Climate Change: The Keywords (Part 1 of 3)

Written by Geraldo Luís Lino, special to Climate Change Dispatch – reposted here at WUWT by request – Note: the opinion of this author is not necessarily the same as mine. I provide this for discussion by CCD’s request. – Anthony

Ice age Earth at glacial maximum.

Ice age Earth at glacial maximum.

In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Taken almost as a dogma, the AGW has been forcefully imposed by means of a barrage of scare stories and indoctrination that begins in the elementary school textbooks and is volleyed relentlessly upon us by the media and many scientific institutions (including some pseudo-scientific ones), while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.

The threat allegedly posed by that supposed world emergency would justify the need of at least halving the human carbon emissions until mid-century, meaning a draconian reduction of the use of fossil fuels worldwide. Despite the drastic potential impact of such measures upon the living standards of all nations, the failure to do so and of establishing a “low-carbon economy,” we are told, would usher the environmental apocalypse in. Well, fortunately for Mankind it won’t.

However, that avalanche has gone too far. So, it’s high time to turn the alarmist page and discard the buzzwords with which the subject has been marketed once and for all: (undeserved) hype, (unmotivated) scare, (unnecessary) restrictions and (unacceptable) sacrifices. In their stead new keywords are needed to put the climatic phenomena into their proper perspective again: proportion, knowledge and resilience.

Let’s begin with trying to give the climate theme the right proportion concerning its nature and relationship with Mankind.

The environmentalist propaganda machine has ascribed an intrinsically negative and threatening connotation to the expression climate change, as if the climatic oscillations of the last century and a half were something unprecedented and implying that it should be combated at any cost – even if this would hamper the development perspectives of most of the developing countries (and as if Mankind had the necessary knowledge and means to do so). Notwithstanding, changing is the natural condition of the Earth’s climate – in the historical and geological time scales there has never been and there will never be such a thing as a “static” climate (so, climate change is sort of a pleonasm). As a rule of thumb, during 90% of the Phanerozoic eon (the latest 570 million years) the Earth has experienced temperatures higher than the current ones, and 90% of the Quaternary period (the latest 2.6 million years) have elapsed under glacial conditions and temperatures much lower than the current ones.

The Quaternary has also witnessed the most frequent and rapid climatic oscillations in the Earth’s geological history, alternating between cool glacial and warm interglacial periods in 41,000- and 100,000-year cycles. In the last 800,000 years the longer cycles have prevailed and the Earth experienced eight Ice Ages approximately 90,000-year long separated by eight interglacial periods averaging 10,000-11,000 years (although there are controversies about their length).

During the Ice Ages the average temperatures were 8-10°C lower than the current ones, the sea levels were 120-130 m lower and much of the Northern Hemisphere was covered by an ice pack up to 4 km thick, down to the 40°N parallel (the latitude of nowadays New York). During the interglacials the average temperatures reached 4-6°C and the sea levels 3-6 m above the current ones. Our own interglacial the Holocene, which started 11,500-11,700 years ago, had average temperatures up to 4°C and sea levels up to 3 m above the current ones between 5,000-6,000 years ago (Middle Holocene).

The transition periods between the warming and cooling phases and vice versa, when the average temperatures rose or fell the 6-8°C that make the difference between an interglacial and an Ice Age, have lasted from a few centuries to a few decades. [1]

The genus Homo appeared on Earth soon after the onset of the Quaternary. Our species the Homo sapiens sapiens emerged during the penultimate Ice Age, somewhere between 150,000-200,000 years ago. And our problem-solver, city-builder, technological, scientific, industrial and artistic Civilization has been existing entirely in the Holocene and its warmer temperatures that allowed the advent of agriculture.

Some useful tips emerge from such facts:

  • The wild oscillations of the Quaternary are the general climatic condition faced by Humankind ever. We have been coping with them quite successfully and nothing suggests that we cannot continue to do so (as long as common sense and non-partisan science prevail).
  • They outline a background “noise” that by far overshadows the tiny rise of the temperature and sea levels (and their gradients) that have occurred since the late 19th century – respectively 0.8°C and 0.2 m, according to the IPCC. [2] This simply means that there is no scientific way to attribute causes other than natural to these, because the background “noise” has yielded much wider and faster oscillations of the temperatures and sea levels occurring before the Industrial Revolution.
  • The Quaternary climate dynamics seems to be “self-adjusted” to the boundary conditions outlined by the Ice Ages and interglacials. So, the suggested risk of a “runaway warming” or some kind of climate disruption from the human carbon emissions is far-fetched, specially regarding the much ballyhooed “magic number” of 2°C warming that supposedly could not be exceeded (a political contrivance admitted by its own author, the German physicist Hans Joachim Schellnhuber in an interview to the Spiegel Online website). [3] During the interglacials there were higher temperatures without any kind of “runaway” disturbance.

Real global emergencies

As to the real global emergencies requiring urgent actions on new levels of international attention, cooperation, coordination and funding, there is no shortage of them. For those seriously interested in this business, here are some that do not exist only in supercomputer-run mathematical models and that would benefit very much from fractions of the colossal amounts of money – and human resources – that have been wasted with the non-existent AGW:

  • The world’s most serious environmental troubles, particularly in the developing countries, are those related to the lack of water and sanitation infrastructure, like water pollution and the water-borne diseases that kill a child every 15 seconds in the developing countries, according to the World Health Organization. [4] A 2007 poll conducted by the British Medical Journal among physicians all over the world elected fresh water and sanitation infrastructure as the greatest medical advance of the last 150 years – a “privilege” still unavailable for over 40% of the world’s population. [5] In Brazil, less than half of the population have access to sewage systems and two thirds of the child internments in the public health system are due to water-borne diseases. [6] (I’ve never seen Al Gore, Hollywood stars or the major environmental NGOs campaigning for sanitation.)
  • Hunger and its consequences kill a child every six seconds, according to the FAO. [7] Almost one billion people all over the world suffer from chronic hunger, a scenario that will surely worsen due to the current speculation-driven price rise affecting some basic staples. [8] Besides the immoral waste of productive lives, the annual economic cost of such a tragedy in productivity, revenue, investment and consumption losses is estimated in the order of hundreds of billion dollars. [9]
  • The lack of access by much of the world’s population to modern energy sources. Dung and firewood, the most primitive fuels known to Mankind, are still the basic resources for the daily needs of most of the Sub-Saharan Africans (besides being major sources of deforestation and respiratory diseases). Although with lower figures, the same happens in much of Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean. And, as over 80% of the world’s primary energy needs are provided by coal, oil and natural gas, it’s not difficult to ascertain the potential consequences of the intended restriction of their uses, as proposed by many scientists, environmentalists, politicians, carbon traders and all the people terrified by the AGW scare stories. Besides that, thermoelectric plants generate about two thirds of the world’s electricity, the rest being almost totally provided by hydroelectric and nuclear plants (also increasingly targeted by the environmentalists). [10]

The list of real troubles is much longer, but these few examples suffice to demonstrate the distortions of the agenda of global discussions, both among the policymakers and the public opinion in general (which, in the case of the climate issues, also reflect a widespread deficiency of scientific education among the educated strata of the societies).

In any case, make no mistake. Barring an unforeseen technological breakthrough, there won’t be large scale replacements for the fossil fuels until late this century at least. Massive national and international investments in efficient and integrated multi-modal and urban transportation systems may and should help to reduce the use of automobiles and trucks, particularly in the overcrowded big cities. For power generation, there are the options of harnessing the hydroelectric potential still available, the expansion of nuclear energy and the interlinking of continental and even inter-continental power grids in order to enhance both the energy efficiency and security for all countries involved (forget the current “alternative sources” for large scale uses, they are not technologically and economically feasible for energizing urban and industrial societies). However – and hence –, coal, oil and natural gas will continue to be sources of development and progress for a long time yet – and it is unacceptable that its growing use be hindered by an imaginary threat.

The author is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish in Mexico).

Sources:

  1. The Paleomap Project, website of University of Texas (Arlington) geologist Dr. Christopher R. Scotese, provides a good overview on the Earth’s geologic, geographic and climatic evolution over the past 1.1 billion years, with a well-written text and didactic animated maps that are useful and interesting for general readers and professional geoscientists alike (www.scotese.com). For an excellent description of the Quaternary climatic history, see the Chapter 2 of Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth: Global Warming, the Missing Science (Lanham: Taylor Trade Publishing, 2009). Spanish language readers may find particularly interesting the website of Dr. Antón Uriarte, a geographer at the Universidad del País Vasco, Paleoclimatologia: Historia del Clima y Cambios Climáticos (http://homepage.mac.com/uriarte/).
  2. IPCC, Climate Change 2007: Synthesis Report – Summary for Policymakers, http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/syr/ar4_syr_spm.pdf.
  3. Marco Evers, Olaf Stampf and Gerald Traufette, “A Superstorm for Global Warming Research”, Spiegel Online, 1/04/2010, http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,686697,00.html.
  4. Oliver Cumming, Tackling the silent killer: the case for sanitation. London: WaterAid, July 2008, http://www.wateraid.org/documents/tacking_the_silent_killer_the_case_for_sanitation.pdf.
  5. Sarah Boseley, “Sanitation rated the greatest medical advance in 150 years”, The Guardian, 1/19/2007, http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2007/jan/19/health.medicineandhealth3.
  6. Marcelo Cortes Neri (Coord.), Trata Brasil: Saneamento e Saúde. Rio de Janeiro: Fundação Getúlio Vargas, 2007.
  7. Bread for the World, “Hunger Facts: International”, http://www.bread.org/learn/hunger-basics/hunger-facts-international.html.
  8. FAO, “Hunger”, http://www.fao.org/hunger/en/.
  9. FAO/Alessandra Benedetti, “Hunger on the rise: soaring prices add 75 million people to global hunger rolls”, 9/18/2008, http://www.fao.org/news/story/ch/item/7544/icode/en/.
  10. International Energy Agency statistics page, http://www.iea.org/stats/index.asp.

Geraldo Luís Lino is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish)

About these ads
This entry was posted in Earth, Environment. Bookmark the permalink.

120 Responses to Climate Change: The Keywords (Part 1 of 3)

  1. John K. says:

    Excellent piece! Why is it that geologists who look at Earth’s history in ‘deep time’ are usually AGW skeptics? Perspective? Training? Experience? Probably doesn’t matter but it is something I’ve noticed and am more than happy to see.

  2. FijiDave says:

    Well done!

    Good article.

  3. Dean says:

    Bravo!!!!!!!

  4. Eric Anderson says:

    “The author is a Brazilian geologist and author of the book “The Global Warming Fraud: How a Natural Phenomenon was Converted into a False World Emergency” (published in 2009 in Portuguese, with over 5,000 copies sold so far, and soon to be published in Spanish in Mexico).”

    This is good news. There is so much published in English, it is great to see capable individuals taking up the task in other languages.

  5. Jimbo says:

    I think the following is evidence of an ice-free Arctic ocean during the present Holocene.
    See here, here and here.

    No wonder quite a few geologists are so openly hostile to AGW.

  6. Cherry Pick says:

    Well written summary telling why we should reject CAGW.

    Electric cars will be changing the urban transportation. They suit particularly well to crowded Asian cities, where the length of daily commute is low.

  7. Vorlath says:

    Looking at the past, I wonder how much worse the alarmists would be if the Sahara and the Nile were drying up today instead of thousands of years ago. If such a drastic event were to take place today, I could see the alarmists pointing and saying “How can you argue against what’s before your very eyes?”

    In a way, it reminds me of criminal cases where the prosecution tries to argue that the severity of the crime implies guilt. The worse it is, the more the suspect is guilty. If it gets warmer, does it really mean that humanity is responsible? Guilty as charged based on the perceived severity of climate change?

    I think that is the last battle to be fought before catastrophic AGW falls apart and science comes back.

    Good article!

  8. Douglas Field says:

    This certainly provides perspective and a reminder of the real priorities to focus upon.

    Thanks
    Douglas

  9. Engchamp says:

    This is proof positive that climate science need not be swamped with theories, data, graphs and lengthy complicated explanation, albeit a small part of the science. I look forward eagerly to the other two parts.
    A brilliant and well articulated post.
    Encore, Geraldo!

  10. Charlie Barnes says:

    Very nicely put.

    When is the book going to be published in English?

  11. Jimmy Haigh says:

    Jimbo says:
    November 6, 2010 at 10:35 am

    “No wonder quite a few geologists are so openly hostile to AGW.”

    Yup. Me and all my geologist mates are anti AGW. The only geologists I know who are pro AGW are in academia…

  12. Juraj V. says:

    I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago. But hey, all I got is a stinkin’ graph from Wiki.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

  13. fredJ says:

    “In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).”

    When one considers the number of people in this world who have unproven deeply held religious beliefs, it is not difficult to understand the acceptance of unproven AGW theory by those who accept with out question what the preacher says .
    You can fool a heck of a lot of people all of the time.

  14. Lance says:

    will be interested in seeing what part 2 and part 3 have.

  15. Oiao says:

    New graphic to show how San FranFreakShow is using Green Socialism to scare people and ban McDonald’s Happy Meal toys. Scroll up to see image, once the link opens.

    http://tinyurl.com/2c9oymf

  16. Jimbo says:

    Juraj V. says:
    November 6, 2010 at 11:14 am
    I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago. But hey, all I got is a stinkin’ graph from Wiki.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    See this:

    The last interglacial period, Marine Isotope Stage (MIS) 5e, was characterized by global mean surface temperatures that were at least 2 °C warmer than present1. Mean sea level stood 4–6 m higher than modern sea level
    http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v1/n1/full/ngeo.2007.28.html

  17. Alexander says:

    Except for thin clouds, there’s no experimental proof of the 0.7 W/m^2 median ‘cloud albedo effect’ cooling in AR4, so it’s entirely theoretical. Yet the equation used, based on one derived by Sagan in 1967, is wrong because it assumes one process, internal diffuse scattering, when there’s also direct backscattering at the upper cloud surface.

    The net effect is that for thicker clouds, pollution cannot produce a cooling effect and when you add the need for other recent heating, AR4′s prediction of 3 K ‘climate sensitivity’ is high probably by at least a factor of 3. Also, as ‘cloud albedo effect’ heating may be substantial, another AGW, the net CO2 effect may be near zero.

    Since about 2004 when experiment apparently disproved the effect, NASA has claimed on some websites ‘enhanced reflection’ from the increased surface area of water droplets in polluted clouds, That’s a physics’ fairy tale.

    Sagan who started the runaway global warming scare seems to have got it wrong for Venus. I wonder if we have been subjected to what was the biggest scientific mistake in History until about 2004, which after that date became its biggest ever scam?

  18. Ern Matthews says:

    I just rented the Movie Agora, and right away I could see what we are up against. This is a fight we cannot loose. Ever!

  19. Robin Pittwood says:

    Thank you Geraldo for the work you are doing. The huge waste of money, scientific effort, yes and even political effort, being spent and focussed on fixing the so-called AGW problem is indeed diverting much needed attention from other real issues many many people are facing. I will be sure to check back to read the next two parts. Robin (New Zealand).

  20. Jimbo says:

    More reasons for geologists’ scepticism.

    The available evidence is consistent with a peak Antarctic interglacial temperature that was at least 6 K higher than that of the present day —approximately double the widely quoted 3 ± 1.5 K (refs 5, 6).
    http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7271/full/nature08564.html

  21. All that need be done to show that CO2 has nothing to do with climate temperature is overlap the GEOCARB III CO2 graph over the PALEOMAP Temperature graph (available on numerous web sites). CO2 has been 18 times higher than today and the world survived just fine.

    Hopefully, in the not too distant future the realization that planetary mechanics controls out climate and CO2 just comes along for the ride will prevail.

    In the meantime, enjoy the two decade descent to the bottom of the Landscheidt Grand Solar Minimum and prepare to freeze your rear-end off.

  22. David L. Hagen says:

    Judith Curry writes in No dogma.

    Let’s wipe out dogma from climate science.

  23. David L. Hagen says:

    No dogma
    Curry quotes Charles Sanders Peirce on settling disagreements by:

    the scientific method whereby inquiry regards itself as fallible and continually tests, criticizes, corrects, and improves itself.

  24. Doug in Seattle says:

    More translations needed.

    Portuguese (5,000 copies), Spanish (10 x 5,000), English (100 x 5,000).

  25. 4 says:

    There have been a number of comments about geologists as skeptics, and they are right on. Most of us have spent years studying ancient climates, glaciations, corals, sea level changes, etc, etc, etc. We know that climate signals are very hard to detect, especially at the scale of the present instrumental record. Thus, we really lack confidence in any studies that claim to have high resolution climate data from proxies. I am in a department with a large climate group. It has been amazing to see in the last year, that skeptics are final stepping up. We aren’t afraid of being fired or ostracized for having a health distrust for policy-driven science. I see a lot of work on the horizon that will challenge the long held beliefs of warmist. It is good to see balance returning to the debate.

  26. Mike McMillan says:

    The only causes of hunger and starvation in this world are political. Think Zimbabwe and North Korea to name a few. We grow enough food to feed everyone, and yields will keep improving as long as the CO2 keeps rising. The problem is government.

    No one has extended human life spans more than the plumber. Maybe we could get
    Congress to proclaim a National Plumbing Day.

  27. Bob Newhart says:

    Right on!!!
    It seems to me that the bigger picture is not just about global warming and cooling, or being manmade or not; but the application and use of propaganda by special interest groups in the 21st century on a world-wide basis.
    I find it absolutely amazing to witness the hijacking of the Associated Press, various Science Organizations, and manipulation by politicians, and manipulation of the school system. Further, the tactics of group and peer pressure used and applied to people of different viewpoints rivaled only by those used by the totalitarians of WWII.
    Have we gotten any smarter? Even with a communications boom of the ’80s and ’90s brought about by internet, we are still only sheep following (or preaching) one agenda or another.
    Even more scary, the hypocrisy of people running around preaching the agenda, that do not follow it themselves. The outrageousness of the Copenhagen Summit with tens of thousands of people flying half way around the world just to hold a sign about global warming. Just about every high profile AGW screamer living in outrageous excess of that which they are preaching, yet so many people seem to follow blindly, and feel great in doing so.
    Bob

  28. berniel says:

    And our problem-solver, city-builder, technological, scientific, industrial and artistic Civilization has been existing entirely in the Holocene and its warmer temperatures that allowed the advent of agriculture.

    The fear that has been generated generally concerns the threat to civilisation. Civilisation developed in the Holocene. 100 years ago it became clear by geological evidence (varves), and other evidence, that the climate variations observed across geological time continued to the present time, as (smaller shorter) variations were observed right through the holocene to the present. For some reason climate science kept forgetting this discovery.

    The reason might indeed related to this fear. Bruckner, Huntington and Lamb all recorded the (sometimes cruel and merciless) impact of small variations in the global climate upon the course of civilisation.

    We could only accept climate variation when in the 1970s a story was picked up that we might have some impact on it. This grew to the carbon-emissions ‘thermostat’ where we can control our climate destiny. It was this fear-control thing that got mixed up in the funding-political thing.

    In this is the resilience of AGW. The only back-story that matters is climate and civilisation during the holocene. And there is a lot we can say about that, including that warm times are generally good times. The rest of the human-climate back-story hardly matters.

  29. Dave Wendt says:

    Juraj V. says:
    November 6, 2010 at 11:14 am
    I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago. But hey, all I got is a stinkin’ graph from Wiki.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    The relative sea level graph included in this piece seems to support their contention

    http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/sealevel.htm

  30. Dave Wendt says:

    In re the graph I mentioned in the post above. You have to click on the photo sequence at the top right of the text several times to get to it. Sorry I neglected to include this before.

  31. Curiousgeorge says:

    “while gullible or opportunistic politicians devise all possible means of inserting climate-motivated items into their power-seeking schemes.”

    So many cats. So little time. (To paraphrase Obama )

  32. ShrNfr says:

    @Mike McMillan I would rather use the plumbing to dispose of Congress. That would be an even greater advance.

  33. Joe Crawford says:

    4 says (November 6, 2010 at 11:56 am):

    I am in a department with a large climate group. It has been amazing to see in the last year, that skeptics are final stepping up.

    That’s the best news I have heard lately. It’s about time reason was re-introduced into academia.

  34. John A says:

    Re: Juraj

    I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago. But hey, all I got is a stinkin’ graph from Wiki.
    http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/1/1d/Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

    Keep your “art”. I’ll stick to science

  35. Neo says:

    There is plenty of proof out there that world oil production either has or is about to peak, leading to an increased scarcity going forward.
    Perhaps if we dealt with the real problem at hand, flat or decreasing oil production, and leaving aside this Potemkin of AGW (AKA Global Warming, AKA climate change, AKA climate disruption, etc) and the “Green jobs” that come with it, we would all be better served.

  36. orkneygal says:

    Excellent essay Sr. Lino. Thank you.

    Might I just add-
    -Overfishing of the oceans
    -Poisoning of waterways and coastal areas due to agricultural practices.
    -Unsustainable and devastating land use practices, such as slash and burn
    -Ocean pollution, including garbage, oil and petroleum discharge, etc.
    -Continued real air pollution through discharge of aerosols.
    -Destruction of native habitat

    The list could go on, but the point is the same.

    The CAGW fixation has been a disaster for the environment. All though resources being wasted on a non-problem.

    Again, thank you.

  37. David A. Evans says:

    Jimmy Haigh says:
    November 6, 2010 at 11:04 am

    Yup. Me and all my geologist mates are anti AGW. The only geologists I know who are pro AGW are in academia…

    Strange that… Only in academia…

    DaveE.

  38. davidmhoffer says:

    Great article! One quible.

    Factoids like “one child dies of a water borne disease every 15 seconds” seem to be a favourite tactic of alarmists. It may be completely true, but as expressed, it is meaningless. Is that one child in 10? 10,000? 10,000,000? It sounds dire, and for the families afflicted it is. But if you’re going to rank it as one of the world’s leading problems, then please express it via numbers that can be meaningfully compared. It might turn out that water borne diseases are only 1/10th of say malaria on a per capita basis. Can’t tell when consistent means of measurement aren’t used.

    Left off your list is also a matter that another commenter referred to, which is death by politics. Millions live in daily fear of death from agents of their own government in Darfur, yet not a peep from the “do gooders” of the planet. The Congo is a mess and Somalia is a diasaster. Robert Mugabe has transformed his country from the bread basket of Africa to the basket case of Africa with mice becoming a source of food for many. These are humanitarian disasters that cry out for intervention, and could be dealt with for a fraction of what we have flushed down the drain looking for evidence of a catastrophe of our own making. In the meantime we ignore the catastrophes we have made.

    The difference I suppose is AGW is a debate predicated on a warmist position that policies must be implemented and law abiding citizens must comply. Fixing Darfur or Somalia on the other hand requires armed intervention and loss of lives. The “do gooders” don’t seem to understand that much of the world is NOT a law abiding society, and is run by gangsters who make their own rules.

    The “do gooders” are exasperated that the rest of us cannot see the wisdom of what is obvious to them, and so commited are they to the conclusions they have drawn that presenting evidence to them is futile. Just as they ignore the science before their eyes they ignore the plight of millions whose real catastrophes are far more easily proven. They can admit to neither because both causes are predicated on the notion that all the world’s problems will go away if we would just listen and do as we’re told.

    Remarkable that in a law abiding society they have actual influence. Can you imagine preaching the dire consequences to humanity of his agricultural practices to Robert Mugabe in a public forum in Zimbabwe? The preaching would be short, brought to an end by a bloody public beating. No wonder the “do gooders” stay away from the real problems.

  39. UK Sceptic says:

    Well written Geraldo. An excellent summary of the situation. Looking forward to your two follow up posts.

