E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn the field of climate science, when someone — especially skeptics — did something ethically questionable or misrepresented facts, scientist Peter Gleick was usually among the first and loudest to cry foul. He chaired a prominent scientific society's ethics committee. He created an award for what he considered lies about global warming.
Now Gleick admits that he posed as a board member to get and then distribute to the media sensitive documents from a conservative think tank that is a leader in questioning mainstream climate change science.
And ethicists are criticizing the man who took others to task for what they say was stepping way over the ethical line. The think tank, the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, said it is considering legal action against him.
Gleick, who won a MacArthur genius award and is co-founder of the Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment and Security, was chairman of the American Geophysical Union's ethics committee. He also had a column at Forbes.com where he criticized climate skeptics and trumpeted the resignation of a scientific journal editor who published a disputed study. He admitted Monday night that he solicited and leaked the Heartland documents, writing in a blog post on The Huffington Post.
Gleick resigned from the chairmanship of the ethics panel last week.
"What a mess," said Mark Frankel, head of scientific responsibility for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the world's leading scientific society, which also had Gleick as a panel member on some committees. "It's compounded by the fact that he was chairman of the ethics committee of a professional society. ... It's an ethical morass that he finds himself in."
And Gleick's actions cast unwarranted doubt on the work of other scientists, Frankel said.
Last week, someone identifying himself as "Heartland insider" sent 15 media members and others six documents, purportedly from Heartland. They included a fundraising document, a budget and a two-page "climate strategy." They showed the think tank receiving millions of dollars — more than $14 million over six years from one anonymous man — in big contributions with plans to teach school children to question mainstream climate science. It also showed funding of scientists who are climate-change skeptics.
Heartland said the two-page strategy document was a fake and the others were stolen. The Associated Press, which received the documents along with other news organizations, was able to verify the accuracy of several of the most sensational parts with the individuals named. The documents caused a stir, mirroring the hacking of climate scientists' emails two years earlier from a British research center.
"My judgment was blinded by my frustration with the ongoing efforts — often anonymous well-funded and coordinated — to attack climate science and scientists," Gleick wrote. "Nevertheless, I deeply regret my own actions in this case."
Not good enough, Heartland president Joseph Bast said in a press release: "It has caused major and permanent damage to the reputations of The Heartland Institute and many of the scientists, policy experts and organizations we work with."
The issue is about deception and there are only a few things that could possibly warrant that — and embarrassing Heartland isn't one of them, said Dani Elliott, who teaches ethics at the University of South Florida.
The geophysical union, a scientific society, said in a statement that Gleick's actions are "inconsistent with our organization's values."
Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Leave a Comment:
The name of the "unnamed individual" could not possibly rhyme with "book" I suppose.
Just what was fake and what wasn't? If Gleick lied, let him hang. But if it was all true? Let Heartland swing. I see nothing morally wrong with exposing a systematic suppression of the truth, even if it takes a fib to get the goods. If there was a lie perpetrated by Gleick as to the intent of Heartland, he has done a major disservice to the cause of science.
Well said Dude
if any of this science was actually honest, then they wouldn't have to be so worried about people knowing who paid for the research... wouldn't they?
Although the act may have been a bit out of line for a guy in his position, I see himmore as a whistle blower than anything. Unless he falsified the Heartland propaganda, I have no problem with him sharing their agenda.
It's about time that these kind of groups like Heartland get exposed for what they really are.
If all he did was trick Heartland into giving the real data to him so that he could publish it so what? Cops pretend to be able to broker deals to get confessions, parents pretend to trust their children then search their rooms and check their social network sites, and let's not even go into the whole 50 different religions interpreting God's word the way they want it to be, or even worse an entire religion that covers up crimes against children. Seems to me his "ethical" issue was to do what it took to get to the truth, at least if what he exposed was the truth.
Too many agencies and companies get away with using "morality" to cover their actions, if he exposed a bad one, then good for him.
Allie, the Heartland Institute doesn't do (or fund) research. They're a propaganda outlet that's dedicated to spreading lies. Anything that exposes their chicanery is justified.
Heartland institute is the same public relations institute that was created by the tobacco lobby to convince the public that there were no ill effects from smoking.
These are the clowns were supposed to blindly believe? I dont think so. You dont need to be a scientist to know what BS smells like.
upright1,
It is called identify theft. And California has a new law that could come back to bite Peter Gleick pretty hard.
Can't believe a single word from any of these so called scientists. All of them have an agenda and are willing to fudge data to support that agenda. So much for ethics and objectivity.
Thank you for sharing. I suggest you take a science class and find out how quickly false "agendas" get squashed by careful research. Verifying global warming is not difficult. Convincing people who are proud of their ignorance is.
He will get the case of thrown out of court. I see this as no more law breaking as SNL making fun of political figures. If anything, the courts should fine the groups lack security with a crime of not having any type of ID to back up the defendants claim of identity. Or if that doesn't work for you, what about whistleblowing, even thought they let him in and he wasn't an employee.
But have you noticed that there are more hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, tsunamis? To what to you ascribe these incidents? How much information does it take to make it so that people like you will actually look at reality and not force all of us to look at your GD bibles for information? OMG. I am getting so sick of people who deny science. If you want to deny science, then quit going to your doctor. Your doctor is ALL about science.
Here are several multi-year studies concerning the ice volume of Greenland...
Here is the direct quote from the 13Nov2009 Science Daily article on Greenland ice loss.
"Since 2000, the ice sheet has lost about 1500 Gt in total, representing on average a global sea level rise of about half a millimetre per year, or 5 mm since 2000."
This amounts to 0.05% change in the TOTAL ice mass over a 9+year period. Gt equals a cubic kilometer of water/ice...
Unfortunately the Greenland ice volume has INCREASED 10% during the last 60+years... see http://nsidc.org/data/docs/daac/nsidc0092_greenland_ice_thickness/parca_paper1.pdf
I'll throw out the 10% INCREASE over a 50+year period to worry about a 0.05% LOSS over a 9+year period... Ha! Ha!
Last year there was a massive flood in Thailand...
The prior year there was a massive flood in Australia...
BOTH of these were cause by MAN - mismanaging the flood control systems that were already in place. Both governments released massive amounts of water from their flood control reservoirs during the height of the flooding events...
How about the great China flood that killed 400,000 to 2+million people??? This occurred during the 1800s, when the silt filled 'Yellow River' over flowed its banks. BTY - This occurs every 100+years or so, according to thousands of years of Chinese history...
Or the Bangkok flood during the 1950s, more extensive than the 'man-made' flood that is currently happening... Google this - NO information, but it is in the Thai history books...
OR The US Dust Bowl during the 1930s, more extensive than the current drought in TX...
Or hurricane Hazel during the 1950s. That put a 18+foot wall of water into SC & NC and 100+MPH winds in Canada...
Maybe the SCIENTIST will reference the Australian, Chinese, Thai, floods. After they were seeding the clouds to make rain and released their flood control dams during the worst part of the flood. INCREASING the damage by Aussi & Thai Gov estimates 80%...
