Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 1721 - 1740 of total 28464 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Colorado Springs, Colorado
Apr 12, 2011 - 10:09pm PT
The Great Global Warming Swindle (Full documentary film)

The film, made by British television producer Martin Durkin, presents scientists, economists, politicians, writers, and others who dispute the scientific consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming.

The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

The film won best documentary at the 2007 Io Isabella International Film Week.

A number of academics, environmentalists, think-tank consultants and writers are interviewed in the film in support of its various assertions. They include the Canadian environmentalist Patrick Moore, former member of Greenpeace but for the past 21 years a critic of the organisation; Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Patrick Michaels, Research Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia; Nigel Calder, editor of New Scientist from 1962 to 1966; John Christy, professor and director of the Earth System Science Center at University of Alabama; Paul Reiter of the Pasteur Institute; former British Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson; and Piers Corbyn, a British weather forecaster.

Carl Wunsch, professor of oceanography at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was also interviewed but has since said that he strongly disagrees with the film's conclusions and the way his interview material was used.

Oh goodness, they actually honored Wunsch's wishes.

Trad climber
Santa Clara, CA
Apr 13, 2011 - 12:41am PT
The film's basic premise is that the current scientific opinion on the anthropogenic causes of global warming has numerous scientific flaws, and that vested monetary interests in the scientific establishment and the media discourage the public and the scientific community from acknowledging or even debating this. The film asserts that the publicised scientific consensus is the product of a "global warming activist industry" driven by a desire for research funding. Other culprits, according to the film, are Western environmentalists promoting expensive solar and wind power over cheap fossil fuels in Africa, resulting in African countries being held back from industrialising.

More research, Ed? More current? How long will this charade go on??? It may even be true, but the data isn't there. Or it is there if you choose to look at weather cycles from history.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
Apr 13, 2011 - 08:54pm PT
I thought all those scientists were supposed to be smart? If they're going to organize themselves into purveyors of fraud on an International scale they should pick a more lucrative swindle. Research grants? is that the best they can think of? Have they never heard of derivatives? Well I guess they have to start their criminal careers somewhere......

Its a good thing we have guys like Patrick Moore, Lord Bunkton and the channel 10 weatherman on top of this story. I heard Glenn Beck and Donald Rump are investigating as well. And the fabled Bluering! A high standard of credentials and integrity ensures credibility so no need to doubt a word they say.

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 13, 2011 - 11:19pm PT
It's all the potheads fault!

In California, some 400,000 authorized growers use about 3 percent of the stateís electricity for their business.

ďThis corresponds to the electricity use of 1 million average California homes, greenhouse-gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars, and energy expenditures of $3 billion a year,Ē Mills says. However, since California is such a green state, it only generates 20 percent of national carbon dioxide emissions from pot growing, while using 70 percent of nationwide energy for this industry.

Read more: Marijuana causes global warming, uses 1% of U.S. electricity | San Francisco Business Times
corniss chopper

breaking the speed of gravity
Apr 20, 2011 - 11:51pm PT
This is the Coldest Spring on Record in Washington State

Glaciers growing on Mt. Shasta Ė Record snowfall to spur even more growth

Crater Glacier on Mt. Saint Helens is now larger than it was before the 1980 eruption.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 7, 2011 - 12:08pm PT
Cornhole you are awesome! Where do you find this stuff? are you in with Bill Maher's think tank? and Westernfront is shear genius. You should be script writing for disney.

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 13, 2011 - 02:12pm PT

The NRC study is important because it included economists as well as scientists. It is one of the better studies attempting to integrate scientific findings with economic analysis. For that reason alone, it is worth reading, even if it was commissioned by a highly partisan Congressional request.

I think economists will have some trouble with its conclusions, because they make, sub silencio several assumptions about costs, benefits and risk aversion that greatly influence their conclusions, but I think it's an excellent start.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 13, 2011 - 02:29pm PT
John, the excelent start came and went about 10 years ago wouldn't you say?

Trad climber
The Illuminati -- S.P.E.C.T.R.E. Division
May 13, 2011 - 02:36pm PT

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 13, 2011 - 02:38pm PT
always throw a little doubt of skepticism in by finding something about the "source"

Trad climber
Fresno CA
May 14, 2011 - 01:50am PT

Ten years ago, the climate science was well under way, but the economics wsa non-existent. Unfortunately, we still aren't that far along. A recent AEA paper deals with trying to determine a workable framework for analyzing the economics of climate change. The obvious problem is trying to measure marginal costs, where we have only the crudest of proxies.

Most of the papers I've read either ignore the economics, or admit that there's almost no credible measurement of the parameters. This paper at least has a cogent discussion of the issue.

In general, my experience as an economist and as an attorney has been that the scientific community's work doesn't make it far enough into the economic decision-making, in part because the two disciplines have interst in different things. The interested parties usually provide lots of useless data. The environmentalists will tell us the total cost of pollution, but not its marginal cost. The anti-environmentalists will tell us the economic disruption in total elimination of pollution, but not the marginal cost.

Ideas like cap and trade, that make economic sense, are still not well understood by people who should know better. For example, the editorial pages of The Wall Street Journal -- a publication that should know better -- calls cap and trade a mere tax increase. If, in fact, carbon emissions have a cost (and I know of no scientific literature that says otherwise), cap and trade simply places more of that cost on the emitters. Sure, we don't know the precise amount of the marginal costs, but trial and error should be able to get us pretty close.

The reason I find this study important is that it helps span the rhetorical gap between scientists, politicians, lawyers and economists. Put another way, it helps focus people in one discipline to provide analysis and data useful to interrelated disciplines. As I've said ad nauseum, what to do about carbon emission is, ultimately, a decision about resource allocation. That makes it an economic one.


P.S. Do you think anyone in Canada would mind if I start a CARCA chapter in Fresno? I could call it the California Avalanche Rescue Cat Association.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
May 14, 2011 - 01:28pm PT
John, I can hardly disagree with you on the importance of the economical factors. nothijng can happen without consideration of it. No doubt such a report as the Nrc is vital to advancing policy.
The question remains why did it pop up now and not ten years ago? If scientific determined opinion had been given priority over all other opinion (in determination of a question strictly of science) then we wouldn't be wasting a decade or more chasing our tails before factoring in all other relevant issues to determine action. The fact remains that (in north america at least) government still operates on the assumption that global warming is a low priority issue at best, or dosn't even exist at worst. How can anyone be satisfied with such attitude when the concensus scientific opinion has been in favor of accelerating man made global warming for at least a decade?

who gives a damn about the economic angle when we can't even confront the fact that the idiots in charge are incapable of listening to expert opinion in determining wether the problem exists at all?

Decreasing the burning of fossil fuels is now and has been for some time the obvious decision to make, and is the basis from which all other relevant decisions are based.

Ice climber
the ghost
May 14, 2011 - 01:51pm PT
More stuff to look at:
Do Climate Skeptics Change Their Minds
Confessions of a Climate Change Convert

photo not found
Missing photo ID#202221
The Scientific Guide to Global Warming Skepticism and the pdf

Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications Hansen, Sato, Kharechia & Schuckmann

And with temperatures climbing because of global warming, mining in the Arctic has become logistically possible as well, because sea lanes stay open longer due to thinner ice and railways can operate year round.
Globe & Mail

Ice climber
the ghost
May 14, 2011 - 04:36pm PT
New Rule - science is made by scientists not idiots
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my carís not real because I canít find my keys. Thatís the problem with our obsession with always seeing two sides of every issue equally ó especially when one side has a lot of money. It means we have to pretend there are always two truths, and the side that doesnít know anything has something to say. On this side of the debate: Every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr. Potato Head. There is no debate here ó just scientists vs. non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists donít get a vote. We shouldnít decide everything by polling the masses. Just because most people believe something doesnít make it true. This is the fallacy called argumentum ad numeram: the idea that something is true because great numbers believe it. As in: Eat sh#t, 20 trillion flies canít be wrong.

Gym climber
May 14, 2011 - 05:11pm PT
Even scarier is why people have stopped thinking global warming is real. One major reason pollsters say is we had a very cold, snowy winter. Which is like saying the sun might not be real because last night it got dark. And my carís not real because I canít find my keys.

If "scientists" think those are good analogies, it's nor surprising that more and more people are tuning them out.

Separately, lots of us can at least entertain the notion that there is a certain amount of GW occurring, and it's been caused in least in part by mankind.
This thing is, we just don't give a rat's ass. There is already huge variation in climate where people live--if the climate where you live gets a little shift over the course of many decades, big freaking deal. And to a large extent the changes will be positive.
corniss chopper

breaking the speed of gravity
May 14, 2011 - 06:11pm PT
Main stream media


Ice climber
the ghost
May 14, 2011 - 06:34pm PT
So Corniss Chopper, did you caption the deleted photo yourself? If so, your spelling of unnessasary[sic] indicates that you are illiterate.

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
May 15, 2011 - 07:32pm PT
Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about

By David Evans

The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic. Watching this issue unfold has been amusing but, lately, worrying. This issue is tearing society apart, making fools out of our politicians.

Letís set a few things straight.

The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s. But the gravy train was too big, with too many jobs, industries, trading profits, political careers, and the possibility of world government and total control riding on the outcome. So rather than admit they were wrong, the governments, and their tame climate scientists, now outrageously maintain the fiction that carbon dioxide is a dangerous pollutant.

Letís be perfectly clear. Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and other things being equal, the more carbon dioxide in the air, the warmer the planet. Every bit of carbon dioxide that we emit warms the planet. But the issue is not whether carbon dioxide warms the planet, but how much.

Most scientists, on both sides, also agree on how much a given increase in the level of carbon dioxide raises the planetís temperature, if just the extra carbon dioxide is considered. These calculations come from laboratory experiments; the basic physics have been well known for a century.

The disagreement comes about what happens next.

The planet reacts to that extra carbon dioxide, which changes everything. Most critically, the extra warmth causes more water to evaporate from the oceans. But does the water hang around and increase the height of moist air in the atmosphere, or does it simply create more clouds and rain? Back in 1980, when the carbon dioxide theory started, no one knew. The alarmists guessed that it would increase the height of moist air around the planet, which would warm the planet even further, because the moist air is also a greenhouse gas.

This is the core idea of every official climate model: For each bit of warming due to carbon dioxide, they claim it ends up causing three bits of warming due to the extra moist air. The climate models amplify the carbon dioxide warming by a factor of three ó so two-thirds of their projected warming is due to extra moist air (and other factors); only one-third is due to extra carbon dioxide.

Thatís the core of the issue. All the disagreements and misunderstandings spring from this. The alarmist case is based on this guess about moisture in the atmosphere, and there is simply no evidence for the amplification that is at the core of their alarmism.

Weather balloons had been measuring the atmosphere since the 1960s, many thousands of them every year. The climate models all predict that as the planet warms, a hot spot of moist air will develop over the tropics about 10 kilometres up, as the layer of moist air expands upwards into the cool dry air above. During the warming of the late 1970s, í80s and í90s, the weather balloons found no hot spot. None at all. Not even a small one. This evidence proves that the climate models are fundamentally flawed, that they greatly overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide.

This evidence first became clear around the mid-1990s.

At this point, official ďclimate scienceĒ stopped being a science. In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory. If theory and evidence disagree, real scientists scrap the theory. But official climate science ignored the crucial weather balloon evidence, and other subsequent evidence that backs it up, and instead clung to their carbon dioxide theory ó that just happens to keep them in well-paying jobs with lavish research grants, and gives great political power to their government masters.

There are now several independent pieces of evidence showing that the earth responds to the warming due to extra carbon dioxide by dampening the warming. Every long-lived natural system behaves this way, counteracting any disturbance. Otherwise the system would be unstable. The climate system is no exception, and now we can prove it.

But the alarmists say the exact opposite, that the climate system amplifies any warming due to extra carbon dioxide, and is potentially unstable. It is no surprise that their predictions of planetary temperature made in 1988 to the U.S. Congress, and again in 1990, 1995, and 2001, have all proved much higher than reality.

They keep lowering the temperature increases they expect, from 0.30C per decade in 1990, to 0.20C per decade in 2001, and now 0.15C per decade ó yet they have the gall to tell us ďitís worse than expected.Ē These people are not scientists. They overestimate the temperature increases due to carbon dioxide, selectively deny evidence, and now they conceal the truth.

One way they conceal is in the way they measure temperature.

The official thermometers are often located in the warm exhaust of air conditioning outlets, over hot tarmac at airports where they get blasts of hot air from jet engines, at waste-water plants where they get warmth from decomposing sewage, or in hot cities choked with cars and buildings. Global warming is measured in 10ths of a degree, so any extra heating nudge is important. In the United States, nearly 90% of official thermometers surveyed by volunteers violate official siting requirements that they not be too close to an artificial heating source.

Global temperature is also measured by satellites, which measure nearly the whole planet 24/7 without bias. The satellites say the hottest recent year was 1998, and that since 2001 the global temperature has levelled off. Why does official science track only the surface thermometer results and not mention the satellite results?

The Earth has been in a warming trend since the depth of the Little Ice Age around 1680. Human emissions of carbon dioxide were negligible before 1850 and have nearly all come after the Second World War, so human carbon dioxide cannot possibly have caused the trend. Within the trend, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation causes alternating global warming and cooling for 25 to 30 years at a go in each direction. We have just finished a warming phase, so expect mild global cooling for the next two decades.

We are now at an extraordinary juncture. Official climate science, which is funded and directed entirely by government, promotes a theory that is based on a guess about moist air that is now a known falsehood. Governments gleefully accept their advice, because the only ways to curb emissions are to impose taxes and extend government control over all energy use. And to curb emissions on a world scale might even lead to world government ó how exciting for the political class!

Even if we stopped emitting all carbon dioxide tomorrow, completely shut up shop and went back to the Stone Age, according to the official government climate models it would be cooler in 2050 by about 0.015 degrees. But their models exaggerate 10-fold ó in fact our sacrifices would make the planet in 2050 a mere 0.0015 degrees cooler!

Finally, to those who still believe the planet is in danger from our carbon dioxide emissions: Sorry, but youíve been had. Yes, carbon dioxide is a cause of global warming, but itís so minor itís not worth doing much about.

Financial Post
David Evans consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modelling Australiaís carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He is a mathematician and engineer, with six university degrees, including a PhD from Stanford University in electrical engineering. The comments above were made to the Anti-Carbon-Tax Rally in Perth, Australia, on March 23.

Ice climber
the ghost
May 15, 2011 - 09:52pm PT
According to his own resume, Evans has not published a single peer-reviewed research paper on the subject of climate change. Evans published only a single paper in 1987 in his career and it is unrelated to climate change.

Unfortunately for Evansí global heating skepticism, but fortunately for the advancement of understanding of the Earthís climate and anthropogenic global heating, it appears that the facts have changed on him yet again.

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 15, 2011 - 11:11pm PT
I've been looking at a lot of ice data lately, but here's something a bit different about the changing oceans.
Global estimates of sea surface temperature:

And heat content down to 700 meters depth:

Messages 1721 - 1740 of total 28464 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews