24 Comments:

• There's too much money to be made in publishing doomsday analyses. Environmentalist groups and liberal groups are both paying big dollars to researchers who can produce papers that support their political causes.

  By  Steve, at 10:42 PM, April 12, 2006  

  ---

• I cannot believe that human activity is not causing the Earth some distress.
  
  I am not a scientist but I am not stupid. I am a human, the product of millions of years of evolution, and "in tune" with my environment.
  
  Just as these scientists, who may have their own agendas...or not, disqualify human-caused global climate change based on the lack of a clear understanding of planetary processes, they must, for the same reasons, acknowledge that it also could be happening.
  
  Would we gamble our children's future, presuming that "everything is fine", failing due-diligence with regard to preserving our ecosphere?
  
  Even if we as humans are truly having no measurable damaging effect on this planet, we are, nevertheless, a virus. But many viruses grow and incubate, showing no outward signs of infection...until it is too late. Regardless of where we are with respect to global changes, the time is NOW to take action.

  By  Texas-Explorer.com, at 9:12 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• how does "the only joint statement by the UK and USA scientific societies ever" sound you for a consensus?

  By  Anonymous, at 10:03 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• To texas-explorer:
  
  Of course human activities harm the environment. Just think of deforestation, massive oil spills, mercury contamination. The list can go on for some time.
  
  The point of the article is that human induced climate change is not nearly the slam-dunk that environmentalists and political types would have us believe.
  
  The Kyoto protocol may have started out with the most sincere intentions; however, it has been manipulated and re-defined by political considerations to the point of being worthless.
  
  Human-caused changes aren't the only causes of environmental change.
  
  About 15 years ago, a Phillipine volcano, Pinatubo, went through a major eruption. The effects of that eruption had world-wide consequences, albeit minor.
  
  There have been other volcanic catastrophes throughout history, and they have had a far greater effect on the global environment than anything that humans have done.
  
  How about ice ages. Our best information indicates that we live in an "inter-glacial" period, a relatively brief time between major glaciation episodes. Past inter-glacial periods have lasted approx. 10,000 years; ours is about 10,000 years old right now.
  
  There is not one piece of *unambiguous* evidence that humans have a noticable effect on global climate. For each supposed piece of evidence, there is usually more than one potential explanation. For example, the so-called rapid increase in global temperature last century. Was it caused by increased atmospheric CO2 from human consumption of fossil fuels? Or is it the continuing result of the emergence of the global climate from the little ice age? Or is it an artifact of the statistical process used to analyze the data?
  
  All of us need to really think through these issues; we cannot just assume that one point of view is correct, and that all others are wrong. We simply do not know enough about this subject to make informed, responsible decisions.

  By  GlobalWarmingSkeptic, at 11:02 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• I'm with the commenters here who suggest that what's needed is a little humility on our part: we just don't know enough to start spending billions of dollars to "fix" something. If we care about the environment (which I do) money would be much better invested in area where we know understand the science well: preventing air and water polution, for example. Just my 2 cents.

  By  J. Willard Curtis, at 11:14 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• Logic suggests that environmental stability would contribute towards climate stability. It's not rocket science.

  By  Charles Frith, at 11:32 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• I think these matters are indicative of what we really consider important, not just what we say we do. There is too much we are simply not willing to sacrifice.

  By  Anonymous, at 11:43 AM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• Do you have a link? What's the reference?

  By  Dan, at 2:41 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• "Logic suggests that environmental stability would contribute towards climate stability. It's not rocket science."
  
  Maybe a little expansion on the reasoning, please? Are you referring to a static environment/climate? If so, ain't never going to happen. Climate has been changing for a long time before we humans came on the scene, and "logic suggests" that it will continue to do so regardless of our presence, or at least for the forseeable future.
  
  The environment/climate is dynamic; what we call weather is the environment's response(s) to changing conditions.
  
  Problem is, there are many time scales for climate/environment change; from daily to yearly, to century, to millenium, stretching out to hundreds of thousands of years, on to millions of years.
  
  We'd be better suited to controlling what we can (deforestation), managing others (non-renewable resources), and figuring out how to compensate for those things we may never be able to control (hurricanes... ice ages?)
  
  Arguing blindly for something for which there is scant and dubious evidence distracts us from the real problems (like what are we going to do when oil runs out).

  By  GlobalWarmingSkeptic, at 2:51 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• Dan: The story was reported here in the Canadian newspaper The National Post: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605 and in The Telegraph: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/04/11/ecnkyoto11.xml&sSheet=/connected/2006/04/11/ixconn.html. and the CBC: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml
  
  among others.

  By  nasorenga, at 2:52 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• Here are the links supplied by nasorenga in the hot variety:
  
  http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605&rfp=dta
  
  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/connected/main.jhtml?xml=/connected/2006/04/11/ecnkyoto11.xml&sSheet=/
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

  By  Dave, at 5:16 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• Sixty climate researchers call for more research into climate change. Why is this surprising? It would be more newsworthy if they actually rebutted some of the considerable evidence that increase in CO2 correlates both with industrialization and the increase in global temperatures.

  By  fanaticmamba, at 9:33 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• 60 scientists, huh? For every 60 of these, you'll find 600 scientists who disagree. There are "scientists" who promote "intelligent design" too.
  
  Whether it's over-hyped or not, doesn't really matter. The majority of the scientific evidence points to a problem and human activity is at least a part of it. Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution rather than having nature prove you wrong in the future?
  
  This recent acceptance of junk science in many fields is disturbing and will only encourage those with political (and monetary) agendas to push their "facts" into the mainstream even more.

  By  jered, at 10:57 PM, April 14, 2006  

  ---

• fanaticmamba says, "It would be more newsworthy if they actually rebutted some of the considerable evidence that increase in CO2 correlates both with industrialization and the increase in global temperatures."
  
  There is nothing to rebut other than the models which claim to show the correlation.   And that's precisely what they rebut.
  
  You act as if the science behind whether or not carbon causes global temperatures to rise is new.   It isn't.   Not by a long stretch.   It began in the 1800s though it was only brought into the mainstream in the last 40 years.   yet we've never had the technology to test the theory.   Now we have it and we aren't using it because politicians have decided the analysis is over.   But that was before all the climate models which "proved" it were themselves proven to be faulty.   But the politicians aren't listening to that science because the public and the media have become convinced that the sky is falling.   You're the pot calling the kettle black.   We returned serve and it is now your side's turn to rebut.   Goodl luck.
  
  
  --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  
  jered said, "60 scientists, huh? For every 60 of these, you'll find 600 scientists who disagree."   Yes, you'll find 600 as you would find 600 a few centuries back who INSISTED the Earth was flat.   The trouble is these 600 for my 60 are less well respected, less published less established, and often not precisely-speaking climatologists.   Many are biologists and other disciplines who are completely unfamiliar with the leading science on climatology.   Take a look at the composition of the UN's group which makes the loudest noise about global warming.   You'll not find a noted climatologist among them.   They are mostly politically connected scientists (scientists to be sure) but not climate scientists.
  
  jered also said, "The majority of the scientific evidence points to a problem and human activity is at least a part of it. Wouldn't you rather err on the side of caution rather than having nature prove you wrong in the future?"
  
  Point to the science, please.   You're quite wrong.   The only thing you can point to are reports in the media and that UN group's reports which are frequently issued in the wake of resignations by scientists who feel their works are misquoted, misused, and altered for the purpose of making political statements.   Please, please, please take a look at the actual science and make your own decision.   The media is quite wrong and so are you.
  
  jered also said, "This recent acceptance of junk science in many fields is disturbing and will only encourage those with political (and monetary) agendas to push their "facts" into the mainstream even more."
  
  That is exactly what I am saying.   The junk science is controlling much of what we do including this Kyoto Protocol thingy.   The junk science involves ascribing causality to coexistence.   A researcher points to the coexistence of certain gases in the atmosphere and higher global temperatures and we run away yelling that 1 caused 2 while never considering that 2 might have caused 1.   The science is clear about one thing, when global temperatures rise, carbon and methane are released by the environment.   Yet there is nothing proven which says carbon and methane actually cause global temperatures to rise.   Only the AP and other mainstream media outlets have declared that as factual.

