Climate scientists feeling the heat

Scientists long have issued the warnings: The modern world's appetite for cars, air conditioning and cheap, fossil-fuel energy spews billions of tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, unnaturally warming the world.

Yet, it took the dramatic images of a hurricane overtaking New Orleans and searing heat last summer to finally trigger widespread public concern on the issue of global warming.

Climate scientists might be expected to bask in the spotlight after their decades of toil. The general public now cares about greenhouse gases, and with a new Democratic-led Congress, federal action on climate change may be at hand.

Problem is, global warming may not have caused Hurricane Katrina, and last summer's heat waves were equaled and, in many cases, surpassed by heat in the 1930s.

In their efforts to capture the public's attention, then, have climate scientists oversold global warming? It's probably not a majority view, but a few climate scientists are beginning to question whether some dire predictions push the science too far.

Read the entire Houston Chronical article at:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4487421.html

No votes yet

Anyone else heard about the row over at The Weather Channel? Whoever's in charge over there has started a controversy by saying that anyone who works there had better believe in 'global warming' or they may be out of a job. Apparently, there are those who work there that poo-poo the idea, and they don't want any dissenters. I'll see if I can find a link somewhere.

--------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

At least the argument has progressed to the point where most sensible people realize that ther isn't a valid solution to the situation.

As those who are inclined to panic want all industrial greenhouse gases to be monitored and reduced, bovine flatuence and volcanic activity release more gases than US industrial and auto emissions.

Those inclined to "do their share to help" should know that even if the US curtailed curtailed greenhouse gas releases, third world countries will continue to belch out SF6 and hydrofluorocarbons. The Montreal & Kyoto Protocols serve only as expensive industrial annoyances and don't have any significant impact on the global situation.

Temps go up and temps go down. They always have. Trading in my V-8 won't amount have any effect.

Big Jim

"bovine flatuence and volcanic activity release more gases than US industrial and auto emissions."

"Gases" is a very generic term. However, it's been proven (in ice cores) that co2 emissions are at their highest point in 650,000 years. And most scientists agree that this is due to man. Even our own gov't agree (on the epa.gov site).

You're right in that even if we start to reduce co2 emissions here, we'd still have to worry about India, China, etc. However, we can use free trade to ensure countries that want to trade with us adhere to certain environmental standards (in my opinion).

Pink Slip

Today the White House signed the 10 in 20 law which will lower the use of gasoline by 20% in 10 years (I believe that's the wording of it). That being said it's even debatable if petroleum products will be our main source of energy in the next 20 years.

To link CO2 emissions as the only reason the climate is changing is irresponsible science and I think that's what the meteorologist debate is truly about. Besides it remains to be seen if a warming climate will adversly affect humans in the long run. Remember the rule of the jungle is the one who survives isn't the strongest or fastest rather the one more adapt to change. Humans have proven time and time again they are quite adapt to changing. So while the climate may be warming it's no reason to stand on a corner with a sign reading "The End is Near".

MikeyA

MikeyA

I believe the weather channel meteorologist actually said that the AMS should consider decertifying meteorologists who deny that humans cause climate change. No one questions climate change is happening, it's just a matter of whether or not humans are significantly causing climate change. If humans weren't here then climate change would still be happening.

The bovine flatulence argument has some real merit (actually it's all flatulence, they just studied bovine flatulence). Here's a link to a story about this: http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece
Flatulence is primarily composed of methane gas, and methane gas is 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a global warming culprit.

Also interesting to note is that there are vast reserves of methane gas in the arctic regions in a semi-frozen state. As the arctic warms increasing amounts of methane will be released which will cause more warming to occur. It's something called a positive feedback loop.

In reality I think Carbon dioxide emissions play a role in warming, but so does a lot of other things we can't control. There's not one single cause of global warming.

Is there any legitimate theory on that climate change?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Don't blame the draft beer drinkers for the CO2. Beer gas is now only 25% CO2, balance nitrogen.

Seriously though Pinkslip, cutting back on US CO2 releases won't likely have any effect on the global issue at all. SF6 gas is 23,900 times worse than CO2 and remains in the atmosphere for 3,200 years. Every year as temperatures drop in a given area, SF6 leaks from darn near every high voltage substation in that area. Hsssssssss. Dichlorodifluoromethane, R-12 was the first poster child of ozone depleting / greenhouse gases. To this day it and other CFC's are still widely used as used as refrigerants around the globe, exept here in the USA, where it's only available as reclaimed refrigerant and is illegal to import.

Yes, CO2 is a greenhouse / ozone / problem gas too, but most countries aren't restricting any of the problem gases at all. To force US businesses to install additional equipment to deal a situation that no other country considers worth dealing with is impractical in the global economy.

Big Jim

I agree with HeyHey in that there is a lot more to global warming than the human effect. While there may be some human effect to global warming, the fact is that the earth is overdue for an iceage. What happens before an iceage? An earth warming. A basic study of geology will teach you this. Is it likely that human CO2 productioin has had an effect on the climate, very likely. However, this human effect is immeasurable. Should we do more to improve the environment? Absolutely. But should everyone take a more realistic approach to this situation? Absolutely. The rocks don't lie. The earth naturally goes through warming and cooling periods. It is natural to be in a warming period right now. Next up, a cooling period, and then an ice age.

I've noticed some people seem to be confused about the ozone problem and global warming. These are two separate issues, but many people assume they're the same since they both happen somewhere in the atmosphere.

