Friday, August 3, 2012

Will The Debate On Global Warming/Climate Change Ever Be Over?

So many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change, the debate will go on forever.  Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for continual, "ad infinitum" research on climate.  With that understood, in order to justify this spending to the tax-paying public, these "researchers" absolutely must keep up with the scare tactics.  They must just love heat waves, floods, tornados, hurricanes, blizzards, and all the other usual weather phenomena.  The more destructive and headline-making these things are, the better.  It is all rather shameless, and in my opinion, much of it is despicable.


The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee this week held its first hearing on climate science since 2009. Politico incorrectly claimed that no star witnesses testified. In fact, University of Alabama-Huntsville Professor John Christy, one of the world’s leading climate scientists, provided outstanding testimony. Professor Christy’s written testimony is available here, and video of his opening statement is available here.

Among the alarmist witnesses, Stanford Professor Chris Field’s testimony was convincingly refuted in this response by University of Colorado Professor Roger Pielke, Jr.


Anonymous said...

I don't think it will be over as long as there's actual science around. Sorry Pete---I understand how threatening global warming is to your profession as a driller, but the truth hurts.

Anonymous said...

You know, Pete, the record temperatures this summer have been converting people over to the warmist belief.

Debate will go on as long as people are paying attention.

Anonymous said...

This is why Pete:

"From devastating floods in China and the Philippines to droughts in Africa, the same extreme weather patterns that have hit the United States have impacted locations around the world. This is the face of global warming. According to a new report, climate change has already contributed to 400,000 deaths per year and over $699 billion, 0.9 percent annually, in loss to gross domestic product (GDP). The report estimates even greater damage from air pollution caused by the burning of fossil fuels which is also driving global warming.

This is the finding of a new report – Climate Vulnerability Monitor: A Guide to the Cold Calculus of a Hot Planet (2nd Edition) – written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments. The report was conducted for the DARA group and the Climate Vulnerable Forum. The study calculates and compares the vulnerability of 184 countries in terms of environmental disasters, habitat change, health impact and industry stress.

The study found that 400,000 deaths per year from hunger and communicable diseases have been aggravated by climate change. And they found that an additional 4.5 million people are dying from the carbon-based economy, mainly due to air pollution. The economic costs of this air pollution are over $500 billion per year – causing an additional GDP loss of 0.7 percent."

Anonymous said...

Our Earth is warming. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. Small changes in the average temperature of the planet can translate to large and potentially dangerous shifts in climate and weather.

The evidence is clear. Rising global temperatures have been accompanied by changes in weather and climate. Many places have seen changes in rainfall, resulting in more floods, droughts, or intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced some big changes - oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising. As these and other changes become more pronounced in the coming decades, they will likely present challenges to our society and our environment.

Top of Page
Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change
smoke coming from a factory

Over the past century, human activities have released large amounts of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. The majority of greenhouse gases come from burning fossil fuels to produce energy, although deforestation, industrial processes, and some agricultural practices also emit gases into the atmosphere.

Greenhouse gases act like a blanket around Earth, trapping energy in the atmosphere and causing it to warm. This phenomenon is called the greenhouse effect and is natural and necessary to support life on Earth. However, the buildup of greenhouse gases can change Earth's climate and result in dangerous effects to human health and welfare and to ecosystems.

The choices we make today will affect the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the atmosphere in the near future and for years to come.

Top of Page
Climate change affects everyone
Learn More

The Signs of Climate Change in the United States
Climate Change Facts: Answers to Common Questions
Multimedia Gallery

Our lives are connected to the climate. Human societies have adapted to the relatively stable climate we have enjoyed since the last ice age which ended several thousand years ago. A warming climate will bring changes that can affect our water supplies, agriculture, power and transportation systems, the natural environment, and even our own health and safety.

Some changes to the climate are unavoidable. Carbon dioxide can stay in the atmosphere for nearly a century, so Earth will continue to warm in the coming decades. The warmer it gets, the greater the risk for more severe changes to the climate and Earth's system. Although it's difficult to predict the exact impacts of climate change, what's clear is that the climate we are accustomed to is no longer a reliable guide for what to expect in the future.

We can reduce the risks we will face from climate change. By making choices that reduce greenhouse gas pollution, and preparing for the changes that are already underway, we can reduce risks from climate change. Our decisions today will shape the world our children and grandchildren will live in.

Top of Page
We can make a difference
hands on a globe

You can take action. You can take steps at home, on the road, and in your office to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and the risks associated with climate change. Many of these steps can save you money; some, such as walking or biking to work can even improve your health! You can also get involved on a local or state level to support energy efficiency, clean energy programs, or other climate programs.