ALL of these caused by AGW... Ha! Ha!
More people on the earth, requires people to build in known; flood areas, earth quake and land-slide prone areas...
I have reviewed the abstract offered in your previous post: Apparently you don't know how to read one or are deliberately obtuse when you make the statement that proceeds if to wit:
"Unfortunately the Greenland ice volume has INCREASED 10% during the last 60+years."
This is absolutely incorrect. What the abstract points out is that correct measuring of thickness may have been off to a factor of roughly 10% in light of more accurate methadology for ice pack depth measure.
Distorting the facts to suit your world view is not helpful in this dialogue.
The problem is all data and all results (unless absolute) can be biased or interpreted incorrectly. It depends on the scientists being completely uncaring of the outcome of the experiment.
Sure, but claiming to say a result states a 10% increase in ice volume over a 50 year period is just a flat out lie. The very abstract the poster quoted clearly shows that the 10% increase of volume is a result of sampling and plotting improvements over previous measurements, not an improvement of ice thickness per se.
Troll
heavens2mergatroid,
I concur that the new data has improved the accuracy of the measurements...
But if the multi-year studies are viable with 10% errors, then what is the point of the studies???
Can YOU reference ANY studies where there is other data covering the same period and numerous mutable-year studies that show the ice levels are DECREASING???
The last modern study is only indicating a 0.05% DECREASE over 9+year, and it was taken from a limited sampling area...
A loss of 0.05% over 9+years is not even of stastical significance...
What about teaching kids that our government is now working on weather manipulation? Haarp, Chemtrails? Of course global warming will become false, when one has the power to make it feast or famine on the world at one's leisure.
AC Robertson
Maybe you are looking in the wrong place, 80% of the World's Glaciers are shrinking and have been shrinking for decades. But more importantly Arctic Sea Ice has been declining for decades:
http://www.climatewatch.noaa.gov/article/2011/arctic-sea-ice-continues-decline-reaches-second-lowest-level
kate,
The temperature of the air or water does not cause Tsunamis. Tropical cyclone numbers have trended down for 30 years. The US is currently setting a new record for the longest period of time since a major hurricane has hit the US. The old record goes back to the Civil War. There were more tornadoes last year, just like there were back in 1974. Both years had strong La Ninas, cooler Pacific water. It is the interaction between cool dry air aloft and warm moist air below that fuels storms. I will agree that more people living in more places and more radar has led to better spotting and confirmation of tornadoes. Droughts are actually more frequent and more severe during colder years. Australia was predicted to be facing droughts due to global warming but instead has had record rain fall the last two years. Look up the data.
Eco,
I respectfully suggest you take a look at the implications of H.A.R.P, the phenomenon of chem trails. and statements by China to manipulate the weather for the Olympics. Look up the data.
AC & Heaven,
What are your takes on the Vostok ice core samples showing a naturally occurring cyclic rise in Co2 emissions being in line with current readings?
MajorTom-3246587
FYI - Most of the Glaciers have been shrinking for the last 200 000 years, they started thawing at the end of the last ice age, sure, you want to call that Global Warming then I'll agree, but it has squat to do with man! Good thing too or we would all be in ice caves, but there are still some glaciers growing, how can that happen if everything is warming? As for the arctic in the ice comparison. In the arctic, the scientists do NOT use the term coverage of ice, instead they use Ice Expansion (not the same thing), and if you read the reports carefully they are ALL extrapolations!!! Its misleading terms like this that make their theory try to prove another theory that has also been estimated! Its on NASAs own site for Christ's sakes! The ACTUAL ice coverage had NOT changed much the past 60 years but has dropped slightly more over the past 10, and 10 years is NOT enough to show a TREND!
People seem not to realize the scientific field is specialized. That means that if their field is geology or physics or another field of science, what they know about climate and climate change is not nearly enough for them to cast doubt on scientists who are experts in climate and climate change. These non expert scientists are the ones that fox and others keep trotting out to criticize the scientists who are the experts in climate change. There is not a controversey in the scientifice community other than the ones that are created by those who do not want any curtailment of the income flow. These would be people like big oil and the coal industry. These are the ones who are going to be responsible for deaths on an unprecedented scale, because we are doing nothing to fix the problem. The planet will reach a tipping point and fix it. Then human beings will die in unprecedented numbers. However, if we are dumb enough and selfish enough to allow this to happen......we deserve it.
Wow, you're certainly a happy camper today. I suggest you go outside, take a breath, maybe watch the sunset, while you still can.
The POLITICAL Science from the AGW/global warming scam is coming back and biting them on the A$$.
The mythical global warming ‘consensus’ continues to crumble as top UN IPCC Scientists Turn on the IPCC and are now bailing-out of the AGW sinking ship...
1. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, - Award-winning PhD environmental physical chemist, founding director of the International Arctic Research Center, twice named one of the "1,000 Most Cited Scientists," says much "Arctic warming during the last half of the last century is due to natural change."
He writes of “inaccurate temperature measurements,” including chapters that call man-made global warming fears “the worst scientific scandal in the history” in his book 'Lies and Traps in the Global Warming Affairs'.
2. Dr. Denis Rancourt,- A former Anthropogenic (man-made) Global Warming (AGW) advocate, professor and peer-reviewed environmental science researcher at the University of Ottawa. Physicist Dr. Rancourt, has officially renounced AGW in a June 8, 2010 essay, saying it is nothing more than a contrived imaginery ”myth” — in other words, an elaborate conspiracy. (Rancourt’s e-mail: claude.cde@gmail.com)
3. Dr. Judith Curry, -An American climatologist and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Has been making critical statements about the IPCC and climate science, after working for & with the IPCC for almost a decade. See her heretic piece http://judithcurry.com/2010/10/25/heresy-and-the-creation-of-monsters/
4. Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski,- is chairman of the Scientific Council of the Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection in Warsaw and former chair of the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (1981–82). Dr. Jaworowski--world-renowned expert on the ancient ice cores used in climate research--says the U.N. "based its global-warming hypothesis on arbitrary assumptions and these assumptions, it is now clear, are false."
He has published more than 20 papers on climate, most of them concerning atmospheric CO2. One of the latest - Solar cycles, not CO2, determine climate, 21st Century Science and Technology.
5. Dr. Antonino Zichichi, - One of the world's foremost physicists, former president of the European Physical Society, who discovered nuclear antimatter--calls global warming models "incoherent and invalid."
6. Dr. Richard Lindzen, - Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., member, the National Research Council Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate, says global warming alarmists "are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right."
7. Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu, - (Professor Emeritus, University of Alaska) professor of geophysics since 1964. Dr. Akasofu has published more than 550 professional journal articles, authored and co-authored 10 books. He sincerely advises us‚ ‘When people come to know what the truth is about AGW, they will feel deceived by science and the scientist involved.'
For a book containing the hundreds of other prominent scientist that deny the AGW myth.. see http://yhst-7134682615375.stores.yahoo.net/the-deniers-the-world-renowned-scientists-who-stood-up-against-global.html
The ONLY settled science is - The Earth CHANGES, man can either ADAPT or become EXTINCT...
Energy conservation and minimal environmental impact, should be the GOAL of EVERY HUMAN...
Lindzen is an infamous oil industry shill, AC Robertson. And before that he shilled for the tobacco industry to insist that smoking is healthy. The man can't be trusted at all.
And why does your list contain so many non-climatologists? A geophysicist or a chemist isn't the first person anybody rational would go to for an opinion about climatology, any more than you'd go to a climatologist to ask about astrophysics. It'd be like going to your auto mechanic for dental work. It's ridiculous. But of course, non-climatologists are a staple of lists like yours alleging mass defections from the scientific consensus on global warming. After all, virtually everyone who's actually done scientific research in the field has confirmed global warming with their own data.
But since anybody with a PhD, regardless of their climate expertise or lack thereof, stands to make big bucks from oil and coal companies if they say anything to cast doubt on global warming, quite a few non-climatologists have been willing to do exactly taht.
Calvinius, you seem to have a gross misunderstanding of how science works. A geologist may not be a climatologist, but if the geologist knows that the Medieval Warming Period was both real and significant, and sees that climatology models completely ignore it, the geologist can (and will) criticize climate science. If an astrophysicist who specializes in computer modeling looks at the climatology models and sees they have little to no validation, he can (and will) criticize climate science. If a statistician, or any researcher that works with any kind of statistics anywhere, looks at climatology reports and sees the reported changes are within the statistical error ranges, he can (and will) criticize climate science.
Your analogy of a dentist and a mechanic is BS. It's more like going to your pediatrician and asking them about the cancer treatment you're getting. He may not know all the details, and may not be up on the latest treatments, but if the prescription is for 'crocodile tears', I think he can identify the BS.
Smith that the most ridiculous thing I've heard today. An astrophysicist would not be messing with another field source code. Such hypothetical BS. Why would you ask a pediatrician? Really? Another dumb analogy.
Smith and Robertson,
You are going to believe whatever you want, science is different. Making an argument that AGW is not true because several experts in unrelated areas of investigation say so is ignorant of the process that reaches conclusions in the scientific method. The scientists who study AGW almost universally agree that AGW is real and important. AGW has been decided. Get on board or get out of the way. Find another issue to criticize, you have lost.
You could look into the truth of the assertion that the Earth is more like a ball than like a piece of paper. That one is still being discussed, right? Billy Graham's mistake says it is as flat as his kitchen table, he has measured it. Doesn't that prove it?
The 2 sides will never agree....except to interpret the data in opposite directions. This article is about the hypocrisy of a supposed expert in his field...it is just another example of the dishonesty of modern science and lack of following true scientific method. If one reads John Muir's writings a person gets a whole new perspective on global warming which has been ongoing since the end of the last Ice Age and the glaciation of most of the Northern Hemisphere. I can prove almost any hypothesis to my own satisfaction using only the data which supports my belief and ignoring any contradictory data. Both camps do this...thus, my original statement. Let's have honest discussion...remember the best science of the 1970's predicted another cooling period....are we so arrogant to believe that any branch of science has it ALL now!?
The primary author of an oft-cited study supporting Algore's View of Earth is Dr. Peter Doran. His study is one of the scriptures in the refrain, “There is a consensus among climatologists.” Education: B.Sc., Trent University; M.Sc., Queen's University; Ph.D., University of Nevada-Reno. The degrees are in Geology and Hydrology, but not assigned. His co-writer was Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. She was one of his graduate students. Can't find her degrees - but no Ph.D. Not a “climatology” degree in the lot. Go figure.
So does UIC have a "Climatology" major? Nope. Closest thing is Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering.
I could go through every single paper presented as proof of Algore's Earth View written by "climatologists" searching in vain for a "climatology" degree. Not there. The reason is because the very first such degree program in the world took students in just 2001.
Continue reading on Examiner.com What is a 'Climatologist,' precisely? - Philadelphia Conservative | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-philadelphia/what-is-a-climatologist-precisely#ixzz1ogsG3a6R
Those guilty of fudging data and developing plans to teach their false "science" to school children and spread their propaganda abroad to the public using an anonymous big-time donor's money don't refute what was obtained by Gleick. They are just mad at him because he got the information and then released it to the press to show what scoundrels the so-called scientist were doing at Heartland. Heartland deserved to be exposed for what they are--liars. That doesn't mean that Gleick didn't violate some ethical standards but what Heartland was doing is far, far worse. They, for political reasons, were simply spreading lies as "scientific" fact to achieve their warped purposes. So, I just slap him on the wrist and say "Good for you!"
Actually, bhonest, they are refuting the original report that Gleick claims was delivered to him. They're saying its complete BS and he probably wrote it himself. There are experts analyzing it from both sides.
While Dr. Gleick has been forthcoming in admitting his guilt (such as it is), the Heartland Institute is certainly no better. Yes, Dr. Gleick broke some serious rules, and many can argue about his judgement. But keep in mind the context...Many of the climate-change skeptics didn't raise much of a ruckus when emails were leaked about the disagreement of climate science researchers. And none of those scientists threatened to sue or imprison bloggers who dispersed these emails, as Heartland and its legal thugs have done. (And this isn't hyperbole...Heartland and its legal team actually emailed cease-and-desist orders, along with a half-hearted denial).
Dr. Gleick will no doubt have to live with his actions. As to his opponents...considering what they do for a living, I imagine they will have no problems sleeping at night, if you get what I'm implying.
You miss the bigger point. AGW predictions, like all predictive models, are based on somebody's projection of past data and by definition are highly biased. Since you cant actually observe the future, you have to judge the work based largely on the credibility of the scientists and things like just completely wipeout credibility. There's a long standing history in science that recognizes that if you feel the need to fiddle your results, then you're admitting that your results are weak.
I'm not missing anything...and I won't play ostrich. It's not like climate scientists are using crystal balls or ouija boards...these are observations based on hard science and contextual models, in essence some of the same things used to make weather forcasts. And the fact is climate IS shifting due to anthropogenic change...pollution (including greenhouse emissions), deforestation, and urban heat islands certainly are having their effect. We can ignore it at our own peril, but there is a reason "I told you so" is a popular rejoinder. Hopefully that won't be our species epitaph.
Well put Wm.
Peanut you don't seem to know anything about how climate science work, but hay vote yourself up one!
"Hello, kettle? This is the pot. Yer black."
What is the question here? Who is the biggest liar? Well, it's Heartland. I don't blame him, he is an intelligent man who had to take meetings with the biggest liars on earth, 1% corporations and their owners, so I'd call this exposure a 'white' lie and necessary for the good of the 99% rather than Heartland's 1%. Heartland is a K Street offshoot, like Santorum, and should be shut down. The term 'Think Tank' is a complete oxymoron when the 'thinking' is all about lying to further the polluting progress of corporations while stifling the voices of those that are attempting to illustrate the toxic aftermath of these 'projects' and prevent sickening thousands of people in the process along with poisoning the environment to the point where it is unrecoverable in the next 100 years, i.e. not within my lifetime and MAYBE within my childrens lifetime as long as it's not nuclear waste with a shelf life of 25,000 years, estimated.
Just an example of today's 1% and their GOP Puppets:
Occupy Wall Street Arrests = 700+
Wall Street/Banker Arrests = 0
Costs to date for WS/Bankers = 2 Trillion
Mortgage 'Settlement' cost to WS/Bankers = 25 Billion
wow...amazing how you get to occupy wall street from that!
yep, let's shut down every think tank we disagree with! meanwhile i'll enjoy the ever-increasing life expectancy of the human race, which flies in the face of everything the environmentalists have been saying for 45 years, and you can go live in a cave, far away from nasty modern life, and live in a perfect communal society with all the other soap-challenged protestors.
Except that the life expectancy is based on using medicine and technology, which they are now finding isn't exactly increasing the QUALITY of life, just the QUANTITY. You may have people living longer - but you also have much more Altzheimer's, Diabetes, Heart Disease, allergies, cancers and so on that there never was before. Some of the things killing us may be attributed to our lifestyle (more processed food, obesity, sedetary lifestyle, and more carcinogens), and others may be attributed to our boredom because almost everything is being automated. Honestly, we COULDN'T go live in a cave because we could never survive without our computers, cars, supermarkets, and so on. Global warming may not be as bad as some of these scientists make it out to be, but something IS happening that backs up what they are saying. Do you really want to risk it by questioning them like Santorum is?
jimmy is on send. They are not a true think tank.
Please google the "science experts" listed on their website. You will find that none of them have anything in their background to qualify them to speak on climate change. You will also find that they have always been in the pocket of corporations that are major contributors to the climate problems. Basically, they are whores selling themselves to the highest bidders. You know, like most of our politicians.
Dr Michael Mann's Penn State climate group, one of the renowned climate experts based his research on the growth rings of the UK Oak trees...
Even after the scientist that did the original research on these growth rings. Had stated that you could not base the reported findings on these growth rings...
For other escapades by Mann and other reliable Experts... see http://www.c3headlines.com/hockey-stick-science-empirical-bogosity/
Morass or MoreofanASS, more the latter than the former
I suggest the real problem is that 1.) Any scientist who questions manmade global warming is subjected to, not just criticism, but intimindation, ridicule, and loss of income/career, and 2.) Research grants, promotions, and selection to prestigious boards and fellowships are all tied to the political correctness of accepting manmade global warming as a fact. There is plenty of evidence to support the assertion that manmade global warming is not happening and that debate should be settled on facts, not by shouting down one's opponents.
Exactly what is your evidence that it's not happening? Do YOU really understand what the climate change really is?
Climate change has been occurring for billions of years and it will probably continue to change for billions of years in the future. Humans use of fossil fuels is most likely the reason for the majority of CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the last century. The rise in CO2 levels may have a part in climate change but that has not been proven. Historical data that I have seen appears to indicate that a rise in temperatures causes CO2 levels to increase but not the other way around. The entire green house gas theory is in question. Even if you do believe in the green house gas effect, the primary green house gas in the atmosphere is H2O and not CO2. I also do not believe that the primary gases in he atmosphere, N2 and O2 are thermodynamically inert. I think that the effects of human caused CO2 on climate are relative small compared to all of the other possible causes, like the sun, the earth, the oceans, and human land use. Our observation window has been too small to make such a determination. I think that there are many reasons for us to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels but global warming is not one of them.
The problem with your claim is that none of this is true.
If such evidence is to be found, then provide it. The reality is that the evidence to support manmade global warming is overwhelming, and the evidence supporting any alternate explanation for the current warming is nonexistent.
And that's why global warming deniers prefer to use the term "climate change" instead of calling it global warming. Saying "climate change" makes it sound like it's part of the same natural cycles that have been occurring throughout Earth's history. But it's not.
Often claimed, but only partially accurate. It's true that a rise in temperature can cause CO2 levels to increase. But this is followed by the increase CO2 levels causing the temperature to increase even more. Which is followed by more increase in CO2, and more increase in temperature. It causes a feedback loop, until some other climate-influencing factor breaks the loop. Which can take a very, very long time. (If nothing does happen to break the feedback loop, well, Venus has a surface temperature of nearly 900 degrees; enough said.)
The reason this happens is that there's a lot of CO2 trapped in the oceans. If they're warmed sufficiently, that CO2 starts to escape. As they get warmer, even more of it escapes. This has happened several times in the past, and if we ignore the current warming trend, we run the risk of causing the next such feedback loop ourselves.
No, it's not, because CO2 being a greenhouse gas is as much a "theory" as the fact that humans need to breathe oxygen. It's been thoroughly proven in numerous lab experiments, and scientists were well aware of the greenhouse effect long before global warming became an issue.
That much is true, but there's something you're overlooking. Water vapor doesn't accumulate in the atmosphere the way CO2 does. When water vapor builds up, it falls back down to Earth as rain, snow and hail, and thus the level of water vapor stays pretty much the same over time. CO2 has no similar mechanism to fall back down.
Plants use it for photosynthesis, of course, but they're already processing as much CO2 as they're capable of. When you add additional CO2 to the atmosphere, it's not as if the trees can kick it up to a higher gear and turn even more CO2 into O2.
It's not about which greenhouse gas has a stronger effect, it's about which one is being put into the atmosphere in greater amounts. Even a relatively small increase in CO2 levels can have a significant impact, because any heat trapped by that CO2 will be on top of the heat trapped by the water vapor and CO2 we already had in the atmosphere. The effect is cumulative.
The sun is abnormally cool right now, and has been for over a decade. No explanation for the warming trend there.
Meaning what, exactly? Earth is warming itself? By what mechanism? This isn't a gas giant. It doesn't produce the kind of heat needed to impact its own atmospheric temperature.
In the sense that the oceans contain a lot of CO2 that warming from other causes can release, as I mentioned above? Maybe. But if that's already started to happen to any significant, we're pretty much screwed.
Somehow I fail to see how that's warming the atmosphere.
I would say that global warming is the single most important reason to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.
The best evidence is how the politicians behave on this subject. A few years ago I watched a House hearing led by Boxer (I think) and they witnesses for and against-- fair right? NOT! The against guy didnt get one question and all the questions to the 'pro' guy were in the 'leading question' form of "would you agree that...... ". And this behavior was from all the dems on the panel. They know how weak the data is so they they felt the need to control the witness responses through these leading questions.
There are studies that show that relatively recent air temperatures are not correlated well with CO2 levels, weakly correlated to solar irradiance, and strongly correlated with ocean temperatures. The sun warms the oceans which operates as a giant nonlinear thermal capacitor. It can take hundreds of years for changes in solar irradiance to fully effect ocean temperatures. Conduction and convection causes lower atmospheric air temperatures to correlate with ocean temperatures. Ocean currents cause the oceanic thermal capacitor to be non linear. Ocean temperatures can on the average appear to be increasing at the same time the solar irradiance is decreasing. Solar irradiance is a function of not only solar outputbut the earth's albedo as well. More than just correlation analysis, transfer function needs to be done on what historical data exists to better estimate possible mechanisms but to my knowledge such analysis has yet to be performed. There is a fairly strong case for higher temperatures to cause CO2 levels to increase but the idea that CO2 causes additional warming is speculation. For much of the data, such as satellite based data, that we are currently obtaining the time window is too small to ascertain climate change and to differentiate climate change from weather patterns. I do not believe that there is enough information to rule out the idea that human generated CO2 is effecting the climate but there is no proof of it either.
The theory of the green house gas effect was developed more than 150 years ago and then supposedly debunked experimentally about 100 years ago. The theory seems to be rather poorly defined and because of that is hard to both prove or disprove. I read a paper that claimed that the theory violates laws of thermodynamics but I for one was not convinced. There have been rebuttals. I am not aware of any experiments nor theoretical developments based on first principals that prove the theory.
Over the last century both temperatures and CO2 levels have been on the rise but a causual relation between the two may be a matter of chance correlation. Computer models employed 20 years ago have failed to accurately predict today's temperatures so the models have had to be modified accordingly. I know that some of the models are fairly elaborate but some of the assumptions that they employ tend to beg the question regarding global warming. If the model uses the assumption that increased CO2 levels cause average temperatures to rise then that is what the computer simulation results will show as well.
Anybody that can read should take a good look at the post by Calvinius. His response to the main line criticisms posted by Will Haas is as good as it gets to make the point. Haas's response seems a little desperate and not very convincing. Let's let the science based experts determine the conclusions from the data that form policy, not the politically and economically based critics with an obvious, biased position to defend.
Climate change or global warming or what ever the so called scientists are calling it this month to get govt grants.............LIARS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Go read a book. You might find some of them at the library. It is a place where people go to learn things. I know it is not a natural act for you, but you might try it sometime. Turn off your Faux News tv channel and git you some book lernin!
You've been doing research? Try doing research that ISN'T connected to the GOP rumor mill. If it's not happening, then why are other countries independently reporting the same phenomenon? Global warming isn't something the Democrats cooked up, ok?
But dems used "natural selection" through govt grants to make sure it was the only side that prospered. And that extends the foreign aid conditions for "adapting." The 3rd world also knows what they have to do to get US money.
Peanut, a little paranoid there? I sense you are somewhat disconnected from the scientific process. That is OK, you dont have to be educated, but if you have chosen not to get an education, please give up your voting rights as well. What we do not need right now is policy made by the ignorant.
Republicans, funded by oil interests, will be the downfall of our nation. There is no Satan, unless "he" is drenched in oil.
The nation has already begun its downfall ~ it's called globalization.
You got it all wrong kate ... it's pathetic political aholes like you that will be the downfall!
Speaking of "political aholes," how do you like the current Republican position on the Bush years! LOL Current support for Republican policies run in the low 20% range. The rest of us have enough brains to see what the real political a-holes are up to. Greed, selfishness, power, and disinformation. Get it?
BTW,if you cannot come to grips with the current, DULY ELECTED president is doing, you can leave! I am sure there are plenty of places in the world that would love to have a right wing extremist emigrate. Uh, cant think of one right now, but I will try to come up with one soon. Oh, yea, Israel! Go to Israel, they would love to find you a nice little Palestinian home to steal.
Dream on. Government grants are very difficult to get, particularly now. A scientist who wants to sell his soul for research money can get a lot more from private enterprise.
Sorry, this comment was doubled, and I'm removing the second.
Karma...well, you know what they say. It is always the ones that protest just a tad too much isn't it?
Even Al Gore - The person who cast the deciding vote for corn based ethanol subsidies to big oil...
Has stated that Ethanol Bio-fuels are a bad idea...
Your point? Ethanol biofuels have nothing to do with global warming.
but but but, that was the solution that was going to save us...... <sarcasm>
No, sarcasm, it was just one step in the attempt to reduce the negative impact of an out-of-control, corrupt oil industry that is strangling us for profit. Simple, even for the simple minded.
I'm behind Gleick 100%. The method he used to obtain the documents was wrong, but nevertheless, he did the right thing. He felt he had to show the world just what was going on, and he did! Bravo Prop!!! You did good! I just hope you are not one of those republicans, they look bad enough already.
Heartland's only reputation was as a front for big money conservatives to act a though they knew more than money-grubbing. Not much to defend.
Anytime there's no clear cut formula and numerous different derivitives are used in collecting and analyzing data where each researcher or scientist has a different agenda or theory, there will never be a clear cut beyond a doubt scientific conclusion on global warming or climate change. When this happens nobody has ethics.
Goodbye and good riddance Gleick.
Forget the politics. What about the Science? It first comes down to either proving or disproving the green house gas theory. It would appear to me that the green house gas effect is at best poorly defined. Clearly the green house gas effect has nothing what so ever to do with how a green house actually works. Some claim that the green house gas effect violates the laws of thermodynamics and was debunked a century ago, but the effect seems so ill defined that it is hard to prove or disprove anything regarding it. Temperature increases that were predicted decades ago with simulation models have not occurred so models have been changed or adjusted to give less strength to the green house gas effect. It is hard for me to believe that CO2 is some magical gas that controls our climate even though there is so little of in the air and according to green house gas theory H2O is responsible for most of the green house gas warming that is suppose to have occurred. I cannot believe that N2 and O2 are thermally inert and have no effect on the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. I am just trying to find the truth.
Follow the ENERGY, it does not just disappear. Heat/energy is only transmitted by three methods; Radiation, Convection, and Conduction, not DESTROYED, only converted into another energy form...
If the additional atmospheric CO2 is reflecting the suns energy, the world would be much cooler. It would also be reflecting man-kinds energy back to earth. Because man-kind only produces/converts 1/12,000 of the total average energy that the sun supplies to the earth, every day...
If the additional atmospheric CO2 absorbs the suns energy or the energy from mankind. Then the atmosphere would have a hot spot, somewhere. NASA & NOAA are still looking for this occurrence...
The sun's energy can not just radiate through the atmosphere without effecting the atmosphere. And it is either absorbed by the earths surface/plants/water or reflected back into space by the clouds or earths surface...
Currently the 'wild card' is the heat being radiated back into space from the Pacific Ocean. This massive amount of heat loss has a direct effect on the La Nina, El Nina, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and their effects on the World's jet streams and weather patterns...
Energy is transferred to the earth from the sun via radiation. The earth in turn reflects and radiates energy back into space. If human caused increases in atmospheric CO2 are actually causing a significant reduction in the radiation output of the earth then humans will have caused global warming. I have yet to find theory that proves that this is case. The data window has been much too short for any gathered data to prove the case either. I think that there are many reasons to be reducing our dependence on fossil fuel but global warming is not one of them. In some respects I wish it were the case but I have yet to see adequate theory or data to prove it either way. The issue lately has become almost a religion so I will probably be hated by all sides for my ideas.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The physics and chemistry of the greenhouse effect are well understood and fully defined. Willful ignorance is not an excuse.
Anybody who claims that is not a scientist. They're either ignorant or a quack. Or both.
Clearly it does. In a greenhouse (and your car) - the light comes in through the glass, warms up the surface of whatever is inside, and the resultant heat is then trapped inside (partially) by the glass. The energy (heat) radiated back out through the glass is less than the energy (light) which comes in - causing the interior temperature to progressively rise as light continues to stream through the window. "Greenhouse gases" work much the same way.
A green house works because the glass stops the flow of heat out of the green house by convection. Green house gas theory is based on energy transfer by radiation. It has nothing to do with convection.
And yet for very basic illustrative purposes - the analogy should be sufficient.
I'd be able accept Global Warming theories more seriously if the snake oil salesman most associated was someone who didnt claim he invented the internet and portrayed his segregationist pappy as a progressive. Al Gore is one of the MANY reasons I got off the crazy train and chose to vote just to defeat,the party of the plantation and the KKK.
fity...2 questions:
1.) Where has mr. methane himself - al gore been since "climate gate" exposed all the manipulated, faulse and withheld data?
2.) And since you voted for the current progressive-socialist Pres. we're better of now after 3 yrs and nearly $5trillion in more debt?
Slide 6,
He voted Republican...
The KKK was a Democrat ONLY Club... Ask Sen Robert Byrd - D/WV...
Global warming and greenhouse gases effects are true, e.g. severe thunder and hail storms which may be too much CO2 up onto the sky and rare weather and ice melt and the change of the ocean water temperatue.
Billie - you must have been driving behind al gore and breathing in too much of his methane. It's natural, cyclical climate change, plain and simple. However, it's hard to make MILLIONS of dollars in profits on "natural" changes in our earth's climate.
Please develop the green house gas effect from first principals and supply a precise definition of what it actually is. It has been aledged that such has not been done yet. I have yet to see a precise, unambiguous definition as to what it is. Do you know of any experiments that prove the existence of the green house gas effect?
Yeah - it's called "Venus"
The warmth of Venus has nothing to do with CO2 per se. Solar irradiance is so much more and so is the insulating effect of its many times thicker atmosphere.
And I never said that it had anything to do with CO2 "per se" - there are many substances that can effect the same change. The point of a "simple" analogy is to provide a simplified illustration that highlights the concept that one wishes to convey; it is not meant to be representative of every single process involved (it would then no longer be simple). I know of no one that is under the delusion that the world is a simple place.
Yes - the insulating effect of the Venusian atmosphere (primarily CO2 and Nitrogen - two of the primary chemicals in our own atmosphere) plays a pivotal role in the planet's temperature - and without solar radiation, the planet would not be hot at all. However - since well over 50% of the solar radiation hitting the atmosphere of Venus is reflected back into space - it does not play as significant role as it does on Earth. Also - the Venusian atmosphere is not thicker than Earth's - it is however far more dense. As more carbon is converted into CO2 and released into the atmosphere here on earth - our atmosphere also becomes more dense. Methane released from permafrost and a warming ocean also contribute to making our atmosphere more dense - as do gases released by volcanic eruptions, forest fires, and innumerable other processes.
Since many of the same processes effect the temperatures on both Venus and Earth - I hold with the legitimacy of my comparison. The fact that the two planets are not exactly the same does not invalidate the comparison any more than a comparison of internal combustion processes in a Plymouth Barracuda and a Mazda RX-7 could be said to be invalid by virtue of the cars themselves being different.
Even though the gravity of Venus is only .9 that of earth the surface pressure is 92 times more than it is on earth. The insulation effect of the atmosphere on Venus must be much higher than it is on earth. There is no vaporisation of water and condensation into clouds to help carry heat from the surface to higher up in the atmosphere like on earth. CO2 comprises only about .038% of the earth's atmosphere. Human cconversion of O2 to CO2 has a totally insignificant effect on the thickness of our atmosphere and, for that matter, its effective thermal resistance. Other gases such as methane are even more trivial.
Perhaps a different analogy would better illustrate the concept. Think of the greenhouse gases as being a blanket around both the Earth and Venus. Solar radiation plays a pivotal role on both planets; but, since the blanket around Venus is more dense (more efficient), it holds on to heat better. Even though the atmosphere of Venus reflects more radiation, it is more efficient at holding on to the radiation that it does absorb.
On Earth, more solar radiation is absorbed; but the lower efficiency of the blanket allows more of that heat to escape back out. As more "greenhouse" gases are released into the atmosphere - we are in essence increasing the efficiency of our blanket - increasing the ability of our atmosphere to hold onto the radiation that our planet absorbs.
Fluctuations in solar activity will naturally result in variations of the amount of radiation that is available to be absorbed - however, in and of itself - it has little effect on the "efficiency" of the blanket. So in periods of high solar activity - more radiation is absorbed, and a more efficient "blanket" will hold on to the heat even better. This simply means that variations in solar activity are felt more strongly on earth than on Venus; but, as the blanket surrounding us becomes more efficient, the variations have less of an impact (relatively speaking). Of course it would take an awful lot to reach the point where Venus is now (and we would be long gone by then).
So the point of the term "greenhouse gases" comes from the fact that solar radiation is still able to penetrate them and hit the surface of the earth, while the gases themselves act to make our atmosphere more efficient at holding on to the heat we receive.
The point of trying to ameliorate the human contribution to climate change is not to try and stop change from happening - that would be impossible; it is merely an attempt to give us more time before we reach the point where the earth's natural processes kick in to high gear. We can only attempt to put off this point - not prevent it.
Just like farming and industry have an insignificant effect on water quality? Just like production of SO2 from burning coal had little effect on acid rain levels? Just like building cities have little effect in creating heat islands? Just like so many other results of human activity that are supposed to have little to no impact on nature? Get real.
I agree that there is nothing that we - as humans - can do to produce a major change to the system that is the Earth. We can never make the Earth into a Venus - we simply could not survive in significant numbers - for a significantly long enough period of time to effect such a drastic change. However, a seemingly insignificant change can indeed upset a delicate balance. While the "system" Earth is not so delicate, the variances in which we can survive is so small that a minor change (to the Earth) - undergone rapidly - can have a significant effect on us. Yes, the human species can survive an ice age; yes, the human species can survive the climatic opposite of an ice age; but while the human species itself will be able to survive, society as we know it can not survive a quick climatic change. Look at the problems we already have dealing with the relatively minor affects brought about by changes in weather patterns.
But, I did not post with the intention of debating the merits of AGW - I can not say that I fully believe in the concept myself (to many variables to consider for me to wrap my simple little mind around). You asked for an example of the greehouse gas effect so I provided one.
Then we agree, the atmosphere works to insulate the earth. By one definition of green house gas all gasses in the atmosphere are green house gases because they are all thermally active. All gases in the atmosphere are involved in insulating the earth. The atmosphere itself does retain some heat for a time but the big heat capacitor that effects both climate and weather are the oceans. The question is whether the change in CO2 that is being caused by man's use of fossil fuels is having an appreciable effect on the insulating properties of the atmosphere. There have been arguments on both sides of this question but I have seen no proof either way. Another consideration is radiative transfer. If an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere causes the earth to radiate less to space than that wouldcause the input and output radiation of the earth to be out of balance. Under these conditions, the upper atmosphere will warm until the input and output radiation are again in balance. A warmer upper atmosphere will cause a reduction in heat flow from the lower atmosphere to the upper atmosphere so the situation will have an insulating effect. I have heard arguments both ways in this regard but at this point I cannot tell you which is right. I have not seen any proof that CO2 is a magical gas that controls our climate.
We do indeed seem to be in agreement in this regard. Yes, all gases in the atmosphere are in effect "greenhouse gases;" It is merely a matter of relative effectiveness. The heavier a particle is - the more dense our atmosphere becomes when it is introduced into the atmosphere, and the greater the insulating effect (in a very simplistic model of course).
Yes the oceans play a much bigger role in thermo-regulation, and it takes much more energy to raise the temperature of water than it does "dry air." Part of the climatic model of AGW is very likely due to a larger percentage of moisture in the warm air which would further increase the insulating efficiency of our atmosphere.
Although I may not be fully convinced of the AGW concept, I do not oppose the measures that the supporters are proposing to combat the supposed effects - for entirely different reasons. America has a long history of leading the world in adopting society changing technologies - industrialization, transportation, telecommunications, electronics, medicine, and space travel to name a few. We have historically been on the leading edge in the development and adoption of these life changing technologies; yet for some reason we are fighting tooth and nail NOT to have anything to do with the next major paradigm shift.
We no longer have a leading role in many of the areas that we used to - this normally would be fine; "Leading" involves moving onto the next big advance when the opportunity presents itself. So, letting others take over the production of older technologies is fine - as long as we remain ahead of the curve by moving on to the next big thing - yet we are not doing this. We have become to complacent - to content to rest on our past accomplishments. We whine at the loss of our former glory - yet we refuse to remedy the situation. It's as if we think that we have done enough and that the rest of the world should be damn thankful for us having done what we did. We seem to want to just sit back and enjoy our past, and we are annoyed that the rest of the world wants to continue to move forward without us. To hell with that! If we want to continue to be seen as a leader, we need to continue to actually lead. Corporations don't want a major change; because, it costs to change. Consumers don't seem to want to change; because it costs to change. But, in the long run - the costs of not changing are going to be far more damaging to our economy than the costs to lead.
The space program is a prime example of our seeming lack of desire to put serious effort into maintaining a leadership role. With the collapse of the Russian space shuttle program, we were in an excellent position to take advantage of a near monopoly in the field; but, instead of increasing our efforts there, we have continually handicapped NASA by reducing their budget - year after year. We pissed away yet another opportunity.
"Green" technology looks to be the next big technological "boom" (whether we want it to be or not), and we seem to want no part of it. At the rate we are going, the next "Silicon Valley" is likely to be some valley in China, and no amount of whining about it is going to change that fact. I feel that we are willfully making ourselves into a "second world" country. We are fast becoming technologically irrelevant on the world stage; and if we continue on our present path we will eventually become economically irrelevant as well.
So, if what the "warm-earthers" want to do will kick our asses out of our lassitude, self-pity, and self-indulgence - get us back to work, I am all for it. We can not afford to continue in our current lethargic state. We must actively seek to retake our leadership role - the future of our country depends upon it.
Rick,
Both Venus and Mars have the same amount of CO2 in their atmospheres. Both are around 95% CO2. One has a very thick atmosphere with an atmospheric pressure higher than Earth's. One has a thin atmosphere with an atmospheric pressure that is lower than Earth's. Venus is hot, Mars is cold. Please explain how the same amount of CO2 (95%) makes one hot and the other cold? Remember, you are saying that the greenhouse effect (CO2) is why Venus is hot. Please tell me how the same greenhouse effect (CO2) makes Mars cold.
Well, it's quite simple. 95% of 100 is 95; while 95% of 1 is 0.95 - the same percentage, yet a HUGE difference in the amount. So the same percentage does NOT equate to the same amount. Do you think that you could survive breathing on Mars if Mars happened to have the same percentage of oxygen as the earth? No, because regardless of the percentage - the total amount available would not be sufficient to sustain your life. The CO2 in the martian atmosphere is not what makes it cold; it is the fact that there is not a sufficient enough amount of ANY gas in the atmosphere to retain the heat (among other reasons).
As I probably said before, I think that there are many reasons why we should be reducing our dependence on fossil fuel but human caused global warming is not one of them. In some respects I wish it were because it would add more motivation to developing alternative energy sources but I do not think that the science is really there. Games like cap and trade are a big waste of time and money. If we are going to support the development of alternate energy sources we should do it directly. However accumulating massive debt is not a good idea either. I estimate that for any new money that the federal government is borrowing, it will end up costing the tax payers 9 times the amount borrowed to pay it all back in 170 years. Paying 9 times the going rate for goods and services is not a good idea. I am actually a big supporter of home based solar power because it reduces the use of fossil fuels and it makes users of it less dependent on large centralized utilities.
I am saddened by the end of the space transportation system. I think there should have been a follow on, a shuttle 2 that made use of the lessons learned from the first space shuttle. It seems that we are throwing away so much that was developed in terms of both personnel, facilities, and know how. Yes I am very biased in this regard having once worked for a company that was involved in building the Space Shuttle even though I did not work on it directly. I am an engineer and have had to deal with control systems, radiation transfer in the atmosphere, heat transfer, analysis of data, system and environmental simulation, related software development, and system design on a regular basis for more than 40 years.
Will - that is precisely why I am for the things that AGW proponents are calling for - regardless of whether or not AGW is actually real. Like you - I would prefer that direct support be given to "green" technologies; but, there have been people trying to do that since the first energy crisis 40 years ago - yet here we are. We're doing to little and it's fast becoming to late (economically not necessarily with regards to climate). Cap and trade may not be the most efficient way to accomplish the goal; but, it's better than doing nothing (which pretty much sums up what we are now doing).
Cap and trade itself is not a bad idea - it worked when the first president Bush utilized it to reduce SO2 emissions. In my mind, the point of it would not be to actually reduce CO2 emissions so much as prompt energy compan(y)ies to invest in alternative energy sources. They are not going to invest if they don't have to.
I had one discussion with a person who actually had a small business producing wind energy; he talked about how the big electric companies in his location lobbied to get special taxes levied on the alternative energy producers to make the electricity they produce more expensive. If a system such as Cap and Trade were put in place - I guarantee you that they would not be looking to actually increase the cost of producing a form of energy that they themselves might have to start producing. We need to support these small businesses (of all kinds) and stop bottle feeding the big companies. We could double or triple (at least) what we invest in alternative energy technologies if we stopped the subsidies to large energy businesses - they are already making huge profits, we don't need to continue giving them money as well. And the best thing is that it wouldn't cost us a penny more than what we are already giving away! I can't remember the exact numbers - it was last summer when I was in this discussion.
As far as the spending goes - I'm right there with you! I HATE the thought of increasing our debt. But, there is truth in the old adage that "it takes money to make money." Yes, it will be expensive now - much more expensive than it would have been 40 years ago; but, it will be much less expensive than it will be in the future. The problem is that we can't just simply wait until the economy gets better - we have been doing that for 40 years. When the economy is doing good - there is no political will to change (no use rocking the boat). The longer we wait, the more of a lead we give other countries - and the more expensive it will be to take the lead again. Did you realize that about 30% of the new major alternative energy projects that the US now builds is being bought from the Chinese? We have American companies closing up shop and moving to China because the Chinese are more "supportive" of their business. Many American oil companies were put out of business in the 80's when OPEC dropped the price of crude lower than we could produce it domestically - they prospered, we suffered. Japan did the same to us with steel - subsidizing their own steel companies so that they could sell steel here in America at a lower price than American companies could produce it - they prospered and American businesses suffered. China is doing the same with solar energy - subsidizing their companies so that they can underbid foreign companies - and cornering the market in the process. America needs to quit pussy-footing around and start playing economic hardball with these other countries. Stop helping foreign businesses and start helping our own. I consider huge multi-national corporations as being a foreign business since they have no particular allegience to the US. We need to concentrate our efforts on small American businesses who actually rely on America for their profits.
If it mollifies your worry any - the debt under FDR was 120% of GDP (to get out of the depression) and we were largely out from under it in less than 20 years. Last I checked we are still under 100% now - so we have a ways to go before we get that bad. But! (and it is a big "but"), the importance lies in how we spend the money - we need to spend it in a way that actually helps us get back on our feet. There are many ways that we can accomplish this; however, the political bickering between the GOP and the Democrats has largely made much of what we have already spent less effective than it should have been. It is important to spend the money actively "promoting" growth - not simply sustaining the country on life support. And we need policies to support this growth as well - things like eliminating tax loopholes from huge corporations that allow them to shuffle around money to avoid paying taxes, tax incentives to companies that actually employee Americans rather than ship jobs overseas, etc.
There are many things that we can do - unfortunately, we aren't doing any of them. And doing nothing isn't going to get us anywhere any time soon. If we can't manage to get ourselves to move forward any other way - then I say, "go ahead with Cap and Trade." It will bring local jobs to Americans, prompt businesses to invest in more cost effective ways to produce clean energy, start the ball in the right direction to ween us off of foreign oil, cut into China's share of the "green technology" market, and generally help us get back on our feet.
So go AGWers - keep providing that motivation!
How is it that MAN made change is affecting the other bodies in our solor system? When they can explain that I will believe them, maybe. Even Pluto is warming and it is a long way from here. Mars is warming, but I guess that is because of the rovers? But wait there are no rovers on Io. Do you suppose that since almost all of our heat comes from the sun that it just might have something to do with it? Naw that is not possible. The simple answer is often the correct answer. Adapt or die is still the law of survival. I do believe we should clean up our act and take care of this planet, but there is no need to get completely silly about unproven theories that do not work without constant adjustments. We already know that they faked data at Angelina to make the models work. We know there was and is a conspiracy to suppress dissent from being published. True believers must have hated the ones who leaked those e-mails from the Man made weather hoaxes. Those who believe in man made weather have a mind like a steel trap that is rusted closed and nothing can get in. Man made weather is now a religion and their dogma must be defended against all heresies.
And true deniers must hate the leaking of the documents from Heartland - no wait - those documents must be fakes! Care to provide links to data proving that Pluto and Mars are warming? Sorry Dan - I just don't buy into glabal conspiricy theories. I can't buy into the fact that governments around the world would invest so much money just to enrich Al Gore.
Lucy, he will be back, just as soon as he is able. But we all hope you will not!
Will Haas,
Your posts remind me of a story I read long ago about a lifeboat filled with temporary survivors of a major ship wreck. In the lifeboat were a bunch of rich cruise patrons and a few crew members of the ship. When the life-boat starting sinking, the patrons argued that there was no problem since an island was in sight. They wanted the crew members to just row harder. The crew told them that if they did not bail the boat, they would never reach the island. Being self-styled "scientists," they refused saying there was no proof that bailing would help. The patrons demanded to just sit since they had paid big fares to be on the ship to begin with.
The life boat sank just a few hundred yards from safety. All drowned.
I believe that there are many reasons to be reducing the use of fossil fuels but global warming is not one of them. In many respects I wish that it were because it would add motivation to develop alternate sources of energy. But from what I have read so far on both sides of the issue the science is just not there. Simulations performed 20 years ago predicted significantly more warming than we have been experiencing. I think that the burning of fossil fuels has caused CO2 levels in the atmosphere to increase but I do not think that it really effects climate. I feel that humans land use may actually have a larger effect. The climate has been changing for billions of years. The historical data is not an adequate measure of how rapidly climate changes have taken place in the past. It is hard to differentiate between weather cycles and true climate change. The time window over which we have been taking accurate data has been too short to determine whether changes that we are currently experienceing are man made or natural. From the data that I have seen, air temperatures are most correlated with ocean temperatures. The ocean acts as a huge, nonlinear, thermal capacitor, with an effective time constant of hundreds of years or longer that is why the temperature data that we have taken may not tell us what is really going on. To follow your anology we should bale the water out of the boat no matter what and all hands need to help in survival necessities. There may be an island out there but before we start rowing we need determine where it is. Fossil fuels are finite and it is becoming increasingly costly to obtain them. Humans have caused CO2 levels to rise but we do not really know what the consequences will be. An underlying major cause of our environmental problems in growth in population and over time what we are experiencing today is unsustainable. We must realize that the world is finite and overpopulation can result in disasters of epic proportions. To follow your analogy the boat's capacity to take on water before it sinks is finite. There is not another island earth within reach that we can swim to to save our life.
Climate change was a lab coat consultant's wet dream!
Meanwhile, the entire WORLD of SCIENCE and the UN had allowed carbon trading to trump 3rd
world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just
over 26 years of INSANE attempts at climate CONTROL.
Science poisoned the planet originally with their pesticides
that they denied for decades as being dangerous, so science made
environmentalism necessary in the first place. It’s not a crime to say climate
change is real when it can't be proven either way. It was a consultant's wet
dream and I promise history will call its followers end of the world freaks,
and superstitious omen worshippers. “I see the signs. I see change….”
And everyone has an opinion.
PS, it was not science that spread pesticides all over the globe, it was Agri-business! It was not science that developed the propaganda that said everything was peachy-keen about the use of those pesticides, it was the marketing departments of that Agri-business. Get a grip on what you are saying, please.