The ozone problem was first noticed a few decades ago. Ozone naturally absorbs ultraviolet light, which is dangerous to life because it mutates genetic material and can cause cancer among other diseases. The ozone holes do not cause global warming, they allow excess UV light to get to earth. It's actually a lack of ozone that is the concern. Ozone is depleted by CFCs and other chemicals called free radicals. That's why there are treaties limiting CFCs, and it has actually been reported that the ozone problem is slowing down considerably.

Global warming is the buildup of heat-trapping chemicals in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide and methane. Global warming is a problem of too much of particular gases in the atmosphere.

Just thought I'd try to clear up some of the apparent confusion found in earlier posts.

I agree with junta, hey hey, and toledo ++, but not with bigjim (no offense). Sure gases other than co2 are damaging as well. But like I said, we can control our output of co2 so we should try.

"To force US businesses to install additional equipment to deal a situation that no other country considers worth dealing with is impractical in the global economy"

It's impractical only in the sense that we are forced to play by other countries rules. But we can fix that with trade regulations. Force them to play by our rules. Besides, pursuing alternative energy industries could be a boon to our economy, especially in Ohio where it could help offset the loss of mfg jobs (thanks NAFTA)

Pink Slip

It could give our competing markets an unfair advantage.

I understand your argument, but I don't agree with it. If China decides to force their children into labor to lower costs and wages, and therefore giving us lower prices, should the US do the same to give businesses the same advantage? How much slack do we allow for businesses in the name of global economy? Let's promote irresponsible business, and lower our standards for the sake of giving businesses everything they need to compete.

If the businesses are savvy enough and they use enough creativity, I have no doubt that US businesses would triumph through innovation -- even with the climate control restrictions.

Regarding the US being one of only a few countries conforming to CO2 restrictions in a glbal economy, Pinkslip advises: It's impractical only in the sense that we are forced to play by other countries rules. But we can fix that with trade regulations. Force them to play by our rules.

The US has a history of forcing other countries to adopt US standards for human rights, political rights and economics. The US has made enemies 'round the globe with our "we know better" policies. I don't think it's wise to use trade and financial sanctions to force countries to deal with a situation that might, I say might, be marginally controlled by the combined efforts of all mankind.

HeyHey - of course you're right. I meant to illustrate the failure of R-12 control. Even though the EPA banned manufacture and import of the gas in 1995, R-12 gas is still the preferred refrigerant in many countries. CFC's are still in use aroud the globe that the 2005 ozone hole was among the widest and deepest ever recorded. (If internet infomation can be trusted.)

http://www.theozonehole.com/ozonehole2005.htm

Was our war on R-12 gas effective? I guess we'll know in 50 years or so, but right now I'd say no, it wasn't.

Toledo++, Except for the "follow the leader" comment, you make many points worthy of discussion. In my opinion, it's Ok to lead a parade, but if the grand master is the only one marching, then there is no parade; just a self-proclaimed leader blocking traffic and interfering with society.

Big Jim

"The US has a history of forcing other countries to adopt US standards for human rights, political rights and economics."

Actually, the US prefers it's trading partners to be de-regulated, meaning little human rights, no environmental standards, etc. Those pesky regulations get in the way of trade, and undermine our own Democracy by allowing the WTO to determine what regulations are "fair" or not.

Pink Slip

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...."

Pink Slip

Do you think anyone has been paid by a Hollywood funded group to speak out about the dangers of global warming? If we're going to report and judge on one side's action then I think it is only fair to do so on the other side.

While I think there might be some human effect to global warming, I seriously question the validity of the scientific report coming out today about the so-called 90% human effect. Let's think about this logically. Human's have only studied the temperature of the earth for the last hundred years. Furthermore, one has to question the validity of the earth's temperature from these readings even 25 years ago. My point is that these scientific studies have no historical basis. These studies ignore the fact that geological surveys consistantly show warming and cooling periods, including the oceans even rising in central Ohio. Of course, the continents have shifted, but, even so, Ohio was once under the sea. A failure to recognize this is ignorance. I need more data than the fact that the earth has questionably been warming over the last hundred years. I need more than the ice caps are melting. It seems to me that this is all historically overdue. But maybe I'm crazy. I find it hard to believe that the less than 200 years of the industrial era have had such a CO2 effect. The rocks don't lie.

Junta, there are ice core samples that have calculated temperatures and co2 data for the last 650,000 years. This isn't just a recent study. No one has doubted the fact that the Earth goes through warming and cooling trends. But even during the warming and cooling trends of the last 650,000 years, the co2 levels have remained between 180-280ppm. They are now at 380ppm, and expected to double in the next 50 years. And they only started to rise to these levels since the Industrial Revolution.

Pink Slip

exists on this topic. I'd be a whole lot more comfortable if global warming was just pure bunk.

However, I am not willing to believe that it is. If you err, err on the side of caution.

The isolationist argument that is occurring is an ignorant thing. Planet warming, or human involvement. Why does it seem to me everything just disintegrates into a fight between A. or B. anymore - when there are actually so very, very few things that are all A. or B. Most issues are gray areas. A mix.

There exists incontrovertible evidence that the planet itself goes through, (and has gone through), warming and cooling cycles.

There also exists incontrovertible proof that many of the chemicals and waste from fuel burns have a detrimental effect on the planet.

To say it must be one or the other is irrational. It must be both. Now the only questions left in my mind are 1. how MUCH the humans are contributing and 2. what's the real time table estimate look like.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Like I've said before, I'm sure humans have some part to play whether it's 5% or 85% or whatever. However, what are we going to do about it? Signing Kyoto isn't going to solve anything. Everyone driving cars that get an average of 35 mpg isn't going to dent the CO2 levels. These are all proposals that will directly hurt the US and other industrialized economies, but the amount of benefit received from them is negligible. This topic is so political now that no one knows what will actually help with global warming and what is just a political stunt designed to get the support from Al Gore's financial backers.

