CLICK FOR TODAY'S CARTOONS

Monday, January 16, 2006

Some Realism in the Global Warming Controversy


In a previous post I showed definitive evidence that the increase in destructive hurricanes that devastated our southeast coast for the last two years were a naturally reoccurring phenomenon and had absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gases or global warming. Now recently our socialist comrades had a conference in Montreal on global warming where the main subject seemed to be the castigation of the USA for not supporting Kyoto. Even our Canadian friends, who have managed to exceed their Kyoto commitments by 26% had only words of scorn for the United States. Perhaps if they had paid some attention to the facts presented in the study below, they would have spent less time criticizing us and patting themselves on the back, and more time doing something realistic about reducing the burning of fossil fuels. Even though we are in the camp of those whose attention to facts leads us not to get very excited about greenhouse gases, we still greatly favor the reduction in fossil fuel use by every practical means for health and environmental reasons.

The best way to reduce fossil fuel use is entirely obvious given the recent publications of the actual minimal environmental destruction caused by Chernobyl and at Three Mile Island. By far the safest and least detrimental effect of any power generation source (other than windmills) on human health and the environment is nuclear power. Unfortunately the same people clamoring for adherence to Kyoto tend to be the same people who lobby actively against any expansion of clean nuclear power. As the US Senate voted 95 to 0 against Kyoto during the Clinton Administration, Kyoto is dead and should be buried.

The vote on the part of the US Senate, and the position taken by most conservatives also, is supported by many studies by renowned scientists. For example the following study presents an important analysis of the relationship between greenhouse gases and global warming. I have presented just the Abstract and Conclusion. You can see the entire study by clicking here. I have also included three of the many graphs contained in the full report.

Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, SALLIE L. BALIUNAS, WILLIE SOON, AND ZACHARY W. ROBINSON
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, 2251 Dick George Rd., Cave Junction, Oregon 97523 info@oism.org
George C. Marshall Institute, 1730 K St., NW, Ste 905, Washington, DC 20006 info@marshall.org January 1998

ABSTRACT
A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th Century have produced no deleterious effects upon global weather, climate, or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates. Predictions of harmful climatic effects due to future increases in minor greenhouse gases like CO2 are in error and do not conform to current experimental knowledge.

SUMMARY
World leaders gathered in Kyoto, Japan, in December 1997 to consider a world treaty restricting emissions of ''greenhouse gases,'' chiefly carbon dioxide (CO2), that are thought to cause ''global warming'' severe increases in Earth's atmospheric and surface temperatures, with disastrous environmental consequences. Predictions of global warming are based on computer climate modeling, a branch of science still in its infancy. The empirical evidence actual measurements of Earth's temperature shows no man-made warming trend. Indeed, over the past two decades, when CO2 levels have been at their highest, global average temperatures have actually cooled slightly.
To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign. Greenhouse gases cause plant life, and the animal life that depends upon it, to thrive. What mankind is doing is liberating carbon from beneath the Earth's surface and putting it into the atmosphere, where it is available for conversion into living organisms.

Rise In Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

The concentration of CO2 in Earth's atmosphere has increased during the past century, as shown in figure 1 (1).

Figure 1: Atmospheric CO2 concentrations in parts per million by volume, ppm, at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.


Figure 2: Surface temperatures in the Sargasso Sea (with time resolution of about 50 years) ending in 1975 as determined by isotope ratios of marine organism remains in sediment at the bottom of the sea (7). The horizontal line is the average temperature for this 3,000 year period. The Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Optimum were naturally occurring, extended intervals of climate departures from the mean.



Figure 6: Satellite Microwave Sounding Unit, MSU, measurements of global lower tropospheric temperatures between latitudes 83 N and 83 S from 1979 to 1997 (17,18). Temperatures are monthly averages and are graphed as deviations from the mean temperature for 1979 to 1996. Linear trend line for 1979 to 1997 is shown.
Copyright 2001 © OISM

The key issue in the global warming controversy revolves around Carbon Dioxide gas. No-one can seriously dispute that it's level is increasing substantially from the burning of fossil fuels to generate electricity and to power internal combustion engines. This is detrimental to the environment, but has little to do with global warming - a naturally occurring phenomenon.

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

9 Comments:

At 7:53 AM, Anonymous bob said...

THIS IS BIASED SCIENCE FUNDED BY POLITICALLY MOTIVATED ORGANIZATIONS AND FOUNDATIONS WITH OIL INTERESTS.

Do some hunting and beware if you see the words "sound science" because that usually means "industry shills lying to protect the interests big business".

So let's cut through the BS here and "follow the money" - as usual, unquestioning acceptance of any information, just because it happens to support one's position, doesn't make it the TRUTH.

The research cited is funded by:

Sarah Scaife Foundation
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=3

and

The Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
http://www.mediatransparency.org/funderprofile.php?funderID=1

among others. Just cut and paste the links above into your browser bar and make your own conclusions.

THIS ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN IS TRANSPARENT TO ANYONE WHO CAN READ AND CLICK A MOUSE, and can distinguish truth from fiction.

There is no need to even cite the supporting counterpoint information. Just type "climate change nobel" or
"climate change consensus" or "climate change science" in your search bar and you'll see what's going on.

Unless you think almost every other country on the planet and the overwhelming majority of respected scientists with some integrity left are all lying for the fun of it. I guess that's possible, but pretty unlikely.

Seriously, how can one justify this position? What is the process of self-delusion that makes this possible?

Especially when one realizes the long-term impact of the position. Everyone knows the negative impact of pollution and burning fossil fuels. At every level of life on this planet burning fossil fuels has a negative impact.

So why not reign it in?

DUHHHHH. Follow the money. The only reason is to protect the interests of big oil and other industry polluters who would be negatively impacted.Why should the whole world, including the grandchildren pay for their entire lives because their parents and grandparents were too greedy or too blinded by their own agendas to acknowledge the TRUTH?

If an individual actually cares about the planet, about wildlife, about future generations, this position is simply untenable and hypocritical in the extreme.

 
At 9:26 AM, Anonymous steve said...

I agree Bob. I have also argued this point in vain here on this site. Why the continued denials and why such serious effort into painting this as legit is beyond me.
This goes right along with the denials that cigarettes cause cancer. In fact, it goes right along with denials of the earth being round and the Sun revolving around the Earth.

However, I CAN accurately report that there is one tree actively growing in downtown New York. Obviously, this is proof that trees worldwide are in no real danger. Further, this is proof positive that no real global warming threat exists. In fact, I saw a polar bear on TV. Enuf said.

 
At 10:16 AM, Anonymous Joe said...

A couple of months ago, John Kerry came to Taunton with his pal Ted Kennedy during the damn crisis, and said; "This administration in Washington is the direct cause of this problem due to their refusal to address Global Warming." "I know this to be true because I can feel it in my bones." Maybe we can donate Kerry's bones to science and figure out all our environmental problems. Hey Senator, if you can hear me over there in Afganistan, how about taking a nice long walk among your terrorists buddies? Science is waiting patiently for you.
Joe

 
At 11:35 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

We will keep addressing the facts as well as we can. Wikipedia is not a particularly reliable source on liberal vs conservative issues.

 
At 12:36 PM, Anonymous Mason said...

To Bob & Steve:

Steve, if you look closely at that article you forwarded to me and read it carefully you'll find it speculation pure and simple. There is no question that the climate is warming and the statenment in the article that 'this global warming is likely to be due to man" is it's own admission that this is pure speculation. It also mentions that what he is saying is theory... Anyone can speculate but to prove a point requires alot more rigor than contained in that article...just an unsubtantiated shot to attack your advisaries

 
At 5:15 PM, Anonymous bob said...

Once again, missing the forest for the trees, the entire debate is simply SMOKE.

The issue is taking care of the earth. It's a good idea. Period.

Yeah, it's getting hotter. And 99% of the world that doesn't have it's head in the sand or listen to "sources" like Rush Limbaugh agrees why.

Aw, who cares what those silly Nobel Laureates think, anyhow.

Adios.

 
At 5:55 AM, Anonymous steve said...

Regarding Wikipedia - You apparently missed my point. The very reason I went there is I figured their summary might have a better chance of representing an unbiased summary, a consensus. I could have gone to National Wildlife, Nat'l Defense Resources, Arbor Day, WWF, Greenpeace, saveourearth.com...you would have dismissed them as too biased just like your sources are.
The fact is that the overwelming majority of scientists believe this to be true and only a handful of dissenters. That is not proof of fact but IS a strong arguement.

Like Bob's point above, and I've tried to make this point before...common sense says if you are burning all these fossil fuels that emit co2 AND you are chopping down 50 trees for every one you plant, it's going to catch up with you. Not that I'm a proponent of Kyoto per se, but of a common sense approach to dealing with these problems rather than continue to deny the poroblem even exists. I know - Lets just call it the clean skies initiative, that should sell some tickets...just like "no child left behind". I cannot understand this denial.

 
At 7:16 AM, Blogger RussWilcox said...

I don't think you and Bob really read my piece. I said, even though there is no valid evidence of significant man-made warming, we must adopt a program involving mainly nuclear to reduce greenhouse gases, which are obviously harmful to man and his environment. See tomorrow's post for more. As to Wikipedia, it is good for undeniable fact-checking, but not for an issue like this.

Sunday, December 11, 2005 - 12:00 AM


Wikipedia prankster confesses
By Katharine Q. Seelye
The New York Times

It started as a joke and ended up as a shot heard round the Internet, with the joker quitting his job and Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, suffering a blow to its credibility.
A man in Nashville, Tenn., has admitted that, in trying to shock a colleague with a joke, he put false information into a Wikipedia entry about John Seigenthaler Sr., a former editor of The Tennessean newspaper in Nashville.
Brian Chase, 38, who until Friday was an operations manager at a small delivery company, told Seigenthaler he had written the material suggesting Seigenthaler had been involved in the assassinations of John and Robert Kennedy.
Seigenthaler discovered the false entry only recently and wrote about it in an op-ed article in USA Today, saying he was especially annoyed that he could not track down the perpetrator because of Internet privacy laws.
His plight touched off a debate about the reliability of information on Wikipedia — and by extension the Internet — and the difficulty in holding Web sites and their users accountable, even when someone is defamed.
In a letter to Seigenthaler, Chase said he thought that Wikipedia was a "gag" Web site and that he had written the assassination tale to shock a co-worker, who knew of the Seigenthaler family and its illustrious history in Nashville.
"It had the intended effect," Chase said of his prank in an interview. But Chase said that once he became aware through news accounts of the damage he had done to Seigenthaler, he was remorseful and scared of what might happen to him.
Chase also found that he was slowly being cornered in cyberspace, thanks to the sleuthing efforts of Daniel Brandt, 57, of San Antonio, Texas, who makes his living as a book indexer. Brandt has been a frequent critic of Wikipedia and started an anti-Wikipedia Web site in September after reading what he said was a false entry about himself.
Using information in Seigenthaler's article and some online tools, Brandt traced the computer used to make the Wikipedia entry to the delivery company in Nashville. Brandt called the company and told employees about the Wikipedia problem but was not able to learn anything.
Brandt then sent an e-mail message to the company, asking for information about its courier services. A response bore the same Internet Protocol address that was left by the creator of the Wikipedia entry, offering further evidence of a connection.
A call by a reporter to the delivery company Thursday made employees nervous, they later told Seigenthaler. On Friday, Chase hand-delivered a letter to Seigenthaler's office, confessing what he had done, and they talked at length.
Wikipedia, a nonprofit venture that is the world's biggest encyclopedia, is written and edited by thousands of volunteers, and mistakes are expected to be caught by users.
Chase wrote: "I am truly sorry to have offended you, sir. Whatever fame comes to me from this will be ill-gotten indeed."
Seigenthaler said he "was not after a pound of flesh" and would not take Chase to court.
Chase resigned because, he said, he did not want to cause problems for his company. Seigenthaler urged Chase's boss to rehire him, but Chase said this had not happened.
Seigenthaler, founder of the First Amendment Center, said that as a longtime advocate of free speech, he found it awkward to be tracking down someone who had exercised that right. "I still believe in free expression," he said. "What I want is accountability."
Copyright © 2005 The Seattle Times Company
Go to source: The Seattle Times: Wikipedia prankster confesses

 
At 8:00 AM, Anonymous steve said...

Like Bob says - more smoke and mirrors...Like your article. Critique of the Wikipedia post 1)misses the point and 2) criticism of the site in general because there was one famous prankster case? Shame on you. Would you have rather I post commentary from Earth justice or Greenpeace or some similiar org?

Chernobyl??? Are you kidding? I've posted on this subject also. The harm done beyond belief, the recovery time beyond human measurement, yet you are going to count only the people who died? Selective use of INCOMPLETE facts. Count the birth defects. Count the people living in misery. Count the environmental damage. You are blinded by your insistance that your original position was and still is correct. And you are wrong. To call your post "Realism on Warming" is frosting on your poorly mixed and unbaked cake.

I corrected one of the lines in your post - Even though we are in the camp of those whose attention to "selected" facts....

 

Post a Comment

<< Home