(Another) Professor Denies Man's Effect On Global Warming

The title of this article is misleading. Prof. Freitas is not denying the "greenhouse effect", he simply (and rightly) doubts that carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of fossil fuels is having a significant effect. He is a climate scientist and knows the issue from all sides. One of his statements is worthy of remembering. It is: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."

Also please note that the following statements were heard in a courtroom, which is where the debate about the causes of climate change should be exposed.
Peter

Published on Otago Daily Times Online (http://www.odt.co.nz)
Professor denies greenhouse effect
By Rosie Manins
Created 30/01/2009 - 05:00
Hugh Rennie Theories of climate change were challenged during an Environment Court appeal hearing for Meridian Energy's proposed $2 billion Project Hayes wind farm yesterday.
Sediment concerns raised [2]
As a witness for appellant Roch Sullivan, climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas was questioned on his evidence, which had been contested in the evidence of other climate witnesses called in the hearing.
Prof Freitas, of the University of Auckland, said there was no evidence to suggest carbon dioxide was the major driver of climate change.

"Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation.
"People are being misled by people making money out of this," Prof de Freitas said.
He said mild warming of the climate was beneficial, especially in a country such as New Zealand, which had a prominent agricultural industry.

"One could argue that carbon dioxide is quite beneficial. There may be benefits of wind farming that I may not be aware of, but there is no data to show benefits in terms of mitigating potential dangerous changes in climate by offsetting carbon dioxide," he said.
Prof de Freitas said the Kyoto Protocol was a "politically and economically motivated instrument to deal with a perceived problem".

"I don't think anyone will benefit one way or another by adhering to it. It's not a well-formulated treaty . . . the so-called or claimed environmental benefits, I am not aware of," he said.
Prof de Freitas was questioned by Meridian Energy lawyer Hugh Rennie QC, about an article published in The New Zealand Herald in 2004, in which Prof de Freitas expressed his thoughts on wind power, the Kyoto Protocol, and climate change.
"You refer to New Zealand's need to meet its commitments to the Kyoto Protocol [in the article].
"Would you accept that any selection of generation which avoids the emission of substances controlled by that protocol is beneficial to New Zealand?" Mr Rennie asked Prof de Freitas.
Prof de Freitas took exception to the question.
"You are using legal gymnastics to corner me into a position I would not otherwise take," he said.
Prof de Freitas admitted there was debate about climate change, when questioned during cross-examination by Central Otago District Council lawyer Graeme Todd.
"The debate centres on causes. There is a possibility climate change could be impacted by human beings, but it is not a significant impact," he said.
In response to a question by commissioner Alex Sutherland, Prof de Freitas said the jury was out on climate change, and preemptive action could be dangerous.
"There's no basis for alarm. We might be shooting ourselves in the foot if we act on what turns out to be a bubble-less pot," he said.
Day 26Panel: Environment Court judge Jon Jackson, commissioner Alex Sutherland, commissioner Heather McConachy, and deputy commissioner Ken Fletcher.
Yesterday: Otago Regional Council water resource scientist Matthew Dale, of Dunedin; climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland; Electricity Commission director of transmission John Gleadow, of Wellington.

Scheduled for today: Mr Gleadow will continue to give evidence.
Quote of the day: "Climate is not responding to greenhouse gases in the way we thought it might. If increasing carbon dioxide is in fact increasing climate change, its impact is smaller than natural variation. People are being misled by people making money out of this."
- climate scientist Prof Christopher de Freitas, of Auckland.
Source URL (retrieved on 01/02/2009 - 07:56): http://www.odt.co.nz/the-regions/central-otago/41301/professor-denies-greenhouse-effect

Going green: Social consciousness or profits?

Here is some interesting information and opinion on the currently popular trend of going "green". I don't think it hurts anyone to conserve. Haven't a lot of people and businesses always been doing that? Aren't businesses always looking for ways to save? Now, because it is politically correct to "be green", everyone is looking to occupy the "moral high ground" and gain a competitive edge. It sounds like business as usual to me.
Peter


Corporations find business case for going green
Global giants, from Wal-Mart to HP, see cost savings, other benefits

By Allison Linn
Senior writer
MSNBC

In recent months, environmental advocate Gwen Ruta has started feeling like the proverbial Hollywood starlet who, after years of toiling in bit parts, is suddenly being hailed as an overnight success story.
“All of a sudden, everybody wants you to be in their movie,” Ruta, director of corporate partnerships with Environmental Defense, said recently with a laugh.
It’s possible to take that statement quite literally — after all, the environment was the star of the Oscar-winning “An Inconvenient Truth.” But what is really exciting Ruta these days isn’t the buzz out of Hollywood but the increasing interest across the country, on Wall Street. For corporate executives, going green is becoming, if not mainstream, at least more commonplace.
(continued)

For the remainder of the article, go here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17969124


For commentary on this subject, go here: http://boards.msn.com/MSNBCboards/thread.aspx?BoardID=472&ThreadID=259949

msnbcbizeds
Message #1 - 04/17/07 02:23 PM
Are corporations experiencing a sudden rash of social consciousness? Or are companies increasingly realizing that going green could be a new way for companies to save — or even make — more green, as in money. What do you think of this corporate trend?