I guarentee that there have been reports and studies that question the human impact on global warming that have been suppressed because of who paid for the study. Greenpeace wouldn't fund a group again if their findings went contradictory to their wishes. Al Gore's movie was privately funded propaganda designed to shock people into believing global warming was going to wipe half our cities out in the next 50 years.

There are several notable scientists that have spoken out against the level of human involvement in global warming, but how much press have they received? You're a Fairness Doctrine supporter, so shouldn't they get the same amount of time to present their side as well?

Kateb - one other point needs to be considered; what to do about the situation?

Some advocate controlling our CO2 emissions simply because it's one thing that we can do. That reasoning isn't valid enough to convince me it's worthwhile. For all I know it's akin to a 500 pound man who consumes 5,000 calories a day, but is sitting up in bed three times a day for exercise because "it's one thing he can do" to improve the situation. The effort will not improve the situation one bit.

A global warming report was released today. According to AOL news, sourced from the AP: "The report said no matter how much civilization slows or reduces its greenhouse gas emissions, global warming and sea level rise will continue on for centuries.

"This is just not something you can stop. We're just going to have to live with it," co-author Kevin Trenberth, director of climate analysis for the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., told The Associated Press in an interview. "We're creating a different planet. If you were to come up back in 100 years time, we'll have a different climate."

This morning, NBC network news took this report and hysterically advised that this global warming will cause every catastrophe known to man. Floods, earthquakes, deserts taking over fertile land, typhoons & hurricanes; everything except flaming balls of shit falling from the sky. WHAT WILL WE DO - WHAT WILL WE DO ? ? ? ?

I'm doing nothing.

AA Serenity Prayer: "Lord, Grant us the serenity to accept the things we cannot change, courage to change the things we can, and wisdom to know the difference."

Big Jim

We can prevent it from getting worse.

Pink Slip

It sounds to me like everyone is in agreement that there are things to keep our contribution from making the situation worse?

Yes? No?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Pinkslip - Please advise what are you advocating as a solution?

Shutting down factories on a global basis?

Mankind discontinuing the use of any and all fossil fuels?

Me riding the tarta bus instead of driving? (least likely of the three)

Let's say all three happened and as a result the water level in 50 years rises only 70 inches instead of the 72 inches that (on average) some of these scientists are predicting. Big whoop.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/health/sfl-climate02feb02,0,2684904...

Big Jim

Coincidentally, I just finished reading Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." (Pink - you should read it and check out all the references like I did...)

While it's a work of fiction, it's footnoted and includes a bibliography of all the scientific references mentioned in the book.

As for Global Warming or "climate change" (which interestingly was predicted in the book as a way to blame GW for both cold and warm spells...) there is no disagreement that the earth goes through warming and cooling periods.

I don't know if we can definitively say that CO2 that we put into the atmosphere has a long-term negative or positive impact. Considering the age of the Earth, I don't think we've been industrialized long enough for us to be able to gauge such impact.

That does not mean that we won't feel better about ourselves - and perhaps help the environment - if we attempt to limit CO2 emissions and other such things that we believe MAY cause things to change.

However, the Little Climatic Optimum (roughly 900-1300 AD, though sometimes the dates vary) was a period of much warmer temperatures than today. During this time, communities flourished and some attribute the growth of people during this time to the warmer climates which enabled more people to farm in areas that previously wouldn't support a growing period.

Trees in Canada were growing above the Timberline, the Vikings were able to travel to Iceland and Greenland, droughts were present in the Mayan civilization areas and may have contributed to their demise, there was rapid population growth in Estonia based on available cereal grains, the human population of Iceland reached a peak.

By the 1300s, glaciers were advancing and England could no longer grow grapes.

If the planet is warming, why does the prediction have to be doom and gloom? Why aren't we thinking about the fertile farmlands that may be created as a result of warmer weather in the northern areas? With today's irrigation knowledge, it's unlikely that we'd be unable to respond to some drought conditions. Would we like to grow pinapples, oranges and bananas in more parts of the U.S. and save us from having to import so many of them?

I guess my point is that the Earth is going to change and we can adapt. We have knowledge and technology that didn't exist the last time we went through such a change so we should be better off. And anytime something happens with the Earth, there are positive impacts as well as negative and we'd be wise to remember that as part of our discussions.

I still say the Earth is flat.

To stop it at this point would require no cars on the road, no coal electricity, no factories making these for us, and so on. Cutting our emissions by 15% or so isn't going to solve anything (which is what Kyoto called for with the 1990 levels if I remember correctly). If we adopt Kyoto it might take 50 years to raise the temperature a couple of degrees. If we don't maybe it'll take 45 years. I think I'll take my chances with global warming than risk seriously hurting our economy for that 5 year (or 3 or 10 or 8 or whatever) difference.

What no one talks about is that everything has a consequence. Banning DDT in the 80s to save bird eggs has proved fatal for millions of people in Africa because of malaria. Was saving the birds nice? Yeah, but was it worth the lives of a couple millions africans? No!

Would stopping global warming be nice? Sure, but is it worth the economic costs (which will directly affect our quality of life) to do so? I don't think it is. More harm will come upon humans by killing our economies (which is what it would take to stop global warming) than by raising the temperatures a couple degrees. In fact, raising the temperature a couple degrees may actually help the human race thrive even more.

Another question for you, Pink...how do you explain the Little Climatic Optimum? The period in the Dark Ages when the earth's temp was warmer than today? I'm sure that wasn't caused by too much co2...in fact, it corresponds rather directly to a period of intense sun spot activity.

Or the fact that NYC had an increase in average temp of about one degree from 1930 - 2000, but other NY cities (Syracuse, Albany, Otswego, West Point) show about a one degree decrease in the same time?

If co2 levels are roughly the same and are increasing globally and causing warming, Why is it that NYC temp goes up while the surrounding cities go down?

These are the types of questions that global warming theories fail to answer....

The Groundhog's comments:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/comics/king.htm?name=Mutts

Once again I come to piddle in the swamp.

For years the world's leading authority (the Vatican) pushed the theory that the sun revolved around the earth and they denounced any scientist who said otherwise.

Move forward to today. The world's leading authority (the American gov't) is pushing the theory that the earth is warming due only to man's actions and it stands to eliminate man. Also scientists who speak out against it are denounced.

When we learn nothing from history we repeat it's mistakes.

MikeyA

MikeyA

I found this while looking for something else...interesting perspective from a scientist...urging examination of the data prior to making sweeping conclusions.

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I came across this commentary on the IPCC report and thought I'd share it.

{Careful, Pink, you may find you agree with it despite the fact that it's from the Cato Institute. lol}

In summary, what's not new in today's IPCC report -- that humans are warming the planet -- will be treated as big news, while what is new -- that sea levels are not likely to rise as much as previously predicted -- will be ignored, at least by everyone except the extremist fringe.

Full article:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7543

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17032867/from/RS.4/

We have experts on both sides debating the Hurricane/Warming, due to carbon emissions.

With an expert stating the whole report as "incomplete"...

For me, I am going with mankind causing global warming and do strongly believe we all must do a whole lot more than recycle newspapers, soda cans and plastic milk jugs to preserve our planet for the generations to come.

I believe we need to take some responsibility of Global Warming...this in my opinion is more than a cycle earth is taking...I do believe WE helped greatly with Global Warming...now, to answer your question as...what do I do to HELP preserve our planet...on High O-zone days I don't use a lawnmower or for that matter do any unnecessary driving...

During the winter months I keep my thermostadt low, very low to conserve energy, during the summer months I use my air condioner as little as possible (I rearely use it).

I do recycle using the drop dumpsters at Pearson Park...also...

When our Ash Bore Trees were taken I did ask our UNIONS to help the city with replanting with donations...which did happen...many thanks to Jeep Unit, Local 12 and the Patrolman's Union.

I will close with...

Which may not seem as a whole lot...yet, if everyone takes a bit of the responsibility of earth's warming and conserves energy, recycles, plants trees, car pool, walk...we can preserve our planet for generations to come.

for all of us to take some responsibility and do a bit more than the minimal re-cycling newspapers, cans and plastic containers...side note: how many are actually doing the minimal? Not many I would bet.

I am trying to do my part...I am taking responsibity. I had openly admitted may not seem as much.

Losing creditability...not making sacrifices...my thermostat is set at 62-64 degrees...cost isn't the real issue, I am trying to conserve energy for the future and am a bit chilly!

I approached Unions for donations for trees, dollars were donated to the city to help replant...I recycle, I take heed to Ozone days...I am trying to do my part.

You ask what type of vehicle I drive...you got me there...

I own a 2000 Toledo Built Jeep, purchased in 1999 (my employment)... yes, you got me there...in my defense I drive very rarely, my vehicle hasn't turned to 30,000 miles...I am seriously considering purchasing the "Smart Car" by Chrysler once it hits the USA (which will be soon)!

Act locally. After all, truly the only control we all have - right now today - are the things that we do ourselves.

And IF everyone starts to pitch in that means major change.

When the election rolls around - look for candidates that truly want to go after the major pollution sources.

Note, it surely ain't the consumption of fossile fuels in our homes and automobiles..can you say buh-buh-buh-big business? Nobody wants to talk about the elephant in the middle of the living room. Not surprised here at all.....

You would have to drive hundreds of thousands of miles in an auto to create a second or so of pollution that many of our manufacturers are putting into the air and water right this very second.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

...on the economics of doing something about global warming and the options available...(Cato is a libertarian think-tank, so if you're inclined to discard the message because of the source, don't bother with the link.)
:)

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7545

It concludes:
In short, no matter how events play out, there's a limit to how much damage a global warming control policy might wreak on the economy: The point at which voters begin to notice significant costs. While promises to do something about global warming may well become more popular with time, it's unlikely that policies that would actually do anything consequential about it ever will.

Here's an interesting article from the WSJ:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB117086898234001121.html

The government should encourage development of alternatives to fossil fuels, economists said in a WSJ.com survey. But most say the best way to do that isn't in President Bush's energy proposals: a new tax on fossil fuels.

Forty of 47 economists who answered the question said the government should help champion alternative fuels. Economists generally are in favor of free-market solutions, but there are times when you need to intervene," said David Wyss at Standard & Poor's Corp. "We're already in the danger zone" because of the outlook for oil supplies and concerns about climate change, he said....

Pink Slip

James Taranto writing for Opinion Journal taking issue with columnist Ellen Goodman's comparison of doubters of global warming to Holocaust deniers:

"There's an enormous difference between doubting an outlandish
prediction (even one that comes true) and denying the grotesque facts of history. Because we are ignorant of the future, we can innocently misjudge it. Holocaust deniers are neither ignorant nor innocent (though extremely ignorant people may innocently accept their claims). They are falsifying history for evil purposes.

This columnist is skeptical of global warming. We don't have enough scientific knowledge to have anything like an authoritative opinion--but neither does Ellen Goodman, who bases her entire argument on an appeal to authority, namely the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. We lack the time, the inclination and possibly the intellect to delve deeply into the science. No doubt the same is true of Goodman.

Our skepticism rests largely on intuition. The global-warmists speak with a certainty that is more reminiscent of religious zeal than scientific inquiry. Their demands to cast out all doubt seem antithetical to science, which is founded on doubt. The theory of global warming fits too conveniently with their pre-existing political ideologies. (Granted, we too are vulnerable to that last criticism.)

Above all, we can't stand to be bullied. And what is it but an act of bullying to deny that there is any room for honest disagreement, to insist that those of us who are unpersuaded are the equivalent of Holocaust deniers, that we are not merely mistaken but evil?"

I think he accurately reflects my personal concerns...

I have to agree that Ellen Goodman was completely wrong in her comparison. I would say a comparison to deniers of smoking causing lung cancer would be more accurate. Think of it--for years scientists said smoking causes lung cancer. But big tobacco paid large amounts of money to create confusion and disinformation, in effect, creating debate among the public and policy makers while there was little debate among scientists. Now it's big oil companies paying big cash to spread disinformation, and create debate where little exists among scientists.

Find a scientific study that proves (or is 90% sure), global warming is either

a. not happening

b. not exascerbated by the burning of fossil fuels, or

c. have a negligible effect

Then the real debate can begin. And another thing, why is this soooo politicized? I saw a survey that says 90% of Republicans in Congress do NOT believe in global warming, but 90% of Democrats do. Is it because Al Gore took up the cause to get the word out? Or does it have to do with who they are getting their campaign contributions from?

Pink Slip

I found the following article at Alernet.

http://www.alternet.org/envirohealth/47705/

It discusses viable ways to respond to the crisis coming with oil production reaching its peak (if it hasn't already done so) and global warming (which I will not spin into 'Climate Change') sure to be here as the sun rises. The author doesn't pull any punches, but what he says makes sense and with lots of hard work can be done. But will we Toledoans listen?

Yes, I think so - some day, but our town builds gas guzzlers. Therefore, I think Toledo be will one of the last places to finally give it up and understand that this stuff has to stop.

$25/hr jobs building cars or making their parts just is not going to be to be the waive of the future nor will producing E-85 ethanol fuel.

Many Folks here are in real deep denial. 'Bout as bad as those who sit in tobacco smoke filled rooms and blather on that non-smokers in the same room won't get cancer.

Maybe it is true that most living right now may be dead and buried or sitting tied to a chair in a nursing home; wearing 'Attends'; moving their gums a mile minute and drooling and mumbling nonsense when the stuff hits finally hits the fan. But that's no reason to cheat those who aren't even a light in their daddies and mommies eyes yet.

We need a new " American Dream".

Either we begin to make real efforts to redefine the "American Dream" or some day - not in the too distant future - there will no "Dream" to live at all.

Once again I come to piddle in the swamp.

Someone said one time that "a scientist finding the results that he's been paid to find is no great surprise".

True. I particularly like a comment made by the Dali Lama about the notion that science is "truth" simply because it is science. He said that once you set out to proove something, you may have already tainted the experiment. Since a human is conducting the experiment, you can't divorce the human factor from what the numbers say.

Pink Slip

Are you thinking maybe it's time to turn over the page to the Anna Nicole Smith "A life in pictures" double spread? Well, that's my point. Most of us aren't reading the science, or even a precis of the science. We're just reading a constant din from the press that "the science is settled," and therefore we no longer need to think about it: The thinking has been done for us. Last week's U.N. IPCC "report," for example, is not the report, but a political summary thereof. As David Warren wrote in the Ottawa Citizen:

"Note that the IPCC report's conclusions were issued first, and the supporting research is now promised for several months from now. What does that tell you?"

From Mark Steyn in the Chicago Sun Times
http://www.suntimes.com/news/steyn/251601,CST-EDT-steyn11.article

He doesn't deny anything - just points out that the science is not settled, that there's more we can learn and then looks at the cost of making a 1 degree difference...

Haha...I like this quote from his article:

So, faced with a degree rise in temperature, we could destroy the planet's economy, technology, communications and prosperity. And ruin the lives of millions of people

Sounds like he's a alarmist.

He's right though, the science behind man-made global warming is not "settled". Most scientists only agree on 90% of it.

Pink Slip

Interesting article

http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/16689019.htm

Pink Slip

My mistake, she isn't the head muckety-muck there, but she ranks pretty high. She said on her blog recently that any meteorologist who didn't believe in climate change should be decertified.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,245581,00.html

--------------------
BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

IT'S ALL BUSH'S FAULT! 8^)

--------------------

BRING THE TROOPS HOME NOW!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

'I used to have compassion, but they taxed it and legislated it out of existence.'

Mikeya, I don't think anyone is saying that co2 emissions are the only reason for climate change. But it's increase/decrease is at least something we can control.

Pink Slip

agreed hey hey

Pink Slip

To force US businesses to install additional equipment to deal a situation that no other country considers worth dealing with is impractical in the global economy.

And so BigJim suggests we continue to play follow the leaders, rather than be the leader.

I don't think there's been a Hollywood-funded group, who has sent letters out begging to undermine a scientific study. If there was, I'd like to see it and would probably question the legitimacy of the group.

I just think it's interesting that a "think tank" would have to stoop to levels like this.

Pink Slip

heyhey, pink_slip seems to do that alot. the money factor goes both ways. the scientists get considerable funding from grants, both public and private. they have a vested interest in taking an alarmist tone.

However, what are we going to do about it?

I believe the report says there's no we can do about what's done--other than adapt. However we can stop it from getting worse.

just a political stunt designed to get the support from Al Gore's financial backers.

Seriously? Right--Al Gore invented global warming, just like he invented the internet. Big scam.

Al Gore's movie was privately funded propaganda designed to shock people into believing global warming was going to wipe half our cities out in the next 50 years.

After making that statement, I'm convinced you haven't even seen the movie

There are several notable scientists that have spoken out against the level of human involvement in global warming, but how much press have they received?

I'm sure you can find a scientist here or there that disagrees. Perhaps at the Cato institute, or perhaps the AEI, or CEI....kinda pales in comparison to the hundreds of thousands who are in agreement.

You're a Fairness Doctrine supporter, so shouldn't they get the same amount of time to present their side as well?

Is there evidence of their view being supressed?

Pink Slip

hahahahaha....excellent "expert" analysis by Jack Kelly?

He of course says "But the planet is always getting either warmer or cooler.

NO SHIT dumbass. Name ONE scientist who has denied that the Earth goes through warming and cooling cycles.

But I am impressed, he did find ONE scientist who disagrees with the IPCC findings. That'll show those hundreds of thousand who agree on the findings.

The Jack goes here: As evidence mounts that it is the sun and not man that is responsible for global warming what evidence? The ONE scientist's evidence? Laughable, indeed.

Then this: Heidi Cullen, an "expert" for the Weather Channel, has said meteorologists who disagree with her about global warming should be decertified. this is a flat-out lie. Here's what she said:

"Meteorologists are among the few people trained in the sciences who are permitted regular access to our living rooms. And in that sense, they owe it to their audience to distinguish between solid, peer-reviewed science and junk political controversy. If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval. I tend to agree, a meteorologist should be able to speak to the fundamental science of climate change.

Don't you think the IPCC report will be peer-reviewed, like any other scientific finding? If the science behind their finding is flawed or in error, I'm sure we'll hear about it from more than ONE scientist from Russia

Pink Slip

Maggie, I'm sure that we will eventually adapt. But at what cost? How many millions live near coastal areas that will be directly effected? Just because some will benefit and others won't, doesn't make it an even trade off. It isn't a zero-sum game.

Pink Slip

excellent

Pink Slip

...how do you explain the Little Climatic Optimum? The period in the Dark Ages when the earth's temp was warmer than today? I'm sure that wasn't caused by too much co2...in fact, it corresponds rather directly to a period of intense sun spot activity.

I don't think the IPCC's report says that increased co2 has previously caused all warming trends.

Or the fact that NYC had an increase in average temp of about one degree from 1930 - 2000, but other NY cities (Syracuse, Albany, Otswego, West Point) show about a one degree decrease in the same time?

If co2 levels are roughly the same and are increasing globally and causing warming, Why is it that NYC temp goes up while the surrounding cities go down?

The increases don't occur uniformly. There may be areas that are 4 degrees warmer, and others that are 2 degrees cooler. That would still indicate a warming trend if more areas experienced an increase.

I think there would be real debate if thousands of scientists got together and proved that there is NOT an elevated amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that this increase was NOT due to the burning of fossil fuels, and that the earth is NOT expected to have it's climate altered as a result. But I have not heard of such a report.

Pink Slip

You're kidding right? The American gov't for years has been silencing scientists, not to mention firing them for advocating caps on co2 emissions and warning us of global warming:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985_page3.shtml

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1159

http://oversight.house.gov/Documents/20060919101130-14873.pdf

Pink Slip

Hey hey, reports say that the cost of doing nothing far outweigh the cost of doing something:

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/media/8AC/F7/Executive_Summary.pdf

Key finding:
Using the results from formal economic models, the Review estimates that if we don

Pink Slip

Interesting, indeed. I think he would have made a better case for himself if he could have provided some scientific data to backup his claims. But I found out that the author hasn't published on climate science in any peer-reviewed scientific journal in more than 14 years.

Pink Slip

Maggie, the quote:

In summary, what's not new in today's IPCC report -- that humans are warming the planet -- will be treated as big news, while what is new -- that sea levels are not likely to rise as much as previously predicted -- will be ignored, at least by everyone except the extremist fringe. could be interpreted as correct, but misleading IMO.

In 2001, the IPCC predicted rising sea levels between 3.5 to 34 inches. The 2007 report predicts rising sea levels between 7 to 23 inches. The reason for this, according to IPCC was because of the need and ability to predict a more precise model. So if you want to say that the maximum level went down from 34 to 23, then you can can it's a decrease. However, you could just as easliy say the minimum level went up from 3.5 to 7 inches---and interpret it as an increase.

It's odd that Michaels adds this:

A small but very vocal band of extremists have been hawking a doomsday scenario, in which Greenland suddenly melts, raising sea levels 12 feet or more by 2100.

This adds nothing to the conversation, since (to my knowledge) there has not been a scientific study release predicting this. "Extremists" say many wild things, that's what makes them "extrememists". Michaels might as well have said, a small but vocal group of extremists have been hawking a doomsday scenario, predicting that aliens are causing global warming due to the increase of anal probes, causing further release of gases

Pink Slip

what will you be doing to preserve our planet, marielora?

you're right; it doesn't seem like alot.

i'm really not trying to pick on you personally, but it seems like this is a common story. the great al gore is included.

people are quick to scream "the sky is falling", but, yet, fail to make any real personal sacrifice. it starts with the individual responsibility and leading by example. if a person doesn't accept such responsibility, they lose credibility.

what type of vehicle do you drive? a jeep?

1. Recycling all that I can.

2. Purchased and use/ride a motor scooter (a Yamaha Vino to be exact) instead of car (for the the most part). Note: requires a motor cycle license to ride it.

3. Use the public transportation (during icy conditions, extreme cold and extreme storms/wind).

4. Walk wherever I can.

5. Avoid being a 'wandering Molly' at lunch time at work - and walk to nearby eating establishments instead or delis for take out.

I still have my weaknesses though: house temperature is at 70 degrees in the winter and I run the A/C in the summer.

My car - a Chevy Cavalier - is still used at times: not everything can be safely carried on a motor scooter. But the Chevy stays garaged about 85% of the time.

And I wouldn't buy an SUV, Hummer, F-150 or any Jeep even if they were handing them for free! Smart Cars? Nice, but I don't have 30K to spend or go into deep debt to get. A scooter's cost: about $3,000.00 and it get 65 mpg in the city.

I've a long a way to go, but I think I'm making progress.

Once again I come to piddle in the swamp.

Good work MarieLora. Don't let people tell you it doesn't make a difference. It does. Lead by example, and spread awareness. It also doesn't hurt to e-mail our state rep, and senators and let them know we want a cap on co2 emissions:

http://www.kaptur.house.gov/

http://brown.senate.gov/

http://voinovich.senate.gov/

Pink Slip

This article references the Stern Review, and says according to this report the cost per household in the US would be $1,154. But this figure is not noted anywhere in the Stern Review:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/30_10_06_exec_sum.pdf

Maggie, do you know how they came up with this figure? The Stern Review does not recommend specific tax rises. Instead they recommend a combination of regulation, carbon trading, and tax on emissions.

Does the Cato Institute focus on possible solutions anywhere on their site? Not trying to pick on them, but I could only find articles on what we CAN'T do. They seem to accept that global warming is real, and exascerbated by the burning of fossil fuels. Yet they seem to take the position of "do nothing, and hope it's not as bad as most scientists think."

Pink Slip

...I was going to post this one as well...glad you did.

It's politicized, I think, because of the 'solution' to the problem. I believe in global warming. I think we contribute to it...but to what extent and with what impact is where I'm skeptical.

While I know you've mentioned the ice cores, I just don't think we have enough evidence to KNOW ... and predicting the future is rarely correct.

The evil "big oil" companies may pay for studies, but so do "environmental groups" and 'liberal foundations.' With so many preconceived ideas about what the answers should be, it's really hard for those of us not intimately involved to be sure of anything...

Then there are the solutions...one side says government regulations, elimination of cars and fossil fuel plants...pick any extreme. The other side says wait and see or even do nothing...again, pick any extreme.

I heard a question today...who's to say that the 'correct' temperature is where we are now? What if the 'correct' temp for the earth IS warmer and the global warming is just getting us to where we need to be?

It's questions like these that make us stop and think - and then question the concept that global warming is something to be 'controlled' or 'managed.'

And, to be quite honest, humans don't really 'control' nature or even 'manage' it. When we try to preserve old growth forests because that's where spotted owls live, we impact the warblers and other small birds who rely upon the new growth forests that replace old growth when it's cut down or naturally destroyed (lightening strikes causing fires).

Species come and go - we're constantly finding new things that we didn't know existed and finding things that once existed that don't now. If you inventory a 1/2 mile square field one year, you'll find certain things...but doing the exact same field a year later will give you a different inventory. Which is the "correct" one if we're trying to maintain the 'natural state' of that field?

Again, Pink, these are the kinds of things that some on the extremes of these issues don't want to discuss. I'm sure the answer is somewhere in the middle - but not sure how to get there when rational people have such aversions to even considering questions that challenge their own personal conclusions.

Even the way you asked this question? Is it because we hate Al Gore? NO. Is it because of where the money comes from? Only if that applies to BOTH sides of the issue. Is it because of campaign contributions? Again, both sides get contributions...saying Republicans are anti the issue because of campaign contributions also means that Democrat are pro the issue only because of their contributions. But people on one side or the other never think it's their side that's being influenced by the money...they only think that of the other side.

But that's politics in general - pick any controversial issue...

As for big oil trying to discredit anyone, you should also read the editorial in today's Wall Street Journal about the environmental group trying to discredit a think-tank's panel discussion by accusing it of being funded by Exxon...untrue - but it's been repeated as if fact before someone thought to call the think-tank to see if it was true...

It always goes both ways...

that's my philosophy for the night!

This is such a convoluted subject. You can google all night long and find just as many scientific articles on one side as you can the other. Someone said one time that "a scientist finding the results that he's been paid to find is no great surprise". And that couldn't better said.

I just don't know. I know that the self proclaimed global warming guru who sits next to me at work was jumping up and down and pointing her finger straight at the White House last year during all the hurricanes, but she's eerily silent this year when we ask her why there were none.

I hear the global ice caps are melting. But
then I fish. If the caps are melting, has the water not trickled down to the great lakes yet? They're at a 30 year low.

I vacationed this past May in Southern Florida - same deal. The water in the Gulf is down from where it should be - Where's the ice cap water going?

I tend to think that the earth goes thru phases of warming and cooling itself - and man has nothing to do with it. More so, I think the SUN also warms and cools cyclically.

If you look at the history of Greenland, the Vikings used to farm there. Now, all ice.

If we're warming, are we just going back to where we once were, or is it something different?

