From Canada Free Press:
Climate scientists at the University of Rochester, the University of Alabama, and the University of Virginia report that observed patterns of temperature changes (‘fingerprints’) over the last thirty years are not in accord with what greenhouse models predict and can better be explained by natural factors, such as solar variability. Therefore, climate change is ‘unstoppable’ and cannot be affected or modified by controlling the emission of greenhouse gases, such as CO2, as is proposed in current legislation.
These results are in conflict with the conclusions of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and also with some recent research publications based on essentially the same data. However, they are supported by the results of the US-sponsored Climate Change Science Program (CCSP).
The report is published in the December 2007 issue of the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society [DOI: 10.1002/joc.1651]. The authors are Prof. David H. Douglass (Univ. of Rochester), Prof. John R. Christy (Univ. of Alabama), Benjamin D. Pearson (graduate student), and Prof. S. Fred Singer (Univ. of Virginia).
The fundamental question is whether the observed warming is natural or anthropogenic (human-caused). Lead author David Douglass said: “The observed pattern of warming, comparing surface and atmospheric temperature trends, does not show the characteristic fingerprint associated with greenhouse warming. The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming.”
Co-author John Christy said: “Satellite data and independent balloon data agree that atmospheric warming trends do not exceed those of the surface. Greenhouse models, on the other hand, demand that atmospheric trend values be 2-3 times greater. We have good reason, therefore, to believe that current climate models greatly overestimate the effects of greenhouse gases. Satellite observations suggest that GH models ignore negative feedbacks, produced by clouds and by water vapor, that diminish the warming effects of carbon dioxide.”
Carpe Diem has a link to the actual report, but I was unable to access it – it’ll be interesting to see just how our global warming zealots deal with this report.
It has long been my opinion that if the earth is, indeed, in a long term warming trend, then there is pretty much nothing we can do to stop it. If it wasn’t caused by us, then that is just a natural position to hold – but even if it were caused by us, then it took more than a century to put into effect, and it would likely take longer than that to stop and then reverse the effects…meaning, of course, that there’s no point in trying to reverse it (though it still is wise to reduce pollution on general principle), and we might as well adapt to it. In addition to this, I hold that the doomsday predictions of the global warming zealots are just absurd – they have no idea what would really happen if the world warmed up by a few degrees over the next 100 years. Scare stories based on guesses just don’t impress me much.
Blogs For Victory 
A ‘warming’ religion?
Oh please.
I’m sure that oil companies care about you and the environment. They have you and your best interests at heart at all times.
NASA.
Not one of the statistics or facts presented thus far have anything to do with oil companies. I don’t understand your fixation with oil; are you simply not capable of discussing the facts?
Dasein: If you’re not that stupid; Just how stupid are you?
With all due respect, were the data you referred to (in #20) global data, or something more limited? You might want to check your references.
And if the data you are referencing is more limited than global, and global is the other way around, you might want to ask yourself why. Because in a general sense, I think you’re right — there is a transition between not knowing anything and thinking you do, to not knowing anything and realizing it, to knowing a little and thinking you’re right, to arguing on the basis of ad-hominem arguments (e.g., who’s funding the research), to knowing just enough to be dangerous, to knowing more and realizing that one single study (pro or con) doesn’t amount to a hill of beans, to (finally) actually being able to critically analyze things including the vagaries of data collection, the vagaries of data analysis, and the vagaries of the conclusions based upon the first two, and fitting it all together.
Personally, I think I’m somewhere around the “hill of beans” level on this particular issue. More importantly, the likelihood of my getting past that point is essentially nill. I know enough about science to know that one study doesn’t count for much in and of itself. And though in this particular case I can follow the math in a general sense, I don’t have the code nor the capabilities to assess it. Furthermore, I can’t evaluate the primary data at all. I don’t have access to it, and even if I did I don’t know enough about the collection methods or the physical chemistry involved to assess that part either.
On the other hand, I know too many scientists (you know, the full-fledged, day-job, card-carrying types), and I am very familiar with what motivates them: for some it’s intellectual purity, for others it’s job security, for others it’s ego. Most of the time it’s some combination. But ego almost invariably figures into the mix somewhere. In academic science anyway (and as a general rule), prestige is more important than money. To most of these guys feeding their heads is more important than their wallets.
And if you think about it, that motivation can display itself in a variety of different ways. The most obvious way is to be outspoken. Whether your James Hansen, Michael Mann, Richard Lindzen or Fred Singer (for example), you’re making big bucks by being outspoken. And you have to realize that. It is as it is, and there isn’t a whole lot anyone could (or should) do about it. So to impugn anyone’s authority on the basis of who pays them seems to me beside the point. If you want to talk science, talk science. If you want to talk politics, talk politics. If you want to formulate policy, talk both on their own merits. But don’t confuse things. That’s just stupid.
