” Those waiting for nuclear plants and wind turbines to fall softly to earth like manna from the sky can either try waiting some more or build some coal plants. I am reminded of the man holding out his hand to the society matron saying “Please mam, I haven’t eaten in three days.” The touched lady responded, “Why you poor man, you should force yourself.”
Anyway, my agenda is population reduction because I don’t see any way of getting from here to there, i.e. sustainability with even half the present population. But such is the taboo that for all purposes people cannot even see or hear the words “population reduction.”
Now sir, what are your credentials on climate science to justify criticising any of it? I will hazard a guess of NONE. I thought not!
Additionally, please itemize the 'false statements of fact about the science.' You can do that too, can't you? Thought not!
Don: Carbon capture is an expensive dream. I am interested to know, however, what is your recipe for population reduction?
Jim: By all means, let us be civil.
You say: 'I will take a swing at answering your questions....
Re: target for carbon dioxide?.... '1) Not exactly sure, but definitely under 500 ppm. I think 350 ppm is too optimistic. 450 ppm might be doable. Why? Because we are playing Russian Roulette with the planet's atmosphere and the coal that would be burned can be relatively easily displaced with nuclear power. I don't think you'd like a doctor injecting you with some huge chemical just because you can't prove it would be harmful.'
Jim, what have doctors got to do with this? And your vision of playing Russian roulette with the atmosphere, presumably because of a harmless and beneficial gas - carbon dioxide is a real stretch. Considering that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been 10 or twenty times higher than at present, when life thrived and the temperatures were warm enough to give us all the temperature of Florida, or better, (better, considering their present cold snap with iguanas dropping out of the trees), year round (reptiles thrived), it obviously does not have the hysteria laden qualities of runaway warming that both you and the IPCC seem to assume.
Re optimum temperature? '2) The optimum global temperature is the present temperature. Why? Because humanity has pretty much filled the globe and any CHANGE in the present temperature will create new winners and new losers. The losers will want compensation, but the winners will insist their benefit is a "gift from God". Translation, more wars, more economic hardship, more environmental degradation (because species cannot easily migrate in our humanity-filled, concreted world). Any economic benefits from a change in temperature at this point would be outweighed by the economic costs for 7 Billion people to adapt to it.'
So if I read you right, you don't want it warmer as it will cause too many people to thrive, even if it might mean that those locations where people are currently freezing their ******* off, like me, might get to enjoy warmer and shorter winters. It wouldn't get warmer in the tropics because of the feedback from water vapour and clouds. Only the colder parts get significantly warmer. I wouldn't object to that. Snag is, its been cooling now for almost ten years.
As to the PC aspect, I'm guessing Lutz who now works for Government Motors will be more circumspect in his personal opinions.
Christopher Noble, we've never heard from you before and like the other made-up names above, I expect we'll never hear from you again (except perhaps under a new pseudonym). However, given the premise of this article, which is that the CLIMATE SCIENTISTS are the charlatans, why would Sutherland want to be included in THEIR category? THEY are the ones who aren't following the scientific method, they are the ones who have PROVABLY distorted data, hidden data and destroyed data. Show me another branch of science where this is even acceptable? But why do I bother, like Greenbaum and White above, we'll never hear from you again, just a new name that will pop up with a snarky comment. Or prove me wrong and come back for more much-needed medicine.
But VP Dick Cheney was a member of Congress, don't you remember? He invoked "executive privilege" to deny one set of documents to the Senate Judiciary Committee while, at the same time, asserting that his office (as President of the Senate) is not part of the executive branch so as to deny another set to the Information Security Oversight Office of the National Archives. You gotta give him points for chutzpah.
Nope, Lutz is still the same. No changing him.
The big bugaboo is who is encumbered with the burden of proof on the hazards or safety of elevated CO2 levels? If you state the AGW believers have not adequately proven these hazards, then how can you prove the safety of elevated levels? The doctor analogy comes from the medical oath, "first, do no harm". Pre-industrial levels of CO2 were only around 280 ppm. Human activity has risen them by almost 40%.
In a practical sense, one may find "proving a negative" to be an onerous task. Point taken. However, as CO2 levels rise to higher and higher levels (500ppm, 800ppm), not undertaking this task shows an increasing level of hubris.
Your comments on global temperature change are not substantive. Higher temps means a higher sea level (due the expansion of water) and thus disruption of many coastal communities. It's not clear to me it wouldn't be cheaper to buy an electric blanket for your freezing tush.
Doctors are not required to take this hippocratic medical oath, and besides, although it sounds good, it is naive to an extreme. With up to 90,000 fatal medical errors in the US each year it is clearly not achievable. All medical interventions; drugs, interpretation etc, - especially surgery - involve risk. A far more sensible dictum would be for a doctor to 'do more good than harm.'
Think about sea level Jim. What is the tidal variation in one cycle? Answer: a foot or so, up to many tens of feet near me, and with spring high tides a hell of a lot higher. What about wind caused waves? Answer: from a few inches up to a hundred or more feet. What about wind caused seiches (water piling up downwind?). Answer: several feet in addition to the usual wave and tide heights. What about oceanic circulation in gyres (gigantic whirlpool circulations) - which are common? Answer: at least a meter lower across hundreds of square miles near the center. What about pickup of moisture from evaporation in the tropics? Answer: It lowers sea level by about a meter per year and adds about a meter per year to it when it rains.
So you are worried about maybe 30 cms per century (IPCC, recent estimate after scaling back quite a ways) is a situation to panic about, while the ocean variation noise is up to tens of meters. A fart in a hurricane Jim! Consider Hollands efforts to win back land from the sea in the Zuider Zee, and to keep the sea out after that. All doo-able. They did it. We could have done it for New Orleans and Katrina except the idiot environmentalists in Club Sierra, and others, blocked the corps of engineers in the courts from completing necessary upgrades to the dykes.
And how long might it take for the ocean to warm up throughout, if it might? Answer only about several hundred years; time enough to respond if we need to, without running screaming for the hills in mindless panic as you seem to advocate.
Cold is still about a ten thousand times bigger problem for humanity Jim, as you can see from the recent news and photographs. And there are those who say that it is the next ice age coming at us that we should be most concerned about, and not global warming. Prove it! Hell, we've dipped in and out of flirting with warming panic, and cooling panic now, several times in the last 100 years. Which one is it to be Jim, and is the response the same no matter which it is; control carbon dioxide?
Not your best effort Jim!
This is the crux of the AGW debate. Who is encumbered to validate the safety of elevated CO2 levels? The AGW adherents who wish to employ high economic costs to society? Or the skeptics who wish to do "business as usual" and allow CO2 levels to rise to levels the human species has never experienced as their normal environment?
I say both sides are encumbered.
My recipe for population reduction – recipe! – brings to mind “A Modest Proposal” doesn’t it? Having been in the tiny and much maligned camp of those who saw exponential population growth as our undoing since about 1960, to be asked today what should we do after the fact makes me want to hold my head and weep. In those 50 years world population grew like a rampant cancer from 3 billion to (about to tick over) to 7 billion. (I was born into a world that ran on coal, a world just approaching 2 billion and my grandparents into a world of 1.5 billion.)
It is far too late for programs such as India had some decades ago where men were paid to have a vasectomy. If continued it might well have worked. Today India is on course to pass China’s population in only a handful of years. But such programs were the work of the Devil according to several “Great Religions” and politicians who ran on such a proposal did not get elected. It was political suicide.
I remember when it was illegal to sell condoms in Massachusetts and all labels read “for the prevention of disease only.” Prevention of conception was a sin – and it still is making millions of true believers subject to excommunication and fear of eternal damnation. Were it not for China’s One Child program we would be in even worse shape. Now it would take a world-wide one child program – unrealistic, and even more difficult than an effective Kyoto type agreement. More likely than man nature will solve the population problem with starvation and extremely high infant mortality and pandemics. Conventional wars don’t kill enough people to reduce world population.
I also remember how difficult it was to obtain condoms, or spermicide for my wife's diaphragm, even here in Canada at that time (late 1960s). They had to be mail order from planned parenthood or some other group that I can't remember.