Calculate your carbon footprint and find ways to reduce your emissions through simple everyday actions.

Anonymous said...

What do the 2010 heat wave in Russia, last year's Texas drought, and the 2003 heat wave in Europe have in common?

All are examples of extreme weather caused by climate change, according to a new study from NASA scientist James Hansen.

"This is not a climate model or a prediction but actual observations of weather events and temperatures that have happened," he wrote in a Washington Post opinion piece meant to accompany the study.
Where it's hot at the North Pole
Watch time-lapse of severe Chicago storm
Heavy storm damage in New York
Nye: Huge ice melt proves climate change

"Our analysis shows that it is no longer enough to say that global warming will increase the likelihood of extreme weather and to repeat the caveat that no individual weather event can be directly linked to climate change. To the contrary, our analysis shows that, for the extreme hot weather of the recent past, there is virtually no explanation other than climate change."

The study, which was published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, looks at the past six decades of global temperatures and finds what Hansen described as a "stunning" rise in the frequency of extremely hot summers.

It compared what is happening now to what was happening between 1951-1980. In those years, extremely hot temperatures covered less than 0.2% of the planet. Now, those temperatures cover about 10% of the land area, the study said.

It dismissed the idea that specific weather patterns are by themselves sufficient to explain today's extreme anomalies. Phenomena like La Nina have always been around, but large areas of extreme warming have only come about with climate change, the study said.

"The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills," wrote Hansen.

Hansen directs research at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York and is a longtime environmental activist.

Anonymous said...

For the first time since the United States entered a deep recession five years ago, 70% of Americans now say they believe global warming is a reality, according to researchers.

In a report released Thursday by the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication, authors wrote that America’s concern about global warming is now at its highest level since 2008, and that 58% of Americans expressed worries about it.

“Historically Americans have viewed climate change as a distant problem -- distant in time and distant in space -- and perceived that it wasn’t something that involved them,” said environmental scientist and lead author Anthony Leiserowitz. “That gap is beginning to close, however ... we’re seeing a jump in the number of people who believe it will affect them or their families.”

American attitudes on climate change shifted remarkably during the recession. While 71% of Americans said they believed that global warming was real just prior to the recession in late 2008, the number of believers had plummeted to 57% by 2010, according to the study. By the same token, the share of Americans who did not believe in global warming before the recession stood at 10%, whereas today its 12%.

Many climate scientists said they believed public perception changed dramatically after the start of the recession -- in part -- because economic worries took precedence in people’s minds.

In recent years, however, the number of people who say that global warming is real has grown steadily, according to study authors.

“Additional analysis is required to determine why Americans increasingly believe that global warming is happening, but it is likely due to a number of factors, including the record number of extreme weather events that have occurred over the past two years, including heat waves, widespread drought, floods, wildfires and violent storms. Indeed ... more Americans think that the weather in the United States is getting worse.”

Leiserowitz said he expected the trend to continue. While this summer was the third-hottest in the U.S. since record-keeping began in 1895, the entire year is on track to be the nation’s hottest, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Among the study’s findings were the following:

-- Those who believe global warming is happening are more certain than those who do not. Over half of Americans who believe global warming is happening (57%) say they are “very” (30%) or “extremely sure” (27%).

-- For the first time since 2008, more than half of Americans (54%) believe global warming is caused mostly by human activities. The proportion of Americans who say it is caused mostly by natural changes in the environment has declined to 30%.

-- A growing number of Americans believe global warming is already harming people both at home and abroad. Four in 10 say people around the world are being harmed right now by climate change, while 36% say global warming is currently harming people in the United States.

The study conclusions were based on a survey of 1,061 American adults. The survey was conducted online and took roughly 25 minutes to complete. The sampling was random and respondents who did not have a computer or Internet connection were provided with one.

While study authors surmise that two years of extreme weather events are likely responsible for shifting America’s perception of climate change, climate scientists themselves disagree over what weather events, if any, can be tied to global warming.

William Patzert, a NASA climatologist and oceanographer, said that while it was clear that the planet was warming due to human production of greenhouse gases, it was less clear to him that recent droughts and record-breaking heat were direct results.

Anonymous said...

“Have these events been a preview of coming attractions? The answer is, maybe,” Patzert said. “There are all kinds of scenarios. You know, there is a possibility that floods and droughts will become less intense. But the important thing to realize is that climate will shift. Patterns of rainfall and temperature, upon which our present civilization was built, will change in unknown ways, and that’s scary.”

Despite disagreement among scientists over global warming’s link to extreme weather events, a growing number of Americans say their minds have already been made up.

Over the past year and a half, according to the Yale study, a growing number of Americans say they have all the information they need to form a firm opinion about global warming, from 23% in May of last year to 30% today.

But a solid majority -- 70% -- said they would like at least a “little more” information on the subject, study authors wrote.

Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times,0,5956821.story?track=rss

Pete Ridley said...

Hi Peter,

I have no disagreement with “ .. many people have a vested interest in maintaining the big public scare about global warming and/or climate change .. Many people's careers, in fact entire university science departments depend upon government funding for .. research on climate. .. The more .. headline-making these things are, the better. It is all .. despicable .. ”.

As Professor Stephen Schneider said “ .. To capture the public imagination, we have to offer up some scary scenarios, make simplified dramatic statements and little mention of any doubts one might have. Each of us has to decide the right balance between being effective, and being honest .. ”.

I tried to enlighten Canadian environmental activist Mike Kaulbars and his followers on his “Greenfyre" blog about Schneider ( and other questionable Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) pronouncements. It was like trying to convert a Jehovah’s Witness to atheism. Mike took exception to those of us who challenged his CACC propaganda and moved our contributions to a new thread “Spam - This is what Denierism looks like … ” under the name “Denier Troll”. One of his moderators is an amateur astronomer from Morayshire, Scotland ( called Stewart Argo, SIGMA committee member and Web-master. Stewart, who hides behind the false name S2, has nothing of substance to offer about what causes the different global climates to change. Argo demonstrated his irrationality when he accused “rogerthesurf” (another who hides behind a false name) and me of being one and the same ( #9227 and Kaulbars response thereto).

Regarding your “other life” as a petroleum geologist, I took a look at your “GeoPete’s View” blog ( and your “Fracking China” article ( caught my eye. The headline “Will the U.S. export fracking to the rest of the world?” is pertinent to what is going on here in the UK. Despite the efforts of the “Greens”, the LibDems, environmental activist organisations and the renewable energy industry there are sighns that the Government is at last coming to its senses and will encourage investment in our on- and off-shore shale gas and oil resources.

I also wonder if you ever had reason to associate with the Calgary organisation Friends of Science which was set up by retired geophysicists. I have been having some interesting exchanges with one of their number, Norm Kalmanovitch. If you’re interested drop me a line, either by E-mail, my blog ( or via Twitter (@SpotlightONCACC).

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Pete Ridley said...

Talking about cowards who comment from behind a false name, one such from behind “anonymous” made reference to a “report” by DARA International ( The document’s introductory statements “DEDICATED TO THE INNOCENT VICTIMS OF CLIMATE CHANGE” and “ .. Climate change is already with us. It kills. It steals livelihoods. And it takes the most from those who have the least .. ” give us a good idea about what DARA and this report are all about.

“Anonymous” claimed that the “report was “ .. written by more than 50 scientists, economists and policy experts, and commissioned by 20 governments .. ” so I started to check up on those contributors and had to laugh when I started reading about members of the “Peer Review Committee”, e.g. see:
- SURUCHI BHADWAL – employed by TERI ! ( – and look who is is Director General!
- Dr. Diarmid Campbell-Lendrum, epidemiologist! (!search/profile/person?personId=555851861&targetid=profile)
- Manuel Carballo, epidemiologist! (
- Ian Christoplos, Anthropologist! (
- Joshua Cooper, political scientist! “ .. Global climate change is no longer an ominous, omnipotent threat of the future but a dawning, deadly reality today .. ” (

That was enough for me! I challenge “anonymous” to name those contributors who are recognised as being specialists in identifying the processes and drivers of the different global climates, i.e. scientists who know something about the causes rather than the effects of climate change and global warming.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Anonymous said...

Hello Mr. Ridley, I will not look up and re-post every adviser on the DARA masthead. I will leave that up to you.

Nor will I post excessively about the organizations you ignored mentioning (NASA, NOAA, etc.) which, in typical denialist fashion you chose to ignore.

Instead, I will simply pick one of the many people who worked on the report you mention.

