Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
Among the Global Warming Skeptics
Dispatch from the International Conference on Climate Change in New York
March 8, New York—"Global warming alarmism has always been a political movement," declared Massachusetts Institute of Technology climatologist Richard Lindzen during his keynote address at the second International Conference on Climate Change. Organized by the Heartland Institute, a Chicago-based free market think tank, the conference has 700 registered participants who are attending the three day meeting in New York. Lindzen and Czech Republic and European Union President Vaclav Klaus were the featured speakers at the conference's opening dinner.
Klaus, a longtime skeptic of the claims for imminent global warming disaster, spoke of his meetings with other European leaders at the World Economic Forum in Davos earlier this year. He said that during a private session of European leaders, not one expressed any public doubts about the seriousness of man-made global warming. Instead the discussions centered on trying to hammer out a joint European proposal in advance of the United Nations' Climate Change conference in Copenhagen this coming December. According to Klaus, the leaders were deciding between proposing cuts in greenhouse gas emissions of 20, 30, 50, or 80 percent to be agreed upon at the Copenhagen meeting. Klaus pointed out that many politicians were discussing these more stringent targets "even though their own countries had not fulfilled their relatively modest Kyoto Protocol goals." Under the Kyoto Protocol, the European Union member states are supposed to cut their emissions by 8 percent below what they emitted in 1990.
Klaus also warned that powerful rent-seeking groups were riding the global warming alarmism bandwagon all the way to the bank. Rent-seeking occurs when individuals, firms, or organizations attempt to make money by manipulating the regulatory environment rather than by trade and production. Klaus cited firms and non-governmental groups that plan to profit from carbon rationing in the form of emissions permits trading and by deploying highly subsidized solar and wind energy projects.
Klaus confessed that he was puzzled by the environmentalist ideologues' approach to technological progress. They oppose the technological progress that free unregulated markets make possible. On the other hand, environmentalists want to mandate what they call clean technologies. "They want to operate technologies that have only one defect," said Klaus. "They have not been invented." Klaus added, "There is no known and economically feasible a way for an economy to survive on expensive unreliable clean green energy."
Klaus called into question the common notion of inter-generational equity—that the current generation should sacrifice now to benefit future generations. Should we have a preference for future generations over poor people today? Klaus ended by observing that environmentalist ideologues say that they want to "save the planet. The question is from what and for whom?"
Lindzen offered a few simple truths that "our side" often forgets. For example, skepticism about man-made global warming does not, by itself, make a good scientist. Nor does accepting global warming make one a poor scientist. Lindzen acknowledged that most of the atmospheric scientists he respects do endorse man-made global warming. He added, however, that most of their science is not actually about global warming.
Lindzen decried what he sees as the intellectual corruption that global warming alarmism has brought to climatology. He noted that many climatologists are happy to issue ambiguous statements that are then spun by activists into alarms. The result is increased funding for climate research, so no one publicly complains about the spinning. Most of the funding for climate research would not be there were it not for the global warming issue. Lindzen added, "Most science funded under the rubric of climate does not actually deal with climate, but rather with the alleged impact of arbitrarily assumed climate change."
With regard to official statements about global warming issued by various scientific societies, Lindzen argued that they are mainly the products of activists who obtain positions of influence on the boards of such organizations. Such statements are never based on polls of the membership of scientific organizations. As a remedy, Lindzen suggested, "a major campaign is needed to get thousands of scientists to resign from professional societies that have taken unrepresentative stands on the warming issue, while making the reason for the resignation unambiguous and public." This would impact their bottom lines and get their leaderships' attention.
So what to do in the face of the global warming alarm juggernaut? Lindzen advised, "The most obvious point is to persevere, to better understand the science, and to emphasize logic, which ultimately has to trump alleged authority." It will eventually become clear that while there is some warming, and that some of it is caused by man, it is not leading to catastrophe. As evidence, Lindzen cited some of his own research that shows that heat radiating into space from the atmosphere is much greater than the computer climate models were predicting. The idea behind greenhouse warming is that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide emitted from burning fossil fuels tend to trap heat from the sun. As the atmosphere warms up it holds more water vapor and produces more high thin clouds which in turn inhibit the emission of heat radiation increasing the temperature even more. It is this positive feedback loop that produces ever higher global temperatures in the computer climate models. Lindzen said that satellite data show that increases in temperature lead to increased emissions of heat radiation out of the top of the atmosphere. If confirmed, this would mean that the earth's climate is "dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than destabilizing positive feedbacks."
Lindzen also stated that the global mean temperature has not increased since 1995, even if one includes the anomalous big El Nino year of 1998. He added that this lack of warming is not a dispositive argument against anthropogenic global warming. Nevertheless, the lack of a recent discernible warming trend will have an impact on the public as debates about policies to cut emissions and increase energy prices to mitigate warming go forward.
At the end of the session, Joe Bast, the president and founder of the Heartland Institute, made the prediction that if Congress does not act on cap-and-trade legislation in the next two months, the issue will be dead for the rest of the Obama administration.
Tomorrow: Sessions will deal with issues such as the validity of climate computer models, global warming and hurricanes, the prospects of cap-and-trade legislation in Congress, the accuracy of the historical climate network's temperatures, and what climate change policies the European Union is likely to adopt.
Ronald Bailey is Reason magazine's science correspondent. His book Liberation Biology: The Scientific and Moral Case for the Biotech Revolution is now available from Prometheus Books.
|3.9.09 @ 3:03PM|#
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
Die letzte Bank
Die letzte bislang unabhängig gebliebene große Bank ist
verstaatlicht. Trotz einer starken Kapitalaustattung und der
Unterstützung durch die Gläubiger sei die Liquidität der Straumur
Burdaras nicht mehr ausreichend, teilte das Institut am Montag
mit.
Die isländische Finanzaufsicht IFSA habe daher den Verwaltungsrat
der Bank entmachtet und das Institut unter staatliche Kontrolle
gestellt. "Im Ergebnis ist Straumur geschlossen", erklärte die
Bank.
Die internationale Finanzkrise hatte Island besonders hart
getroffen. Die Regierung übernahm im Oktober die Kontrolle über die
drei größten Finanzinstitute des Landes - Kaupthing, Landsbanki und
Glitnir. Damit verhinderte sie zwar den Zusammenbruch des
Finanzsystems, der Staat ging jedoch fast pleite und konnte nur
durch milliardenschwere Notkredite gerettet werden.
Warty|3.9.09 @ 3:25PM|#
Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Guido Sarducci|3.9.09 @ 3:27PM|#
CLIMA: UFFICIO METEO GB, CHANCE DI SALVARE PIANETA E' AL
50%
(ANSA) - LONDRA, 09 MAR - Potrebbe essere gia' troppo tardi per
salvare il pianeta dagli effetti devastanti del cambiamento
climatico. E' la conclusione elaborata dal 'UK Met Office' -
l'ufficio meteorologico del Regno Unito - grazie all'uso del
super-computer del centro previsioni di Hardley. In sintesi:
ammesso e non concesso che i governi della terra riescano a
raggiungere in fretta un accordo per tagliare, entro il 2050, le
emissioni di CO2 del 50% rispetto ai valori del 1990, le
probabilita' di mantenere il surriscaldamento del globo sotto la
soglia critica di due gradi centigradi - oltre la quale gli effetti
sarebbero devastanti sia per gli uomini che per le altre specie
animali - restano inchiodate al 50%. Insomma: la Terra del 2100 ha
una possibilita' su due di vedere in azione pesanti cataclismi. La
ricerca, propedeutica alla conferenza sul cambiamento climatico di
Copenaghen in programma per il prossimo dicembre, mette anche in
evidenza come un ritardo di 10 anni sugli interventi necessari per
tagliare le emissioni nocive corrisponde a un aumento della
temperatura media di mezzo grado. Come dire: se non si fa nulla
alla fine del secolo il pianeta avra' a che fare con un aumento
della colonnina di mercurio tra i 5,5 e i 7,1 gradi centigradi. In
una parola: catastrofe. (ANSA). Z08
antoniososa|3.9.09 @ 3:28PM|#
Man-made global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and
the future of our children.
Thinking people all over the world are realizing that man-made
global warming is a hoax that threatens our future and the future
of our children. More than 650 international scientists dissented
last year over the man-made global warming claims. They are more
than 12 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the
media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2674e64f-802a-23ad-490b-bd9faf4dcdb7
Additionally, more than 31,000 American scientists have signed onto
a petition that states, "There is no convincing scientific evidence
that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse
gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause
catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of
the Earth's climate…"
http://www.petitionproject.org/index.html
"Progressive" (communist) politicians like Obama seem determined to
force us to swallow the man-made global warming scam. We need to
defend ourselves from the UN and these politicians, who threaten
our future and the future of our children. Based on a lie, they
have already wasted billions and plan to increase taxes, limit
development, and enslave us.
If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the scammers
(Gore and Obama's Wall Street friends), increase the power of the
U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and servitude
for the rest of us.
SpongePaul|3.9.09 @ 3:31PM|#
wow, i am going to have to bablefish the comments now. Noticed a bit of German? and spanish?
SpongePaul|3.9.09 @ 3:36PM|#
cooment #1 is = (german)Raivo Pommer raimo1@hot.ee The last bank
The last so far independent large bank remained is nationalisation.
Despite a strong Kapitalaustattung and the support by the creditors
the liquidity of the Straumur Burdaras is no longer sufficient,
communicated Institut on Monday. The Icelandic financial control
IFSA deprived from there the board of directors of power of the
bank and placed Institut under national control. " In the result
Straumur is geschlossen" , the bank explained. The international
financial crisis had particularly hard met Iceland. The government
transferred control of the three largest financial establishments
of the country in October - Kaupthing, Landsbanki and Glitnir. Thus
it prevented the collapse of the financial system, the State of
went however nearly broke and could only by billions-worth
emergency credits be saved.
comment #2 is (german)= If the Nunstruck is git and Slotermeyer?
Yes! … Beiherhund the or the Flipperwaldt gersput!
comment #3 is (Italian)= I guide Sarducci | March 9, 2009, 3:27 pm
| # CLIMATE: WEATHER OFFICE GB, CHANCE TO SAVE E' PLANET; AL 50%
(HANDLE) - LONDON, 09 MAR - Could be gia' too much late in order to
save the planet from the devastating effects of the climatic
change. E' the conclusion elaborated from the ' UK Met Office' - l'
meteorological office of the United Kingdom - thanks all' use of
the super-computer of the center forecasts of Hardley. In
synthesis: admitted and not granted that the governments of the
earth succeed to catch up in a hurry an agreement in order to cut,
within 2050, the emissions of CO2 of 50% regarding the values of
1990, the probabilita' to maintain the overheating of the globe
under the critical threshold of two centigrade degrees - beyond
which the effects would be devastating or for the men who for the
other species animals - remain nailed to 50%. Insomma: the Earth of
the 2100 has a possibilita' on two to see in action cataclysms
heavy. The search, propedeutica to the conference on the climatic
change of Copenaghen in program for the next December, puts also in
evidence as a delay of 10 years on the participations necessary in
order to cut the injurious emissions corresponds to an increase of
the medium temperature of average degree. Like saying: if the
planet is not made nothing of the century at the end avra' to that
to make with an increase of the colonnina of mercury between the
5,5 and 7.1 centigrade degrees. In a word: catastrophe. (HANDLE).
Z08
|3.9.09 @ 3:37PM|#
SpongePaul,
Italian, looks like.
Babelfish is awesome, especially if you put something through it
twice, i.e. Spanish to English, take the garbled English back to
Spanish, then back to English again.
SpongePaul|3.9.09 @ 3:40PM|#
yeah it was Italian, when i read it over it was obvious. I said spanish because at first blush, they look similiar to me. the other comments were german. and as far as proliberates comment. What language was that. Norse origin? but i babeled the comments for our other non multi-liguinstic peeps
|3.9.09 @ 3:42PM|#
Damn, I had forgotten how German grammar can make something seem totally incomprehensible without context. Which is why Babelfish totally botched a lot of it. Funny stuff.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 3:47PM|#
Oh, and after we read the translations, now we're all back in agreement as to just how far we are from real "artificial intelligence"?
SpongePaul|3.9.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Norse origin?
Suomi.
ok it was finnish, when i siad norse i menat norway finland etc.
that ares languages. jeez that made no sense eh. LOL and yeah
babelfish really is far from perfect. but it can get the jest of
the article across. well execpt in german. that really made no
sense. lol
Warty|3.9.09 @ 3:56PM|#
Oh, and after we read the translations, now we're all back
in agreement as to just how far we are from real "artificial
intelligence"?
Have you met anonymity bot?
The CrunkMonk|3.9.09 @ 3:58PM|#
"Ouyay ibertarianslay areay osay upidstay!"
that's tupidsay.
joe'z rule lives on.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 4:07PM|#
Transcript from smarterchild
courtjester5000: I slept with my boss last night.
SmarterChild: I'm not sure if you slept with your boss last night.
courtjester5000: Well, you weren't there were you.
SmarterChild: Well you weren't there were you, you say?
courtjester5000: WERE YOU??
SmarterChild: Really?
courtjester5000: I can't believe this!!
SmarterChild: That a fact?
courtjester5000: Don't deny it now! There's no turning back!
SmarterChild: I'll have to think about that one for awhile.
courtjester5000: Yeah, you think about what you've done for awhile and then come back when you're ready to apologize.
Methinks "dumberchild" would have been a better moniker.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Off the tracks on the first comment. Awesome.
I'm certainly not helping... I'll stop.
Lindzen pointed out that the global mean temperature has not increased statistically significantly since at least 1995.
I thought it was largely agreed that we're in a current 'cooling
trend' but that was just a climactic distraction from the Real
Doom(tm) that awaits us.
Warty|3.9.09 @ 4:13PM|#
Off the tracks on the first comment. Awesome.
That's why this place is great.
Gimme Back My Dog|3.9.09 @ 4:27PM|#
If confirmed, this would mean that the earth's climate is
"dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than
destabilizing positive feedbacks."
You don't have to be a climatologist to understand that this must
be the case. If the temperature feedback mechanism was positive,
the earth would have either frozen up or burned away by now. The
fact that temperature has remained in such a narrow band for
billions of years shows that the feedback is negative.
Jack|3.9.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Of course "Wenn ist das Nunstruck git und Slotermeyer? Ja!... Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!" is the German translation of Monty Python's Killer Joke. Used effectively against the krauts in the Northern Theater of Operations.
PR|3.9.09 @ 5:13PM|#
Off the tracks on the first comment. Awesome.
Didn't Iceland going broke have a lot to do with them going
Green?
|3.9.09 @ 5:13PM|#
New at Reason: Ron Bailey Listens to Climate Change
Skeptics in New York
Ron, is this correct? Seems, looks and reads like innuendo - how
can a person be skeptical of climate change, if the climate changes
ALWAYS (as any complex, chaotic system does)?
Would it be that these scientists and researchers are actually
skeptical of man-made global warming (or AGW)?
|3.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Antonio Sosa,
If not stopped, the global warming scam will enrich the
scammers (Gore and Obama's Wall Street friends), increase the power
of the U.N. and communists like Obama, and multiply poverty and
servitude for the rest of us.
There's a lot of money to be made trading those cap-and-trade
limits. For sure, the fleecers of society (i.e. politicians) like
Il Duce and Al "The Gouger" Gore are rubbing their hands in
anticipation.
|3.9.09 @ 5:16PM|#
Good catch, FTG. No reason to let the global warmenistas get
away with their attempt at semantic bullying.
It's not "climate change," it "man-made global warming".
|3.9.09 @ 5:17PM|#
Didn't Iceland going broke have a lot to do with them going
Green?
No, something worse - they went Keynesian (or, the new trend: going
Krugmanian)
|3.9.09 @ 5:19PM|#
Reminds me of evolution deniers who insist there isn't enough
evidence for it because they haven't bothered to look at it.
No one has adequately explained the machinations behind this
alleged grand conspiracy by Al Gore. What are his goals? What
evidence of the conspiracy exists? Why do skeptics firmly refuse to
acknowledge that there could possibly be an actual conspiracy to
deceive going on (at lest that went on in the past)--not by
treehuggers, but by the most profitable industry in the history of
the world.
DannyK|3.9.09 @ 5:27PM|#
If confirmed, this would mean that the earth's climate is
"dominated by stabilizing negative feedbacks rather than
destabilizing positive feedbacks."
The Earth has, at times, been a giant frozen snowball over most of
its surface, and at other times has been warm and tropical
everywhere with alligators at the poles. If you want to call that
stable, I guess you can, but it's no comfort to me. I like
agriculture and civilization.
|3.9.09 @ 5:34PM|#
President Vaclav Klaus[...] argued, "There is no known
economically feasible way for an economy to survive on expensive[,]
unreliable clean green energy."
I would argue that any source of energy that's uneconomical cannot
be clean. Economic efficiency does not mean making it work cheaply
only, but also making more rational use of your resources. If you
spend more money (i.e. previously generated capital and resources)
on alternative A when alternative B can do the exact same job with
less, then by going with A you are in fact WASTING resources.
Some of the clueless will say "You are making everything dollars
and cents, when there are more important things than money".
Dollars and cents are just measuring tools for making decisions -
they can tell you what are the rational choices better than any
other way. Dollars and cents, or the price system, can tell you
what resources are available, in what quantity, where and when. it
can tell you if resource A is the better option than resource B or
C. It can tell you if the expenditure of resources will deliver the
expected results. No other system can tell you that.
SpongePaul|3.9.09 @ 5:38PM|#
Didn't Iceland going broke have a lot to do with them going
Green?
__________________________________________
NO, Iceland has been green for decades. Iceland does not use oil or
gas for most processes. all the electricity and heated water are
generated by using the islands volcanoes.
|3.9.09 @ 5:44PM|#
Why do skeptics firmly refuse to acknowledge that there
could possibly be an actual conspiracy to deceive going on (at lest
that went on in the past)--not by treehuggers, but by the most
profitable industry in the history of the
world?
When has government ever been a "profitable" industry?
Nittany Cat|3.9.09 @ 5:46PM|#
"What are his goals?"
He wants to be both loved and still thought of as relevant.
|3.9.09 @ 5:47PM|#
Reminds me of evolution deniers who insist there isn't
enough evidence for it because they haven't bothered to look at
it.
Tony, this form of arguing is called Poisoning the Well. You are
already biasing the discussion by comparing man-made global warming
skeptics with evolution skeptics, when they are certainly NOT the
same. Correct me if I am wrong - I may be reading something
different than what you meant.
No one has adequately explained the machinations behind this
alleged grand conspiracy by Al Gore.
There are two likely explanations for Al Gore's motives: one,
ideological, and two, monetary. The ideological one comes from his
own belief in a great sin, some sort of great failure by man, which
needs to be corrected (expiated) in order to achieve perfection.
This would make Gore a religious nut . . .
The monetary one is even more likely: Al Gore already has invested
time and resources in setting up these cap and trade systems. It
will land him a lot of money once they are implemented. The
evidence is out there:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5d0_1211056392
Paul|3.9.09 @ 5:47PM|#
No one has adequately explained the machinations behind this
alleged grand conspiracy by Al Gore.
It's not a grand conspiracy by Al Gore. Al Gore is too stupid to
pull off anything this sophisticated.
|3.9.09 @ 5:48PM|#
He wants to be both loved and still thought of as
relevant.
Ok, THREE likely explanations ;-) The third one, like Nittany said,
is pure VANITY.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 5:51PM|#
When has government ever been a "profitable"
industry?
Government has always been the most profitable industry. What other
industry can bill you for services you haven't even received yet,
raise the rates at will and grow dramatically during a major
economic downturn?
|3.9.09 @ 5:55PM|#
What other industry can bill you for services you haven't
even received yet, raise the rates at will and grow dramatically
during a major economic downturn?
And, let us not forget, make you figure out your own bill every
year, and imprison you if you get it wrong. (Thanks, Onion.)
|3.9.09 @ 5:59PM|#
When has government ever been a "profitable"
industry?
I was referring to the petroleum industry, which has run a
decades-long misinformation campaign on the subject of global
warming. If you assume Al Gore is out for money, why ignore the
same possible motive for the oil industry, which has a LOT to lose
by anti-GW action.
Tony, this form of arguing is called Poisoning the Well. You
are already biasing the discussion by comparing man-made global
warming skeptics with evolution skeptics, when they are certainly
NOT the same. Correct me if I am wrong - I may be reading something
different than what you meant.
I was just saying it reminded me of them. Don't know the name of
the fallacy I'm accusing both of, but it "ignoring evidence" works
for me.
It will land him a lot of money once they are implemented. The
evidence is out there:
Making money is the highest aspiration of libertarians and
Republicans, until it's Al Gore doing it, I notice. Fine, question
his motives. But it's disingenuous not to also question the motives
of deniers, who have always had ties to the oil industry, or to
political interests with ties to it.
|3.9.09 @ 6:03PM|#
He added that this lack of warming is not a dispositive
argument against anthropogenic global warming.
Bullshit.
If climate models predict a rise in temperature and temperatures do
not rise then the models are falsified.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 6:09PM|#
Making money is the highest aspiration of libertarians and
Republicans
And an aspiration it remains. One day, I too hope to squeak above
lower middle class.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 6:12PM|#
But it's disingenuous not to also question the motives of
deniers, who have always had ties to the oil
industry, or to political interests with ties to
it.
Prove the statement in bold.
Paul|3.9.09 @ 6:13PM|#
If you assume Al Gore is out for money, why ignore the same
possible motive for the oil industry, which has a LOT to lose by
anti-GW action.
Except Enron, one of the most corrupt companies in history, had
much to gain by pro-gw legislation.
|3.9.09 @ 6:17PM|#
But it's disingenuous not to also question the motives of
deniers, who have always had ties to the oil industry, or to
political interests with ties to it.
Hmm when the top two "deniers" I can name are begging for 2000$ for
a server upgrade I have a hard time thinking that their ties to the
oil industry amount to much.
From here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5428
This platform will tolerate drive failure better and allow for
easier servicing one a drive does fail. Plus since I'll be able to
build it in parallel to the existing operational CA server, install
latest code, fine tune it, and then move content, finally doing a
swap, downtime will be minimal.
I hope to accomplish this before Steve returns from his trip.
Here is where you come in. Steve has authorized me to solicit for
donations to make this happen. The server, drives, etc I estimate
will take about 1800-$2000 to put together.
About 50 people donating $40 each would be all it would take. Or 20
donating $100 each. Steve and I think this is acheivable.
So if you feel so inclined here is the donate button. I'll be
building the server which is why my donate button is present below
instead of Steve's His being out of the country will complicate
matters of funds transfer.
Yes Tony I have called you on your bullshit and proved you dead
wrong.
The fun thing is that Watts and McIntyre have done the same thing
with AGW.
|3.9.09 @ 6:32PM|#
Better watch out what ya say
might get blacklisted
/www.lobbywatch.org/lm_profiles.html
I thoroughly enjoyed Ron Bailey being classed as a neo
conservative
www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=16&page=B
I must admit that I've very very pro alt-energy
and generally agnostic on climate change
but man the green movement are some nazi motherfuckers that will
try there best to absolutely screw anyone who questions their
beliefs
without hyperbole the vast majority of these people are
upper/middle class people
who are just using this as an excuse to fuck over the working
classes.
If you wanna help climate change you do a feckin degree in
physics,material science, chemistry, engineering
these fuckwits just want poor people to have less fuck em
|3.9.09 @ 6:45PM|#
"But it's disingenuous not to also question the motives of
deniers, who have always had ties to the oil industry, or to
political interests with ties to it"
I have to state again that I just dig alt energy
freedom innit
but there are a few about who question the legitimacy
in the academic community you've got this bloke apparently
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
the the political community
the Marxists (not Leninists) are pretty much opposed to it
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/issues/C32/
In theory I should get my salary doubled by the end of this
year
:) yay
If that happens I'm going totally self generating
i just like the idea of self sufficiency and like fucking about
with tech
but still
fuck greens,
bourgeoisie Luddite fucks like Prince Charles
|3.9.09 @ 6:52PM|#
Tony,
Making money is the highest aspiration of libertarians
and Republicans, until it's Al Gore doing it, I
notice.
First, you do not know what are the highest aspirations of
libertarians or republicans (I will ignore your attempt to lump
libertarians with republicans). Second, it is not motives the
problem, is actions. Al Gore's actions look suspicious if, on one
hand, he peddles the idea that global warming is a serious crisis
(which is a totally different issue than simply proving man-made
global warming) when, at the same time, he's setting up a business
based on cap-and-trade. To me, that tells me that, at least, Al
Gore cannot be painted as some sort of disinterested party.