Sane Steve
Message #3 - 04/18/07 04:00 PM
It's another case of political correctness gone haywire. The US has some of the strictest environmental laws and regulations in the world and on average, some of the cleanest air and water in the world. There's nothing wrong with trying to pollute less, but businesses can't afford to do this and lose money, so there are limits. Unfortunately all this global warming hype (hoax) will create other ways for companies to make money, including buying and selling carbon offsets. Trust me, this has nothing to do with their environmental conscience any more than it does Al Gore's, who will continue to live life as he always has and lie to the public by getting you to believe his phony carbon footprint is neutral because he buys carbon offsets and burns "green" energy. How stupid do you think the American public is? Even though it is a hoax, if companies can profit from this global warming myth, they'll sign on to it whether or not they really buy into its truth.

The mainstream media and all those who they interview want to convince you that the global warming debate is over and it is a settled issue. They want you to believe that only deluded, wacko, far-right idiots are skeptical about this. Makes for great TV and radio. But the truth is that this debate is far from over. There are many scientists with no ties to the energy industry or the Bush administration with plenty of evidence to refute the IPCC report as well as those scientists funded by tree-hugging organizations who swear our demise is imminent. You can quickly uncover their own hypocrisy by watching their behavior. And they'll never support an alternative that would help their cause, like nuclear energy. Windmills are fine, just not in their community or city.

I would clearly focus on becoming less dependent on foreign oil, but not in the name of global warming. Then I would spend my money on curing diseases and easing world hunger and starvation, something we as men and women can do something about, unlike trying to cool the entire planet off, which is almost 100% out of our control. That's true social consciousness!

This is one of the graphics used to get people all riled up about so called "greenhouse gases", in this case carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions. Of course every time we exhale we emit CO2, but nobody mentions that. Carbon dioxide sounds so evil, doesn't it? Plants need it as part of their growth process. We drink it every day in our carbonated beverages. Real dangerous stuff, isn't it!

Here's what just one of the leading scientists says about carbon dioxide as it relates to global warming. Are you listening Big Al? (I doubt it.) Maybe Congress will listen. I have a novel idea, send this to every member of Congress. In fact send this whole blog to them....
http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/

This is from Dr. Reid A. Bryson, "the Father of Modern Climatology":
Click here for the entire article: http://petesplace-peter.blogspot.com/2007/03/global-warming-nonsense-detector-by-dr.html


These are what he feels are some very major and important misconceptions:

2. It is a fact that the warming of the past century was anthropogenic in origin, i.e. man-made and due to carbon dioxide emission. Wrong. That is a theory for which there is no credible proof. There are a number of causes of climatic change, and until all causes other than carbon dioxide increase are ruled out, we cannot attribute the change to carbon dioxide alone.

3. The most important gas with a "greenhouse" effect is carbon dioxide. Wrong. Water vapor is at least 100 times as effective as carbon dioxide, so small variations in water vapor are more important than large changes in carbon dioxide.

5. I am arguing that the carbon dioxide measurements are poorly done. Wrong. The measurements are well done, but the interpretation of them is often less than acceptably scientific.

6. It is the consensus of scientists in general that carbon dioxide induced warming of the climate is a fact. Probably wrong. I know of no vote having been taken, and know that if such a vote were taken of those who are most vocal about the matter, it would include a significant fraction of people who do not know enough about climate to have a significant opinion. Taking a vote is a risky way to discover scientific truth.

Scientific Help On Carbon Dioxide...Please

I need some help from a really sharp chemist or physicist. I read a letter and opinion in the Sunday Letters section of the "Dallas Morning News" on March 4, 2007 and it is really important to this whole issue of man-caused global warming.

I'd like an informed opinion on what this person is saying, because if it is true, all the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the world is not going to cause global warming, and all of this talk about cutting CO2 emissions is just a waste of time and a humongous waste of money. Help me out here folks. Is this true or not? We need to know the truth. Here is the letter:


Carbon dioxide constant
Mike Hashimoto is a breath of fresh air. (Referring to a Dallas editor skeptical of global warming.) I did research on carbon dioxide infrared absorption about 10 years ago for Texas Instruments and Raytheon as a carbon dioxide detection project under contract to Carrier Corp.

The importance of carbon dioxide to global heat retention can be determined by examining the atmospheric infrared absorption data reported on by the Environmental Research Institute of Michigan more than 50 years ago.

Its data show that carbon dioxide absorbs 8 percent of the heat radiated by our planet, and that the absorption is complete in a path length of only 300 meters. Thus the overall heat retention of carbon dioxide is 8 percent.

Since the heat absorption is complete for carbon dioxide in its absorption band, adding more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not increase its global heat retention effect. Carbon dioxide gives us a constant warming effect over a wide range of concentration, which now is about 380 parts carbon dioxide to one million parts of air. The point is that carbon dioxide's "
"greenhouse effect" is constant and cannot increase with more carbon dioxide. It has been constant for millions of years.
Sebastian Borrello, Allen