Population control? Thorny issue. Perhaps an aerial spray that sterilises all but a select few, but I am treading on dangerous ground here.
As a humorous aside; I once considered that the best way for crowd control was to spray some chemical that instantly loosened the bowels.
By all means FOR OTHER REASONS let us consider other energy sources that are more sustainable and green, but for God's sake (just threw that in for you Don) let us not destroy the economies of the developed world AND limit logical energy development on the off-chance that we can do something meaningful about it before it is too late. Or do you believe our salvation (for you again Don) in this is going to come from some 3rd world source? Maybe one of those 3 billion folks who don't have regular power is going to figure out the solution? While they are struggling to survive at all?
The South end of Lake Michigan at that time might have had the largest concentration of steel production in the country. It glowed prettily at night but was a rather gritty place with a large traffic of ore carriers bringing ore from Minnesota’s Mesabi Range, bulk carriers hauling limestone and ships carrying coking coal – together with sulfuric acid the materials for making steel. There also were tugs and sand suckers and dredges and tow boats and barges. But private boats were far to the north and were rather rare at Gary.
A friend of mine with family in the area had twice observed in the fall three men in a row boat in the same area. They were too far out to see what they were doing but by happenstance he latter saw where they came ashore. His curiosity piqued he parked and talked to them. Well, he saw they had many gallon bottles of water and he had to ask. It seems these worthies had observed that if the lake froze over this area was the last to freeze. This was the water they wanted for their radiators. I know of no more impeccable application of the “scientific method.”
Explanatory aside to the youngsters: In the 30s in Chicagoland we frequently had far below zero F overnight temperatures. Cars had manual chokes and 6 v batteries. To have a reasonable chance of starting in the morning required some expertise, and luck. One way (of several) was to drain the cooling system the night before and refill with warm water in the morning. Ethylene Glycol (“permanent antifreeze”) was available but very expensive vs methyl alcohol. This was during the Great Depression and most used alcohol.
And this thing that John mentioned about doctors is interesting. When I came to Sweden I soon began to believe that this country had the best medical set-up in the world. Maybe I was right and maybe I was wrong, but one thing is certain: even though most of the people in Sweden believe that their health and the health of their families is the most important thing in the world, they sacrified some of their health care (and probably longevity) to go into the European Union. THEY SENT MONEY TO BRUSSELS THAT SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE SWEDISH HEALTH SECTOR. If a country with some of the most literate people in the world - perhaps the most literate - and at that time some of the best schools will do something that crazy, then all this talk about controlling emissions is nonsense.
Unchecked, CO2 levels are on pace to rise to 800 to 1000 ppm by the end of the century. Human physiology (let alone other life forms) begins to experience discomfort at 1000 to 2000 ppm, so this isn't some tiny level of no concern to us healthwise.
These CO2 levels are unprecedented in 600,000 years. Despite a series of ice ages and other natural events, they've never been this how in recent times. They will soon be higher than levels we've ever experienced as a species (1 million or so years).
Unprecedented levels of warming has been observed in the polar areas and at high latitudes for years. As John indicated, a warming planet affects the warmer regions less than the cooler ones.
CO2 as a heat capturing gas is understood well enough (in a general sense) for NASA to understand planetary temperatures of diverse examples such as Venus and Mars.
Given these FACTS, it would seem to me prudent to at least try to figure out what's going on. I think that just assuming blindly that everything will just be fine is itself a reckless and extreme allegation. And this is nothing like alleged invaders of Mars, that's a totally false analogy.
As for your other statements, they are more speculative than valid, even that one about 1000 to 2000 ppm causing some discomfort in humans.
MSDS data sheets suggest: The OSHA PEL-TWA is 5,000 ppm.
Carbon dioxide is an asphyxiant. It initially stimulates respiration and then causes respiratory depression. High concentrations result in narcosis. Symptoms in humans are as follows:
CONCENTRATION EFFECT
1% (10,000 ppm) Slight increase in breathing rate. Yes Jim, that is 10,000 ppm!
2% (20,000 ppm) Breathing rate increases to 50% above normal. Prolonged exposure can cause headache and tiredness.
3% Breathing increases to twice the normal rate and becomes labored. Weak narcotic effect. Impaired hearing, headache, increase in blood pressure and pulse rate.
4-5% Breathing increases to approximately four times the normal rate, symptoms of intoxication become evident and slight choking may be felt.
5-10% Characteristic sharp odor noticeable. Very labored breathing, headache, visual impairment and ringing in the ears. Judgment may be impaired, followed within minutes by loss of consciousness.
50-100% Unconsciousness occurs more rapidly above 10% level. Prolonged
exposure to high concentrations may eventually result in death from
asphyxiation.
To say that the north is experiencing "unprecedented" warming is to ignore YET AGAIN, the discussion we've already had concerning Vikings and the historical record. When a glacier retreats in Greenland and houses are found underneath, one would have to assume they were there BEFORE the ice built up and the people who starved to death from the cold weren't living on top of ice mountains. In other words NOT unprecedented warming, but cyclical.
Mars AND Venus have had increases in temperatures that neatly coincide with ours, although Mars has no AGW CO2 to worry about. Furthermore the "understanding" of NASA is flawed because the formulas they use, like Stefan-Boltzmann do NOT account for the temperature of Venus, yet they pretend it works for Earth. Are these so-called "facts" meant to educate or bamboozle the public?
We know how to measure temperature. Accurate temperature measurement is not necessarily easy, but it can be done. NCDC has established criteria for the design, installation and maintenance of surface temperature measuring stations; and, techniques for estimating the measurement error introduced by deviations from the criteria. However, while we know how to measure temperature, we have decided not to do it properly, as has been documented by the Surface Stations Project (www.surfacestations.org). The average US surface temperature measuring station is subject to measurement error =/> 2C. The data collected from these sites is then used to compute temperature anomalies to two decimal place “accuracy”.
Some may refer to this process as “pure science”. It is, at best “impure science”. It appears to me to be more like necromancy.
The concept of investing tens of trillions of dollars based on “data” which isn’t and models which don’t is ludicrous.
Ed
Not thrilled with that idea? I thought not.
I have no problem with that suggestion. Of course we'd probably just get a few more papers like Beck's which wouldn't advance the skeptic cause too much.
We just keep going around in circles on this. Skeptics think it's fine to dump high levels of CO2 in the air. I think it's irresponsible without understanding what we are doing much more. Let's leave it at that.
And it would not cost tens of trillions of dollars to slowly replace coal fired plants with nuclear plants. Additional cost would be minimal, if any at all. A bit of economic "hysteria" on your part, Ed.
The IEA, in 2008, estimated the investment required to reduce global CO2 emissions by 50% by 2050 at $45 trillion. Perhaps a bit of economic "hysteria" on their part?
Halting the increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would require halting the addition of incremental anthropogenic CO2 to the atmosphere, not just reducing it by 50%.
Assuming that the least investment intensive and easiest projects would be implemented first, it is logical to assume that the second 50% reduction would be far more investment intensive; and, far more dependent on the availability of advanced technology.
My estimate for the total: $150 trillion.
Independent estimate of investment required to implement W-M/K-B in US: $500 billion per year through 2050.
"Additional cost would be minimal, if any at all." Even Joe Romm has gotten past that fantasy!
Ed
For the second problem we were given a ton of accurate information, some relevant, some irrelevant. We were to determine as home work how many cargo airplanes were needed to supply a remote base at a given distance. Well, like the car problem it was rigged. It couldn’t be done and of the many planes that got there many were stranded and couldn’t get back. An excellent lesson.
While far more complicated than the Army’s teaching problem I think the CO2 reduction problem is of the same type because of the burden of starting with what we got today. There are no re-deals, no “if onlys.” And what we got today is accelerating use of coal, increasing use of oil and natural gas and increasing population. A point of inflection is nowhere in sight.
$150 trillion to "slow eliminate" carbon emissions, as well as other GHG emissions. Not PEAK: eliminate.
Ed
And every day is a reprieve from a massive eruption of the kind of volcano that puts out very great amounts of CO2 and other stuff we would rather do without. There are volcanoes that quickly put so much stuff into the air that the earth is cold and dark for a year and longer. Very cold and no crops. Then there are impacts like the one that killed the dinosaurs, a salubrious disaster for us which gave mammals the chance to thrive, Take a look at the moon with craters overlapping craters. We know all these things have happened and there is no reason to think they have stopped for our benefit.