Fine, question his motives. But it's disingenuous not
to also question the motives of deniers, who have always had ties
to the oil industry, or to political interests with ties to
it.
Same problem - all of this is just obfuscation. Al Gore cannot
paint himself or be painted as a disinterested party. May be the
same for anthropogenic global warming skeptics (I do not use the
word "denier" because that word implies the same connotation as
"holocaust denier".)
The problem here is that most people are looking at the wrong issue
- what does it matter if Al Gore seeks to profit from this, or if
oil companies do not like the idea of AGW? The question is if man
made CO2 is actually making the Earth warmer, and if so, if it is a
bad thing. So far, the EVIDENCE of CO2 growth by human activity
does not correlate with warming, at all. There is evidence that
global warming (or cooling) is fueled by something else. There is
evidence that CO2 concentration reaches a threshold where its
effectiveness as an infrared energy absorber is reduced
logarithmically.
There is no empirical evidence that a warmer Earth will have a more
chaotic climate than it has right now. There is no way to evaluate
what a future climate will entail for humans - saying that the
world is doomed is as foolish as saying that the climate is not
changing - because that's impossible.
Motives are not important - what's important is evidence, and so
far, evidence for AGW is lacking. Climate change is NOT evidence of
AGW, it is only evidence that climate is a complex system, that's
all.
|3.9.09 @ 7:05PM|#
If climate models predict a rise in temperature and temperatures do
not rise then the models are falsified.
Totally true. And even if temperatures rise, it would not mean
vindication for the models, for a model is proven with
repeatability and not by being lucky once.
The biggest issue with AGW is the way it is being peddled, as a
major crisis that can rip the Earth apart, destroy crops, make
hurricanes worse, and make cats and dogs sleep together... horrible
things like that. Problem is, not ONE can say for sure that warmer
temperatures are actually a BAD thing. What if they are NOT? Why
then worry about them? Why then destroy whole economies to correct
something that's not a problem?
|3.9.09 @ 7:10PM|#
"Making money is the highest aspiration of libertarians and
Republicans, until it's Al Gore doing it, I notice. Fine, question
his motives. But it's disingenuous not to also question the motives
of deniers, who have always had ties to the oil industry, or to
political interests with ties to it"
nah fuck off mate
you're just classing anyone against the green movment in the same
category
I want Asians and Africans to have
badass 62 inch plasma screen TVs, cars, air conditioning,
microwaves, washing machines, PCs, internet access, holidays all
over the planet,
and actually no ones gonna stop that happening
so what are the greens gonna do to stop it?
DannyK|3.9.09 @ 7:53PM|#
The New York Times covered the meeting too, here's a nice
tidbit:
"From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example,
contributed more than $600,000 to Heartland,
according to annual reports of charitable contributions from the
company and company foundations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html
It takes a lot of money to stand up to the invincible Al Gore
Organization, apparently.
mark|3.9.09 @ 7:56PM|#
From
Richard Lindzen's speech:
During this period, satellites were measuring the emitted heat radiation. What at least four groups all confirmed was that emitted heat radiation during the '90s was not only much greater than what models predicted, but also greater than what would have been expected if there were no feedback at all.
This seems like a devastating blow to the IPCC's models,
right?
How often have you heard that any particular argument has been dealt with by realclimate.org (a clear advocacy Web site designed to assure warming alarmists that the basis for alarm still exists)?
OK never mind, I'm sure the climate change scientists have already
modeled this negative feedback. I won't bother looking it up.
russ|3.9.09 @ 8:04PM|#
We Must Deal With Yesterdays CO2 Before We Deal With
Tomorrows
Hearing the president (albeit of the EU) frame the context of
"global warming" is most welcome. He is both right and wrong. He is
quite correct in his observation that the so called green movement
has been and is exploiting global warming and climate change to
seize power and run modern society back to some stone age
fantasyland. He is utterly wrong to equate this with the notion
that there is no problem with fossil CO2. There is a big problem
only its not bearing down on us at the slow pace of changing
glaciers, it is much near than that.
While many international leaders debate or work toward emission
reduction strategies and carbon capture and storage the real
problem is not tomorrows CO2 but yesterdays CO2. Nor is the problem
the role CO2 has in Global Warming. We must turn our attention to
the 1000+ gigatonne carbon bomb, two centuries of accumulating CO2,
still mostly in the air as it takes centuries for airborne CO2 to
equilibrate with the rest of the planet.
Reports call the alarm of ocean acidification, adding acid flames
to the raging fires of fossil CO2. What's missing is mention of the
best, only, means to fight ocean acidification and CO2 in the air.
Just 500 gigatonnes of yesterdays CO2 has reached the oceans where
Revelle's Rule tells us 80% of CO2 ends up. The first carbon bomb
will be exploding in the ocean for more than a century even if we
stop the emission of new CO2 today. No amount alternative energies,
recycling, bicycling, or "clean coal" will tend to the first carbon
bomb. Sure lets reduce the size of the second bomb but first things
first.
Here's how to Fix CO2
ONLY ocean replenishment and restoration can enlist, as allies, the
most powerful force of nature - the ocean plants, the bloomin'
plankton. But high and rising CO2 in the air is not only
responsible for ocean acidification worse it has fed green plants
on land making them greener, bushier, and living longer making them
"good ground cover." Ground cover improvements have reduced the
amount of dust blowing in the winds by 1/3 in just a few decades.
For the oceans dust in the wind brings vital mineral
micro-nutrients, that terrestrial Yin (dust) is just as important
as rain, the Yang, blowing from sea to land nurturing plant life.
Since earth and ocean satellites went aloft 30 years ago we've
measured decimation of ocean plants, 10% are gone from the Southern
Ocean, 17% from the N. Atlantic, 26% from the N. Pacific, and 50%
from the tropical seas. Just yesterday, a few decades past, ocean
pastures grew more verdant consuming 4-5 billion tonnes more CO2
each year than today.
Today, as stewards of our blue planet, we must replenish ocean
micro-nutrients to restore the verdant ocean pastures. If we bring
the ocean plankton blooms back to levels seen only 30 years ago
those plants will annually convert billions of tonnes of CO2 into
ocean life instead of acid ocean death. Those verdant restored
ocean pastures will deliver 7 times the CO2 reductions called for
by the Kyoto Protocol.
To begin, and we must without delay, the work requires only tens of
millions of dollars, to succeed in a matter of a decade requires
only a few billion dollars. In the bargain the restored oceans will
feed everything from tiny krill to the great whales and everything
and everybody in between - fish, seabirds, penguins, seals and
us.
Replenish and restore the oceans without delay. Read more at
www.planktos-science.com
Paul|3.9.09 @ 8:08PM|#
"From 1998 to 2006, Exxon Mobil, for example, contributed
more than $600,000 to Heartland, according to annual reports of
charitable contributions from the company and company
foundations."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/science/earth/09climate.html
It takes a lot of money to stand up to the invincible Al Gore
Organization, apparently.
You
can say that again.
The Alliance for Climate Protection is an organization founded in the United States in 2006 aiming to "persuade people of the importance, urgency and feasibility of adopting and implementing effective and comprehensive solutions for the climate crisis".[1] The founder and current chairman of the alliance is former US Vice President Al Gore.[1]
The Alliance is launching a three-year, $300 million campaign aimed at mobilizing Americans to push for aggressive reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. This campaign is one of the most ambitious and costly public advocacy campaigns in U.S. history.[2]
mark|3.9.09 @ 8:49PM|#
russ, regarding ocean acidification, how do you account for the
abundance of ocean life at a time when the Earth had 4000+ PPM of
CO2 in the atmosphere?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocean-acidification-and-corals/
|3.9.09 @ 9:41PM|#
Don't forget, climate models aren't the evidence for AGW, they're the hypotheses.
Chad|3.9.09 @ 9:45PM|#
Ahh, denialists. What a fun life you have. Facts be damned!
Science be damned! You have your crackpot websites, and a handful
of scientists equipped with Limbaugh-provided blowhorns. Clearly,
that is sufficient basis for sound public policy.
Have fun being on the wrong side of history, morons.
JB|3.10.09 @ 1:58AM|#
Chad, go buy a clue. You are a fascist who wants to silence
anyone who disagrees with you.
Science is all about questions you moron.
Seattle|3.10.09 @ 2:05AM|#
"Making money is the highest aspiration of libertarians and
Republicans..."
Yea, no-rent seeking going on amongst alt. energy companies...
Chad|3.10.09 @ 6:04AM|#
Naah, I just want to silence idiots like you that are either too
stupid or too dishonest to know when you have been proven wrong,
repeatedly.
Here is a clue: Peer reviewed journals >>>>>>>
crackpot websites
|3.10.09 @ 9:02AM|#
"Here is a clue: Peer reviewed journals
>>>>>>> crackpot websites"
In other news both McDonalds and Burger King state fast food is
healthy.
|3.10.09 @ 11:28AM|#
First of all, few politicians, but especially Republicans, are
untouched by influence of the Exxons of the world. They ain't
donating all those millions to get nothing in return. So to the
extent that GW denial comes from Republican party talking points
(supplied generously to FOX News and filtered down dutifully
through the right-wing media operation), it should be considered
tainted by conflicts of interest. This is in addition to the
industry funding of the Heartland Institute and similar activities,
not to mention decades of funding propaganda masquerading as
science.
All I'm saying is if you can be so convinced of a giant conspiracy
by Al Gore and fascist greenies, at least look into the possibility
that there exists interests on the other side of the issue. And
then examine where you get your alleged facts. If it's not actual
peer-reviewed science, then it's not credible.
And the science is not controversial, at least not about the broad
facts. Oh and because it was cold one day does not disprove
GW.
I don't think it's fallacious to compare GW deniers with evolution
deniers. They both select one branch of science among all others to
discredit because they challenge dogmas. In the case of evolution,
it's the dogma about talking animals and Noah's Ark. With GW, it's
about anti-government radicals not wanting to own up to the fact
that the unfettered market can't possibly solve such a problem on
its own.
|3.10.09 @ 1:50PM|#
The last one defied parody, but one has to try :
here's all the moose that's fit to print on Heartland I
http://www.takimag.com/site/article/climate_of_here
|3.10.09 @ 2:00PM|#
If it's not actual peer-reviewed science, then it's not
credible.
And the science is not controversial, at least not about the broad
facts. Oh and because it was cold one day does not disprove
GW.
This is actaully funny...
A broad "fact" of global warming is that in order to get the
warming predicted by the IPCC you must keep humidity in the upper
atmosphere at a constant level....one measurement of humidity in
the upper atmosphere is done by weather balloons and has shown a
decline in humidity of the upper atmosphere.
Here is a comment from a peer reviewer on a survey of that weather
balloon data:
"the only object I can see for this paper is for the authors to
get something in the peer-reviewed literature which the ignorant
can cite as supporting lower climate sensitivity than the standard
IPCC range".
from here:
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=5416#more-5416
so not only have I provided evidence that the broad understanding
is faulty but that peer review is not a good measure of the science
and in of itself is moved by political views and not science.
Once again Tony you are proven wrong.
JB|3.10.09 @ 4:15PM|#
Chad, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your
eyes.
Why has warming basically stopped for 10 years? Show me a
peer-reviewed article that explains it.
For what it's worth, my IQ and my dick are bigger than yours.
Chad|3.10.09 @ 5:20PM|#
JB | March 10, 2009, 4:15pm | #
Chad, keep sticking your fingers in your ears and covering your
eyes.
Why has warming basically stopped for 10 years? Show me a
peer-reviewed article that explains it.
Even if I showed you such research, you wouldn't be capable of
understanding it, and wouldn't admit you were wrong in the off
chance that you could understand it. If you were even remotely
capable of understanding the data or being swayed by it, you would
have already found it for yourself. The fact that you are asking
for me to dig up the data for you proves you are pretty well
incompetent (or just plain dishonest), with further proves I would
be wasting my time doing your work for you.
JB|3.10.09 @ 11:34PM|#
I know tards like you and you would go and find it if you
could.
But you know you can't so you cop-out.
I've looked at all sorts of data. Here is some I bet you haven't
looked at. The type of paint used on screens has an effect on
temperature measurement:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/01/14/a-typical-day-in-the-stevenson-screen-paint-test/
That is just one variable when tons more are screwed up on
consistent basis. Peruse this blog for many, many examples of how
this bad data is obtained:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/category/weather_stations/
Mr. Rational|3.11.09 @ 10:02AM|#
This is all the fault of the Spanish Inquisition, because no one expects them. They have weapons of fear, surprise, ruthless efficiency, almost fanatical devotion to the Pope, and nice, red uniforms. Don't try and blame the conspiracy on Gore.
|3.11.09 @ 1:41PM|#
Raivo Pommer
raimo1@hot.ee
HEDGE-FOND
Die Kapitalabflüsse gestalteten sich in der Branche in Europa und
den Vereinigten Staaten allerdings sehr unterschiedlich: Während
amerikanische Hedge-Fonds in großem Umfang juristische Sperren
nutzten, die eine sofortige Rückzahlung von Anlagegeld an die
Kunden beschränkten oder hinauszögerten (Gates), ist dies bei
europäischen Hedge-Fonds weniger üblich. Auch gibt es in Europa
mehr Dachfonds, in die Privatinvestoren investieren. Diese hatten
die erste Kündigungswelle bei Hedge-Fonds im Herbst 2008 ausgelöst.
Die Kapitalabflüsse aus Hedge-Fonds waren daher in der zweiten
Jahreshälfte vor allem in Europa relativ hoch. Die Mittel
europäischer Hedge-Fonds schrumpften nach Einschätzung von Morgan
Stanley um 25 bis 30 Prozent.
In den Vereinigten Staaten beliefen sich die Mittelabflüsse
zunächst "nur" auf 15 bis 20 Prozent. Dies erklärt, warum der
weltweite Verband der Hedge-Fonds, die Alternative Investment
Management Association (AIMA), kürzlich bekanntgab, dass das
Anlagekapital der 1200 bei der AIMA registrierten Mitglieder jetzt
zum Großteil von institutionellen Investoren gehalten werde und
nicht mehr von vermögenden Einzelpersonen, wie dies früher der Fall
gewesen war.
Leave a Comment
More Articles by Ronald Bailey
- The Methuselah Manifesto, Ronald Bailey, November 17, 2009
- How Green Are Your Nukes?, Ronald Bailey, November 10, 2009
- SuperFreaking Out Over Climate Engineering, Ronald Bailey, November 3, 2009
Related Articles (Global Warming, Reason.tv)
- How Green Are Your Nukes?, Ronald Bailey, November 10, 2009
- Now Playing at Reason.tv: Tom G. Palmer on Libertarian Theory, History, and Practice, October 8, 2009
- Now Playing at Reason.tv: Author Johan Norberg on the Orgins of the Financial Crisis, Michael C. Moynihan, October 7, 2009
- Climate Change and the Nanny State, David Harsanyi, September 23, 2009
- Doubling Down on Climate Change, Ronald Bailey, September 22, 2009
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245