Like it or not, climate change is here and CO2′s the culprit
June 17, 2009 by Tom GuayPosted in: News, Special Report
It may be hard for some global warming skeptics to believe, but the effects of all those greenhouse gases (GHGs) accumulating in the atmosphere are already creating severe climatic changes.
A new study from the U.S. Global Change Research Program concludes there’s no doubt that climate change is here, and that unless action is taken to reduce CO2 and other GHG emissions, like today and right away, the effects will intensify. The program uses scientific experts from 13 federal agencies and the White House.
The report clearly makes the case that former vice president Al Gore was right about global warming.
Weather changes are already making an impact in the U.S. include more severe droughts in the Southwest, more storms in the Midwest and East and rising sea levels from Alaska to Florida. The cause? Human activity, from the industrial revolution through today.
And, what’s going to really upset those who don’t want to believe global warming is a problem, is that this report isn’t the work of President Obama, but the summation of 10 years of research conducted by the Bush administration.
The report warns that the weather changes caused by global warming will be more severe as the years pass. For example, summertime in Illinois will soon feel like steamy Louisiana.
As weather patterns change, snowpack and water supplies are already diminishing in the West, Southwest and Northwest. This hurts more than farmers and ranchers. Falling water levels in streams and rivers reduces hydroelectric power generation.
The U.S. Global Change Research Program report is here.
To see a slide of the extreme jump in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere compared over the past 800,000 years, click here. The site includes other slides graphically proving that global warming is occurring now.
The study’s top 10 key findings that will make global warming skeptics howl are here.
Tags: climate change, CO2, GHG, global warming
GreenandMore.com
Loading ...
June 17th, 2009 at 10:08 am
Oh my lord, not another scare mongering climate study, are they still doing these things? I thought we got over this.
Look no one believes these studies anymore, they are so last year. And who are the authors? the U.S. Global Change Research Program, 13 federal agencies and the White House. LOL! – Surely you don’t expect anyone to believe that this report won’t be grossly biased. C’mon now. Hopefully our government didn’t pay much for this tripe. These scare studies do nothing good for our Green Movement. They makes us look no better than those screaming skeptics out there who are paid by Exxon. This report is a step backwards for us. We are trying to get climate legislation through Congress and now this bad study is released. The timing could not be worse.
June 18th, 2009 at 8:49 am
Everyone should read what Roy Spencer Phd has to say about Climate Change before following Al Gore’s self enriching make me a millionaire hogwash. Everyone agrees that the climate is changing, what not everyone agrees is whether is caused by humans. Climate has been changing for millions of years. Most will agree to reduce polution, but not all agree that CO2 is bad. Follow the money and ask yourself, what would happen to all the Climate Change proponents if the funding to study and thus promote the theory was stopped? As long as the funds are available the Gobal Warming Crowd will continue to feed off on the source of the money. The fact that Al Gore will not even discuss what some say is junk science should make us all skeptics.
June 18th, 2009 at 9:38 am
“Follow the Money.” Climate Control and Carbon Emissions are the new “gold rush”. Who wins and who looses? The real question is, “Will new regulations and carbon taxes put the United States Out of Business?” No matter what we do countries like China, India, Indonesia, and Brazil will emit more and more CO2 and overshadow any initiatives of the USA. Obama’s claim that the USA will become a world technology leader and our business model will go from mining and manufacturing to exporting high-tech is pure crap. Technology development is driven by available free cash….its money and resources that drive high-tech, and with China having the money, guess who will become the world technology leader. The USA may be doomed to the same fate as many former world leading economies (like Spain, England, France, Germany, Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, etc.) Proposed initial carbon taxes on a single 600 MWe coal-fired power plant are in the range of $110 million per year……”Follow the Money”.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:18 am
Bravo to Dick and Ken.
Of course the climate is changing, it has for millions of years. Why else is there signs of houses in Iceland when the ice receded. Century old maps show the entire midwest was once underwater, the fossils prove this. Mother nature does what she wants and the little bit we do does not affect her direction. One nice volcanic erruption could and has caused massive cooling for the entire earth. The grants and the money to be made from this, yet another scheme, will deplete middle income americas wealth. we have a lot to loose by jumping on this bandwagon and little to gain. Why disrupt the economy of America when the rest of the world cares little.
June 18th, 2009 at 11:29 am
A few goverment scientists vs. 31000 scientists…hmmm.
Posted: May 19, 2008
8:51 pm Eastern
By Bob Unruh
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting “global warming,” the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth’s climate.
“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,” the petition states. “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
(Last I heard the number was up to around 35000 scientists.)
June 18th, 2009 at 11:37 am
Okay, based on everything I have seen or read climate change is happening and most everyone agrees on that point. The desenting point is whether it is manmade or a cyclical change. Now the real problem is we really won’t know which is true until ity’s too late to make a difference. Especially if it turns out to be manmade.
Personnally, I subscribe to a variant of Pascal’s Wager; do what we can now to stop our manmade impact with added CO2. Decades later, after we know the true reason we can either slap ourselves on the back for being so smart and proactive or we slap ourselves on the back for making the climate a little better and learning a lot more about our environment than we do now with better sources of energy. (which we will need anyway) Looks like a win/win to me!
June 18th, 2009 at 12:01 pm
You would think that all the “GREEN” tree huggers of the world would just love CO2. It is what every tree/plant needs for life. No CO2 / no more plant / no more oxygen / no more us.
Pretty easy for me to understand.
I wonder when they will start taxing us for the air we exhale. I just hope they don’t try to make me stop producing CO2 every time I take a breath. I might have to really get upset.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
I will comment more later, but this propaganda needs to stop!!! Global warming and climate change is a money maker for someone. i will 100% agree the climate is changing because it is always changing. Welcome to God’s created earth. I would love to see facts instead of hearing that the sea levels will rise and Illinois will soon be like Louisianna. I guess your trying to tell us that the gulf of mexico will border Illinois, hmmmmm! Let’s see facts not words and scare tactics!!!!!
June 18th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
I agree with taking practical steps to clean up or environment because it is nice to drink clean water and breath clean air but lets not go overboard on the whole issue like we did with the next ice age thing in the 1980′s or y2k. As long as we are looking at reports check this one out…
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/files/080718%20oped%20bolt%20global%20cooling.pdf
June 18th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
If you are tired of this “CO2 causes global warming” propaganda check out “The Skeptics Handbook” at http://www.joannenova.com. This book is filled not only with scientific facts, but common sense as well.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:38 pm
I thought this forum was about business, Mr. Guay, not BS. I’m glad to read that most of us here still have some common sense.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
I have a question…..how did global warming and global cooling happen before there were factories, vehicles, etc?? I’ll answer it for you; it happens on it’s own and isn’t a thing we can do about it! All this junk about humans causing global warming…it is what it is…pure junk. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
And one more thing; Al Gore claims he “invented” the internet. Remember that.
June 18th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I am thoroughly embarassed by this article. There is absolutely no objectivity. Perhaps a good thing to state at the beginning would be “Most scientists do not feel Climate Change is man made, but many of the government agencies do.” Then it would at least somewhat address that there is no concensus on this topic.
I will be cancelling my subscription to my recurring emails, because frankly, if this topic is not honest in its pretense, how many others are likely to be the same?
June 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Eric,
Don’t kill the messenger. The point of the article is to let you know what the feds are thinking and what they are very likely to do.
–tom
June 18th, 2009 at 12:59 pm
One last comment.
Since when did 1 study trump every other study?
When a studies aim is to prove its hypothesis, the study is flawed. When 1 study goes against the popular concensus of most others, it does not somehow become the rule.
My suggestion is you hire actual scientists who would be willing to put their name on the line from a neutral standpoint, rather than someone who works for a group making money promoting “green living.”
June 18th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
So if temperatures rise then more ice melts and more water evaporates. This creates more clouds and more rainfall. The final effect is cooling. The earth cools down and more ice forms and there is less moisture in the air and then the sun heats up the earth again. Either way you want to focus it, we are constantly changing. The only real problem is when everything goes to an extreme (Ice Age). Anybody remember learning that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction?
June 18th, 2009 at 1:28 pm
This is so biased I honestly thought it was a joke when I read it.
Obama/Gore clones, unite and take action to stop Global Warming. Stop breathing, please!
June 18th, 2009 at 1:33 pm
What these decision makers who determine how we should live our lives and feed us this whole “sky is falling” scenario neglect to explain to the American public is that MAN. Yes, that mean old foolish MAN, in everything he does and with all his faults, only contributes a total of approximately 1% of the total CO2 that gets expelled into our atmosphere. Wherein, the cow, yes the cow, produces enough Methane gas to equal that of 7 automobiles. Yet why aren’t they pushing to outlaw cattle. Or is that coming next. LOL What a farce. It has been said that a government cannot control the masses without an effective campaign of fear.
It has been said that a government cannot control the masses without an effective campaign of fear.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
CO2 and other GHG’s have been steadily increasing by % in the atmosphere for the last 50+ years. We have been experiancing warming for the last 10,000+ years. Temps on Mars and Jupiter are also rising. Is our CO2 the culprit there as well? There has been no apreciable warming since 2001 even though the GHG levels are up 8 – 13% depending on who you talk to. We had snow in bagdad and vietnam for the first time in over 100 years this last year. These facts point to a climate change rather than a planetary warming and to nature rather than man being the prime mover.
Even if it is man caused it is easily reversible by applying aerosols into the tropisphere as was presented at the last big GW shingding. This is what caused the temp downturn in the late 70′s that caused the “coming ice age” scare. the nice thing about this method is that it is self correcting. (5 – 10 years), proven effective at cooling a region, and cheap, (fire up the coal plants). This article reminds me of ghostbuster. these guys are poor scientists but the kids love them.
June 18th, 2009 at 1:54 pm
Tom, If “The point of the article is to let you know what the feds are thinking ” Then why start with a statement that puts man made climate change as a fact?
The drought of the 1930′s was worse than today.. the global temp in the middle ages was higher than today… and oh yea… I always trust the federal Gov. more than Big business…. they NEVER have an agenda… and college scientist that receive Federal money are always honest…
The Debate is OVER… Al Gore is really a Prophet.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:36 pm
Does the report mention acid rain? I’ve been afriad of the rain since 1980. I went out only once since then and my hair fell out. What about the O zone and the dying frogs that live in the acid rain? I also heard the sky was falling.
June 18th, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Tom, FYI, the vast majority of environmental professionals who actually have some knowledge of the science behind climate study do not see this as a closed issue and to date have seen no conclusive data to support climate change being caused by man. This is the second article i have seen that borders on political propaganda. The other headline claimed that “Republicans lied about the cost of cap and trade” when they sited an MIT report. How did they lie? they devided the total cost quoted in the report by the # of households in the US to get a cost per household. Why was this a lie? Because that was an average cost rather than an exact cost. I think you need to as a group go back to college and take ethics 101. journalists are supposed to report facts not opinions.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
The main problem with climate change is that it takes some time before you can point and say, “there, that’s when it started.”
Weather for a small area is so complex it is hard to predict 3 days in advance, climate is worse.
The climate HAS changed often in the past, particularly in the last 3 million years–since the channel between the Pacific and Caribbean was closed.
The one certainty is that the climate is changing now, and rapidly. In fact, much more rapidly than even the most pessimistic “experts” admit.
(Remember that the financial “experts” failed to notice an impending depression for 4 years, until the financial system itself began to collapse….)
Are humans responsible? Mostly, this is only relevant for long term purposes, but the answer appears to be yes.
“Experts” predict a linear rise in sea level, 10cm/decade, which is about what we have seen in the past decade.
This is worrisome as the processes involved are all exponential. That means that we can expect the rate of change to increase dramatically with time.
The nature of exponential change us such that often, by the time you perceive a change, the process is beyond your ability to affect it. Planetary scale events are much like ocean liners, they are difficult to start moving, and equally difficult to stop or change course.
CO2 is probably a problem, although there are many, many other human impacts upon the climate. But the time when changing our CO2 levels can make a significant difference within a short time is long past.
Our best bet for changing climate change in time to reduce the death toll is to re-start the Caribbean Conveyor current which was halted by the closing of the channel.
The best thin g about this is that it can be done in less than a decade, it has a modest cost, the engineering techniques are well-understood, the system can generate power and grow fish which makes it self-financing.
The advantage is that it would seem to be a “permanent” solution, so long as we also clean-up our act” when it comes to disrupting ecosystems.
Ideally, obtaining energy by breaking molecular bonds is in efficient and difficult to execute without major ecosystem damage.
Ideally, we would actually build the proven designs for solar power satellites, moving our energy production away from where we live, and eliminating most of the ecosystem damage caused by finding, retrieving, tr an sporting, com busting and extracting energy from conventional sources. The most practical form of nuclear fusion for energy production is to harvest some of the 10,000 times more energy than we currently use which is freely available within the Moon’s orbit.
With the exception of geothermal and nuclear power, all of our energy comes from the Sun anyway, and conversion costs from light to power are less than from molecule to molecule transformations.
We have a perfectly good fusion reactor, located 93 million miles away (and still dangerous!) But the least efficient way to use it is to do so from a planetary surface covered with gases.
Any large-scale energy extraction performed on the planet is going to have ecological repercussions, although exactly what those will be is largely unknown.
Any engineer will tell you that there is a huge difference between the laboratory and a pilot plant, and an equally large difference between the pilot plant and multiple large-scale deployment.
One windmill has negligible effects, but 1,000 begin to have noticeable effects, what will 1 million do?
The same is true for any method you care to use, they all have problems when scaled up.
Orbital facilities can be built using mostly Lunar materials, in orbit or on the Moon. This puts any pollution from the processes away from where we live (though we need to consider that in the future the Lunar surface may well be desirable real estate…)
The technology needed has been around for 80 years, the transmission of power via electromagnetic waves has been around for over 100 years, and the transmission of electrical power via microwaves was proven in California in the mid-1970′s
Had we begun construction of such power plants in the 70′s, the US would today be exporting power, while not using any of our current generating technologies.
No mining of millions of tons of coal, stripping the productive earth away and creating giant holes. No train and shiploads of coal or oil to spill. No oil drilling. No burning of vegetation. No pollution from manufacturing processes used to make generation equipment.
In fact, the only large scale byproduct of such a system is the net importation of heat to the planet, but since the vast portion of the received energy would be usable (as opposed to the huge loses common to all other generation methods, such increase would be smaller than than our current methods.
Are there hucksters & profiteers and cheats using climate to separate people from their resources? Of course there are! If there’s money, grifters will naturally move towards it. Does that mean that the issue isn’t real? No.
But the US and other governments have inflated their currencies greatly in an attempt to change the course of an economic crash, and spending similar amounts to attempt to avert an ecological disaster–which could conceivably destroy the species–would inject more money into the economy, while actually creating value than giving it all to the financial institutions.
Currently, I believe we have, at most, 20 years before the sea level rises 3-5 meters. This is many times faster than the “experts.” And I actually feel that the time is rather closer to 3- 5 years, although all projections are subject to huge errors and constant correction. The increased quality of information each year permits adjusting the model, but to date all such adjustments have been towards less time rather than increasing the time left.
Would you rather have insurance and not need it, or not have it and need it?
IF the experts are correct, and we prepare, we will be prepared decades early. But if they are wrong, then we are rapidly running our to time to be proactive, and will find ourselves futilely trying to order the ocean to recede.
Prevention is cheaper than a cure.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:38 pm
And applying Pavlov to extremes is rediculous. The above poster makes a lot of assumptions in his posting like saying “Are humans responsible? Mostly, this is only relevant for long term purposes, but the answer appears to be yes.” What a crock.
The Hellocene Maxim was the hottest time on Earth during human cultivation known by science. This was 9000 years ago.
This article and your post fail to admit that the greatest and most abundant “green house gas” ( I hate that phrase) is water vapor, making up over 80% of all the greenhouse gases. Water vapor is not even measurable with respect to how much we produce, only that it is miniscule in comparison to what the earth manufactures.
Answers cannot “apear” to be yes in science. They have to meet the scientific process, and demonstrate with prediction followed by result. The earth was getting hotter forever and ever until it started getting colder.
Does anyone else think that MAYBE, just maybe, the release and increase of carbon dioxide release follows warming trends instead of making them? Ooops.
June 18th, 2009 at 3:58 pm
The problem with your sliding scale of 800, 000 years is that you cannot prove it . It’s all speculation. It’s all meant to scare people into more government control of our lives.
Sorry I don’t buy it.
June 18th, 2009 at 4:06 pm
I agree with all the posts that this author is an example of journalism at it’s worse. Make it an op-ed piece but please don’t even try to pass this GW crap as a statement of fact. Global warming is the result of concensus science, meaning that science is losing the trust of more and more people because it is being based on agreed upon opinions and not real data collected unbiased over a sustained period of time. Al Gore collects a bunch of opinions and voila, they happen to agree with his and he gets a Nobel to boot, making this once honorable prize just a sad joke now. These so-called scientists come up with climate formulas with so many unknowns, unknowns that will always remain unknowns because no one will ever know the true answers (kinda like how many earth-like planets are in the universe). So they can tell me what the CO2 level was 800,000 years ago and what the weather will be like in 100 years, yet they can’t even accurately forecast if it’s going to rain on my Father’s Day BBQ this weekend? The danger, people, is this concensus science is becoming the basis for new laws, laws that will greatly affect world economies right down to Joe the Plumber’s wallet. I am greatly heartened to see the vast majority of posts on here that see this Royal Scam. And Fred C’s previous post is spot-on funny, yes a breath tax will be next LOL…
June 18th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Charles- I don’t think that helped your point much? Maybe you should check out the link in my previous post or even read any of the other posts… or maybe again it may be that you just prefer to keep drinking the ObamaGore kool aid? As a funny little side note to what you said in your post, financial planners have never accurately predicted economic downturns but usually the historians have predicted them fairly accurately. Guess what the historians are saying… it was much warmer in 800 ad and look! were still here. Odd isn’t it?
June 18th, 2009 at 6:14 pm
We can discuss Global Warming, or Climate Change all we want. The fact is the world’s weather is changing (arctic is getting warmer some years, colder other years, etc). The issue is to properly address it. It makes no sense to give a dying patient a shot of penicillin if he is dying from a a crushed skull. Right?
So, has anyone here actually reviewed the CO2 – Temp charts that all this is based on?
Here is a chart…. anyone notice anything abnormal?
http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3057.aspx
(I use this chart because it goes back 400,000 years, and is very clear and easy to read – but take a close look at any chart you choose that has reasonable up to date data.)
Review the following dates (years Before Present – BP)
400,000
325,000
230,000
130,000
And look at
330,000
240,000
140,000
20,000
And compare today to 20,000 BP
Don’t be dogmatic, just honestly review what you actually see in relationship to temp changes and CO2 changes.
I look forward to your observations.
Blessings
June 18th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I haven’t read all of the comments here. But generally I am reading posts by ostriches with their heads in the sand. I hear follow the money over and over. If that’s not the pot painting the kettle black I don’t know what is. The money is with the status quo. It’s with the oil companies, the coal companies, and everyone who has become accustomed to cheap energy. All the complaining is being done by people who don’t want to face reality and pay their bill. It’s nothing but good old fashioned kill the messenger.
I also keep on seeing info on these 31000 or 35000 scientists or what ever. Who are they? I’ve talked to a lot of academics and haven’t found one that professes the views that are supposedly expressed. Might they work for an oil company…Maybe a coal company….How about a lobbying firm that represents Saudi Arabia? Let’s not forget that scientists told us that cigarettes didn’t kill any one until the 1990’s and that seatbelts were a waste of time until the 1970’s or 1980’s.
June 18th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Have you noticed that the author of this tripe does not even post his contact information? I guess he has the belief that if you repeat something often enough and long enough it will somehow become true!
Go figure.
June 19th, 2009 at 6:54 am
“Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the [global] warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as “global warming” would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to “global warming,” any scientist’s agreement will do. The answer almost certainly lies in politics.”
June 19th, 2009 at 7:17 am
I urge everyone to read the following article to understand how all this hogwash began.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html
I would then ask anyone who believes in this fair tale to debate any of the 30,000+ real scientists who have signed a document disputing the effect humans have on the mythical global warming.
http://www.petitionproject.org/
Do not let these people spend trillions on this myth. We would get better bang for our buck by trying to find the Easter Bunny or the Abominable Snowman.
June 19th, 2009 at 7:18 am
I’d point out to the author that originally the authors of this “new” report did not release their sources – that was an attempt to gain maximum political impact and media coverage. Actually there is nothing new about it at all – they simply reviewed old documents and graphs (actually reproduced some that had previous been shown to be fatally flawed) and called it new and convincing. Scientists they are not – political pawns they are.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Don’t be dogmatic, just honestly review what you actually see in relationship to temp changes and CO2 changes.<<
Yeah, the earth warms and cools it warms and cools it warms and cools. It’s been doing that for the last 4 billion years and will do it for the next 4 billion years.
You could do yourself a favor by NOT publishing garbage from the IPCC or any other organization affiliated with the UN. The IPCC reports are NOT written by scientists but by politicians with an agenda.
Lastly, can you explain the rise in temperatures that has happened numerous times over the earths lifespan BEFORE we started burning fossil fuels?
June 19th, 2009 at 8:37 am
I review the graph and see nothing that has not been put forth before. Temp goes up, THEN co2 goes up. You know why? rapid decomposition under warmer temps. 50% plus or minus of the gases given off by deconpositon of organic mater is , WOW, CO2. As we warm more life, as the life dies, more co2 is releases. Perhaps you missed the articles about the tundra permafrost thawing and the organic matter in it that has been frozen for 10,000 plus years is decomposing???? CO2 always follows temps, not the other way around.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:49 am
The land of make beleive Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
I also keep on seeing info on these 31000 or 35000 scientists or what ever. Who are they?
http://www.petitionproject.org/
This site lists not only the names of the scientists but also their credentials…
but be careful, it may spoil the ending in your land of make believe.
June 19th, 2009 at 9:16 am
Might they work for an oil company…Maybe a coal company….How about a lobbying firm that represents Saudi Arabia?<>Let’s not forget that scientists told us that cigarettes didn’t kill any one until the 1990’s and that seatbelts were a waste of time until the 1970’s or 1980’s.<<
That’s odd, the federal government started putting warnings on cigarette packs in 1964.
Do you get all of your information from MoveOn?
June 19th, 2009 at 10:11 am
It’s interesting that if a scientist is funded by an oil company their results are suspect. If funded by the government, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc…, there would be no bias and we should accept the results? Also remember when Earth Day started all the scientists were worried about the impending next ice age – now its warming. The sad part of all this is the public doesn’t seem to care – you can only cry Wolf so long without producing conclusive evidence before people lose interest. No doubt this latest “new” report is designed to generate interest but not present new data.
June 19th, 2009 at 10:52 am
Wow…the responses to this article aren’t even close to what I expected….sounds to me like the majority of the people with enough interest in this subject to leave a comment REJECT the basic premise that the Climate Change is anthropogenic in nature? Shocking…
But…..that would mean that the author, the Government, and the government-bought scientists who published this study could be deluded? Deluded, or in collusion? Which is it?
In the words of Dwight D. Eisenhower in his farewell address (1961):
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
Translated….science today gets its money from government grants…..government is run by politicians….politicians have political agendas that often require “scientific evidence”…see the vicious circle here? Now that the media is vountarily under the Left-wing Government’s control….we have the perfect storm with Climate Change.
Go to http://www.icecap.us for the “other side of the story”….website is run by the original founder of the Weather Channel, who is devoting a large portion of his life and resources to revealing the truth on this issue….and no….he’s not funded by Big Oil, Big Coal, or Big Anything……he’s a real scientist.
June 19th, 2009 at 11:16 am
All I have to say to the American Public is if you honestly believe your governenment is looking out for you and acting in your best interest…Grab another tall cool glass of Kool-Aid. After all, your vote counts right? LOL By the way, the temps of other planets in our solar system has been rising as well. Must be too many beings on these other planets burning too much fossil fuels and driving their SUV’s everywhere.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Psh, whats this 4 billion years ago crap?!?! Where is the proof…..oh wait.
June 19th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
These statements were removed from Chapter 8 of the IPCC’s report after the author wrote the report and it was reviewed and approved. Rather than adding the statements to their Summary Planning Document for government actions, they, the UN, removed them – draw your own conclusions:
“None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed [climate] changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”
“While some of the pattern-base studies discussed here have claimed detection of a significant climate change, no study to date has positively attributed all or part [of the climate change observed] to [man-made] causes. Nor has any study quantified the magnitude of a greenhouse gas effect or aerosol effect in the observed data – an issue of primary relevance to policy makers.”
“Any claims of positive detection and attribution of significant climate change are likely to remain controversial until uncertainties in the total natural variability of the climate system are reduced.”
“While none of these studies has specifically considered the attribution issue, they often draw some attribution conclusions, for which there is little justification.”
“When will an anthropogenic effect on climate be identified? It is not surprising that the best answer to this question is, `We do not know. “‘
June 19th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Excellent comment Jim. I hope everybody looks this up and reads it for themselves.
Oh and just in case you think things are bad it can get worse. Wait until they put a ban on fly killing.
June 19th, 2009 at 8:34 pm
Hi Steve and James,
You are absolutely correct! Possibly more strident than the discussion I was trying to develop.
When you actually look at the CO2-TEMP chart, it shows no correlation between Temp and CO2.
Yes, they often follow the same overall trends but the correlation ends there.
At its peak levels (400,000 BP) a 3-6% drop in CO2 causes a truly Ice Age effect in global temp! How can that be, if small CO2 increases from base levels cause Global Warming?
The fact is it cannot.
325,000 years BP (before present) where CO2 continues to rise, when temps drop precipitously, again.
This same drop occurs at 230,000 BP.
We see this same extreme temp drop at 130,000 BP with less than a 6% CO2 level change.
Further, temps increase dramatically with no CO2 level changes at about 110,000 BP.
Looking at the data, we see a dramatic increase in temperatures every 100,000 or so years, regardless of CO2 levels (330,000 BP,240,000 BP, 140,000 BP, 20,000 BP). And, our current temperature models that began 20,000 BP identically with the Epic 100,000 BP except the temp is nominally higher today.
These charts clearly show tremendous temp drops before and during nominal CO2 level drops. Hence, CO2 cannot have a causative effect.
At issue is when they established the first CO2-Temp charts in the early 1990′s the data was loose enough to look much more compelling. Now that data is verified and more detailed, there is no correlation.
In fact, many early proponents are very strongly anti-GW. They recognize that the updated data shows teh theory is flawed.
So, why does a lie keep growing? Unlike the few dollars Exxon contributed to Institutional studies, GW Research Grants now rank close to NIH grants in size.
Canada, for example, in the last few years, spent more per capita on GW research than each of the past 4 years that the US spent on medical research (our largest research area).
Who does all that money go to? Unemployed and under employed Climatologists! Guys who could’nt otherwise find a minimum wage job! They average millions of dollars per grants while top cancer researchers average a hundred thousand for grants.
All a Climatologist has to do to strike it rich is to ask for money to study GW! That’s it!
I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train
http://mises.org/story/2571
There is no difference between Eisenhower’s Military Industrial Complex and GW Political Reserarch Complex…. its all about the Benjamins!
The Political–Academic–Climate Complex
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/11550
Opponents to this line of thinking will try to dissuade others of the temptation of money and teh nobility of research…..while talking about how Exxon’s money is so tainted with greed by those who take it.
But, look at this fact:
FDA Pharmacodes make it unethical (sic illegal) to give a gift of more than $15 to a medical researcher studying a new drug. So, when Pharma’s bring physicians together to teach them protocols, safety, drug efficacy, etc. for two days, then cannot give them a nice $20 bottle of wine for their room that night…… it could sway their objectivity.
Yet, any climatologist can get almost any grant by slanting it with GW… and, I do have specific examples of grants denied without GW, and teh same grant resubmitted with a GW angle that then gets millions of funding. This includes foreign nations submitting grants requests to the UN and the US, and other nations.
So, when someone discusses how thousands of scientists world wide GW, the truth is most of them are in business to tell governments what they want to hear. This is how the real “scientific” world works
Now, why does this matter?
The weather is changing. First it always changes. the charts prove it. historical evidence shows everyplace on earth has been subject to precipitous changes. Oceans dry up and become mountains, and the reverse.
Second, the Arctic is becoming warmer. So, something is going on. Something IS happening, and it will have ramifications! So, what we need to do is to stop pretending that we already have the answer, and keep our minds and wallets open to find the answer.
Further, instead of spending 10% of our GDP on Cap and Trade, while emerging nations will overwhelm the world with CO2, we should truly determine what the issues are, and who is affected, and invest 1% of our GDP to take care of those issues.
First the economy will not be destroyed; second, someone will actually be helped! OMG! what a concept!
I present these facts for earnest discussions. Discuss the charts, or the analysis.
Blessings,
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:07 am
[...] all a bunch of bunk – seems particularly strident these days. For instance, check out the harsh comments underneath this blog post reviewing the recent release of a report from the U.S. Global Climate Change Research Program [...]
June 22nd, 2009 at 9:09 am
Tom, I don’t think the title to this story worked all that well this time.
Maybe next time it could read; Climate change is here and government paid scientists claim Co2 is the culprit while most other scientists deny it.
June 22nd, 2009 at 1:05 pm
Tom, great of you to try and defend yourself and the article itself, but the title alone is laughable! Are you kidding? I didn’t even read the article- went straight to the comments to see how many sheeple agree with the article – sounds like alot of people know how to think for themselves! Thank goodness! Manmade global warming is a HOAX. Mother nature has way more power than all the people on earch! Common sense! It is another (gov) fear tactic to get more of our money!!! Al Gore is a rich #$&&$@# because of it.
June 23rd, 2009 at 8:45 am
Eric,
Don’t kill the messenger. The point of the article is to let you know what the feds are thinking and what they are very likely to do.<<
I agree…Tom probably laughed at the article as much as we all did. Unfortunately, it’s not a laughing matter. We have a government, the stewards of our tax dollars, getting ready to spend hundreds of billions of dollars trying to find ways to lower the temperature of the earth. Let’s assume for a second that their science fiction plan works and the temperature is lowerd by a 1 degree. If these same “scientists” then say that the earth is too cold, are we they going to tell all the bad guys now to start putting more CO2 or these other “greenhouse gases” into the atmosphere to warm us back up?
June 25th, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Livestock Are a Leading Source of Greenhouse Gases. Why Isn’t Anyone Raising a Stink?
Killer cow emissions
Los Angeles Times, October 15, 2007
Straight to the Source
It’s a silent but deadly source of greenhouse gases that contributes more to global warming than the entire world transportation sector, yet politicians almost never discuss it, and environmental lobbyists and other green activist groups seem unaware of its existence.
That may be because it’s tough to take cow flatulence seriously. But livestock emissions are no joke.
Most of the national debate about global warming centers on carbon dioxide, the world’s most abundant greenhouse gas, and its major sources — fossil fuels. Seldom mentioned is that cows and other ruminants, such as sheep and goats, are walking gas factories that take in fodder and put out methane and nitrous oxide, two greenhouse gases that are far more efficient at trapping heat than carbon dioxide. Methane, with 21 times the warming potential of CO2, comes from both ends of a cow, but mostly the front. Frat boys have nothing on bovines, as it’s estimated that a single cow can belch out anywhere from 25 to 130 gallons of methane a day…
Full Editorial: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-ed-methane15oct15,0,1365993.story?col
June 25th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
To Loud American:
We hear enough about your STUPID cow theory in Texas. Next time you rant don’t do it with a glass of milk in one hand and a hamburger in the other.
If this is true then why did the poor dinosaurs, most of which ate, farted and belched “pollutants”, have to go through an ice age? You would think they would have figured it out and had a bunch more babies to help heat the earth. Guess they should have wished for those darn humans to come to the rescue and pollute the earth so it would warm up.
Or lets look at the days in the world a few hundred years ago when herbivores ran wild around the world in herds numbering more than you could count. Long before the proliferation of man the world was full of cattle, bison and numerous others of this type of species that do basically the same thing as the “cow”.
You know what? I can’t listen to this crap any more. In the famed words or Mark Levin, “Get off the phone you big dope!!!!”
June 25th, 2009 at 2:59 pm
The science about cows and animals in general being a major source of ghg’s is sound. The conclusion that it is an issue is the problem. I’ve been around cows and horses all my life and they do produce large quantities of methane, CO2 and NO2 mixed with some rather unsavory impurities. You haven’t lived until a cow or horse has let go at close range.
June 25th, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Up in Logan, Utah they are actually considering limiting driving of automobiles to reduce the air pollution trapped down it that valley during the winter, mostly from livestock… Should they not go to work in this rural community which would mean letting these animals starve that day since many of these folks work in agriculture or maybe we could just move one of those mountains that surrounds them a little to the side so that the pollution can escape easier… or we could just let them live just how they have for the last hundred years. By the way with all of its pollution Logan still seams to be setting records for cold days in the winter? Hmmm.
August 5th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Very interesting feedback. I have been on the fender of the global warming wagon for a couple years and I frequently speak with people from both sides of the fence. I have always kept an open mind about this and other environmental issues.
Fact is, I really couldn’t care less who or what causes global warming. I really don’t understand enough about weather patterns or any other science for that matter. But I do know that we, as stewards of this planet, must take responsibility with our day to day actions.
Between our air, soil and water, we’ve pretty much got ourselves a huge mess that must be cleaned up at ALL costs. Forget your politics and blame games. Let’s just get down to business cleaning up the place a bit before we hand her down to future generations.
I’m sorry I cannot contribute a plethora of GW facts, complete with charts and graphs. But, I have read enough and listened enough to believe what I believe, and what I believe is, “it’s all about the Benjamins”.
August 6th, 2009 at 10:42 am
I don’t care what anyone says, Tom, you did a great job with this article. Look at the buzz you created and look at all the fine folks with their (mostly) intelligent takes on the topic. Kudos. Controversy is good!
I’d like to see a discussion on “Hair-loss due to UV radiation by the breakdown of atmospheric reflection”. You all have a great day.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:00 am
Roland, I agree that there is a mess to clean up, but at all costs is not a good thing. In California they have encouraged people to buy plug in electric cars even though they have had to used rolling blackouts for the last several years to make up for the lack of electrical production. The lack of adequate power production is due to the fact that coal and oil have become evil, nuclear power is concidered too dangerous by many, wind power is killing bats and solar panels are too soar to the eye for the hard left. So now all of these people that have purchased these green cars that can’t go to work in the morning because their batteries are not charged are asking for goverment assistance to supplement their income… so I ask, at what cost.
August 6th, 2009 at 11:43 am
Good observation Red Neck. I may have misspoken there. What I mean when I say ‘all costs’, is we as individuals need to take some of this on our shoulders. Stop waiting for someone else to do it.
A piece of garbage on the ground just irks me. I can’t stand it. I see people turn a blind eye to garbage everyday. I’ll pick it up and dispose of it every chance I get.
If we all spent a few extra dollars on eco-friendly products, spent a few extra hours working to clean up our storm drains, rivers, highways, parks and beaches, we’d get er done.
I’d rather spend a few dollars and hours to see an improvement in my immediate environment than go to city council meetings and vote on who’s gonna do it and how much it’s gonna cost.
If only 1% of our population put some effort in, we’d get er done. It’s a responsibility of ours, as stewards of this beautiful place, to take care of the air, water and soil.
August 7th, 2009 at 6:00 am
RE: Rolling blackouts…..
living in Northern California, I can assure you that we have not had any rolling blackouts since Gray Davis’ Administration.
This coincides with the Global Cooling that is now going on, driven by the real GW variables, orbit, angle, elipsis, etc.
If you actually read the CO2-Temp charts as I note above you understand that CO2 has no relationship with temp. whatsoever, other than CO2 is released from a warming environment and is a lagging indicator.
Many early GW adherents have now accepted this fact.
The issue comes down to, the world’s weather IS changing, as it has for millenia, and we have to take actions to compensate accordingly.
We can take completely inappropriate and unaffecting actions by staying with bad science that pays incredibly well; or we can actually solve problems by pursuing true science on solving real problems.
Blessings.
November 12th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Tom Guay Says:
June 18th, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Eric,
Don’t kill the messenger. The point of the article is to let you know what the feds are thinking and what they are very likely to do.
–tom
Your excuse is rather disingenuous. You title the article “Like it or not, climate change is here and CO2’s the culprit” The implication is the tired old story that the facts are facts and the science is settled. You are not just passing on what the feds are thinking, you are spreading their gospel as if it fact. If you believe the big fraud then you need to do your research. If you have realized that most of the AGW is a big lie then you shouldn’t write as if it is true.
THANKFULLY, most of the readers here are more knowledgable than you appear to be.