  40. Cirrius Man says:

    I’ve often wondered what would happen if we divided up our countries into 2 parts so as to allow warmists to live a separate zero carbon life using solar panels and wind turbines, cycling to work, eating only vegetables, hoping the wind would blow on cold nights, etc.

    The rest of us could then go about normal business driving our cars, and being happy in our warm homes, heated by cheap electricity.

  41. Jim D says:

    This post is a little self-contradictory. One point made is that it has been 4 degrees higher in the past, and humans coped, so no big deal. This seems to concede we will be 4 degrees higher again, otherwise why mention it. So this is fine. Then it talks about current crises related to water shortages, sanitation, starvation etc., but makes no effort to investigate how these will be affected by 4 degrees higher temperatures, and a thousand times higher world population. Would it not make sense to at least mention this connection between the two themes in the post? Do warmer temperatures make these things worse or not? What is the conclusion? Perhaps the other parts will address these combined crises in more detail.

  42. jorgekafkazar says:

    fredJ says: “When one considers the number of people in this world who have unproven deeply held religious beliefs, it is not difficult to understand the acceptance of unproven AGW theory by those who accept with out question what the preacher says.”

    There is a slight similarity. All the same, if Al Gore invites you to a sleepover at the AGW Church rectory, don’t go, Fred.

  43. Schadow says:

    Anthony: Care to share differences you have with this paper? Inquiring minds and all that ….

  44. Louis Hissink says:

    ““No wonder quite a few geologists are so openly hostile to AGW.”

    Yup. Me and all my geologist mates are anti AGW. The only geologists I know who are pro AGW are in academia…”

    Just don’t tell Bob Carter that – he is in academdia :-)

  45. Tom says:

    This might be of topic but, I have been a supporter of this site for at least three yearsa. I have been reading and agreeing with your responders that we need to get out the popcorn and enjoy the ride as we watch indicators vindicate us and show that things have topped out and are not really warming up as much as the warmists are proclaiming. And artic ice was one of the prime indicators of this as it recovered from the low in 2007 (I think). Yet I watched as artic ice nearly hit a low this year when compared to the past years. Please stop playing games with us and trying to justify the numbers and come up with something that those of us who are lay persons in all of this can put a little faith in. Thanks.

  46. Lots of interesting response to sea level, when the real import of the message is real problems we are facing. I would disagree with the author on the need for new technology to harness renewables. We have adequate technology now, that is economically uncompetitive only because we subsidize fossil fuels with the failure to force internalization of major costs. He is right that it will take decades to do enough about the problem. World oil supply has probably already peaked, in 2008, and world oil exports peaked in 2005. World oil supply will go into terminal decline starting not later than 2014, and maybe as early as 2012. World NG supply will peak by 2030, and coal supply by 2050. I’m sure a bunch of you will jump on me about shale gas, shale oil, bitumen etc. Unfortunately there are real problems with all of them, from overestimation of shale gas to low production rates for oil sands and bitumen, to extremely low energy return for shale oil. None of these supposed supplies will do anything but modestly slow post-peak declines. The reductions of fossil fuel energy will take place, even if not because of AGW fears. That is the first problem we should be addressing, and I guess we will start in about 3 years time, a decade too late to stave off a crisis. Now I will get flamed by people here who have the same kind of religious faith in plentiful fossil fuel supply that the warmers have in AGW.

  47. Geo says:

    Well written!
    I also wonder how the young students of today ( and over the last 8 years or so) will be impacted, wrt their perception of science as a whole? Will it be for the good, as they will have ultimately been shown that skeptisism is a GOOD thing for science? Or will they view science as a joke, and turn themselves off to it?

  48. The real hockey stick,

    The hunger of Niños and Niñas.

    http://typo3.fao.org/fileadmin/templates/publications/imgs/fig_1_en

    in

    FAO estimates that a total of 925 million people are undernourished in 2010 compared with 1.023 billion in 2009,

    http://www.fao.org/publications/sofi/en/

    Pleasant reading. Great job Geraldo.

  49. Milwaukee Bob says:

    Extremely well written and thought out Geraldo!
    fredJ said at 11:15 am
    When one considers the number of people in this world who have unproven deeply held religious beliefs, it is not difficult to understand the acceptance of unproven AGW theory by those who accept with out question what the preacher says .
    fred, your logic is faulty. I have seen virtually zero connection between religious beliefs and AGW theory. Just the opposite. By far the majority of people I have encountered that believe the AGW theories have no religious beliefs, other than an a devout belief in the almighty “Computer Model.” Also, please keep in mind that those “deeply held religious beliefs” are unproven to YOU. And that is an inalienable right you have, to believe or not whatever you want, but you have no “standing” to say what is proven or unproven to others. Further, the great majority of the 1,000s of people I have personally encountered that hold deep “religious” beliefs did NOT come to that way of thinking by simply accepting what some other person says, but rather by extensive research on their own, quite often after direct, personal contact with either extreme evil, miraculous good, or both.