What do we say to each of the billions whose hopes for having electric light before they die likely lies with one coal burning plant being built near them? I think I know.
5000 new plants X $6B = $30 Trillion. That's just building (or replacing) coal plants with nuclear. Some of those will need replacing anyway, so I don't know what your $150T number actually entails.
Fred,
Your self-appointed genius might be right. My comment was a pseud-WAG. Coal might peak later if more of it is displaced by nuclear (including Thorium, which won't peak anytime soon...)
John,
Yes, but if we didn't have 7B people on the planet, perhaps not so many would need to live in such extreme conditions. I think it was Julian Simon that said that more people mean more geniuses (self-appointed or otherwise) so we'd be better off? That could have been true if these new people can be adquately fed and clothed. Not sure that's the case at this point. The value of delta People/delta Geniuses is probably on the decline. (More people also means more mid-level management. Need I say more?)
On the other hand, the 500,000,000 people recommendation of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_Guidestones">Georgia Guidestones seems a bit too low to me.
I looked up the year when population reached 0.5 billion thinking that might suggest why that maximum was selected by whomever did the selecting. World population reached this figure about 1500. However in finding the population figure I also found an article “Demographic Significance of the 40 Factor” by a Dr. William Stanton. One of his graphs carries this notation: “Planet Earth’s Ideal population (sustainable and in balance with the environment) would be about 500 million people.”
Before I delve any deeper, anyone?, please tell me lest I waste time re-plowing old ground.
Meantime for amusement value I highly recommend Idiocracy. Sadly that is another dystopian future I can easily foresee.
[first lines]
Narrator: As the 21st century began, human evolution was at a turning point. Natural selection, the process by which the strongest, the smartest, the fastest, reproduced in greater numbers than the rest, a process which had once favored the noblest traits of man, now began to favor different traits. Most science fiction of the day predicted a future that was more civilized and more intelligent. But as time went on, things seemed to be heading in the opposite direction. A dumbing down. How did this happen? Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence. With no natural predators to thin the herd, it began to simply reward those who reproduced the most, and left the intelligent to become an endangered species.
[last lines]
Narrator: Joe and Rita had three children, the three smartest kids in the world. Vice President Frito took 8 wives and had a total of 32 kids. Thirty-two of the dumbest kids ever to walk the Earth. OK, so maybe Joe didn't save mankind, but he got the ball rolling, and that's pretty good for an average guy.
The ratio of American Negroes to American whites is about 7 to 1. I have seen 10 out of ten players on the basketball floor Negroes. If whites and Negroes were created equal basketball player material this would happen (1/7)^10 or maybe once in about 3.5 billion chances. How many times have you seen an American white win an important 100 meter race? I can say never. OK, it’s racist, but what’s wrong with saying blacks are more apt to be good basketball player and dash runners than whites.?
Remember Jimmy the Greek? He opined once on the air (relative to blacks dominating the running back position in football) that many blacks were built different, i.e. black running backs has big butts an attribute for short distances running. Jimmy got the TV death penalty and was never heard from again.
There is a huge body of data that says American Blacks on any or all cognitive tests score about one standard deviation below whites. In brutally frank language that means that if an average white has an IQ of 100, an average Black’s IQ is 85. What does this mean? To be an accountant or a lawyer or a medical doctor or an engineer or a commissioned military officer requires an IQ of about 115. We who point this out are automatically racist bigots of the worst kind.
Many American Blacks over 400 years have acquired some Caucasian DNA. So how do African Blacks without any Caucasian DNA score? Answer: far below American Negroes.
Blacks claimed tests were biased towards whites. So the same tests were given to Korean children in Korean schools. The Korean kids with little knowledge of American life scored far better than black Americans.
It’s all about numbers. Sure there are Negro geniuses and there are many white morons.