  By  Dave, at 1:47 PM, April 15, 2006  

  ---

• And don't miss this article from Investors Business Daily: http://www.investors.com/editorial/IBDArticles.asp?artsec=20&artnum=1&issue=20060413
  
  This reminds us of the words of the New York Times and Newsweek just 30 years ago when they concluded (not postulated) that theworld is "a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average" citing "a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72."   And "global cooling may mark the return to another ice age," that "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" and that it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

  By  Dave, at 5:58 PM, April 15, 2006  

  ---

• I'm not going to get into a "my science is more science-y than yours" debate.
  
  You didn't answer my question about what if you're wrong. Let's imagine that you are right, for a second. Can you explain to me the harm in reducing air pollution? Where is the harm in trying to improve the overall state of our planet's environment? I don't get it.
  
  You should watch this clip from a recent episode of 60 Minutes, with NASA's top climatologist. The guy has been viewed as one of the leading credible minds on the climate for decades.
  
  http://movies.crooksandliars.com/60-Global-Warming-.wmv

  By  jered, at 12:50 AM, April 17, 2006  

  ---

• Not true. He discredited his own models. You should read a bit more often. He has been known since Bush I as being a loose canon in NASA who shares conclusions prior to having his work reviewed. And he IS NOT one of the leading scientists at NASA. He is merely the loudest as in Spinal Tap was known as one of Britain's loudest bands. The man freely admits that he is an extremist. He's admitted it many times in public and before the media.
  
  NASA has long been firm that this man's actions constitute sufficient cause for firing but they don't fire him because they know the media will jump on the event and raise him into what they call a "global warming martyr." They laugh about his "expertise" behind closed doors. 60 Minutes is idiotic for bringing him on as an expert. You are merely easily convinced to cite him as an expert.
  
  Where on Earth did you get the idea this man is one of the leading scientists in climatology? Where on Earth did you get the notion that 60 Minutes is objective?
  
  My advice to youy is always, ALWAYS, ALWAYS read both sides of every story instead of being led like a sheep for sheering followed by slaughter.
  
  The Wall Street Journal tells a different story.   So does Cybercast News Service
  
  While you are at it, check what the "concensus of leading scientists" thought 30 some odd years ago when the polar ice caps were growing and the coming ice age was feared inevitable
  
  It seems the increased ice leading up to 1974 was entirely predictable and should not have raised alarm bells about the coming ice age.   Now we're confronted with the other side of the cycle and still alarmed with temperature variations within an expected normal range.
  
  
  Happy Earth Day, moron.

  By  Dave, at 6:35 PM, April 18, 2006  

  ---

• Ok, this all makes sense now. I can't remember how I found this blog, but it was a direct link cause I didn't see the rest of your writing. Now, since I see you citing WSJ and CNS, I understand.
  
  The rest of your writings are cleverly written to try to sound "moderate" and hide the fact that you're a "dittohead" or wingut.
  
  I HAVE read all sides. The real scientific side and the side full of rhetoric. Citing a scientific opinion from over 30 years ago? Are you just ignoring the light-years of progress science has made in that time? Yeah, I already know. You're just going to turn that around on me and say that 30 years from now, science could say something completely different and say that you're right. But that's exactly what you guys do: bring down science by constantly attacking its credibility.
  
  You shouldn't always believe your issued "talking points." If you ever decide to leave the delusional 36%, the rational majority will forgive you and accept you with open arms.
  
  
  oh yeah, you still haven't answered my question about what is so wrong with the Kyoto Protocol and improving the environment (even if global warming isn't real). I suspect your answer will be some kind of pro-business, money matter. But maybe I'm wrong.

  By  jered, at 12:40 AM, April 19, 2006  

  ---

• jered, I'm going to leave you with the last word.   My reasons are not pro-business.   I'm not pro-business.   I don't trust the bastards!
  
  If I knew anthropogenic greenhouse gas induced global warming were real, I wouldn't advocate Kyoto because if the problem is real, Kyoto does not begin to address it.
  
  Advocating Kyoto is basically like telling someone to eat just a little poison because it may help them feel better. You don't feel comfortable telling them to eat poison because it may kill them.   But you heard eating this particular poison may make them feel better so you'd feel bad not mentioning it.   But you're not really sure about it so you tell them just to take a little.
  
  So let's pretend to address something we're "absolutely sure" is a problem.   Let's tale steps that will result in no measurable impact but which will cost plenty.   That's the height of foolishness.

  By  Dave, at 10:05 AM, April 21, 2006  

  ---

• Why is water vapor,the number one green house gas ignored in this debate? I believe it's because when included it represents about 95% of the green house effect. Mankind does not effect water vapor. It's not sexy. It doesn't sell books nor make careers. Of the gases left, CO2 is latched onto as the big culprit, but yet again the media glosses over the fact that nature produces 94% of this gas, man about 6%. So when the Kyoto protocol sets a goal of cutting green house emissions, that even if met, would only cut 0.004 of total gases worldwide. At the cost of (fill in a stupidly large number). When science is treated as religion, when facts are inconvient, listen for one word: concensus. It is a word at home in politics, not science.

  By  Bob K, at 8:18 PM, April 22, 2006  

  ---

• Why is water vapor,the number one green house gas ignored in this debate? I believe it's because when included it represents about 95% of the green house effect. Mankind does not effect water vapor. It's not sexy. It doesn't sell books nor make careers. Of the gases left, CO2 is latched onto as the big culprit, but yet again the media glosses over the fact that nature produces 94% of this gas, man about 6%. So when the Kyoto protocol sets a goal of cutting green house emissions, that even if met, would only cut 0.004 of total gases worldwide. At the cost of (fill in a stupidly large number). When science is treated as religion, when facts are inconvient, listen for one word: concensus. It is a word at home in politics, not science.

  By  Anonymous, at 8:18 PM, April 22, 2006  

  ---

• To GlobalWarmingSkeptic:
  
  Humans are changing the chemistry of our planet and atmosphere. I stand by me earlier statement.
  
  However, I did not broach the possibility of naturally occuring happenstance. Since you have, I thought I'd jump back in to clarify that I agree with you and I have not missed, nor ruled-out that possibility. We don't have enough data to see it coming.
  
  So, we could actually be having a detrimental effect on the ecosphere while it is at the same moment in time making its way towards the next big planetary era, whatever that might be....Yeesh!

  By  Texas-Explorer.com, at 5:52 PM, April 30, 2006  

  ---

• GlobalWarmingSkeptic
  
  The climate is a inextricably linked with the environment. That's why all those warm fronts are consistent over time and depend on land temperature, origin and direction. So as they are linked it's logical that a conservative policy (conservation) towards the environment will maintain the status quo.
  
  More importantly what is it that YOU will lose through sensible and caring environmental policy that ensures we hand on to our children that which we inherited? Your car, your oil shares, your mineral extraction, Teak Importing?
  
  Given that this planet has made an entire global industry out of something as ephemeral as TV why cant caring for the environment be even bigger business - mutually profitable with a positive output? Just think about that or Newtons 3rd Law if science is more your language.

  By  Charles Frith, at 6:31 AM, May 12, 2006  

  ---

• Looks like this blog has died - as they do.
  I am a medical practitioner who has developed a fascination with this debate (I acknowledge that most would assert that there is no debate)
  I live in New Zealand and would be happy to be a bit warmer - but not at the expense of ecological mayhem.
  I have been struck by the extraordinary degree of ad hominem vitriol that appears on various blog sites re this issue.
  I am a science sceptic in general -particularly wrt to medical science - latest discoveries and latest drugs in particular.
  The human body is a closed system and so is the planet earth.
  Ecology - in the broadest sense of the word is probably as complex and as poorly understood as the human body and nervous system.
  My point is simple - over the 25 years or so that I have been interested in and participated in biomedical science I have been exposed to many instances wherein the prevailing view has been subverted by new evidence.
  Not infrequently I have found myself advising patients that they have been advised wrongly for the preceding 10 or 20 years.
  There are echoes of this in the current debate.

  By  Andrew Montgomery, at 10:20 PM, December 23, 2006  

  ---

Post a Comment
Back to Homepage