Bo Lim's Overview


Special Advisor for Development and Climate Change Adaptation at UNDP


Principal Technical Advisor for Adaptation and Capacity Development at UNDP
Senior Technical Advisor for Climate Change at UNDP - Global Environment Facility
Chief Technical Advisor of National Communications Programme at UNDP - Global Environment Facility

see all

Université Paris Sud (Paris XI)
University of East Anglia
University of East Anglia


1 person has recommended Bo

101 connections

Bo Lim's Experience
Special Advisor for Development and Climate Change Adaptation

Nonprofit; 10,001+ employees; International Affairs industry

August 2008 – Present (4 years 3 months)
Principal Technical Advisor for Adaptation and Capacity Development

Nonprofit; 10,001+ employees; International Affairs industry

January 2005 – July 2008 (3 years 7 months)
Senior Technical Advisor for Climate Change
UNDP - Global Environment Facility

Nonprofit; 10,001+ employees; International Affairs industry

July 2001 – June 2005 (4 years)
Chief Technical Advisor of National Communications Programme
UNDP - Global Environment Facility

Nonprofit; 10,001+ employees; International Affairs industry

October 1998 – June 2001 (2 years 9 months)
Head of IPCC Technical Support for Greenhouse Gas Inventories
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change/OECD/IEA

March 1995 – September 1998 (3 years 7 months)
Senior Consultant
Environment Resource Management

December 1989 – January 1992 (2 years 2 months)
Bo Lim's Education
Université Paris Sud (Paris XI)
Postdoctorate Fellow, Atmospheric Science

1992 – 1995

This included 2 years at the CNRS, with 2 year at Paris VII.
University of East Anglia
Doctorate, Atmospheric and Ocean Chemistry

1987 – 1990

University of East Anglia
Bachelor Degree, Chemistry

1984 – 1987

Bo Lim's Additional Information

Groups and Associations:

Reviewer for IPCC Report on Managing the Risks of Extremes and Disasters for Advancing Climate Change Adaptation, 2010-2011 Member of Review Committee for Climate Vulnerability Monitor, 2010 Member of Science, Technical and Advisory Panel of the Global Environmental Facility, 2004-2006 Member UNFCCC Expert Group on Technology Transfer, 2004-2005 Co-Editor of Adaptation Policy Framework, 2003 Member of UNFCCC Expert Group on non-Annex I National Communications, 2001-2003 Convening Lead Author of IPCC, Land Use, Land-Use Change, and Forestry, 1998-2000 Co-Editor of IPCC Guidelines for National Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 1996 Member of the UNFCCC review team for Denmark's first national communication, 1996 Member of American Chemical Society, 1991-92 Member of American Geophysical Union, 1987-91 Member of Royal Society of Chemistry, CChem MRSC

AdaptAbility° Climate Adaptation Network logo
AdaptAbility° Climate Adaptation Network

Honors and Awards:

Award for Contribution to the IPCC Nobel Peace Prize, 2007
Award for European Fellowship for Science, 1992
Award for Royal Society Fellowship for Science, 1990
Natural Environment Research Council Grant, 1987-90
Award for First Class Honors, Bachelor's Degree, 1987

Anonymous said...

I will also point out that DARA is involved in any number of global causes (from economic and political to disease control) thus an epidemiologist is not so far afield since DARA is concerned with the overall effects of AGW, including diseases.

Now, since you are very concerned with who is offering expert commentary, I dare you to look objectively into a number of the "experts" Pete posts on his website. Otherwise you are a hypocrite.

Anonymous said...

("Sandy" continued)

Sandy was a blunt reminder that the technical term for people affected by climate change is people. It’s an environmental issue, a security issue and, yes, an economic issue, as Sandy-stranded urbanites and drought-stricken farmers have learned the hard way. The oceans are expected to rise at least another foot (30 cm) by 2100 and will rise much more if the world can’t make a quick transition from fossil fuels. That has all kinds of disastrous implications for coastal communities and food supplies and wildlife and human life. But as Al Gore says, if denial ain’t just a river in Egypt, despair ain’t just a tire in the trunk. Activists have been so busy warning about climate science and griping about climate silence that they’ve ignored the tremendous climate progress the U.S. has made under Obama. His strict new fuel-efficiency rules for cars and trucks should reduce carbon emissions by 6 billion metric tons by 2025, which would be like wiping out an entire year’s worth of emissions. His stimulus bill poured an astonishing $90 billion into clean energy, doubling wind power, increasing solar power 1,000%, greening factories and government buildings and more than 1 million homes and jump-starting a smart grid and electric vehicles and blue-sky research into the planet-saving technologies of tomorrow. U.S. emissions are now falling even though the economy is growing.

The U.S. still needs some kind of price on carbon to make dirty energy pay for its pollution. It needs to eliminate archaic subsidies for fossil fuels. It needs to promote less exurban sprawl and long-haul trucking and more telecommuting, carpooling and trains. And it needs the Republican Party to return to its relative sanity of 2008, when its presidential candidate (and his Alaskan running mate) supported a cap-and-trade regime to slash emissions.

But the U.S. has quietly begun its transition to a low-carbon economy. Sandy could be the moment that accelerated the transition, the moment that America dropped its Lance Armstrong attitude toward the climate. The alternate future looks like Sandy on steroids.

Read more: