Huckabee’s Clinton Connections  |   Home  |   Headlines

There’s Consensus, Dammit!

Here’s a letter sent to the UN by a distinguished list of scientists.

Dear Mr. Secretary-General,

Re: UN climate conference taking the World in entirely the wrong direction

It is not possible to stop climate change, a natural phenomenon that has affected humanity through the ages. Geological, archaeological, oral and written histories all attest to the dramatic challenges posed to past societies from unanticipated changes in temperature, precipitation, winds and other climatic variables. We therefore need to equip nations to become resilient to the full range of these natural phenomena by promoting economic growth and wealth generation.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has issued increasingly alarming conclusions about the climatic influences of human-produced carbon dioxide (CO2), a non-polluting gas that is essential to plant photosynthesis. While we understand the evidence that has led them to view CO2 emissions as harmful, the IPCC’s conclusions are quite inadequate as justification for implementing policies that will markedly diminish future prosperity. In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions. On top of which, because attempts to cut emissions will slow development, the current UN approach of CO2 reduction is likely to increase human suffering from future climate change rather than to decrease it.

The IPCC Summaries for Policy Makers are the most widely read IPCC reports amongst politicians and non-scientists and are the basis for most climate change policy formulation. Yet these Summaries are prepared by a relatively small core writing team with the final drafts approved line-by-line by ­government ­representatives. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

Contrary to the impression left by the IPCC Summary reports:

·         Recent observations of phenomena such as glacial retreats, sea-level rise and the migration of temperature-sensitive species are not evidence for abnormal climate change, for none of these changes has been shown to lie outside the bounds of known natural variability.

·         The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

·         Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today’s computer models cannot predict climate. Consistent with this, and despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th-century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling.

In stark contrast to the often repeated assertion that the science of climate change is “settled,” significant new peer-reviewed research has cast even more doubt on the hypothesis of dangerous human-caused global warming. But because IPCC working groups were generally instructed (see http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/docs/wg1_timetable_2006-08-14.pdf) to consider work published only through May, 2005, these important findings are not included in their reports; i.e., the IPCC assessment reports are already materially outdated.

The UN climate conference in Bali has been planned to take the world along a path of severe CO2 restrictions, ignoring the lessons apparent from the failure of the Kyoto Protocol, the chaotic nature of the European CO2 trading market, and the ineffectiveness of other costly initiatives to curb greenhouse gas emissions. Balanced cost/benefit analyses provide no support for the introduction of global measures to cap and reduce energy consumption for the purpose of restricting CO2 emissions. Furthermore, it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

The current UN focus on “fighting climate change,” as illustrated in the Nov. 27 UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report, is distracting governments from adapting to the threat of inevitable natural climate changes, whatever forms they may take. National and international planning for such changes is needed, with a focus on helping our most vulnerable citizens adapt to conditions that lie ahead. Attempts to prevent global climate change from occurring are ultimately futile, and constitute a tragic misallocation of resources that would be better spent on humanity’s real and pressing problems.

The list of signatories is below the fold.

Hat tip Moonbattery.

 

Don Aitkin, PhD, Professor, social scientist, retired vice-chancellor and president, University of Canberra, Australia

William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark

Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Timothy F. Ball, PhD, environmental consultant, former climatology professor, University of Winnipeg

Ernst-Georg Beck, Dipl. Biol., Biologist, Merian-Schule Freiburg, Germany

Sonja A. Boehmer-Christiansen, PhD, Reader, Dept. of Geography, Hull University, U.K.; Editor, Energy & Environment journal

Chris C. Borel, PhD, remote sensing scientist, U.S.

Reid A. Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, UNE P. Global 500 Laureate; Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies, University of Wisconsin

Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta

R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

Willem de Lange, PhD, Dept. of Earth and Ocean Sciences, School of Science and Engineering, Waikato University, New Zealand

David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma

Freeman J. Dyson, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University

Lance Endersbee, Emeritus Professor, former dean of Engineering and Pro-Vice Chancellor of Monasy University, Australia

Hans Erren, Doctorandus, geophysicist and climate specialist, Sittard, The Netherlands

Robert H. Essenhigh, PhD, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Christopher Essex, PhD, Professor of Applied Mathematics and Associate Director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario

David Evans, PhD, mathematician, carbon accountant, computer and electrical engineer and head of ‘Science Speak,’ Australia

William Evans, PhD, editor, American Midland Naturalist; Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Notre Dame

Stewart Franks, PhD, Professor, Hydroclimatologist, University of Newcastle, Australia

R. W. Gauldie, PhD, Research Professor, Hawai’i Institute of Geophysics and Planetology, School of Ocean Earth Sciences and Technology, University of Hawai’i at Manoa

Lee C. Gerhard, PhD, Senior Scientist Emeritus, University of Kansas; former director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Gerhard Gerlich, Professor for Mathematical and Theoretical Physics, Institut für Mathematische Physik der TU Braunschweig, Germany

Albrecht Glatzle, PhD, sc.agr., Agro-Biologist and Gerente ejecutivo, INTTAS, Paraguay

Fred Goldberg, PhD, Adjunct Professor, Royal Institute of Technology, Mechanical Engineering, Stockholm, Sweden

Vincent Gray, PhD, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of ‘Climate Change 2001, Wellington, New Zealand

William M. Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University and Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project

Howard Hayden, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of Connecticut

Louis Hissink MSc, M.A.I.G., editor, AIG News, and consulting geologist, Perth, Western Australia

Craig D. Idso, PhD, Chairman, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, Arizona

Sherwood B. Idso, PhD, President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, AZ, USA

Andrei Illarionov, PhD, Senior Fellow, Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity; founder and director of the Institute of Economic Analysis

Zbigniew Jaworowski, PhD, physicist, Chairman - Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Jon Jenkins, PhD, MD, computer modelling - virology, NSW, Australia

Wibjorn Karlen, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Olavi Kärner, Ph.D., Research Associate, Dept. of Atmospheric Physics, Institute of Astrophysics and Atmospheric Physics, Toravere, Estonia

Joel M. Kauffman, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemistry, University of the Sciences in Philadelphia

David Kear, PhD, FRSNZ, CMG, geologist, former Director-General of NZ Dept. of Scientific & Industrial Research, New Zealand

Madhav Khandekar, PhD, former research scientist, Environment Canada; editor, Climate Research (2003-05); editorial board member, Natural Hazards; IPCC expert reviewer 2007

William Kininmonth M.Sc., M.Admin., former head of Australia’s National Climate Centre and a consultant to the World Meteorological organization’s Commission for Climatology Jan J.H. Kop, MSc Ceng FICE (Civil Engineer Fellow of the Institution of Civil Engineers), Emeritus Prof. of Public Health Engineering, Technical University Delft, The Netherlands

Prof. R.W.J. Kouffeld, Emeritus Professor, Energy Conversion, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Salomon Kroonenberg, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Geotechnology, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands

Hans H.J. Labohm, PhD, economist, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), The Netherlands

The Rt. Hon. Lord Lawson of Blaby, economist; Chairman of the Central Europe Trust; former Chancellor of the Exchequer, U.K.

Douglas Leahey, PhD, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

David R. Legates, PhD, Director, Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware

Marcel Leroux, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Bryan Leyland, International Climate Science Coalition, consultant and power engineer, Auckland, New Zealand

William Lindqvist, PhD, independent consulting geologist, Calif.

Richard S. Lindzen, PhD, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

A.J. Tom van Loon, PhD, Professor of Geology (Quaternary Geology), Adam Mickiewicz University, Poznan, Poland; former President of the European Association of Science Editors

Anthony R. Lupo, PhD, Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Dept. of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri-Columbia

Richard Mackey, PhD, Statistician, Australia

Horst Malberg, PhD, Professor for Meteorology and Climatology, Institut für Meteorologie, Berlin, Germany

John Maunder, PhD, Climatologist, former President of the Commission for Climatology of the World Meteorological Organization (89-97), New Zealand

Alister McFarquhar, PhD, international economy, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.

Ross McKitrick, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph

John McLean, PhD, climate data analyst, computer scientist, Australia

Owen McShane, PhD, economist, head of the International Climate Science Coalition; Director, Centre for Resource Management Studies, New Zealand

Fred Michel, PhD, Director, Institute of Environmental Sciences and Associate Professor of Earth Sciences, Carleton University

Frank Milne, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Economics, Queen’s University

Asmunn Moene, PhD, former head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Alan Moran, PhD, Energy Economist, Director of the IPA’s Deregulation Unit, Australia

Nils-Axel Morner, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics, Stockholm University, Sweden

Lubos Motl, PhD, Physicist, former Harvard string theorist, Charles University, Prague, Czech Republic

John Nicol, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Physics, James Cook University, Australia

David Nowell, M.Sc., Fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, former chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

James J. O’Brien, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University

Cliff Ollier, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Geology), Research Fellow, University of Western Australia

Garth W. Paltridge, PhD, atmospheric physicist, Emeritus Professor and former Director of the Institute of Antarctic and Southern Ocean Studies, University of Tasmania, Australia

R. Timothy Patterson, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University

Al Pekarek, PhD, Associate Professor of Geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, Minnesota

Ian Plimer, PhD, Professor of Geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide and Emeritus Professor of Earth Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Brian Pratt, PhD, Professor of Geology, Sedimentology, University of Saskatchewan

Harry N.A. Priem, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Planetary Geology and Isotope Geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences

Alex Robson, PhD, Economics, Australian National University Colonel F.P.M. Rombouts, Branch Chief - Safety, Quality and Environment, Royal Netherland Air Force

R.G. Roper, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Atmospheric Sciences, School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology

Arthur Rorsch, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Molecular Genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, B.C.

Tom V. Segalstad, PhD, (Geology/Geochemistry), Head of the Geological Museum and Associate Professor of Resource and Environmental Geology, University of Oslo, Norway

Gary D. Sharp, PhD, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, CA

S. Fred Singer, PhD, Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia and former director Weather Satellite Service

L. Graham Smith, PhD, Associate Professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario

Roy W. Spencer, PhD, climatologist, Principal Research Scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Peter Stilbs, TeknD, Professor of Physical Chemistry, Research Leader, School of Chemical Science and Engineering, KTH (Royal Institute of Technology), Stockholm, Sweden

Hendrik Tennekes, PhD, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dick Thoenes, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Chemical Engineering, Eindhoven University of Technology, The Netherlands

Brian G Valentine, PhD, PE (Chem.), Technology Manager - Industrial Energy Efficiency, Adjunct Associate Professor of Engineering Science, University of Maryland at College Park; Dept of Energy, Washington, DC

Gerrit J. van der Lingen, PhD, geologist and paleoclimatologist, climate change consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Len Walker, PhD, Power Engineering, Australia

Edward J. Wegman, PhD, Department of Computational and Data Sciences, George Mason University, Virginia

Stephan Wilksch, PhD, Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics, University of Technolgy and Economics Berlin, Germany

Boris Winterhalter, PhD, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

David E. Wojick, PhD, P.Eng., energy consultant, Virginia

Raphael Wust, PhD, Lecturer, Marine Geology/Sedimentology, James Cook University, Australia

A. Zichichi, PhD, President of the World Federation of Scientists, Geneva, Switzerland; Emeritus Professor of Advanced Physics, University of Bologna, Italy

Posted by Owen at 1010 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

1. ...a distinguished list of scientists…

   Nice cut-and-paste; did you notice that a full 25% of the scientists on this list are emeritus professors, i.e. retired? But I’m sure they’re on the cutting edge of research.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1111 hrs
   
   
   

2. In other words, 75% of them are completely current and the emeritus professors possess the most experience?

   Nice spin, Gordon.

   Posted by Owen on December 15, 2007 at 1114 hrs
   
   
   

3. it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientists recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium-term future.

   Since when is it irrational to use precaution in decision making?

   This is a conservative approach?

   And that last part basically says they don’t know, any one of the TV channels can do better than that.

   It would be nice to know what they mean by “medium-term future.” would it not?

   Want to apply that coin toss approach to any other areas of public policy or international relations?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1233 hrs
   
   
   

4. ...a distinguished list of scientists…

   Nice cut-and-paste; did you notice that a full 25% of the scientists on this list are emeritus professors, i.e. retired? But I’m sure they’re on the cutting edge of research.
   Posted by Gordon on December 15, 2007 at 1111 hrs

   In other words they haven’t sold their souls for global warming research funding

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1258 hrs
   
   
   

5. The irrationality of applying the “precautionary principle” arises because in this case one cannot know if it precautionary.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1310 hrs
   
   
   

6. The irrationality of applying the “precautionary principle” arises because in this case one cannot know if it precautionary.

   So you can’t know if it is or is not, right.

   Hence precaution. Get it?

   When the lake freezes for the first time do you throw a rock out first to see if it cracks or maybe walk out?

   Or do you just drive the pickup right on out there?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1333 hrs
   
   
   

7. No pjr, read the letter.  If you don’t know future trends, then the action proposed may in fact be harmful and hence not precautionary, get it?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1345 hrs
   
   
   

8. The great ­majority of IPCC contributors and ­reviewers, and the tens of thousands of other scientists who are qualified to comment on these matters, are not involved in the preparation of these documents. The summaries therefore cannot properly be represented as a consensus view among experts.

    

   And how many thousands signed this letter?

   action proposed may in fact be harmful and hence not precautionary

   And how would any of this proposed action be harmful to our climate?

   And where is that stated in the letter?

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1420 hrs
   
   
   

9. “...it is irrational to apply the “precautionary principle” because many scientist recognize that both climatic coolings and warmings are realistic possibilities over the medium term future.”

   If one attempts to heat the globe as a precaution against cooling, but instead the globe is warming, the outcome could be harm and vice versa.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1441 hrs
   
   
   

10. In other words, 75% of them are completely current and the emeritus professors possess the most experience?

    Sure, 75% appear to be current in various capacities, ranging from an adjunct (i.e. temporary) professor of mechanical engineering to a “Professor for Innovation and Technology Management, Production Management and Logistics,” whatever that is. A thin minority specialize in climate science.

    And the 25% who are retired? They absolutely have experience, but you’d agree that most are decades past their days of active research.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1752 hrs
    
    
    

11. If one attempts to heat the globe as a precaution against cooling, but instead the globe is warming, the outcome could be harm and vice versa.

    So by reducing the unnatural levels of CO2 created by industrialization and development we would be allowing the earth and its climate to return to it natural and inevitable cycles referred to in the letter and not influence any natural heating and cooling cycles.

    Yep, I get it.

    Oh and Owen singularly objective reaction to 113 year old data was;

    And exactly how many thermometers were there in 1895 throughout the world?  And how accurately were the records kept?

    And then you steadfastly accept this;

    The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years.

    My reaction is, exactly how many thermometers were there in 8000 BC throughout the world?  And how accurately were the records kept? And by whom?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 1852 hrs
    
    
    

12. You’re beginning to grasp the concept of error, pjr.  you’ve become a global warming sceptic.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 15, 2007 at 2205 hrs
    
    
    

13. Seems like global warming is getting debunked faster and faster.  The believers won’t give up just as they believe that welfare is still good and high taxes are a good thing.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 0145 hrs
    
    
    

14. Seems like global warming is getting debunked faster and faster.

    Are you serious? According to what, the conservative blogs you visit? Op ed pieces? Jesus, no wonder the United States is ranked so poorly in science.

    I’d wager that you’ve never bothered to look at the basic science, so here goes. Let’s focus on just warming caused by the gas you burn in your car. A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.2 pounds, consisting mostly of carbon, plus some hydrogen. When the gas burns, each carbon atom combines with two atoms of oxygen, resulting in 19.8 pounds of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

    Just in America, we burn about 120 billion gallons of gas every year. That results in two trillion, three hundred seventy-six billion pounds of carbon dioxide.

    The earth naturally recycles about 225 billion tons of carbon dioxide each year from processes like respiration, decay, and fires. That means that just through burning gas we’re adding 5.5 billion tons to a formerly closed system. That’s a small but significant amount.

    So what does that added carbon dioxide do? Carbon dioxide absorbs and traps more heat than oxygen and nitrogen, so when there’s more of it in the atmosphere, more heat is absorbed and less reflected into space. It’s elementary.

    That’s the simple overview. The past 20 years have been spent refining the science and what we know. We now understand global warming better than virtually any other environmental mechanism on the planet. The only reason there’s a “debate” is because there are various political, business and religious reasons for people to feel threatened by the implications of global warming.

    Discuss.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 16, 2007 at 1055 hrs
    
    
    

15. Gordon, I’ve noted that in general there is an inverse correlation between the fervor of global warming alarmists and the number of science courses they voluntarily took. That’s why Hollywood is such a big fan - unencumbered by any scientific knowledge. At one time Milwaukee was covered by a mile of ice and then it all melted without a single SUV to blame. Hmmmm. How did that happen? My big problem with this hysteria is that obsessing about CO2 takes our eye off of REAL environmental problems such as heavy metals, PCBs, etc. I’m still waiting for an apology from Al Gore for his help in destroying the US nuclear industry.

    Posted by Charlie Hillman on December 17, 2007 at 1819 hrs
    
    
    

16. Gordon, I’ve noted that in general there is an inverse correlation between the fervor of global warming alarmists and the number of science courses they voluntarily took.

    Are you saying that the climatologists who overwhelmingly say that climate change is real and is the result of human activity didn’t actually take any science classes? You sure about that?

    At one time Milwaukee was covered by a mile of ice and then it all melted without a single SUV to blame. Hmmmm. How did that happen?

    Charlie, no one is saying that the Earth’s climate is perfectly static. It’s been hotter in the past, and it’s been colder in the past. The science takes this into consideration. Global warming basically describes a very fast warming attributable to human activity, not any larger natural cycles.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1847 hrs
    
    
    

17. Simply elegant.

    
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mF_anaVcCXg

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1922 hrs
    
    
    

18. This isn’t about science any longer.  It’s about the anthropogenic global warming crowd saving face.  Temp’s have been going down.  The data to show that their doom & gloom scenarios is bunk is out there.  But before enough momentum comes along to thwart their efforts, they must get global legislation passed.

    The reason: so they can claim victory when nothing happens (and believe me, none of these ridiculous scenarios they portray will happen).

    In 2050, when we will have seen another half-century come out just as average as the last one, they have to be able to claim it was because of them.  Granted, most of them (including most of us on this comment space) probably will not be around in 2050, the true basis for their panic will be: Marxist doctrine.

    As long as they can Karl’s spirit alive through this kind of fear mongering they can die at peace with themselves.

    (And no, I’m not calling all the commenters here a bunch of Marxists for believing in global warming.  I’m calling the research grant/funding whores formerly known as “scientists” and über-wealthy world elites who push this agenda and wish to hold onto their power, popularity, and money the Marxists.  Everyone around here touting this stuff is unfortunately just gullible - or too proud to admit when they’ve been duped.  Nothing wrong with that; we’ve all done it.)

    Posted by David on December 17, 2007 at 1949 hrs
    
    
    

19. Something more realistic

    Al Gore Snow Job
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRaeEIN5Sh8

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 1952 hrs
    
    
    

20. I’m calling the research grant/funding whores formerly known as “scientists” and über-wealthy world elites who push this agenda and wish to hold onto their power, popularity, and money the Marxists.

    My wife is among those “funding whores,” David. So are most of her friends and colleagues. And you know what? You’re a moron. If she and her fellow researchers simply wanted more money, they would jump ship to Monsanto and double their salaries overnight. They wouldn’t have to rely on donations and paltry grants that corporations dole out mainly to benefit public relations. “Push this agenda?” What agenda? That’s like saying cancer researchers have an agenda against carcinogens! Or that tire-makers have an agenda against skidding. You’re politicizing it, not the scientists just doing a job.

    The data to show that their doom & gloom scenarios is bunk is out there.

    I love it. The “data.” What data? You can’t make a solid point, so you point to…nothing. How well do you know the science? How many primary sources have you checked out? How “research grant/funding whores” do you know, David? How many scientists? How many teachers? What do you read beyond the self-affirming blog posts that support what you already think?

    Sorry this pisses me off. I know too many scientists and teachers and researchers, both friends and family, and for years I’ve been reading this bizarre attack on the only people who actually dig into the science rather than just spewing opinion, so yeah, when people come along and generalize and spout complete idiocy, it strikes a nerve.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 17, 2007 at 2051 hrs
    
    
    

21. So what does that added carbon dioxide do? Carbon dioxide absorbs infra red radiation of 1-10 micrometers wavelength, whereas oxygen and nitrogen are diathermanous.  The IR absorption of carbon dioxide overlaps the IR absorption of water anywhere from 88-95% of the total radiant absorption between 1 and 15 micrometers (at 1 atmosphere), depending on relative concentrations and temperature.  The vapour pressure of water is some 125 times the partial pressure of carbon dioxide at 15 deg.C (assuming 320 ppm carbon dioxide in the atmosphere), so at saturation water vapour accounts for 97- 98 percent of all radiant heat that is not re-radiated to space.  This is at the ideal case of a diathermanous stratosphere, which is almost certainly not true.  In fact it is possible for more heat to be re-radiated in the presence of carbon dioxide than without it, and here’s how:  the local evaporation rate of ground water can be decreased (assuming radiant heat exchange with the night shy) in the presence of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, by absorbing the heat loss by radiation of the water on the ground.  This reduces humidity and therefore reduces total radiation absorbed by water in the atmosphere. 

    That’s a simple view of some of the phenomena that can occur.  The past 20 years have been spent refining the science and what we know. We now understand global warming about as well as we did when we realized, forty years ago, that the increase in atmospheric temperature that results from water vapour in the atmosphere is somewhere between 10 and thirty degrees Celsius, and the amount of increase depends on the initial conditions.  There is no way to place any global value on it.  Nor is there any way to assign the possible contribution of carbon dioxide to that increase – as natural warming phenomena are responsible for 2-10 times the temperature variation that carbon dioxide is.  The only reason there’s a “debate” is because no measurement techniques could possibly discern any increase in local or global temperature even if all natural variations were accounted for.  The point being 1) to the post-modernist, the effect does not exist if it cannot be measured, even in theory or 2) to the pragmatist, there are far more important things to worry about. 

    This guest editorial is cordially presented to you, by B Valentine.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 0410 hrs
    
    
    

22. Kt - QB3 chk

    your move, Gordon

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 19, 2007 at 0906 hrs
    
    
    

23. I smell consensus..
    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord;_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 20, 2007 at 1852 hrs
    
    
    

24. Reducing the unnatural levels of CO2 created by industrialization and development we would be allowing the earth and its climate to return to it natural

    Posted by grand canyon air tours on March 10, 2008 at 1153 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.