Global Warming, A New Religion?

[Trim50]

This is worth a looksee...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8...feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno...feature=related

[JeanneP]

Bob Carter is a very good speaker, and he is showing some very nice-looking charts. He glosses over global warming when it occurs, though, preferring to point to extremes that he can mock as absurd conclusions by climatologists.

Bob Carter is not a climatologist. His area of study is marine geology. Rocks. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bob_Carter

His methodology for demonstrating a lack of global warming "since 1998" is refuted convincingly here: http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/bobcarter.html

It also comments that Carter receives funding from Big Oil. Does that mean anything? I think so.

Now, to another issue regarding science and scientists. The greatest skeptic of global warming has been, until recently, the Bush Administration. That administration has also been indicted as censoring NASA scientists who have expressed their belief in the problem of global warming. Why, pray tell, if global warming is a myth and real scientists know it, does our government have to muzzle the real scientists on their payroll who express their concern about the human contribution to global warming? Makes me believe that there must be more than a little truth to the worries of global warming. Sorry to post almost the entire article, but I don't think that the link will work. Here it is, perhaps it will work. http://environment.newscientist.com/channe...ate-change.html

US climate scientists pressured on climate change

• 15:01 31 January 2007
  
• NewScientist.com news service
  
• New Scientist Environment and Reuters
  

US scientists were pressured to tailor their reports on global warming to fit the Bush administration's climate change scepticism, a congressional committee heard on Tuesday 30 January. In some cases, this occurred at the request of a former oil-industry lobbyist. "High-quality science [is] struggling to get out," Francesca Grifo, of the watchdog group Union of Concerned Scientists, told members of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. A UCS survey found that 150 climate scientists personally experienced political interference in the past five years in a total of at least 435 incidents.

"Nearly half of all respondents perceived or personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words 'climate change', 'global warming' or other similar terms from a variety of communications," Grifo said.

Rick Piltz, a former US government scientist, told the committee that former White House official Phil Cooney took an active role in casting doubt on the consequences of global climate change. Piltz said he resigned in 2005 as a result of pressure to soft-pedal findings on global warming.

Cooney, who was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute before becoming chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, also resigned in 2005. He went on to work for oil giant ExxonMobil, which was recently accused of spending $16 million on supporting climate sceptics.

"Speculative musing"

Documents on global climate change required Cooney's review and approval, Piltz said, adding that "If you know what you are writing has to go through a White House clearance before it is to be published, […] an anticipatory kind of self-censorship sets in."

He added: "[Cooney's] edits of programme reports, which had been drafted and approved by career science programme managers, had the cumulative effect of adding an enhanced sense of scientific uncertainty about global warming and minimising its likely consequences."

According to The Guardian newspaper, Piltz described how Cooney had personally edited out a key section of an Environmental Protection Agency report to Congress on the dangers of climate change, calling it "speculative musing".

Seeking answers

Henry Waxman, a California Democrat who chairs the oversight committee, complained that the White House has balked at supplying documents requested over six months to investigate these allegations.

"The committee isn't trying to obtain state secrets or documents that could affect our immediate national security," Waxman said. "We are simply seeking answers to whether the White House's political staff is inappropriately censoring impartial government scientists."

Kristen Hellmer, of the Council on Environmental Quality, part of the Executive Office of the US President, said the CEQ had been cooperating with Congress. When asked about allegations of political interference in scientific documents, she said: "We do have in place a very transparent system in science reporting."

Spate of accusations

Reporting on the hearing, the New York Times says that even Republicans had little good to say of the Bush administration's handling of climate change science. Almost all the Republicans on the panel began by stating that global warming was happening and that greenhouse gases from human activities were largely to blame.

The Bush administration has suffered a spate of accusations of muzzling climate scientists in recent years. In January 2006, James Hansen, director of the US space agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered their staff to review his lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard website and requests for media interviews (see Top climatologist accuses US of trying to gag him).

