One of my favorite magazines is New Scientist. Despite their pro-evolution and pro-global warming position, they digest and present what’s going on in science very succinctly. In the recent issue, they present a Guide to Climate Change which includes 26 "myths" around global warming (GW) which they attempt to debunk. Of course, they are unashamedly on the non-skeptical side of this argument, and present some of the standard responses to skeptics like myself.
Interestingly, though, in An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change, former EDITOR of New Scientist Nigel Calder recently called for skepticism, and bemoans the lack of it in the current debate. He’s also written a new book entitled The Chilling Stars: The New Theory of Climate Change. I have excerpted his article below, adding my own headings.
1. Saying "the matter is settled" is not science
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
2. The current politicized science of GW hurts science and causes contrary data to go unreported
Twenty years ago, climate research became politicised in favour of one
particular hypothesis, which redefined the subject as the study of the
effect of greenhouse gases. As a result, the rebellious spirits essential
for innovative and trustworthy science are greeted with impediments to their
research careers. And while the media usually find mavericks at least
entertaining, in this case they often imagine that anyone who doubts the
hypothesis of man-made global warming must be in the pay of the oil
companies. As a result, some key discoveries in climate research go almost
unreported.
3. What contrary evidence?
- Enthusiasm for the global-warming scare also ensures that heatwaves make
headlines, while contrary symptoms, such as this winter’s billion-dollar
loss of Californian crops to unusual frost, are relegated to the business
pages. - The early arrival of migrant birds in spring provides colourful
evidence for a recent warming of the northern lands. But did anyone tell you
that in east Antarctica the Adlie penguins and Cape petrels are turning up
at their spring nesting sites around nine days later than they did 50 years
ago? - While sea-ice has diminished in the Arctic since 1978, it has grown by
8% in the Southern Ocean.
4. Awkward questions for GW alarmists to answer
- Why is east Antarctica getting colder? It makes no
sense at all if carbon dioxide is driving global warming. - The best measurements of global
air temperatures come from American weather satellites, and they show
wobbles but no overall change since 1999.
5. Is the sun really the main actor here? Still the best answer
That levelling off [of temperature] is just what is expected by the chief rival hypothesis,
which says that the sun drives climate changes more emphatically than
greenhouse gases do. After becoming much more active during the 20th
century, the sun now stands at a high but roughly level state of activity.
Solar physicists warn of possible global cooling, should the sun revert to
the lazier mood it was in during the Little Ice Age 300 years ago.
Climate history and related archeology give solid support to the solar
hypothesis. The 20th-century episode, or Modern Warming, was just the latest
in a long string of similar events produced by a hyperactive sun, of which
the last was the Medieval Warming.The Chinese population doubled then, while in Europe the Vikings and
cathedral-builders prospered. Fascinating relics of earlier episodes come
from the Swiss Alps, with the rediscovery in 2003 of a long-forgotten pass
used intermittently whenever the world was warm.
6. The IPCC changed it’s tune on the role of the sun – but was it due to data, or ignoring data?
What does the Intergovernmental Panel do with such emphatic evidence for an
alternation of warm and cold periods, linked to solar activity and going on
long before human industry was a possible factor? Less than nothing. The
2007 Summary for Policymakers boasts of cutting in half a very small
contribution by the sun to climate change conceded in a 2001 report.Disdain for the sun goes with a failure by the self-appointed greenhouse
experts to keep up with inconvenient discoveries about how the solar
variations control the climate.
7. It’s not the sun’s brightness, but cosmic rays that are probably the chief GW actuator
The sun’s brightness may change too little
to account for the big swings in the climate. But more than 10 years have
passed since Henrik Svensmark in Copenhagen first pointed out a much more
powerful mechanism.He saw from compilations of weather satellite data that cloudiness varies
according to how many atomic particles are coming in from exploded stars.
More cosmic rays, more clouds. The sun’s magnetic field bats away many of
the cosmic rays, and its intensification during the 20th century meant fewer
cosmic rays, fewer clouds, and a warmer world. On the other hand the Little
Ice Age was chilly because the lazy sun let in more cosmic rays, leaving the
world cloudier and gloomier. […]they were able to show that electrons set
free by cosmic rays coming through the ceiling stitched together droplets of
sulphuric acid and water. These are the building blocks for cloud
condensation. But journal after journal declined to publish their report;
the discovery finally appeared in the Proceedings of the Royal Society late
last year.
8. What should we do, in light of the evidence? Less arrogance, more science.
Where does all that leave the impact of greenhouse gases? Their effects are
likely to be a good deal less than advertised, but nobody can really say
until the implications of the new theory of climate change are more fully
worked out.The reappraisal starts with Antarctica, where those contradictory temperature
trends are directly predicted by Svensmark’s scenario, because the snow
there is whiter than the cloud-tops. Meanwhile humility in face of Nature’s
marvels seems more appropriate than arrogant assertions that we can forecast
and even control a climate ruled by the sun and the stars.
"With so much at stake, it is right that climate science is subjected to the most intense scrutiny. What does not help is for the real issues to be muddied by discredited arguments or wild theories.
So for those who are not sure what to believe, here is our round-up of the 26 most common climate myths and misconceptions."
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed
For the life of me, I can't understand why xians deny the obvious fact of GW. Do they hate the earth? Do they hate life?
yes
For the life of me, I can't understand why xians deny the obvious fact of GW. Do they hate the earth? Do they hate life?
I think most Christians don't deny global warming, but consider the alarmist claims that GW is a man-made phenomenon scientifically suspect.
Furthermore, to proclaim that Christians hate the earth and life only illustrates an unwillingness to present what you know to be true (i.e. that Christians do not hate the earth and life) and brings into question your ability to objectively view facts about other things, such as GW.
Ironically, your own hyperbolic claims about Christians proves that at least some man-made GW advocates (which I can only assume you are based on your response) are prone to intentional exaggeration.
"…but consider the alarmist claims that GW is a man-made phenomenon scientifically suspect."
I believe the same about smoking and the "supposed" link with lung cancer. :P Anyway, I still recommend doing your own research away from religious/political blogs of any kind.
Hi Josh:
You are right to complain about broad brush smears against Christians (or anyone else). But I have to say that when it comes to science I place more weight on the testimony of the major scientific groups than on a single and possibly idiosyncratic interpretation of the data. Most scientists who study climate believe that human behavior is a significant cause of the amount of global warming we've experienced as of late so I'll go with that. Alarmism? How do you measure exactly how much to be concerned? No political figures (for example Al Gore) have advocated a return to the stone age or anything. Prudent and cautious reduction of the materials that most scientists say has adversely affected the climate seems like common sense to me. That oil companies can find some scientists to disagree with the majority doesn't seem all that different from what cigarette companies did for years.
your friend
Keith
I agree with Keith. I am stunned that xians would just completely ignore the dire warnings that are coming our way about the state of the earth's environment. Aren't you supposed to be stewards of the earth? Why do you just reflexively support big business in this matter? Is profit to rule over everything? After we've killed the oceans, cut down or burned the forests, destroyed habitat, exploited or wiped out all the other species…turned the beauteous nature into gold…what will we have left? I would seriously think that xians would be in the forefront in opposition to this rapacious destruction of our environment for profit and greed if one would believe their propaganda.
Oh, wait…it's christians we're dealing with – virtually a synonym for hypocrites! Xianism has always allied itself with the powerful, the wealthy, the rich, the predators, the destroyers. It hates the earth because it hates life: this world is evil and soon to pass away. Only the fantastical afterlife matters. I well remember James Watt, the arch-reactionary Reagan's Sec. of the Interior, betraying his trust in the name of PROFIT because he thought Jesus was coming soon, so why bother to practice conservation? And, of course, he represented the Conservatives, the Republicans, the business lobbies, the Christian cultists. What a bunch of toads.
disgusting
Cin, did you not notice that I linked to that same list of items in my opening paragraph?
"Cin, did you not notice that I linked to that same list of items in my opening paragraph?"
Actually, no I didn't. Kudos to you, and I mean that, for presenting the information that scientists are very concerned about. I'm concerned too.
What I found interesting is, here is NS printing this pro-GW stuff, and lots of it, while the former editor of the same mag is disagreeing and promoting a new book. Makes me wonder why he became "former." Was he ousted due to his views, or did he quit, or what?
Actually, upon wikipediaing Nigel Calder, I found that he left NS back in 1966, and has had a prestigious science reporting career since then. While a GW skeptic, his not being at NS preceded the GW crisis by decades.
"pro-GW stuff…"
It's not something one can be "pro" or "con" about, left wing or right wing about, Christian or secular about. Scientists are reporting their data and it is what it is.
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/columnist/story/0,…
It's not something one can be "pro" or "con" about, left wing or right wing about, Christian or secular about. Scientists are reporting their data and it is what it is.
Actually, this perspective is part of the problem. To say it is beyond debate is not science, it is polemics and politics.
By pro, I mean pro-crisis, and pro the other assumptions and conclusions that are disputed. Facts are selected and interpreted, and I accuse the global warming alarmists (pro) of ignoring contra indications, stifling honest (and dishonest) scientific dissent, and making unsubstantiated claims based on the assumptions hidden in their computer models.
Perhaps pro and con are not the right prefixes. How about alarmist and rational climatologists?
BTW, the quote you provide is more evidence of mockery and derision intended to squelch debate, not to mention the fact that the number of scientists refusing to go along with the panic is growing, and no longer insignificant unless you are trying to stifle them and buttress your point with rhetoric rather than answering the claims of these scientists.
The whole thing stinks of ideological fanaticism and politics polluting science. It's shameful.
Reread the quote above.
I read it. If you read my last post on global warming, you may remember that one scientist explained that the "consensus" of the IPCC was not really to be taken as authoritative. He argued that it was largely a political statement. And that "consensus" is being bucked by many respected scientists.
It used to be the scientific consensus that the speed of light was infinite. But contra-indications soon brought this idea down. The same is and will continue to happen with the panic surrounding gw.
In fact, I may need to add Global Warming Panic to my list of humanity's enemies (along with abortion and Islam), since it is already diverting billions of dollars and national priorities away from real problems.
And I stand by my claim that the use of the pejorative "imbecility" is one of those indications that arrogance and abandonment of reasoned discussion are increasingly the hallmark of the GWA crowd.
"…since it is already diverting billions of dollars and national priorities away from real problems."
Like Jenna Jameson.
Regarding Global warming, the data is what it is. It's getting hotter. You can't change it. When you take an ideological position on this topic it's akin to taking an ideological position against gravity because gravity costs people millions of dollars in broken glassware.
Seeker said:"…did you not notice that I linked to that same list of items in my opening paragraph?"
To be honest, I didn't notice it either.
Kudos to Seeker.
(Still, it's kinda wierd that Seeker AND Cineaste should refer to the same web-site.) :O
No one is doubting that it is getting hotter. The doubt comes in the next claims
– how fast?
– by what mechanism?
– is it a natural cycle?
This is where GWAs start crying that the sky is falling and we are to blame. But their panic, not to mention their faith that we are the prime cause, is dubious. But not if you are a believer. GW is not a problem, even if things are warming. We should adapt to these natural, changing conditions.
Sure, you wanna reduce pollution, be my guest. But don't funnel billions of dollars away from real, pressing problems.
It's a manufactured crisis.
it's kinda wierd that Seeker AND Cineaste should refer to the same web-site.
It's because I don't just read what "my side" is saying. Not all science is contaminated by pharma or petrol monies and philosophical (Darwinist) junk science. New Scientists is a nice digest, and easier to read than MIT's journal.
"GW is not a problem, even if things are warming."
I think any fair minded person would agree, this is a stupid and irresponsible thing to say. Environmental collapse which results in droughts, famines, floods, mass extinction, is no big deal to you. Sicko.
"…it seems to consist of a competition to establish the outer reaches of imbecility."
But Louis, you are engaging in the kind of broad brush criticism of Christians (as if Christians were of one mind about GW). I am a Christian and I think GW is a problem and so do a lot of evangelicals
your friend
keith
Keith is right that there is not a unified Christian front on global warming. You can find genuine, Biblical Christians all along the spectrum of global warming. Louis, you and others often get upset at lumping all gay people together or Cineaste with lumping all atheists together, yet constantly Christians are present as this monolithic force out to destroy all opposition and science. That just not close to the truth.
I am skeptical about man-made global warming. Seeker has brought all types of information here from dissident scientists to global warming on Mars, etc. and about all that happens is Cineaste begins calmly talking about the scientific consensus, then he goes to anything opposed to it is not science, then it comes to the final point of calling someone a "sicko."
Seeker's point was that if this is a cyclical thing, not a man-made event, then it is no big deal because it happens and has happened through out our history. The last global warming period in the Middle Ages helped the earth because it increased fertile areas and allowed more people to grow more crops.
We should investigate and continue to monitor global warming. We should do what we can to reduce pollution. (One way that nobody wants to talk about is nuclear energy – seems to me to be the most effective and "green" source of energy we have.) But we should not overreact as people did against DDT, which had all but eliminated malaria. However once it was banned because of environmentalist groups, malaria flared back up and according to the CDC kills more than 800,000 children under age five every year. That's the type of overreaction and emotions-driven response that needs to be avoided.
It brings back up the point Keith made about war – we have to consider the unintended consequences. It's something both sides should evaluate. It's not as simple as "Do they hate the earth? Do they hate life?"
"Seeker's point was that if this is a cyclical thing, not a man-made event, then it is no big deal because it happens and has happened through out our history."
Earth's entire 6,000 year history? Seeker is sick, Aaron. He has no regard for how global warming will impact people and the ecosystem. Think about drought. Here is a picture of what drought can do…
drought 1
drought 2
Mix drought, some war and you get famine. This is absolutely horrific. I am filled with a helpless rage when I see images like this knowing all the while that we can expect this many times over as global warming gets worse. All the while you guys wander about oblivious to what 90%+ of the world's scientists are warning. Seeker has to be sick because no one can either be so stupid or so uncaring that he thinks the Earth's warming "is not a problem." Such lethal ignorance is criminal. God damn it, how do I reach you guys? How do I make you understand all other issues we face are secondary to Global Warming. Not to be trite, but how do we save ourselves from ourselves? Your ignorance leads me to despair about our chances. It makes me so sick that it's not really going to be us that suffers from Global Warming, it will be future generations: your daughter's daughter and my daughter's daughter. What kind of a legacy is that?
And, how frustrating it is on a post that debunks global warming myths and misconceptions you both go ignoring the very links Seeker posted?
"It's something both sides should evaluate."
This is what's happening…
Think about this…
If ever you meet one of these people, I suggest you ask them the following questions: 1. Does the atmosphere contain carbon dioxide? 2. Does atmospheric carbon dioxide influence global temperatures? 3. Will that influence be enhanced by the addition of more carbon dioxide? 4. Have human activities led to a net emission of carbon dioxide? It would be interesting to discover at which point they answer no – at which point, in other words, they choose to part company with basic physics.
Use this to help if you get stuck: http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth…
Have I gotten though to you and Seeker? Of course not. This has just been a waste of time and effort. Why do I even try anymore?
I am filled with a helpless rage when I see images like this knowing all the while that we can expect this many times over as global warming gets worse.
You'll be filled with more helpless rage when you realize that you were wrong about the human contribution to global warming, and when you think about the billions of dollars you wasted on it instead of spending that money on digging wells and other ways to help the poor, you'll be beside yourself with self-loathing at your stupidity.
Have I gotten though to you and Seeker? Of course not. This has just been a waste of time and effort.
Not at all, because I gave evidence of the fact that MANY major players, former GWA supporters, are now changing their minds. It doesn't matter that political ideologues with science degrees claim there is a consensus, when I see evidence of a growing non-consensus.
I don't doubt the consensus because I am a dullard, or politically motivated. I see all kinds of red flags that indicate to me that global warming catastrophism is a politically biased spin on the data. I see evidence of arrogant fanaticism, refusal to engage smart scientists who disagree, etc. I've repeated why I find the claims of consensus somewhat dubious – not because a majority aren't on board, but because they claim unanimity and sureness when a realistic look at the data by other noted scientists leads them to other results. It's politics and alarmism.
I am not disputing the data, but what the data MEANS, I hear claims of better data being ignored, i see suppression of dissent. All these things smack of a significant problem.
He has no regard for how global warming will impact people and the ecosystem.
Actually, this is a typical liberal non-sequitur. It's like those who say "If you are against entitlement programs, you hate the poor." You see, thinking conservatives realize that entitlement programs don't help the poor in the long run, they make them wards of the state. We are looking to help the poor with solutions that WORK, not sentimental slop masquerading as public policy.
The same goes here. I am very concerned about the poor, about the ecosystem, and about how we spend our monies to solve human problems. I just think that it is unwise to waste our dollars on something that is so obviously rooted in questionable and largely unproved environmental models, when we could do so much more otherwise.
And in fact, if the GWAs are WRONG about the human role in GW, then what may happen is that some of their proposed cataclysms will occur, but since we wasted all of our money uselessly trying to reduce co2 emissions instead of preparing the earth's coastal poor and draught-sensitive areas for the inevitable, we will have condemned them to death by our mistake. That's crimimal.
…you'll be beside yourself with self-loathing at your stupidity.
Seeker, you're so full of BS that if you got an enema before your death, you could be buried in a matchbox.
credit to Hitch for that one.
I'm just trying to explain the consequences if your hubris regarding our contribution to global warming is incorrect. But of course, you don't think you could be wrong. You can't even consider that, it seems. At least, you don't consider it here, you merely resort to patronizing insults. This type of response emboldens us who see it for what it is – faith posturing.
Cineaste, I can you one way to not reach me – call me a sicko, continually lament my stupidity, and say that I don't care about people. That's not going to appeal to me and probably not seeker either.
And I understand the impacts of drought and how devastating that can be, but where you lose many people is the jump from drought's can be horrible to unless we sign the Kyoto Treaty droughts will be more prevalent and more severe.
The thing is when you are claiming such dire consequences, you need to have dire proof (isn't that what you tell me about God). Now, you think you have that, but again how do we explain the things that don't fit into the models.
How did the Earth warm up from the ice age with no human industry to mess with the CO2 levels?
How do you explain the Middle Ages warming trend which science tells us was warmer than today with reports of Chinese sailors going through the Arctic and seeing no ice?
Does it suggest anything when global warming supporters consistently use the phrase "warmest ____ (day, week, month, year) in 600 years" when if you go back 800 years we are actually cooler?
What about the reported dip in temperatures from the 1940's to the 1970's which led to the global cooling scare?
How did a volcano spewing tons of CO2 into the air, actually lead to a decrease in atmosphere CO2 levels?
What about the correlation between sun spots and the sun burning warmer and earth temperatures?
What about the non-correlation between CO2 levels and temperatures at the South Pole?
If we dismiss all those opposed to global warming as bought off by the oil companies, what do we do with the scientists that have ties to companies who have founded global warming consultant groups for governments, which financially ties them to pushing the reality of the issue?
Here's an interesting piece by someone who has become a man-made global warming skeptic that deals with what he calls the four major claims of global warming advocates. He has tons of quotes from scientists – both private and government – who say the exact opposite as England's chief scientific adviser. He also has graphs showing the temperatures from Utica, NY; New Delhi, India; the Arctic Rim; and Cold Bay, Alaska all of which show wild temperature variations – not a consistent warming trend. In fact for some it was the exact opposite.
I know that the retort will be raised that it is global warming, not automatically local warming. But then that raises another odd question. How do you determine a global temperature? There are so many variables from day/night, sun/shade, urban heat islands, lack of remote area temps, discrepancy between surface and atmosphere temps, etc.
Again we may very well be in the middle of man made global warming, but the Earth has faced higher temps in the pre-industry past. I'm not saying we shouldn't evaluate it and even make changes (as I said nuclear energy seems better and better to me), but what I am saying is the emotional appeals of "you're killing our planet and us" will do nothing in this debate – or have you forgotten your admonitions to us in the abortion debate.
…will do nothing in this debate.
What debate? It’s like debating the link between smoking and lung cancer. The science is in.
Blame for global warming placed firmly on humankind
“How do you explain the Middle Ages warming trend… etc.”
We have been over this already. I posted so many links to answer this and all other possible question that could possibly be raised that I had to make multiple posts for your site to accept them. They can be found here. It’s a running chronicle of specific answers for your questions. You guys totally forget about it and repeat the same questions over and over again.
“I can you one way to not reach me – call me a sicko, continually lament my stupidity, and say that I don’t care about people. That’s not going to appeal to me and probably not seeker either.”
Emotional appeal was worth a try. Judging by the “Thank You Global Warming” post, reasonably addressing your questions one by one does not work either. Tell me, am I just wasting my breath with you two? Is this a pointless exercise in futility? Or is there actually a chance you will listen?
“…unless we sign the Kyoto Treaty”
I care more about countering the misinformation you guys are spreading. At least that is some little good I can do.
It's like debating the link between smoking and lung cancer.
I reiterate. Saying "the matter is settled" is not science. When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works.
I can see that this tactic is often used by believers who do NOT want to address contrary evidence. This tactic has two parts, and is the same tactic often used when defending evolution.
The first part is to claim that everyone who matters agrees on one position – "it's already settled among smart people" goes the rhetoric.
The second part is a specious comparison to something that really is established – phrases such as "evolution is as proven as gravity" are often used. In this case, Cin writes "global warming [catastrophism] is as sure as the link between 'smoking and lung cancer.'"
Cineaste, it's not us who are not listening, it's you, who refuse to engage when your points are threatened by data we present. It's basically an appeal to authority rather than reason, just like the religionist who says "the inerrant bible says so" – you say "the inerrant scientific consensus says so" – even while the consensus is being challenged by many well-credentialed scientists who USED to be GWAs – they didn't change for petro money, but because they were scientists who looked at the data without the bias of eco-fear alarmism.
I think you've lost your objectivity. Your responses show that. Perhaps you are getting tired of answering the same questions, but Aaron's post shows that perhaps those questions have not been answered clearly enough, and that contra-indications to the pat answers have not been addressed.
The approach you've modeled will do nothing to stem the tide of skepticism with regard to Global Warming. It's the old "we are the majority, so it doesn't matter what the minority thinks." But the majority has often been wrong, even in science. And if truth is on the side of the minority, it really does matter what they think.
Seeker, I was answering Aaron. Enough of your BS already.
Before the [sexual] revolution, human [deadly STI transmissions] were small, and the [societal] concentration of [HIV] – the main [deadly STI] – was [low]. (nonexistent?)
Thanks largely to the burning of [lust toward one another] and changes in [body] use, such as [sexual] exploitation and de[virgin]ation, the [societal] concentration of [STI] reached [high levels] in 200*…
Very nice comparison. Devirgination? LOL, nice word.
I had a nice long response typed out Tuesday before I left (took a day off with my son yesterday) and then I accidentally "killed" the wrong browser window. I've got to start using tabs instead. Anyway, I'm going to try to put up all the things I had then, but I will probably forget some since I am out of the swing of the conversation.
Cineaste, I went back and looked at all the stuff from the comment thread you linked. I even went to all the links and perused the info there. Here's the problem, they didn't answer my questions or address my concerns.
A good many were links and information from man-made global warming (MMGW) advocacy groups that have more financial stake in the debate than Exxon does. Why, because even if MMGW is true, people will buy still buy gas and oil. If MMGW is false or not nearly the catastrophy that those groups say it is, they will cease to exist and all lose their jobs. Its in their vested interests to keep the claims as extreme and going as long as they can.
The other links never really explained why they ignored dates before the 1800's or so. That seems to be the starting point for all the bullet points – "Hottest day since 1850" "Warmest Year since 1800", etc. Well what about before then, before there was human industry. Did we have warmer temperatures before then, if so how are those explained?
That leads to another point. One of the links, I forget which one, or it may have been a blockquote from a comment, said that those who claim a natural or cyclical view of global warming need to explain what that natural cause might be to cause the warming trends. Well, I partly agree. But then how do MMGW supporters explain the warming trends in the Middle Ages and at other points before humans stepped up the release of CO2? Don't they also have to give an explanation for that and for how it can happen then, but can't possibly be happening now.
Incidentally, I don't know if it is entirely possible to explain all the reasons why weather and temperatures fluxuate. The ecosystem is a such a huge complex thing that is impacted from some many different things in so many different ways, it seems to me that it is hard to nail down what played what role in creating the final product – a proverbial "chicken-and-egg" question. You have precipitation rates, El Nino, La Nina, wind currents, human elements, sea temps, sun spots, cloud cover, volcanic activity, and it goes on and on. It seems a bit presumptious to say that it has to be this one factor.
But the one thing that I found most funny, was the Wikipedia link about satellite temperature measurements. It almost proved mine and seeker's point.
The first findings came back:
But the panel didn't appreciate the findings because they "knew" global warming was a fact:
So they went back and reworked the numbers and the "miscalculations" until it gave them what they wanted. Does that not strike you as odd and the opposite of science, in the least bit? They go in with the outcome already set and work the data to give them the set outcome.
The concerns raised haven't been addressed. They've been dismissed by "consensus." That's not the same thing.
By the way, what is your position on nuclear energy? It always strikes me as odd that so many people who want energy without CO2 levels are so hesitant to endorse nuclear as a viable option.
I had a nice long response typed out Tuesday before I left (took a day off with my son yesterday) and then I accidentally "killed" the wrong browser window. I've got to start using tabs instead.
For long responses, I *highly* recommend installing the firefox plugin It's All Text – it puts a little EDIT button at the bottom right of any textbox, and when you click it, it takes whatever you've already typed, and opens it up in your text editor of choice. So you can edit the text safely in your text editor. When you click SAVE in your editor, it puts the information back into the text window in your browser (with a cool yellow flash in the originating text window to let you know the info was moved back there). It's cool, trust me.
I use Safari more than Firefox, especially right now because Firefox is having issues reading fonts. It makes all san-serif fonts go crazy with tight spacing and odd capitalization.
Not sure how this is on topic…maybe I can blame my killed response and Firefox problems on MMGW. ;)
By the way, what is your position on nuclear energy? It always strikes me as odd that so many people who want energy without CO2 levels are so hesitant to endorse nuclear as a viable option.
As a person that favors that exact position, I can tell you where I stand on nuclear energy. The problem with Nuclear Energy is not that it is CO2 neutral, but what do you do with the nuclear waste that is inevitably created.
Conceptually and practically speaking I favor nuclear energy along with the use of wind, solar, and geo-thermal. What I do not favor is the idea of simply burying the waste in the ground in a place (NV Yucca Mountain) that is seismically unsound. Additionally, I do not favor burying the waste because there is already not enough room at the one facility that exists to store that said waste–currently residing within storage pools at the nations nuclear power plants.
Honestly, the way to get around this sticky wicket from an environmentalist's perspective is to re-process the spent nuclear fuel for reuse for both civilian and military purposes. France is actually the leader in the use of nuclear power world-wide (+80% of power is nuclear) and they re-process the spent fuel.
This technology has been offered to the US Government multiple times and has been refused out of cocern that using it would aid in the spread/proliferation of weapons grade plutonium. So, we continue to pursue a bury it in the ground strategy.
If the government and industry can come up with a sustainable solution for dealing with nuclear waste, then I think you will find that most (except for the ardent radicals out there) within the environmental movement would support it. Heck, even Al Gore has gone on record of supporting nuclear energy with that proviso.
As for your Safari issue…yeack. I use both Safari and Firefox (have for years) and Firefox has never behaved the way you describe. Hmmm…try trashing your prefs and reimporting. That's what I would suggest. Safari is just to buggy (and I generally love Apple products)
– Silver
and they re-process the spent fuel.
What do they reuse it for? I assume it is not somehow neutralized.
But I agree with you. We need sustainable, not polluting resources. Harnessing the sun seems our best bet, and advances in solar power are always tantalizingly on the horizon…
Seeker, Aaron, enough of this sophistry. For any fair minded person who is interested in Global Warming: please look at the 2007 IPCC Report on Global Warming: Summary for Policy Makers. It places the blame for Global Warming firmly on human kind. Please judge for yourselves.
I will read it, but I am not convinced based on appeals to authority. Since a possibility of bias exists, and accusations of such from credible scientists exist, I need to evaluate the evidence myself, as I get time.
Until then, I will also continue to be cautious due to the aforementioned red flags of fanaticism. I already doubt the cosmic ray theory, so you may win a convert when I actually get to the data.
Seeker,
What do they reuse it for? I assume it is not somehow neutralized.
The French reprocess spent fuel into usable nuclear materials for power plants and also their nuclear arms program. The byproducts of this process are a) enriched uranium for nuclear power b) plutonium – used in France's nuclear weapons program, and c) non-radioactive byproducts.
So, is it neutralized? No. Is it reprocessed in a way that it can be used? Yes. Is that process secure? According to the French, who have been doing it for 25 years, it is. 60 Minutes did a big piece on this process about a month ago.
Dear Mr. Calder,
I bought your book "The chilling stars" yesterday and I finished it today. Brilliant, no bias and fascinating.
I'm a graduate electrical engineer, and thus very naive about high physics and high chemistry. However, there is something that has occurred to me which no one else seems to have locked onto and which I shall share with you: Why is there just enough water on the earth's surface to create oceans and continents? When we consider the whole mass of the earth, the oceans are a very tiny percentage thereof. OK, a lot of water may be trapped in the magma, but it's unlikely as water is light and therefore tries to come to the surface and also the volcanic activity over the last 4 milliard years should have spewed it up to the top. It therefore seems to me that a small variation in the surface water as an already tiny percentage of the mass of the earth should suffice to ensure that most habitable planets orbiting other stars are either water-worlds or bone dry and we're in the (very) lucky few that have seas and dry land.
Perhaps, with your connections, you may see fit to try to interest the big guns in this problem and maybe also write another really spifficating book about it.
All I would ask in return is to be informed of your progress.
With best regards,
Witold Emiljanowicz.