Lies, Lies, And More Tall Tales About Global Warming And Climate Change

History will show most of the work done and efforts made to convince the public of a relationship between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming and/or climate change is based almost completely on faulty science, doctored data, and politically motivated lies.  It is and has been a shameful record of mixing so-called science and politics.  It is worse that Soviet-style central planning, the kind that lead to the failure of the Soviet Union and the suffering and deaths of millions of people.  More and more people are belatedly coming to the same sad realization.
Peter

Global warming as real as Obama's jobless numbers, GOP Rep. Dana Rohrabacher says

Written by Ben Wolfgang, The Washington Times.

       

Rep. Dana Rohrabacher - WikimediaIf you believe in man-made climate change — and think the nation’s unemployment rate truly has fallen to 7.5 percent — then Rep. Dana Rohrabacher has a bridge to sell you.

At a Tuesday-morning House hearing on the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, the outspoken Mr. Rohrabacher, California Republican, took aim at environmentalists’ claims that mankind is fueling global warming by continuing to use fossil fuels such as oil, natural gas and coal.

That notion, he suggested, is as false as the idea that the U.S. jobless rate really is as low as the just-announced 7.5 percent. The Labor Department on Friday reported that the U.S. economy added 165,000 jobs in April and that the unemployment figure fell to its lowest level in five years.

“The American people understand how fragile we are economically, even with a supposed 7.5 [percent] unemployment rate. Anybody who believes that probably also believes in global warming,” Mr. Rohrabacher said. “I believe the global warming theory that mankind is impacting climate change has been so exaggerated, … that it will bring down the standard of living of the American people.”
Read rest…

The Madness Of The Crowd......And Man-Made Global Warming Mythology

One of the most common arguments in favor of the concept of man-made global warming (now "climate change" and "climate chaos"????) it that a consensus exists among scientists about global warming.  First of all, this is increasingly untrue.  Secondly, science is not conducted by consensus, or majority rule.  Science is about finding the truth, whether 1% or 99% percent of those polled believe in something matters not; all that matters is the truth, right or wrong.

The following very well written essay addresses the influence mob mentality has on politics and government policy making.  If the mob, or the simple majority rules, above and beyond reason, the end result is at best, bad laws, at worst, totalitarianism and fascism.  This has been proven time after time throughout human history.  The author and historian of the following article (Victor David Hanson) explains and illustrates this clearly.

What is of particular interest to me, and the central issue of this blog, is how mob mentality has been used and abused in creating and perpetuating the myth of man-caused global warming.  I include an excerpt from the following article, which can be found here in its entirety.
 
http://pjmedia.com/victordavishanson/beware-of-the-mob/?singlepage=true

Read the entire article please.  The manner in which the liberal left has harnessed mob mentality and manipulated the "masses" would make the Nazi Germans envious.  They are using this same group psychology in an effort to control every aspect of our lives.  Man-made global warming is just one symptom of the disease the liberal left is spreading throughout America and the world.
Peter

Beware of the Mob

March 25, 2012 - 11:31 am - by Victor Davis Hanson

 

Planet Warming on Hold
"One of the most venomous lines of attack against George W. Bush was his supposed failure to address climate change. These were the mob days of the anguished Al Gore, still smarting over having won the popular, but not the electoral, vote in 2000, damning Bush as a liar, as he created Gore, Inc. — a near organic-growing merchandising empire of several hundred millions of dollars.

Gorism both hyped a global carbon threat and then offered the consulting and expertise to address it. His carbon footprints and “offsets” followed the medieval model of selling exemptions. In such holy work, there were no such things as conflict of interest, influence peddling, or simple bad manners. Gore rode his Earth in the Balance / Inconvenient Truth express train to a Nobel Prize, a sizable fortune — and a general impression that he had become unhinged, whether in his incarnation as a “crazed sex poodle” or a vein-bursting screaming “he lied!” mental patient.

No matter, Barack Obama came into office on the shoulders of this screaming mob. His team lectured us on the wisdom of withholding oil leases, on the desirability of European-level gas prices, and on why we must soon pay skyrocketing energy prices. Obama-sanctioned cap-and-trade passed the Democratic-held House.
And then?

Snow fell.
Ice still formed outside the kitchen window. Chicago, as is its habit, got both really hot and really cold. Volvos still needed gas. People in Malibu still liked central heating. Philology adjusted accordingly. Global warming begat climate change and the latter begat climate chaos: if the planet were not hotter, then snow and ice were symptoms of such heating; and if even that were insufficient proof for us dunces, then tornados, earthquakes, and hurricanes would have to do.

Yet the mob mentality began to fade, as revelations about everything from doctored research, politicized grant-giving, and false conclusions about glaciers, Greenland, and polar bears began appearing in the liberal news — suggesting that if such scandal made even the mainstream media, then the phrenology-like fad was nearing an end.

Obama had done his part in postponing the Keystone pipeline, putting oil on federal lands off-limits, and talking up boondoggles like the Chevy Volt and Solyndra. But the idea of $5 a gallon gas makes even the most liberal Santa Monica Volvo driver edgy, and now the global-warming movement has collapsed. Bush is in Texas, not the White House. Obama now blames Solyndra on Republicans, brags about entrepreneurial wildcatters in the Dakotas, does photo-ops in front of derricks, and promises to allow bits and pieces of the Keystone pipeline.

And the mob? Why hurt the liberal cause by going after Obama? Suddenly, the would-be-lynchers have left the sheriff’s office porch and are in twos and threes heading back home."

read the entire article here.
'

Climate Change: Good Or Bad?

A reader seeking to initiate discussion and seeking comments writes:


Subject: RE: Revealing our leaders as lightweights....




Well, the real issue is that we, the general public, do not have easy access to the data many are using to claim home sapiens are responsible for global warming. However, opposition to those claims comes from many, like myself, a geologist, who know that climate change is as inevitable as the sun rising. Many of us are skeptical because of the huge amounts of money that will change hands, mostly between politicians. I think the biggest elephant in the room is the lack of discussion about how bad global warming is for the Homo sapien population, and what severe damage it hasn’t caused before.

While we can argue about whether or not the CO2 from fossil fuels is the culprit, it is hard to believe that it is more powerful than the source of the heat itself, the sun and all its moods. With the potential (they say) of the current sun cycle going into a dormant time, we shall see. Again, do we really think a warmer earth is that bad, bad enough to transfer the wealth from one group to a more dangerous group? Who will do the most harm, a rise in temperature or a rich elite (politicians, who have no idea of where money comes from) taking more and more power? I vote that, like Pogo said, “We have met the enemy and he is us.”



Alan

"Environmentalism Used As A Tool For Political Purposes

Here is just one example of how environmentalism and its often pseudo-science is used for political purposes. These people playing on people's emotions don't care about the real environment; all they care about is power and control. This is especially true when it involves the myth of man-caused global warming which is held up as the reason for nearly every problem in the universe. It is becoming a standing joke.
Peter

A Move to Put the Union Label on Solar Power Plants

By TODD WOODY

SACRAMENTO — When a company called Ausra filed plans for a big solar power plant in California, it was deluged with demands from a union group that it study the effect on creatures like the short-nosed kangaroo rat and the ferruginous hawk.

By contrast, when a competitor, BrightSource Energy, filed plans for an even bigger solar plant that would affect the imperiled desert tortoise, the same union group, California Unions for Reliable Energy, raised no complaint. Instead, it urged regulators to approve the project as quickly as possible.

One big difference between the projects? Ausra had rejected demands that it use only union workers to build its solar farm, while BrightSource pledged to hire labor-friendly contractors.

As California moves to license dozens of huge solar power plants to meet the state’s renewable energy goals, some developers contend they are being pressured to sign agreements pledging to use union labor. If they refuse, they say, they can count on the union group to demand costly environmental studies and deliver hostile testimony at public hearings.

If they commit at the outset to use union labor, they say, the environmental objections never materialize.

“This does stress the limits of credibility to some extent,” a California energy commissioner, Jeffrey Byron, said at one contentious hearing, “when an attorney representing a labor union is so focused on the potential impact of a solar power plant on birds.”

Union leaders acknowledge that they make aggressive use of the environmental laws, but say they do it out of genuine concern for the sustainability of California’s power industry, not just as a negotiating tactic. And they contend they do not abandon valid environmental objections to a project just because a company signs a labor agreement.

“We’ve been tarred and feathered more than once on this issue,” said Marc Joseph, a lawyer for California Unions for Reliable Energy. “We don’t walk away from environmental issues.”

At proposed fossil-fuel power plants, the union group has long been accused of exploiting environmental laws to force companies into signing labor agreements. The tactic is a subject of perennial discussion in the California legislature, which has considered, but never passed, bills to strip labor of its right to participate in environmental assessments.

What is new is that California Unions for Reliable Energy, a coalition of construction unions, appears to be applying this approach to new-age renewable energy projects, especially solar power plants, which are being fast-tracked to help meet the state’s green power target.

Lawyers for the union both negotiate labor agreements with solar developers and participate in the environmental review of the projects.

California Unions for Reliable Energy insists it is pursuing the long-term interests of its members. If energy projects are held to high environmental standards, the group says, more of them will ultimately get built, and that will mean more union jobs.

Nationwide, as billions of dollars in public and private investment flow to renewable energy projects, the environmental and labor battles being fought in California could prove to be the opening skirmishes of a larger fight over the emerging green economy.

Should Rust Belt factories converted to making solar components and wind turbines be union shops, gateways to the middle-class for a new generation of workers in the green economy? Or will the green economy look more like the service economy, with low-paid employees installing rooftop solar panels and retrofitting buildings?

For the labor movement, green jobs represent an opportunity to regain relevance after years of declining membership.

“Unions are trying to get a foothold in solar, wind and other new green occupations,” said Philip Mattera, research director for Good Jobs First, a labor-oriented research group in Washington.

“We’re at a turning point that will have an impact on the future of the whole economy, and a lot of unions are gearing up.”

But skeptics fear that union control of renewable energy projects will saddle the nascent industry with high costs and undermine its competitiveness.

“These environmental challenges are the unions’ major tactic to maintain their share of industrial construction — we call it greenmail,” said Kevin Dayton, state government affairs director for the Associated Builders and Contractors of California. “The future of solar energy is jeopardized by these unions holding up construction.”

In California, project labor agreements can raise costs on a project by about 20 percent, Mr. Dayton estimated.

The fights of the moment center on solar farms proposed for tens of thousands of acres of desert and agricultural land.

When the utility giant the FPL Group ignored entreaties from California Unions for Reliable Energy to use union labor on a planned 250-megawatt solar farm, it was hit with 144 data requests, demanding details on things like “the engine brand, model, and horsepower rating” of a water pump engine, “the number of man-hours devoted to focused tortoise surveys, by location” and “the role of each individual that participated.”

In filings with the California Energy Commission, Ausra has accused the union group of abusing environmental laws in a bid to extract a labor agreement. FPL’s lawyers accused the group of trying to stall the company’s solar project.

Bob Balgenorth, chairman of the labor group, makes no apologies for pushing hard for union jobs from solar developers while scrutinizing the environmental impact of the projects. “You only have so much land that can accept solar power plants,” said Mr. Balgenorth, who has cultivated strong ties with conservation groups.

“So the question is, should that land be used for low-paid jobs or should that land be used for high-paid jobs?”

Some solar developers say that signing a labor agreement is simply an unavoidable cost of doing business.

“Let’s just say that it is clear to us from experience that if we do not enter into a project labor agreement, the costs and schedule of the project is interminable,” said Douglas Wert, chief executive of Spinnaker Energy, a San Diego company hired to build two solar farms for Portuguese developer Martifer.

After Stirling Energy Systems filed plans with California regulators to install 30,000 solar dishes on 10 square miles of desert land, its executives got a call from Mr. Joseph, the union lawyer. Sean Gallagher, a vice president for Tessera Solar, the development arm for Stirling, said the company declined Mr. Joseph’s request to commit to using union labor.

California Unions for Reliable Energy subsequently filed 143 data requests with the company on the final day such requests could be made, and later intervened in a second, 850-megawatt Stirling solar project.

It was a different story after BrightSource Energy pledged to hire union-friendly contractors to build its Mojave Desert solar power plant complex. Despite questions raised by environmental groups about the project’s impact on wildlife, the union group took no action, according to commission documents.

Mr. Joseph said that the labor group wants to mediate between environmentalists and BrightSource, which is based in Oakland, Calif.

“We’re actually hoping that we can help resolve these issues in a way that allows that project to go forward and gives maximum protection to the desert tortoise,” he said.

He said he sees “absolutely no conflict of interest” in seeking labor agreements from solar developers while challenging the environmental effect of the projects. “It is in the interest of construction workers to have good middle class jobs — and to have conventional and renewable power plants that are sustainable,” Mr. Joseph said.

The union group’s strategy drew plaudits from environmentalists when the group was winning agreements from developers to cut pollution from fossil fuel power plants. But as some conservation groups ally themselves with business interests to push for a rapid rollout of renewable energy, strains are showing in the so-called blue-green alliance.

Some environmental groups are worried that the labor tactics will delay green energy projects and cause a backlash, but they are reluctant to go public with criticisms of the labor movement.

Others, like the Natural Resources Defense Council, are trying to steer clear of the controversy.

The council “hasn’t taken a position on whether union labor should or shouldn’t be used in these projects,” said Sheryl Carter, the group’s co-director of energy programs.

And still others defend the labor group’s role.

Carl Zichella, the Sierra Club’s director of western renewable programs, said California Unions for Reliable Energy had been effective at extracting concessions that aid the environment.

“It’s not a warm fuzzy thing they are doing; it’s a very self-interested thing they’re doing,” he said. “But it has a large ancillary public benefit.”

An Excellent Review Of Flawed Obama Energy Policy

The following comes from an excellent blog titled Skeptic's Corner. It summarizes the absurdity and impracticality of even thinking we can substitute so-called "renewables" for our existing oil, gas, and coal resources in the reasonably near future. We have been investing Billions of dollars in alternative forms of energy for decades. We have not much to show for this; at best just a few percent of our total demand.

We need to look at our energy situation very carefully and with as little political bias as possible. This is very serious so I've taken the liberty to reproduce this essay in total.
Peter

Obama and the Alternative Energy Fiasco
The president is wrong to block oil and gas production.


It's only a matter of time before President Barack Obama's vast popularity runs aground on his energy policies. In the name of saving the planet from global warming, he has delayed new oil drilling, an action that will have major political repercussions once the world economy recovers. Instead of using some the stimulus billions to produce more gas and oil, Obama's wild-eyed supporters dream of "renewable" energy derived from corn, wind, sunshine, and even grass.

With the appointment of extremists like climate czar Carol Browner and science adviser John Holdren, Obama has placed his administration's environmental policy in the hands of radicals. Interior Secretary Ken Salazar proposes replacing oil and coal with windmills. Yet Barron's recently reported that America would need to build 500,000 giant offshore windmills and transmission lines to produce Salazar's specified 1,900 gigawatts of electricity. In contrast, oil and gas drilling could provide hundreds of thousands of solid, well-paying blue-collar jobs. Washington Post economics columnist Robert Samuelson explains this in "The Bias Against Oil & Gas," describing how alternative energy job creation is miniscule compared to what an expansion of oil production would create. Meanwhile, Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) and Rep. Edward Markey (D-Mass.) have proposed legislation giving legal standing to allow Americans to sue any company that produces "greenhouse" gasses.

All of these things are happening at a time when natural gas is abundant and cheap.Hide
The new technology of horizontal fraccing has made it economically feasible to drill into vast shale deposits in many states, even famously difficult ones like Michigan and New York. Many cars could run on natural gas, much like many buses do already. On a recent trip to Peru, I learned that most taxicabs have been converted to natural gas for a cost of about $1,000 each. New technologies continually revive old oil and gas fields and make new ones economically viable. So it's little more than socialist Malthusianism to argue that the world is running out of cheap energy. Science will always find and harness new sources. Even the liberal New Republic recently admitted that, "Utopian environmentalism has, to some extent, always promised to heal the alienation wrought by modernity... it is a form of escapism and disengagement from reality." The extremists scoff at science and would apparently prefer scarcity so that bureaucratic rationing will enforce a change in American lifestyles.

Instead of producing more of the cheap, abundant energy that fueled America's dynamic growth, the extremists who support and surround Obama dream of drastically cutting American consumption. Many of them would like to see the government force General Motors to make flimsy little cars that run on electricity (or alternative energy) at the cost of billions. Meanwhile, the Sierra Club magazine recently boasted of helping to block construction of 96 coal-fired power plants and helping to impose a de facto moratorium on all new plants.

Currently, half of the drilling rigs in America are shutdown because of low oil and gas prices. Most smaller oil companies have suffered severe damage or even gone bankrupt by their inability to renew loans or gain credit. Likewise, the majors have few safe options in foreign countries but would invest heavily in offshore American exploration, if it were permitted.

So what about the so-called green alternatives? Forbes recently detailed the problems with windmills. First, they depend upon a two-cent-per-kilowatt taxpayer subsidy to remain competitive. They also require backup gas generators (in case the wind isn't blowing when needed) and new transmission lines running from windy places to population centers. And while new technologies to store wind-generated electricity are in the works, they have so far proven uneconomical. Nor does this even begin to consider the years of legal delays that would likely result from litigious neighbors opposed to new transmission towers. Solar power is even more expensive and would also require additional billions for backup generators and new transmission lines. Compare those unseen costs to the clear benefits of coal and gas plants where transmission lines are already built.

New oil and gas technologies could also help the U.S. from importing so much oil. But the Obama administration is stalling and trying to stop the offshore drilling approved by the previous Congress. The White House has also shut down previously permitted onshore drilling and burdened drillers with costly new restrictions. Meanwhile, $80 billion in stimulus spending has been earmarked for "renewable" energy. The plan is to give a 30 percent tax credit for the associated costs.

Americans will soon again feel the sting of gasoline costing $3.00 or $4.00 per gallon and then come to recognize how we've wasted years of opportunity to produce more energy domestically. For instance, the U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are 85 billion barrels of offshore oil. (And that is an old number. It is almost certain to increase once new exploration and testing are permitted.) New supplies in continental America, not to mention the billions of barrels now accessible in Alaska, could transform our trade deficit by cutting hundreds of billions of dollars in imports. This would help rescue the value of the dollar, alleviate the cost of maintaining armies and navies in the Middle East, and help save free trade from the latest round of restrictions.

It's also essential to remember that so-called renewable energy cannot replace oil and natural gas in any significant way. For example, corn-based ethanol production "costs" nearly as much to produce as it saves in oil and can only exist with the help of costly and unending subsidies. Government, in other words, gets what it pays for. If it offers subsidies to alleviate global warming or make gasoline from grass, it will find promoters who will gladly accept that money and deliver scant results.

With the Republicans no longer handicapped by leaders like George W. Bush and John McCain, both of who caved before environmental extremists, Obama's energy policies might be a strong issue for conservatives and libertarians to rally around, and perhaps change their political fortunes. Remember that McCain famously opposed drilling in ANWR, while Bush promised the country that a gasoline substitute could be produced from switch grass.

One day the alternative energy fiasco will be studied as a vast example of waste and fraud that contributed to the collapse of the dollar and to lower living standards for most Americans. Let's hope that day comes sooner rather than later.

Who Is Really To Blame For High Gas Prices In America?

Something to think about........especially between now and the November elections......GP


The Imperative of Developing Natural Resources
Paul Weyrich
Tuesday, June 17, 2008 (source)

The year was 1967. I was on a private aircraft belonging to an oil company with my boss, the late Senator Gordon L. Allott (R-CO). We were flying to Oklahoma City, where Allott was to address the State GOP Convention. An oil company executive asked me if ever I had seen oil shale. I said I had not. Whereupon he picked up a piece, took out his cigarette lighter, and lit the piece. It burned like high grade coal. The oil company man proceeded to tell me that if oil ever reached $30 a barrel it would be profitable to develop oil shale. Even with inflation oil has exceeded that price so why aren't we developing the trillions of barrels of oil-shale reserves. There is a one word answer to that question: Congress.

I receive mail from folks who tell me they don't vote because there is no difference between the political parties. In some ways they are correct but not when it comes to energy. Representative Roy Blunt (R-MO), House Minority Whip, has presented his colleagues with data which clearly makes the case that in terms of developing oil and natural gas there is a profound difference between the parties, at least in the House of Representatives.

Blunt's figures show that for the past 14 years 91% of House Republicans voted to develop oil at ANWR while 86% of Democrats opposed drilling there. In the conversion of coal to liquid category 97% of House Republicans supported the concept while 78% of Democrats opposed it. Regarding the development of oil shale in Colorado and Utah the level of support among House Republicans was 90% while the level of opposition to the development of oil shale among Democrats was 86%.

When it comes to oil exploration for the Outer Continental Shelf 81% of Republican House Members said yes while 83% of Democrats said no. And look at this figure: 97% of House Republicans want to increase refinery capacity while 96% of Democrats said, no way. Historically, Blunt said, 91% of Republicans have favored development of oil and gas reserves while 86% of Democrats historically have been against oil and gas exploration and development.

Blunt's staff also compared the plans of each of the parties to deal with the skyrocketing price of gasoline. The Democratic plan includes seven investigations of price-gouging, four investigations of speculators, suing OPEC, $20 billion in new taxes against the oil companies. None of these would reduce the cost of gasoline. The only item in their plan which would do so is to stop the oil going to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That would lower the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 5 cents The Republican plan would develop oil in the Continental Shelf and develop it deep in the sea. It would develop oil shale, and it would abolish earmarks to pay for the Federal gas tax holiday. Republicans and Democrats agree on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. Taken together these items would reduce the cost of a gallon of gasoline by at least $1.95 and maybe a lot more depending on the productivity of each of the development projects.

What many of us wonder is this: When will the people of the United States say enough is enough and demand of their elected representatives that we develop our own resources? If we did we would not need to import one drop of oil from these ruthless dictators who would like to see us defeated or dead. I love the pristine beauty of nature, too. But we have made so many strides in new technology that we do not have to ruin the environment to explore and develop oil and gas. $4 a gallon doesn't yet seem high enough for a public revolt. What will do it? $5 a gallon? How about $8 to $11, which is what some Europeans are paying already. I hope and pray the revolt comes before it is too late.

Politics And Global Warming....Why We're Producing Dangerous, Bad Legislation

I've posted many articles here by Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. His is a sound, sane, experienced view on the issues involving global warming and climate change. Do a search for his articles, visit his blog, check out his impeccable credentials.....educate and learn to think critically, for yourselves.
This is one of the most important issues of our time.
Peter

Mar 10, 2008The Political Issue Of Global Warming
By Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science
There was a candid admission in the newspaper Colorado Daily on February 22 2008 with respect to why the global warming issue is being promoted so vigorously in the media and in articles published in science journals. The text from the article “Carbon dioxide: friend or foe? by Evan Sandsmark” has the relevant excerpt:

“Many individuals, including a large portion of environmentalists, believe that a purely technological approach to stablizing carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere could lead to social apathy towards climate change. Ted Parsons, a professor at the School of National Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, writes that the promises of air capture could carry a ‘moral hazard’ because political pressure for near-term efforts to curtail climate change may be reduced. Air capture also addresses one of many factors adversely affecting the environment.

The climate crisis is a powerful tool to motivate change - like checking the ever-expanding global population and excessive resource consumption - and if the urgency of climate change is compromised, other environmental projects may fall by the wayside.”

Thus we have the reasoning as to why the science issues on Climate Science have been mostly ignored - the issue is not about climate science. The goal is to use the term “global warming” (with “climate change” used to make the concept cover all aspects of climate) not to “motivate” change, but to force the public and policymakers to adopt specific policy and political actions that promotes particular agendas.

Clearly, this narrow approach is doomed to produce poor policy decisions. Unless the media starts to recognize this inappropriate use of climate science, we will continue down the road to many actions that will have unanticipated and undesirable consequences.

Read Roger’s full post here.
-->

Professor Philip Stott On Global Warming and Politics

I've been reading some of the entrys on Professor Philip Stott's blog and find them refreshing and enlightening. He has a unique perspective on the issue of global warming. I recommend everyone have a look. Here is a sample quotation:
Emeritus Professor Philip Stott writes:

“‘Global warming’ has become the grand political narrative of the age, replacing
Marxism as a dominant force for controlling liberty and human choices. In this
blog, I hope to be able to deconstruct the ‘myth’ in order to reveal its
more dangerous and humorous foibles and follies. I shall focus as much on the
politics as on the science.”

Peter

His blog is here:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/Global%20Warming%20Politics/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog/A%20Hot%20Topic%20Blog.html

Philip Stott
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This article is about the British biogeographer. Philip Stott is a professor emeritus of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, and a former editor (1987-2004) of the Journal of Biogeography [1] [2].

He appeared on "The Great Global Warming Swindle" on Channel 4.


[edit] Global warming
Stott regards himself as a Humeian 'mitigated sceptic' [14] on the subject of global warming. He has not published scholarly articles in the field of climate change, although he has published books on the subject. Also, he has researched on the construction of environmental knowledge, including global warming as a Barthesian myth, for over thirty years.
Stott has been critical of terms like 'climate sceptic' and 'climate-change denier'; he believes in a distinction between the science of climate change and what he asserts is the Barthesian myth [15] of global warming [16], saying,
"... the global warming myth harks back to a lost Golden Age of climate stability, or, to employ a more modern term, climate 'sustainability'. Sadly, the idea of a sustainable climate is an oxymoron. The fact that we have rediscovered climate change at the turn of the Millennium tells us more about ourselves, and about our devices and desires, than about climate. Opponents of global warming are often snidely referred to as 'climate change deniers'; precisely the opposite is true. Those who question the myth of global warming are passionate believers in climate change - it is the global warmers who deny that climate change is the norm." [17] (see also his essay on environmental change and La Brea [18].)
Stott is also critical of organizations like the IPCC.
His attitude to climate change is best summed up in a central passage from a letter published recently in The Daily Telegraph (June 10, 2005) [19]:
"Climate change has to be broken down into three questions: 'Is climate changing and in what direction?' 'Are humans influencing climate change, and to what degree?' And: 'Are humans able to manage climate change predictably by adjusting one or two factors out of the thousands involved?' The most fundamental question is: 'Can humans manipulate climate predictably?' Or, more scientifically: 'Will cutting carbon dioxide emissions at the margin produce a linear, predictable change in climate?' The answer is 'No'. In so complex a coupled, non-linear, chaotic system as climate, not doing something at the margins is as unpredictable as doing something. This is the cautious science; the rest is dogma." For his views more generally on climate change, see [20].

[edit] Energy policy
Stott's "alternative Charter for a sound energy policy" begins with (what) we need are strong economies that can adapt to climate change and he proposes that the Kyoto Protocol be dropped because of "[I]ts ‘command-and-control’ economics which have no chance of working in the face of world economic growth, especially in the developing world." [21]. He believes that the Kyoto Protocol is moribund politically [22]. Stott is concerned that the UK is failing to address its core energy needs, which must involve a mix of clean coal, gas, and probably nuclear power [23]. Stott also encourages development of energy infrastructure in the developing world. He sees the alleviation of energy poverty, along with the need for clean water, as two of the most urgent world issues [24] He regards most renewables as helpful (although he is critical of wind power), but only marginal to the core requirements of an advanced society. [25].

[edit] Deforestation in the Amazon
Stott contested the research of a report in 2001 that predicted that by 2020 the forest would be 42% deforested.
"New research in Brazil suggests that around 87.5% of the previously mapped area of the Amazon remains largely intact and, of the 12.5% that has been deforested, one-third to one-half is fallow or in the process of regeneration," he said [26].
"This lungs of the earth business is nonsense; the daftest of all theories"
Stott teamed up with Patrick Moore in 2000 and made several appearances deposing deforestation research.
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years. That sounds like a very long time but, in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. Before then, there were hardly any rainforests. They are very young. It is just a big mistake that people are making." [27]

[edit] External links
Global Warming Politics Philip Stott's weblog covering global warming issues.
EnviroSpin Watch Philip Stott's discontinued weblog monitoring coverage of environmental issues and science in the UK media.
A Parliament of Things His main Web Site.
Philip Stott's Music Box His music site, from where you can download some of his compositions.
Journal of Biogeography final editorial. (this site requires cookies)
LobbyWatch article on Stott
Comment to Probiotech website, 2002
[28] Global Warming Is Not a Crisis - Opinion article on ABC News
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Stott"

The Great Global Warming Swindle --- An Environmentalist Perspective

In looking for information on the role carbon dioxide plays in atmospheric global warming, I came across this exchange. I'm saving it for future reference. It does help explain the political motivations of people pushing the belief that man is causing global warming.
Peter

from: http://myblog.michaelpbyron.com/comments/atom.aspx

Friday, May 04, 2007, 2:04:44 PM Michael Byron
I find it interesting that the "global warming is a fraud" meme has so thoroughly infected a zelous, though mostly sincere minority. Connecting the dots, I now surmise that much of this has been caused by a BBC documentary entitled "The Great Global Warming Swindle." It is available online at:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4520665474899458831&q=global+swindle+warming

I note that it is about 75 minutes in length. This documentary purports to "reveal" the "truth" about global warming--namely that it is a fraud perpertrated upon the public by scheming elites etc. I was first alerted to in on March 13th when I recieved a somewhat worried e-mail from the lady who ran for Congress for the Democrats here in the CA-49th CD in '06. (I was the nominee in '04). She stated:
So far 2two intelligent & progressive people have sent me the link to this video. It’s long and it’s disturbing because I think it’s a bunch of disinformation and I don’t believe a word of it – but belief is not a reasonable standard for determining if something is or is not true. So PLEASE give me facts that poke holes in this or tell me it could be correct. (geez, I hope you don’t tell me that – not because I wouldn’t be delighted to hear that we can stop worrying about global warming, but because I would hate to think the vast majority of INTELLIGENT people I know have been so completely duped – who can we trust anymore?)

If my gut instinct is correct and this is a con job to destroy the environmental movement, then we have some major damage control to start doing right away because this could collapse the entire effort to get global warming under control -- and it’s spreading. The confusion and self-doubt this movie could spawn will hurt of not just the environmental movement but the progressive movement as well. Her e-mail elicited a reply from another correspondent who stated that:
Jeeni,

The right-wing blogosphere has been abuzz with the crap for a few weeks now. Lacking any credible evidence to deal with the fact of global warming, they have taken the attack to the messenger. This issue has an incredible consensus amount serious scientists and nobody has presented any evidence to the contrary. What the authors of this movie call “serious concerns” is generally not about the fact of global warming, but about some of the mechanisms and models… this is a far cry from discounting global warming. Remember, I can go out and find a fair number of “scientists” who think the world is only 6,000 years old. A fairly large percentage of the population still thinks the world is flat…

Personally, I think that up until fairly recently, there has been a fair amount of dissention about the amount of the warming caused by humans verses what is natural causes. But most of this has disappeared with the development of new computer models in the last few years. Lawrence Livermore’s atmospheric models clearly show how we can differentiate between “natural” effects and “human” effects. For those of you really into the technical, there is a really good paper by Lawrence Livermore Labs showing the recent computer models: http://www.llnl.gov/str/March04/pdfs/03_04.2.pdf(by the way… that’s Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory… probably the smartest people on the planet…

This is part of a very well planned and executed attack on the Goracle… Law school 101, when you don’t have the facts on your side, attack the messenger. Do enough damage to the messenger and people will generally forget about the facts…
Mark [rest of name witheld to protect privacy]I replied to this post saying:
Jeeni,

You can find detailed analysis and rebuttal to this disinformation piece at: http://coinet.org.uk/information/swindleresponse.

Additional rebuttal of another part of this disinformation campaign can be found here: http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0314-30.htm

Basically, because most people are unable to understand the deeper scientific realities involved, substituting one plausible sounding story for the actual scientific one is enough to at least created doubt and uncertainty.

On the one hand you have essentially all of the worlds scientists as evidenced by the just released 4th report of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see: http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf). On the other you have a handful of people and well a LOT of industry money as my links above will demonstrate.

Deliberate misinformation, pure and simple.

Best,

Mike Byron PhD,
Author of Infinity’s Rainbow: the Politics of Energy, Climate and Globalization.
http://www.michaelpbyron.com/ The mention of the "hockey puck graph being discredited" in previous posts is a dead giveaway of the video's influence. This can be proved conclusively by googling "hockey puck graph discredited" and perusing the results of the search.I note that this "documentary" is itself thouroughly discredited. However, I have provided the link to it for any interested parties to see it for themselves. I've also provided several debunking links about it. As always, you the reader must decide for yourselves.The "beauty" of this strategy is to utilize those who are most distrustfull of the corporatocracy to do therier bidding in the name of opposing them! Karl Rove would smile at this. As I do not have time to sit here and endlessly reply to whoever wants to try to spread this corporate sponsored disinformation meme, I must leave it at that. As always, let the reader decide on the basis of facts and rational thinking for him/her self. I have not rejected any anti-global warming post and have provided a link to the source of the misinformation in this post. That is enough for this topic. On to the next!Mike Byron
Comment on Misunderstanding Global Warming: Alexander Cockburn versus Reality.

Michael Crichton: Our Environmental Future

I wish I could post this entire speech, but I can only quote parts of it and encourage you to read it all here: http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/npc-speech.html

In the speech given January 25, 2005 before The Press Club, in Washington, D.C., Mr. Crichton talks about our environmental history, our perception of the present state of the climate, global warming, and the future. His insight, understanding, and interpretation are profound. It is unfortunate he is dismissed in some sectors as a "just" a fiction writer.
Peter


After his introduction, he says this about global warming:

"Okay. With this as a preparation, let’s turn to the evidence, both graphic and verbal, for global warming. As most of you have heard many times, the consensus of climate scientists believes in global warming. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had. "

"Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science, consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. "

"So we must remember the immortal words of Mark Twain, who said, “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.”

He summarizes by saying:

"The idea of spending trillions on the future is only sensible if you totally lack any historical sense, and any imagination about the future. "

"If we should not spend our money on Kyoto, what should we do instead?"

and........

"Second, and most important—we can’t predict the future, but we can understand the present. In the time we have been talking, 2,000 people have died in the Third World. A child is orphaned by AIDS every 7 seconds. Fifty people die of waterborne disease every minute. This does not have to happen. We allow it. "

and finally,

"What is wrong with us that we ignore this human misery and focus on events a hundred years from now? What must we do to awaken our phenomenally rich, spoiled and self-centered society to the issues of the wider world? The global crisis is not 100 years from now—it is right now. We should be addressing it. But we are not. Instead, we cling to the reactionary and anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalism and turn our backs to the cries of the dying and the starving and the diseased of our shared world."

"And if we are going to remain too self-involved to care about the third world, can we at least care about our own? We live in a country where 40% of high school graduates are functionally illiterate. Where schoolchildren pass through metal detectors on the way to class. Where one child in four says they have seen a murdered person. Where millions of our fellow citizens have no health care, no decent education, no prospects for the future. If we really have trillions of dollars to spend, let us spend it on our fellow human beings. And let us spend it now. And not on our impossible fantasies of what may happen one hundred years from now."

Global Warming: More On Following The MONEY

Here is another article on the politics and economics of global warming. The more I learn about this whole issue the more appalled I become. Making a little fun about Sheryl Crowe, other Hollywood hypocrites, and Al Gore, is kind of missing the bigger point. This is a serious issue, not just because life on Earth will not come to any quick end because of global warming, and not just because the public is being fooled and misled, but because the laws being proposed are going to waste billions, if not trillions of dollars. Money far better spend elsewhere.
Peter

On Global Warming: Follow the Money Indeed!
Monday , February 12, 2007
By David Asman

It takes a certain kind of gumption to stand up to the status quo.
Folks who challenge the mainstream media and popular culture are subjected to some of the nastiest insults and character assassinations. And such retribution is nowhere more severe than for those who take issue with popular views about global warming.

There are a number of very bright climatologists and meteorologists out there who believe that this century’s warming trend is neither critical nor man made. Now you can agree or disagree with these folks. But you can’t pretend that these folks are crazies or ill informed or just in it for the money. They believe that the models used by the “We’re all going to die!” global warming worriers are far too severe and fail to take enough natural factors into consideration in their climate models. For their audacity to take on the status quo, they have been censured, excoriated and labeled as lackeys for the oil companies.

So who are these folks? Well, it turns out that on the whole they are just a bunch of number-crunching scientists who have been doing their work for years for the love of what they do, rather than the thrill of celebrity status. They include (but are by no means limited to) folks like Oregon State University climatologist George Taylor, Alabama State climatologist John Christy, Colorado State climatologist William Gray and Alabama meteorologist James Spann.

Mr. Spann was particularly upset with the charge that only those with ties to big oil could argue the way he and his colleagues do. In fact, he says, the truth is exactly the opposite: “Billions of dollars of grant money is flowing into the pockets of those on the man-made global warming bandwagon … Nothing wrong with making money at all. But when money becomes the motivation for a scientific conclusion, then we have a problem. For many, global warming is a big cash grab.” Click here to read the entire blog.

Mr. Spann’s suspicions were born out in a terrific bit of investigative journalism by two of my own colleagues here at FOX News, George Russell and Claudia Rosett. In the course of investigating a high United Nations official, one who has become something of a hero to the global warming worriers, they found that the official’s motivations may not have been entirely altruistic. Click here to read their full report.

Maurice Strong is a founding director of the U.N. Environment Program (UNEP), a division of the U.N. that has grown into a bureaucratic monstrosity with an annual budget of $136 million. Mr. Strong left his post at UNEP in the 1970s but kept his ecological credentials and helped organize a 1992 environmental summit in Rio de Janeiro, which become the forerunner of the Kyoto Accords. While Strong has spent a lifetime parlaying his UN contacts into business associations, nowhere has he done so more successfully than with his ecological “credentials.”

Recently Strong has been spending most of his time in China, where he’s been linked, among other things, to planned attempts to market Chinese-made automobiles in North America. But his presence there raises some awkward questions for Russell and Rosett: “For one thing, China, while one of the world’s biggest producers of industrial pollution, has been profiting from the trading of carbon emissions credits – thanks to heavily politicized U.N.-backed environmental deals engineered by Strong in the 1990s.”

Could Mr. Strong be benefiting from deals that he helped put together while he was working at the U.N.? We don’t know. What we do know is that Mr. Strong is now on voluntary leave from the U.N. while questions are sorted out concerning a $1 million check that was passed to him by South Korean businessman Tongsun Park, who was convicted last summer in New York Federal Court of conspiring to bribe U.N. officials on behalf of Baghdad.

Now the Maurice Strong story, however it sorts itself out, is not to say that all or even most of the heroes in the global-warming-worriers network are spreading the message just to get rich. I’m sure that they are mostly good people who believe in their views just as sincerely as those on the opposite side. But the ad hominem charges hurled at global warming skeptics, particularly the charge that they’re just in it for the money, can just as easily be hurled right back at some very prominent proponents of the other side of the debate.

Billions of dollars have been invested so far in studying climate change ($20 billion from the Bush administration alone), and very little of that money has landed in the laps of those outside of the global warming orthodoxy. As weatherman James Spann says: “I would not listen to anyone that is a politician, a journalist, or someone in science who is generating revenue from this issue.” The only problem is that would leave out an enormous number of scientists who have already cashed in on it.

David Asman is the host of "Forbes on FOX" which airs on the FOX News Channel, Saturdays at 11 a.m. ET.
/**/

If Gore and Company Are Wrong About Global Warming, So What?

Here is an intelligent discussion about the real cost of trying to control global warming. Politicians have skipped over the scientific debate over global warming, which is far from being settled. The United Nation's IPCC report says says there is a "consensus among scientists", about the causes of global warming. I've provided ample evidence (here on this blog) from the most prominent climate scientists in the world to prove the IPCC report is at best wrong, and a worst an outright lie.

So here we have it, politicians are making decisions costing billions upon billions of dollars, based on inaccurate, flawed and hypothetical science based on computer modeling. Even though our best scientists can show there is little if any evidence that man-caused carbon dioxide emissions are causing global warming. Politicians don't care about the science. Why is everyone jumping on this bandwagon, when it's basic premise is wrong? Why.......because there is big, big money to be made. Money equals power, power equals control. I think it is as simple as that.
Peter


Here is the discussion between two thoughtful and well-informed people. It is from: http://www.townhall.com/


If They're Wrong About Gore-bal Warming, So What?

Dear Larry,
I'm a Democrat, and I enjoy your work. And I get veryfrustrated by those on the left who whine and are thin on the facts. This brings me to my reason for this letter: Global warming. The global warming debate is unique to humanity. If those who advocate "wait and convince more scientists"are wrong, following their advice may affect hundreds of millions of people, with possibly many killed by famine and flooding. On the other hand, if the people who advocate doing something now are wrong, the worst is mostly economic. That's a price I'm more than willing to pay to hedge my bets to protect the millions of lives at risk, as well as the ecosystems and animal species facing extinction. Following the advice of the vast majority of the world's atmospheric scientists sounds like a bet all humans should take. -- Mr. Ph.D.

Dear Mr. Ph.D.,
Progress! At least you do not say, as does Al Gore, that the debate about global warming in the scientific community "is over." Nor do you assert, as does CBS's Katie Couric, that "all the experts agree." The debate is not over, nor do all experts agree. You suggest that if the scientists are wrong, the worst case comes down to a few lost bucks. No, the worst case results in lots of lost bucks, retarded economic growth, lost jobs and weakened worker pensions, all while making nations, especially Third World countries, less prosperous and thus less capable of adapting to whatever damage might occur as a result of global warming.

The Kyoto Accords cost hundreds of billions of dollars, and figure to increase the gap between the rich and the poor. More will starve, with countries becoming less financially capable of dealing with diseases like malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Funds directed toward combating global warming mean less money for immediate crises like those mentioned. This can result in greater political instability and tyranny, with more failed states receptive to the Islamo-fascist lie that rich nations become so "at the expense of poor ones."

Furthermore, many scientists and economists see a small-benefit to high-cost ratio, again therefore diverting money otherwise spent on improved technologies that could wean us away from environmentally polluting energy sources, some of which come from hostile, politically unstable nations. This means less money for R&D on wind, solar, nuclear and other non-fossil fuel alternatives. Life involves trade-offs. You underestimate the cost side while overestimating the benefit side.

"Environmentalists" like Rachel Carson, author of"Silent Spring," helped to create the hysteria that eliminated DDT. The result? The return of malaria and needless deaths. Kyoto already fails to meet its objectives in European countries that ratified the accords. Non-signatories like India and China, on the other hand, will soon become the biggest CO2 emission polluters.

Neither nation has or will likely sign on to Kyoto. Thus any benefits -- and again many scientists expect only negligible, if any, post-Kyoto benefits -- will be offset by polluting nations like India and China. Why does government need to mandate our way "out of this"? The Toyota Prius caught the public's fancy less because of government inducements and government R&D, and more because the company provided a product that consumers wanted. Understand this: the more prosperous a nation, the more its citizens can afford to demand"clean" means of production. Poor nations face bigger concerns -- like feeding their population, and providing housing and other basic services. Right now, neither India nor China can afford the luxury of"green" policies before things like food, housing and clothing.

The environment, like people, adapts. Entrepreneurs, right now, pour billions into "alternative"technologies as the costs of fossil fuels -- both financial and political -- go up, while the price of"clean" fuels go down. These things take time. Even some United Nations IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) scientists say it's too late to reverse global warming. If so, oh well. Still others expect the "damage" to materialize centuries down the road, giving us plenty of time to change or adapt. Why does speculating about things like global warming replace direct and immediate threats? Iran, for example, seeks a bomb. If they use it -- and they threaten to -- imagine the environmental damage to the planet, to say nothing about the genocide-like loss of human life. But where is the urgency? Soon baby boomers will join the ranks of those on Social Security and Medicare, thus requiring younger workers to substantially increase their payroll taxes in order to allow boomers the same benefits enjoyed by their parents and grandparents. Where's the urgency? Policy-makers face immediate, predictable and foreseeable -- and especially in the case of Iran --serious around-the-corner issues. Yet we divert time,money and energy fretting about hypothetical"calamities" of global warming rather than dealing with real world/real time threats. You've gambled on global warming. I just hope we're alive to place a bet. -- Larry

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/column.aspx?UrlTitle=if_theyre_wrong_about_gore-bal_warming,_so_what&ns=LarryElder&dt=03/15/2007&page=full&comments=true

Important New Website on Climate

Yesterday I discovered a great new website. They have an impressive list of contributing and supporting scientists. They address the issues of global warming from all angles, and as they say, "this is not about politics, but about science." From what I have seen so far, it's very good. Here is what they say on their homepage. http://icecap.us/index.php/go/about-us
Peter


About Us
ICECAP, International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project, is the portal to all things climate for elected officials and staffers, journalists, scientists, educators and the public. It provides access to a new and growing global society of respected scientists and journalists that are not deniers that our climate is dynamic (the only constant in nature is change) and that man plays a role in climate change through urbanization, land use changes and the introduction of greenhouse gases and aerosols, but who also believe that natural cycles such as those in the sun and oceans are also important contributors to the global changes in our climate and weather. We worry the sole focus on greenhouse gases and the unwise reliance on imperfect climate models while ignoring real data may leave civilization unprepared for a sudden climate shift that history tells us will occur again, very possibly soon.

Through ICECAP you will have rapid access to our experts here in the United States and to experts and partner organizations worldwide, many of whom maintain popular web sites or insightful blogs or newsletters, write and present papers, have authored books and offer interviews to the media on climate issues. We spotlight new findings in papers and reports and rapidly respond to fallacies or exaggerations in papers, stories or programs and any misinformation efforts by the media, politicians and advocacy groups.

Included is a section called All About Climate where users are able to interactively access all the latest thinking on climate topics along with lists of references, stories, links and experts (with contact information).
ICECAP is not funded by large corporations that might benefit from the status quo but by private investors who believe in the need for free exchange of ideas on this and other important issues of the day. Our working group is comprised of members from all ends of the political spectrum. This is not about politics but about science.

We are an open society that welcomes your membership and appreciates your endorsement and support.
-->

More from Dr. Reid A. Bryson on Global Warming

Here is another wonderful link to use as ammunition against the Al Gore the Prophet fan club....
Peter

http://whyfiles.org/247sci_politics/index.php?g=4.txt

Why Files talks with Reid Bryson. Reid Bryson helped found the field of climatology with pioneering studies documenting how climate changed over the centuries. He was long associated with the idea that, based on climatic history, another ice age was coming, and he has long questioned the conventional wisdom about global warming: that the globe is warming due to human activity.
Bryson founded what is now the Department of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. In 1977, he co-authored a pioneering book on the two-way interaction between humans and weather (see "Climates of Hunger ..." in the bibliography). He was long-time founding director of the Institute of Environmental Studies at UW-Madison, and remains active in climate research.
University of Wisconsin-Madison atmospheric and oceanic sciences professor Jonathan Martin helps students in a meteorology computer lab. Photo: Jeff Miller, Courtesy UW-Madison

On Oct. 17, the Why Files spoke with Bryson about global warming, politics and science.

The Why Files: In your opinion, is global warming occurring?

Reid Bryson: I'm not skeptical about global warming. It's occurring. The question is, what is the human hand in this? Back in 1968, I gave a talk at the AAAS [American Association for the Advancement of Science] suggesting that people could change the climate a little bit, and I was laughed off the platform. Now some of those same people say the human influence is the only thing that can change the climate. That's simply nonsense. We know that the climate has been warming at least since the early 1800s. Why was this happening before all that carbon dioxide was released during the industrial revolution? Until they answer that, they can't say why the current warming is going on. They say in the last 50 years, temperature and carbon dioxide are correlated. Okay, but how much causality does correlation show? Nothing.

WF: Back in 1968, why did you say people could affect climate?

RB: I said, "Let's look at contrails [left by jet planes]. They are making clouds, and everybody says clouds are important in weather and climate. Do they put enough clouds to make a difference?" I'm sitting in my office right now, looking south, and I can almost always see a bank of contrails from planes going west from Chicago.
Jet contrails are one of many ways that people affect climate. Photo: NOAA

WF: We have seen frightening graphs with CO2 and average temperature rising hand in hand. What do you make of that?

RB: It's all hype, those graphs that show CO2 not changing [until recently], then going up. Most of that rise is projected, not measured. How good are the models they are using? They stink. If you can't model today, you sure as hell can't model 50 years from now, and they can't model today. [Climate modelers started as meteorologists] and they tried to model climate as if it was weather. Climate is not average weather, it's a boundary condition problem. For climate, you have to know the incoming radiation, the reflected radiation from Earth's surface, how much ice is there, what is the topography, things like that. Weather evolves from one day to the next, it's an initial state problem.

WF: Many people say global warming is the worst current example of politicizing science.

RB: In my opinion, the one thing the Administration is doing right is not doing anything about global warming. Unless we know in detail the mechanics of global warming, should we risk the economy of the whole country? Suppose we want to go to nuclear power, what is the cost of that? You don't have to convince me there is a human hand in climate, I am the guy who said it first. You have to convince me you understand it well enough to know what else is going on. If you say the warming that happened before the industrial revolution is "natural variation," we are natural scientists, and that's a copout. What exactly do you mean?
Adding it up: Is science more political than ever?

A Book about science gone mad

There are many instances in history where science has been used for evil purposes, when scientists are controlled and manipulated for political reasons. No, I'm not talking about global warming, I'm referring to the science of eugenics. This horrible misuse of science occurred not long ago. It can happen again if we're not careful. Let us question the basis for the theory of man-caused global warming very, very carefully before we regulate and tax ourselves to death.

The book I'm referring to and highly recommending is titled "By Trust Betrayed: Patients, Physicians, and the License to Kill in the Third Reich", by Hugh Gregory Gallagher.

To quote from the back cover:

"By Trust Betrayed" provides new insight into the horrors of
ordinary people doing monstrous things under the aegis of "science" in Nazi
Germany. It also raises troubling questions about many contemporary
theories and ideas dealing with euthanasia, health care, and medical
ethics.

The Debate About Global Warming is Not Over

Here is a very thoughtful email to me that deserves a careful response. Help me out here folks. First, is nothing in "The Wall Street Journal" to be believed because it is not a leftist and "environmentally friendly" publication? And I'm not implying that scientists are "corrupted" individuals, only that scientists tend to reach the conclusions desired by those paying their rent. That is only human nature.

And finally, there is that FEAR factor again. If I'm wrong, and global warming is caused by man, then we're "toast". This fear, that cannot even come close to being substantiated, except by how you FEEL on a really, really hot miserable day in August when the air conditioning isn't working, is not at all scientific. Is this fear great enough to spend billions and billions of dollars on? Enough fear to destroy countries economies? Is it enough to take money away from more desperate and sensible and documented projects. I don't think so, do you?

Hi Pete, The article from Mr. Linzen from MIT kind of rambles on with out
much clear standup opposing data that would help in any argument. That is
what is missing in the whole debate. Who is distorting info and data and
who is using it for whatever personal or political means. Dr. Linzen's
article is in the Wall Street Journal so it is not going to be left leaning or
environmentally friendly.

To me it is an enormous argument
that should be brought to the forefront and battled out. Let people hear
opposing arguments. Not ones that are sponsored by one interest group or
the other. I do not think most scientists are corrupted individuals
otherwise they would have gone into the private sector. Where it is really
nasty. I know.

The seas are rising, the earth is
heating up, however slowly, the ozone is increasing in size, the oceans are
warming however slightly, tropical fish are moving into Capo Vaticano.
This could all be normal happenings but in my short life I have observed
change. In 200 years what will it be like. Who cares, right.

I think it is a good argument.

To me it is like
the creationists vs the atheist non believers, it is good banter.

If the environmentalists are wrong, that is a good thing. If
the people who say man cannot harm or is not affecting mother earth in a
significant and dangerous way are wrong, well, we are toast. Or at
least North Central Africans will be first. I guess they are called
Sub-Sahara. They all ready have it bad enough.

bye for now.
phil