In February 2006, the topic was brought up in the House Committee on Science, and New Scientist reported that scientists at another government agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, were also upset about the situation.

The UCS issued its first accusations in February 2004, followed closely by more finger pointing in July of that year.

[Nausikaa]

Makes one wonder who to believe but, if the scientists cannot agree then it would be sensible to adopt the precautionary approach until such time as they can agree. Being careful can't be harmful.

I just wonder why we even bother paying enormous sums for scientists education and research. Given that training is basically the same and the climatic data is the same then they should all be singing from the same song sheet.

Good old world we live in; even if it is getting hotter,....erm----colder......no hotter.....umph whatever.

Aye // Stephen

[Trim50]

Well of course he gets funding from oil companies...he is a marine geologist.

The "long range historical data" is nonetheless worth considering. Five to ten years from now we will have to revisit the topic to see if the climate is running away hot or cold. If weather were a stock, I'd be shorting hard.

[JeanneP]

Yup, he's a marine geologist, not a climatologist, nor a meteorologist. And long range historical data, as he demonstrates in tape 1, shows that global warming has gone on for 16,000 years at least. And his cooling over the past 2,000 years or so is not so easily seen - that line could as easily have been placed on an ascending slope rather than his descending slope. No data, just his wide blue line.

No, I found his speech excellent, but I saw no hard data, just nice lines that could as easily have been sloped the other way. Give me the data, not his pictures and patter.

[Trim50]

[JeanneP]

[Trim50]

Egging!

[JeanneP]

Awww, c'mon, it's funny, don't you think?

[Trim50]

I will have to send it to my AGW friends up North. They will enjoy it.

[Trim50]

Ah...just when you thought it was over...

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Network; Claims It Is 'Telling Us What to Think'

TWC founder and global warming skeptic advocates suing Al Gore to expose 'the fraud of global warming.'

http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2...0303175301.aspx

The Weather Channel has been an outlet for global warming alarmism. In December 2006, The Weather Channel’s Heidi Cullen argued on her blog that weathercasters who had doubts about human influence on global warming should be punished with decertification by the American Meteorological Society.

[Seeratlas]

Just a couple of questions and comments.

1. Trim? just what constitutes a 'scientist' and who/what bestows that title?

2. I happen to concur with your simplified explanation on current reef destruction.

3. My own analysis is that for the majority of the populated portions of the planet, we are more likely to soon enter a period of global 'cooling'.

4. you might explain to me how being presumably , a chemical engineer on a fuel cell project qualifies one as a climatologist any more than say a marine biologist or a paleo geologist....or a second year double e major for that matter.

5. Out of all the people I ever encountered studying to become a journalist, I can't recall a single political conservative in the bunch. Anyone else ever see one?

6. Unfortunately the global warming political phenom appears to have little to do with science, imho. Looks to me more like a UN mechanism to channel more funds in the form of carbon credit purchases from rich nations to the by and large corrupt officials of poor third world nations, or Mr. Gore selling credits to himself

7. Anyone who believes that mankind cannot affect the health of the planet, at least short term, has never seen a nuclear blast or its aftermath. Long term requires more, course then again, we have more...lots more- caveat, 'long term' to humanity is barely a blink to the planet.

8. Lastly, what makes you so sure that the planet is an equilibrium seeking entity? Among other things,

wouldn't that presume a closed system ? hehehehe.

Interesting "discussion" however, as others have observed, you might have more accurately titled your thread.."Think you know something about Global Warming, ? COME AND GET SOME!!!!"



one thing for sure, we will all, or at least those under 85 or so, see for ourselves soon enough.

seer

[Nausikaa]

Originally Posted by Seeratlas

Looks to me more like a UN mechanism to channel more funds in the form of carbon credit purchases from rich nations to the by and large corrupt officials of poor third world nations

Reminds me of a definition of aid which I heard from a Dutch aid coordinator, "Aid is the act of poor people in rich countries giving money to rich people in poor countries".

Somewhat cynical approach but, by my own observations in Africa and the Middle East, largely true. But I suppose we can and should always question motives. Maybe Mr. Gore would care to reply to the comment?

As to the truth about global warming I cannot comment. All I can say, when I look out across the Baltic today and see a stormy sea is that when I was a child there would have been no waves here at this time of year - just the odd pressure ridge in the ice. Now if global warming had existed 350 years ago the Swedish army would never have been able to march across the ice to Denmark and defeat the Danes which just goes to show that global warming is not completely negative.

Aye // Stephen

[Trim50]

Just a couple of questions and comments.

1. Trim? just what constitutes a 'scientist' and who/what bestows that title?

My definition is simply one who employs scientific method to acquire knowledge. I don't believe anyone bestows the title as it is typically earned. I was once a scientist, but now I am merely an engineering manager. I do miss the simple life of a scientist though

2. I happen to concur with your simplified explanation on current reef destruction.

Yes, very simplified.

3. My own analysis is that for the majority of the populated portions of the planet, we are more likely to soon enter a period of global 'cooling'.

Completely agreed.

4. you might explain to me how being presumably , a chemical engineer on a fuel cell project qualifies one as a climatologist any more than say a marine biologist or a paleo geologist....or a second year double e major for that matter.

The original post was intended to invite discussion…and it did. Purely for fun, however the topic often invites some passion on the subject from some…which is a good thing.

Most scientists hold multiple degrees in various forms of engineering and science. Typically their final degree fosters their specialized title. Personally I have 3 degrees and none of them would suggest that I was or wanted to be a climatologist…Aerospace Engineering, Mechanical & Environmental Engineering and Materials Science. For some strange reason my carrier took me into alternative energy and therefore I've gained lots of experience in electrochemistry and electrical engineering working on Li-Ion batteries and fuel cells.

I am no more qualified to predict the weather than a 2 year old…but it remains fun to debate.

5. Out of all the people I ever encountered studying to become a journalist, I can't recall a single political conservative in the bunch. Anyone else ever see one?

I believe David a.k.a. Auzzee may be the only one!

6. Unfortunately the global warming political phenom appears to have little to do with science, imho. Looks to me more like a UN mechanism to channel more funds in the form of carbon credit purchases from rich nations to the by and large corrupt officials of poor third world nations, or Mr. Gore selling credits to himself.

I believe the AGW debate will in the long-term eventually play into the favor of nuclear energy. In the near-term it has given birth to a new venture capital market for green energy. It will be interesting to see how market evolves. Will it be another dot-com bubble?

8. Lastly, what makes you so sure that the planet is an equilibrium seeking entity? Among other things, wouldn't that presume a closed system ?

Paleogeology is all we really can rely on…but until someone can tell me what gravity is without using the words "space-time", I will doubt there really is anything that is a truly closed system.

[Trim50]

BP, General Motors See Hydrogen In Their Future

By Steve Hargreaves

CNNMoney.com

5 March 2008

Washington, D.C. -- Top executives of BP and General Motors Corp., two of the world's largest corporations, outlined on Tuesday their visions for the future of renewable energy.

They came to the same bottom line: Hydrogen will likely fuel the cars of the future, although it could take 50 years to get there. Until then, each company will pursue different strategies for developing new energy sources.

Their comments kicked off the Washington International Renewable Energy Conference, a global meeting of energy officials organized by the U.S. State Department, and an adjoining trade show with over 300 vendors and energy industry luminaries.

Speakers ranged from BP head Tony Hayward to U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman to venture capitalist Vinod Khosla.

The meeting, scheduled to last several days, frames one of the greatest challenges facing the world economy today: The need to cut greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050 to avoid the worst effects of global warming, while fueling a worldwide economic boom expected to use 50 percent more power by 2030.

"Relying on the internal combustion alone is probably not going to get us there," said Robert Babik, director of emissions, environment, energy and safety policy at General Motors (GM, Fortune 500). "The key is to let electrification of the vehicle play a critical role."

To that end, Babik said GM is rolling out its all-electric Chevy Volt hopefully by late 2009 and is pushing its "E-Flex" design concept.

The E-Flex is a vehicle with an electric motor that also has an on-board electricity generator to charge the batteries on long trips or other times when the vehicle can't be plugged into an electric outlet. The generator could either be a conventional gasoline engine, an engine that runs on biofuel or, eventually, a bank of hydrogen fuel cells that Babik said could be the fuel of choice 50 years from now.

"We're trying to make this a very consumer friendly vehicle," Babik said of the Volt. The all-electric vehicle will be able to travel 40 miles on electricity before the motor kicks in and is expected to cost about the same as a typical Chevy compact sedan.

The Long View: Expensive Alternative

One analyst said GM is right to be developing a variety of cars - from hybrids and diesels to electric and hydrogen.

"The game has barely started, and GM is in the forefront," said Jim Hossack, a consultant at the auto research firm AutoPacific.

But, citing hydrogen's costs and lack of infrastructure, he said it will be a long time before it's commercially viable. "You won't see it in mine or your lifetime," he said.

Oil giant BP is also eying hydrogen for its long-term potential, although in the short run the company plans on sticking with its investments in wind and solar technology.

To spur those investments, which total about $1 billion a year, BP's Hayward called on governments around the world to enact regulations limiting the amount of carbon dioxide that can be emitted each year, and called for subsidies to help fledging technologies get off the ground.

He said developed nations should go ahead and enact carbon controls regardless of what China or India does.

"A global trading system should be our ultimate goal, but we shouldn't be deterred from starting on a regional basis now," he said.

The United States has resisted signing international treaties like the Kyoto partly because India, China and other developing countries refuse to join.

Hayward said BP is looking to develop advanced biofuels that don't require food crops to make. Corn-based ethanol, a gasoline substitute, has recently attracted lots of negative attention in the United States and elsewhere because it's being blamed for driving up the price of food.

He recently said he might spin off the firm's renewable energy division because he thinks its value is not being fairly reflected in the company's share price. Still, BP is one of the larger investors in renewable energy.

"They will continue to invest more, it's one of the fastest growing parts of the division," said Fadel Gheit, an energy analyst at Oppenheimer.

Cleaning Up: $2 Billion Investment

In other events at the conference, Energy Secretary Bodman applauded the private sector's investment in clean technology, which he said has gone from $500 million in 2005 to over $2 billion in 2007.

And Vinod Khosla, a well known venture capitalist and ethanol advocate, cautioned the audience against placing too much faith in statistics - like the ones showing the world will use 50% more power in 2030 or that renewables will still only make up a small percentage of the world's energy usage by then.

"Forecasts are important, but most of these forecasts are wrong," he said.

Khosla cited a host of historical forecasts that proved incorrect, from oil prices trading at $20 a barrel to a study he said AT&T commissioned in 1980 showing 1 million cell phone users by 2000. Of course, the actual number of cell phones in 2000 had exceeded 100 million.

"It's the power of ideas and entrepreneurship that will determine our future - not these forecasts," he said.

© 2008 Cable News Network. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.

[Auzzee]

Perhaps we now need a statistician to produce a computer model which can be used to interpret data regarding visits to Carter's four part presentation.

80,154 people opened part one

32,402, part two,

25,327, part three, and

25,444, part four.

In reiterating my original belief that global warming is cyclical, I offer that I am unqualified and find no other basis for my belief than my own casual research which typically involves reading and watching presentations by people who are more academically qualified than me.

I am merely a man of moderate knowledge, with a reasonable level of logical capability and the oftentimes successful journalist's ability to pick the truth from within supposition.

I am going to buy stocks in sheep farming and woolen mills.

Cheers

David.

[Trim50]

This is all the proof I need!

[Lighthouse]

It's not happening fast enough!

[Lighthouse]

Some more for the "pot" on Jeff Masters' Blog.

[Tailwalker]

Global Warning: Don't you think finally we could have a good look at what Antarctica looked like...