By the way Dasein, who do you favor at present in the presidential race? And whoever it is, what is your perception of how they view the whole global warming/energy independence/renewable fuels debate?
SteaM,
Indeed, better safe than sorry – but you should bear in mind a few relevant facts:
If human actitvity over the past 100 years has increased atmospheric CO2 and this is driving all or part of global warming, then you should understand that there are 6 people exhaling CO2 in 2007 for every one who was exhaling in 1907. Essentially, the fact of the number of human beings and the basic needs of these human beings precludes anyone from developing a means to reduce atmospheric CO2 to the point where we stop and reverse global warming in any reasonable time frame (say, 100 years from now). Meanwhile, if you go through all this very expensive process of reducing human-generated CO2 and find out that it wasn’t the CO2 which was causing the problem, what then?
The plain fact of the matter is that you don’t know enough – and the proponents of global warming in the scientific community – lack sufficient data to make a solid judgement on the matter. Let us reduce our pollution per person on the general principle that it is better to reduce pollution – but leave off these doomsday scenarios.
Rico,
One thing regarding academic thought; there is the phenomenon of group-think that insures that the academic boat never gets rocked; or rarely. Those to whom the hiring decisions are entrusted, are the self same to whom the tenure decisions are placed. As we all tend to surround ourselves with others of like interests, similar backgrounds and a commonality of history, so too the denizens of the ivy-covered halls draw to themselves spirits kindred . Over time an academic theater becomes a circle jerk of internally driven thought and self-affirming rhetoric. Publications tend to support the prevailing theories and the outliers are treated with such disdain and are ostracized to the point of literary exclusion when that literature requires confirmation from the academic hothouse of the bona fides of the academician.
In this world dissent really means agreeing with trepidation.
Those that you know in the scientific community are hopefully from outside of academia where dissent is permitted and encouraged.
My candidate was George Allen, but these days I’m leaning toward Romney; his record on the environment has been good, and his approach to “greenhouse gasses” is similar to Spook’s. I’d vote for Spook if her were running, but; alas and alack he is not as far as you know.
By the way Mark, who do you favor at present in the presidential race? And whoever it is, what is your perception of how they view the whole global warming/energy independence/renewable fuels debate?
With a few tweaks here and there maybe, I think I’m adopting the above as my stock question on the matter. In the words of David Byrne, “This ain’t no party, this ain’t no disco, this ain’t no fooling around …” Or put less musically, “the stone age didn’t end for lack or rocks”.
Um… “lack or rocks” should have been “lack of rocks.
Dasein, I appreciate what you’re saying (#28). And though I agree that the whole scientific enterprise can be swayed by “spirits kindred”, it also includes some of the best, most objective sets of checks and balances of any human enterprise. In the end, it’s about science (at least to the extent that it matters). For example, how does science as an enterprise match up against economics as an enterprise in terms of its ability to objectively right itself? Fold into that the following: how important in each case is “getting it right” to policy decisions? And how important is getting it wrong?
That’s the thing for me. On that count I agree with John McCain… there isn’t a whole lot of down side, and a whole lot of up side, to “going green” — assuming you do it right. That, to me, is the only remaining question: doing it right. And that, unfortunately, is a very big question — and one that is very likely to piss off some on both sides of the aisle. IMO,”doing it right” has a lot more to do with dealing with monied interests on both sides than partisan interests on either. It’s about the status quo versus innovation. IMO, it’s time to rethink the battlegrounds. There is some big money — HUGE money — to be made here… if we do it right. And what’s wrong with making money?
All I have to say is, As a democrat I don’t have to cherry pick my sources.
Ricorun,
Still haven’t settled on a candidate – as for global warming: a rather trivial issue, for the most part…but as Democrats are set to impose a set of criteria based on wild guesses, I am determined to stop them from getting the power to do that.
SteaM,
Have you considered how absurd your claim of bias is since the article is published in a peer reviewed journal, or are you suggesting that the International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society is biased as well.
Mark: Still haven’t settled on a candidate – as for global warming: a rather trivial issue, for the most part…but as Democrats are set to impose a set of criteria based on wild guesses, I am determined to stop them from getting the power to do that.
I appreciate your partisan concerns. But IMO, you’re thinking too “old school”. More to the point, your “wild guess” theory is getting left behind. And part of the reason is… it doesn’t matter anymore: even if you eschew the science (with or without understanding it), there are other reasons to consider energy independence/alternative fuels as essential. Personally, I’d much rather sieze the day and reap its benefits than ignore the obvious — and the inevitable. As I see it, the economic opportunities in front of us in the form of alternative fuels are similar — though potentially much larger — than the microchip revolution of the 80s. And that was mighty huge. It still is. It transformed the world — and still is. How can anyone NOT be a part of it? The bigger part the better.
SteaM said “Any time someone disputes the IPCC’s conclusions or makes a statement saying it’s a hoax that there’s manmade glbal warming my first thought is… hm … maybe they are funded by the people who want you to believe that.”
Well innuendo should be all the proof you need.
prove it.
Ricorun,
I’ve been in favor of increased US oil production, tarriffs on imported oil and a crash program in nuclear power for quite some time now (out here in Nevada we’ve got the old nuke test site…its already pretty radioactive, so it seems a logical place to build a whole series of nuke plants). Energy independence is an admirable goal – but we won’t get it from the Democrats as they really are corporate tools…all Big Oil will have to do is throw some money at the Democrats and all their talk of alternative energy will be just that – a lot of talk.
Mark: I’ve been in favor of increased US oil production, tarriffs on imported oil and a crash program in nuclear power for quite some time now…
Why are those your preferred alternatives? Can you provide a cogent argument?
out here in Nevada we’ve got the old nuke test site…its already pretty radioactive, so it seems a logical place to build a whole series of nuke plants.
I hope that’s not part of your cogent argument. Or at least I hope you could at least rephrase it so it doesn’t sound so ridiculous.
Ricorun’s ‘cogent’ argument, as well as the ‘progressives’. Renewable energy. Of course, great idea!
Why didn’t I think of that! Any precise ideas as to how Rico? And why you’re at it, would not poverty be helped if you simply gave everyone a few million dollars? Great idea. No more poverty.
Cogent? Or progressive logic?
Question…why do any of you bother to dialog with steaming pile. Even being generous he is an idiot.
From the Wash Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071219/COMMENTARY/10575140
Steaming pile seems to believe that GW will destroy civilization.
Steaming pile seems to believe that the “evil” oil companies conspire to convince us that GW isnt real.
Steaming pile evidently believes that the oil companies have a long term business plan to wreck the planet and kill all the people that buy their product.
Steaming pile is a moron.
Whenever I hear the IPCC release another GW report, I think hmmm, I wonder if they’re funded by governments that want us to believe that.
SEW: Any precise ideas as to how Rico?
Well, here’s something to think about. (Note: it’s in MS Word format).
The authors strongly criticize the “regulation centered” approach ala Kyoto. They suggest instead an “investment-centered agenda” which emphasizes a stronger concentration on public policies designed to stimulate the development of alternative fuels.
About the regulation-centered approach they say: “This pollution regulation framework offered by environmentalists for dealing with global warming is, for many, a reassuring one. For 15 years it has provided policymakers, the media, and the public with a mental model for understanding how such a massive problem like climate change could be solved in an organic way by the market, perhaps the most powerful institution ever created by human beings.
There’s just one problem: it won’t work.”
They argue that regulations alone won’t reduce greenhouse gasses all that much, will likely prevent rather than stimulate clean energy sources from becoming cost-competitive, and aren’t likely to be adopted by developing countries to any great degree. As a result of those considerations, they also aren’t likely to stimulate the private sector to produce rapid technological breakthroughs.
If you think about it, those in a nutshell are the main criticisms against the Kyoto Protocol.
What they suggest instead is an investment-centered agenda, which they summarize as: Congress should pass legislation that either auctions permits or taxes carbon enough to a) establish a price for carbon sufficient to result in inexpensive emissions reductions, b) generate at least $30 billion a year for clean energy investments, and c) creating market conditions for the widespread adoption of these new technologies.
They also discuss the various successes of past public investments in technology and infrastructure — public investments in things like railroads, highways, microchips, the Internet, computer sciences, and the medical biosciences have paid off, and in most cases continue to pay off handsomely.
$30 billion a year might sound like a lot. But most of it could be paid for simply by repealing the various subsidies the oil and coal industries currently get. You may also think that this is a “progressive” idea. But have you ever heard Newt Gingrich speak on the topic? For example, in this YouTube clip he discusses the true underlying cost of the current energy structure, and the strategic importance of energy independence. If you think about it his way, a transition to renewable fuels could save us a dramatic amount of money.
SEW, I tried to respond to you, but my comment is “awaiting moderation”. Apparently I can’t post links here, for whatever reason.