More people do not necessarily mean more geniuses. The Athens that produced many of those responsible for how we think today had fewer people than Jonesboro Arkansas today,
"Ed,
5000 new plants X $6B = $30 Trillion. That's just building (or replacing) coal plants with nuclear. Some of those will need replacing anyway, so I don't know what your $150T number actually entails."
Global elimination of all GHG emissions to stabilize global atmospheric concentrations in the hope of halting the rise in global average surface temperature.
Coal is AN issue; it is not THE issue.
Oh, don't forget that the G77 "nations" have decided they need ~$100 billion per year through 2050 for "adaptation to and remediation of" the potential future effects of potential future global warming. They's also like some free advanced technology. I suspect they'll demand more later.
Also, remember that the IEA estimate is based on an effort controlled by the successors to the highly effective bureaucrats who managed the Iraq "Oil for Palaces, Payloads and Payoffs" program. :-)
Ed
You don't just step on third rails, you DANCE on them!!
I agree Jeff that Idiocracy is an amazing movie. It's finally getting a cult following as the studio was completely unsupportive in getting the film finished and in theaters after greenlighting it. I think someone figured out it hit a little close to home.
No doubt about Patton being a good soldier and a good general. However I do think Eisenhower gave him the right assignments (ever after having to discipline him.) I don’t think Patton could have handled Ike’s job. With Churchill and Montgomery and Charles De Gaul, and that other Brit Field Marshal who thought he should have been the boss. Each a prima donna, each, like Patton a fanatic, had his oar in the water and it is remarkable that Ike could keep discipline and all pulling together steer through it all. It staggers the imagination to contemplate all the things that had to go right.
The carnage on the easter front was many times our losses in the west. Something we tend to ignore.
I’m not much of a movie fan – does Demi Moore refer to, as in hemi-demi-semi- quavers or to house paint?
Jeff, the Japanese immediately went for the oil in Indonesia. The Germans for the Ploesti oil fields and built Fischer-Tropscht plants. Seems both countries figured on quick victories.
Don Giegler, It puzzles me that it is universally accepted that breeding counts in plants and animals – except for man.
But then consider what Uncle Sam did where ships and planes are concerned. A country that could do that is absolutely and totally unbeatable. Of course, most Americans don't know about that, and probably they don't care, and I guess that's the problem.
Regarding breeding, the difference is that animals and plants don't THINK. People do!! The whole eugenics angle is something that might make sense in theory but ends up being a horrific thing in practice. In the end, it's just not worth it. And how do you make such selections? Ashkenazi Jews, for example, may demonstrate higher IQs than the average, but they are also vulnerable to genetic health problems (due to forced inbreeding), such as Epstein-Barr, Tay-Sachs, and certain breast cancers.
On the other hand, collectively, IQ has been rising about one standard deviation every two generations or so. (Haven't you noticed? Who plays checkers anymore?) That means having a reasonable environment seems to raise all of the boats. This seems to indicate that limiting population growth IN GENERAL is a reasonably effective way of moving us forward without some elite group making breeding decisions on the part of humanity. (No way THAT type of organization wouldn't become corrupted....(sarcasm ON) ).
Regarding WWII tanks, the Soviets a made the best overall decisions with the T-34. The German tanks were better, but a bit too touchy in the field, and they never could get the production numbers up. I don't think the U.S. made a horrible decision with the Sherman, given what they could do. They could have given it more armor. A panther/tiger copy would have been a disaster if they couldn't do it right.
Anyway, it seems there's some basic agreement here that: Population is a bigger issue than AGW (I agree, though they are related). Peak Oil is a bigger issue than AGW (also agree).
It's left as an exercise of the reader why the AGW issue has gained traction politically while the other two have not.
A million times over the last, what, 100 years, Eugenics has been successfully associated by every “enlightened and decent person” with diabolical madmen, pseudoscience or Nazis. So when the word comes up it drags with it this notion and history and there can be no more discussion. Everyone figures he is an enlightened and decent person.
The argument is not whether IQ (here a surrogate for “intelligence”) is heritable but to what degree it is heritable. It is not as neat and simple as blue eyes but like tend to produce like. (Consider families such as the Huxleys even with 50% sharing of other DNA every generation.)
I know a fellow with a very high IQ. He was in demand as a sperm donor. Now that’s an easy way to make money. Tanks another day. Gotta run.
I remember a priceless cartoon from the university paper here of many years ago about two guys watching their dog which was sitting at the top of a hill observing the sunset.
They speculated for a while about what manner of deep philosophical rumination was going through his head. The dog in fact had his own deeply pleasurable thought, which was shown in the last frame; 'And I even get to poop tomorrow too!'
It's the same thing in the schools now. Even if IQ goes up, I dont believe for a minute that the schools are performing the way they should perform. In fact, as far as I can tell the whole system - from grade school to grad school - is rotten in one way or another in many countries..
Skeptical Science
I find these explanations to be well-reasoned and supportable.
Also the preponderance of evidence says that the e-mails were not 'hacked' but were leaked by a frustrated insider.
Scientists with nothing to hide, do not hide their data, lose their data, resist FOI requests to show their data; nor do they adjust their data without showing both the unadjusted and adjusted data together, and explain clearly what they did. They also do not 'select' which data to use, or not use without explaining the process and reasoning clearly, so that others might agree with it all or not. Above all, they do not plot how to keep others from participating in the science, nor do they try to get them fired from their jobs or call for them to be tried as criminals and sent to jail.
Answer: You keep dropping the coldest stations out of the record.
Even without any change in average temperature of them all taken together, just dropping off the coldest, in the most inhospitable places will create warming out of thin air. Try it. That's what they've been doing.
I'd believe your claims about the really, really bad climate science if the claims made by the AGW skeptics weren't really, really, REALLY worse. Their lack of understanding of the science involved is, how can I put it? A TRAVESTY.
Bingo! However, the issue is more likely propulsion systemS for vehicles. I doubt that one common system would ultimately suit all types of vehicles.
The issue of replacing energy sources for stationary applications, while daunting, is far simpler than replacing energy sources for "planes, trains and automobiles".
Ed
Agree the peak oil will be upon us much quicker than AGW.
If that really were the main issue, and was the politically preferred means to address the non-problem of AGW, I might not object so strongly.
However, the law of unintended consequences always comes into play. Energy does not become the main issue in those small political minds focussed upon AGW, but POWER to tax, is. Energy becomes a bit player, and almost an after-thought, when it should not be.
If, by renewables, you mean hydro, I will agree. If it means wind and solar, I do not.
I don't think NG, LNG, Diesel and JP? survive for all applications in 2050 with 83% reduction below 1990 emissions levels and a US population of ~450 million. Universal rail electrification would help, but would probably not be enough.
Ed
Answer, they are too busy communicating. Talking into their 'cells', sending SMS's, checking out the mid-day soaps, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planes,_Trains_%26_Automobiles
Bacharach wrote: "Trains and Boats and Planes".
At least someone was paying attention.
Ed
This is again a place where we disagree. Who is burdened to explain what's going on? The skeptics would prefer they not be burdened, so that they can just find some bit of discrepancy to discredit AGW and then be on their way. The problem is that they can't even do that very well. And then they explain their lack of progress by conspiracy, conspiracy, conspiracy.
To be sure, I agree that there is much uncertainty about the particulars of AGW (other than that CO2 levels are rising and that this is due to humans burning fossil fuel and reducing forestation and some other stuff). I agree we don't know what this really means, at least I don't.
Usually, scientists get stuff right if given enough time at least. Obviously, there have been some problems (Thalidomide, Mad Cow disease (cuz someone said it was fine to feed cows the neural tissue of other cows)) but overall, the scientific method seems to work.
If climatologists have been withholding data and methods, then that obviously has to stop, and it looks like the CRU e-mails will facilitate that happening.
It's odd that some think Big Oil has conspired to keep the reality of Peak Oil from us, and the climate change scientists conspire about global warming. And maybe others (The UN?) conspire about the reality of population problems. Lots of conspiracies running around, eh? Or maybe we are just hapless and disorganized and barely understand what's going on. Please don't mistake ignorance/stupidity for evil, though admittedly their outcomes can look very similar.
As an early scientist noted; 'science advances one funeral at a time'.
Agreed. I'm still waiting for the remaining hydrogen economy advocates to retire.