I dont know

on this!

...being an alarmist goes both ways.

:)

I agree. Any meteorologist who doesn't believe in climate change should be decertified. The climate is changing all the time. You can't deny that. What she really said was this:

"If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a seal of approval."

Pink Slip

T++

I'm not disagreeing with you or Jim T++ but we must realize that it will affect U.S. businesses. It could give our competing markets an unfair advantage.

It's a key question when many have already criticized other companies for buying foreign products from places like Taiwan and China.

MikeyA

MikeyA

You're right, it's just a big liberal conspiracy. Damn scientists...with their fancy numbers! You probably still deny that smoking causes lung cancer

Pink Slip

Pink - first, the estimates of huge increases in ocean water levels are based upon computer models - so they're just speculation, especially, as we've discussed in depth on TT, when such models cannot be run in reverse (looking to the past) and match the weather patterns that we know existed.

Further, in reading many of the reports, we're talking only about 2-4 inches increase. That's not going to affect "millions."

You assume it's not a zero-sum gain, but you have no proof that it is - or isn't.

All anyone has is conjecture and speculation. As I said earlier, that doesn't mean we don't do anything, but it also means that we have the flexibility to evaluate such changes we make in terms of cost-benefits...

Pink- have you read "State of Fear?" I recommend it...it's a good work of fiction, but has real references of studies. I looked up quite a lot of them and was surprised.

Warning, it presents an idea that is contrary to your current position, so reading it may cause enlightenment. (LOL) Actually, if you were to read it, I think we'd have a really good discussion about this issue...

Maybe I'm wrong, but I looked up his credentials and he seems as qualified as any of the other scientists discussing this issue...why attack the messenger instead of the message?

- not me...I'm certainly not qualified to scientifically evaluate all the specifics...and I'm sure most people here would be in the same boat.

I thought the point was that they were getting more specific - less of a range - in terms of the projections.

Hoped you'd agree that was a good thing...

did i say it doesn't make a difference? if so, point it out.

just to let you know, i lead by example and i'm not an alarmist.

my wife and i drive a prius. our other car is a 4 cyl sedan.
we compost.
the last four appliances we purchased have energy star ratings.
we recycle actively.
we have begun replacing standard light bulbs w/ compact fluorescent bulbs.
we routinely purchase organic produce/ fruit.
we replaced our thermostat with an energy star programmable model.
that new thermostat is currently set at 59 when we're home and 57 when we're sleeping or not at home. the only time that changes when we have company.

pink, take a look. i say it starts with the individual. unfortunately, many of the "sky is falling" crowd don't exhibit such behavior. that's the inconvenient truth.

that the amount is calculated based upon this:

"around 1% of annual global GDP by 2050"

which is mentioned in multiple places in the summary as the cost. Additionally, the summary details the cost to retrofit (my word) buildings and structures, so that may be included. As I didn't read the whole study, I'm not sure if the figure would be referenced there or even in the footnotes.

Additionally - I don't think, in this article, that they're saying 'do nothing' as much as they're saying people are willing to do what they can, until it reaches some unknown cost point...determined by each individual...

And we see that now. Some people recycle - others don't think it's worth the bother or the inconvenience. So individuals decide at what point they're willing to take certain actions. I think they're applying this concept to the costs of doing things regarding global warming.

...I didn't have time to watch it, but in answer to your question - do they focus on possible solutions - this is the first thing I found...

http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=1770

I appreciate your thoughts on the subject.

Pink Slip

about possible solutions, this article came out today...

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7502

While there's not a lot of specificity, I expect it will be elaborated on in a position paper...

ya see.....you can't even acknowledge it.

the estimates of huge increases in ocean water levels are based upon computer models - so they're just speculation

I would agree, however the 2001 IPCC report's predicted rise in sea levels was accurate.

Further, in reading many of the reports, we're talking only about 2-4 inches increase. That's not going to affect "millions."

I think they're talking about rising levels of 5-22 inches, which by many regards is still seen as a conservative estimate. That would certainly affect millions

I haven't read State of Fear, but I know there were some questions with the science in the book:

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf

I'm sure it's entertaining though. I did like Jurassic Park

Pink Slip

I'm just wondering why he doesn't provide data to back up his claim "Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2)."

That's when I discovered he hasn't been providing anyone with scientific studies in a long time. Wouldn't you question a statement like that without data to back it up?

Pink Slip

I wasn't tying you to any of the quotes. Of course I think that more specific ranges are a good thing. I just don't think he presented it that way. It seemed more like he was saying "see, it not as bad as people think". Perhaps I have already pre-judged Mr Michaels on this issue, since he's stated in the past that the effects of global warming would be minimal, and there's nothing we can do about it anyway.

Pink Slip

that's the inconvenient truth

Nice. And I agree. I wasn't commenting on you. I think the "alarmists" serve a purpose to a degree, in that some people won't give a crap until something scares them a little. Think of this---what if in the late 90's and early 00's, if there were a bunch of "alarmists" running around warning us of Al-Qaeda, and how if we don't do something they could attack & kill thousands of Americans by flying planes into buildings? It may have made more of us aware of the seriousness of terrorism, and to get our gov't to do something about it.

Pink Slip

Equating gov't grants to funding from Exxon Mobile (who has a vested interest in prevented caps on co2 emissions) is weak at best.

Pink Slip

you just won't do it, huh?

No thanks, I don't like kool-aid

Pink Slip

then stop drinking some much of it

Don't you hate it, when you think you have a real zinger of a joke....but then you misspell something?

Pink Slip

that does suck. oh well, the point stands.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.