  50. Kev-in-UK says:

    As a geologist myself – I would like to add to the previous comments.
    Through Geology (often called Earth Sciences these days!) and the proper explanation of geology – this is the only way for Joe Average to get a ‘handle’ on the scale and variation of changes in earths climate. These changes are well known and documented in rocks (amazing, but true!) and are readily available (i.e. as the raw data!) for all to see!
    The timescale is the other important benefit that geologists are able to grasp. When we look at a cliff face, we dont see just a rock face – we ‘see’ a definitive record of past conditions – and this (typically) may span hundreds of thousands of years or millions of years in a single face of rock. The palaeontologists can take it a stage further, and microscopically inspect the fossil flora and fauna changes over those ‘millions’ of years. From this, many other climatic factors can be deduced, but again, the important aspect is the timescale. It is precisely this ‘timescale’ aspect that makes many geologists sceptics or deniers – because they fully appreciate the tiny timeframe that constitutes modern climate science ‘data’ is a mere drop in the ocean of geological time!
    I guess, by the same token, geologists (well me anyway) are probably also strongly ‘green’ – because we also appreciate that natural resources are NOT infinite and wastefulness is wrong. I don’t know about actual oil ‘use’ statistics today; but in the past, oil was MOSTLY used to make plastics and other products – fuel was almost a minor product! So, for me personally, everytime, I see a discarded plastic bag, or a plastic cup, or any electrical consumer goods – and I know that several ounces or many gallons of oil were used to produce it – I feel that its a needless waste – why couldn’t a more ‘green’ item be used? So, it should be readily apparent that for many geologists – the green versus climate debate is a bit of a dichotomy!
    This discrepancy between the green movement and the climate change movement is therefore particularly annoying because on the one hand, I accept being ‘green’ but I cannot tolerate the BS of climate science. In the same way, as a geologist, I am fully aware that disposal of nuclear waste is a relatively easy challenge – but the likes of Greenpeace are totally anti-nuclear! – so in Greenpeace eyes, I would be a heretic! (I’m not a member of greenpeace and would never join simply for this blinkered attitude!)
    The sooner climate science, and the environmental movement start listening to real scientists in an impartial manner the better.

  51. johnmcguire says:

    Thank you Geraldo, thank you Anthony!

  52. 1DandyTroll says:

    So essentially even though the bickering critics amongst each other back and forth the skeptic is a mentally healthy rational human being.

    But the fear monger or otherwise hawker of dooms day scenarios is actually as f-ed up a hippie as can be expected.

    See what I did there?

  53. rbateman says:

    90,000 years from now, I wonder if there will be any trace of the Holocene civilizations and their scientific and political conundrums.
    70,000-80,000 years in the next Ice Age will erase a lot.
    I would fully expect the climate average to turn inexorably downward over the next millenia or two, with the 2nd episode of the Little Ice Age a noticably lower than the first.

  54. John Whitman says:

    Schadow says:
    November 6, 2010 at 2:51 pm

    Anthony: Care to share differences you have with this paper? Inquiring minds and all that ….

    ——————-

    Anthony,

    I share Schadow’s curiosity about any differences you have with the paper. What is the basis of your statement “Note: the opinion of this author is not necessarily the same as mine.”? Or is this just boilerplate legal disclaimer?

    There apparently will be 2 more parts to it, but in part one I find only one area that I differ with. It is Geraldo’s idea that the money would be better spent by government on other things than AGW scenarios. I object fundamentally the government’s involvement in all the areas suggested, including climate science. These things must be funded voluntarily and privately for the sake of keeping society free from authoritarian government.

    John

  55. Reltih Floda says:

    The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one. If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed
    All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.
    By the skillful and sustained use of propaganda, one can make a people see even heaven as hell or an extremely wretched life as paradise.
    How fortunate for governments that the people they administer don’t think.

  56. Jesper says:

    Excellent piece, thanks! It’s also important, imo, to put focus on actual problems that the UN and the rest of us could have tackled (i.e., spent money on) instead of the climate scare. This is summarized pretty strongly by one Fiona Kobusingye:

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/26868

    But that doesn’t go well with the Club of Rome agenda, obviously.

  57. andyscrase says:

    pleonasm. Another word added to my lexicon, thanks.

    So appropriate for “climate change”.

  58. Francisco says:

    Juraj V. says:
    November 6, 2010 at 11:14 am
    I am not sure whether the sea level was several meters higher few thousand years ago.
    =================
    On the topic of sea levels from a historical perspective there was an excellent comment in a thread here a few months ago. It’s maybe the most informative I’ve seen:
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/13/ipcc-sea-level-prediction-not-scary-enough/#comments
    Look for the comment by David Middleton at 4:45 am. And click at the links to the graphs for the different periods

  59. GregO says:

    Geraldo Luís Lino,

    Excellent – well said and said with heart and soul. I look forward to parts 2 and 3 on this website and to the English language translation of your fine work.

  60. Peter Miller says:

    As a geologist, similar to many others commenting here, I believe most of CAGW is BS, but then again one has to remember:

    1. Geology is a real science, which is always seeking and questioning , while ‘climate science’ is like a religious sect, totally rigid in its beliefs, with its adherants committed to distorting the facts for their own personal gain.

    2. Geologists are trained to understand natural cycles, while ‘climate scientists’ believe this obvious state of the Earth’s history and future to be a great heresy.

  61. eadler says:

    I can’t find a biography for this author, to see what other work he has done that merits listening to him as an authority.

    This article seems to be the same old often recycled arguments against AGW that don’t hold water because they are illogical, and leave out important facts that show how illogical.
    1)We have seen climate cycles before and the temperatures we are seeing today are nothing special.
    This argument has been made many times. Here is a reply:

    http://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?a=22&p=3

    “A common skeptic argument is that climate has changed naturally in the past, long before SUVs and coal-fired power plants, so therefore humans cannot be causing global warming now. Interestingly, the peer-reviewed research into past climate change comes to the opposite conclusion.

    ….

    There are a number of different forces which can influence the Earth’s climate. When the sun gets brighter, the planet receives more energy and warms. When volcanoes erupt, they emit particles into the atmosphere which reflect sunlight, and the planet cools. When there are more greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the planet warms. These effects are referred to as external forcings because by changing the planet’s energy balance, they force climate to change.

    It is obviously true that past climate change was caused by natural forcings. However, to argue that this means we can’t cause climate change is like arguing that humans can’t start bushfires because in the past they’ve happened naturally. Greenhouse gas increases have caused climate change many times in Earth’s history, and we are now adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at a increasingly rapid rate.”
    Also:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-change-little-ice-age-medieval-warm-period-intermediate.htm
    “Natural climate change in the past proves that climate is sensitive to an energy imbalance. If the planet accumulates heat, global temperatures will go up. Currently, CO2 is imposing an energy imbalance due to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Past climate change actually provides evidence for our climate’s sensitivity to CO2.”

    The second them in his article is:
    2) Man has survived previous intervals when climate changed radically.

    Of course he fails to take into account that the human population was much smaller than the 6Billion we have today, and climate change was slower. This permitted humans to deal with it by migration. That capability is not going to be open to the hundreds of millions who will become Climate Refugees due to the more extreme floods and droughts that are the projected result of global warming if we do nothing about it.

    These omissions are so obvious I am surprised it has taken 40 responses for someone to notice.

  62. Brian H says:

    Jim D;
    a “thousand times higher world population”?

    Give it a rest, Dude.

    8 bn peak in 2030.

  63. mike sphar says:

    Reads a lot like Plimer’s Heaven and Earth. Well done sir.

  64. John K. Sutherland says:

    The world’s most serius problems arise from two sources only:

    1 Ignorance

    2 Poverty

  65. Francisco says:

    Geologists know a thing or two about the history of the planet, no wonder they tend to frown on alarmist claims that something very unusual is going on with the climate.

    At the International Geological Congress held in Oslo in 2008 it was reported that:
    “About two thirds of the presenters and question-askers were hostile to, even dismissive of, the IPCC (International panel on climate change) and the idea that the Earth’s climate was responding to human influences.”
    http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2008/08/report-from-33d-intl.html

  66. Brian H says:

    Peak Energy is dead. No foreseeable end to frac-able NG (and associated oil).

  67. StrongStyle81 says:

    I’m glad to see this point brought up in an article, it always seemed to me that the whole AGW theory depended entirely on the ignoring of history. As far as I understand it the end of the Ice Age was a turbulent time on the Earth’s surface. Egypt was green before drying up, which amounts to a pretty massive climate change for that region. The Nile shrank. Yet the Egyptians formed a sophisticated civilization after what could be considered an “apocalyptic climate shift” in the region. The transition from the Ice Age to the Holocene was far more intense than anything we’re likely to encounter and not only did we survive it, we thrived and raised to new heights in Sumer and Egypt.

    Then there is the argument that we have to stop AGW to save the Earth. If cooling and warming are natural, how are we going to save the Earth by trying to prevent those processes? As if we could in the first place. If the health of the planet is an issue (and when it comes to things living on it, it is always an issue) then historical perspective challenges AGW’s apocalyptic visions. The health of the planet will always be an important issue and should be treated as such as long as we’re living on it. But screaming that the sky is falling helps nothing. I’m sure the Earth has been through worse than us. God knows the amount of pollutants and carbon ejected into the atmosphere when the meteor struck that killed the dinosaurs. Yet the Earth recovered and here we are today.

    As the point was already made, there are real ecological threats that AGW distracts us from. I’m sure BP dumping craptons of oil into the gulf is going to have far more devastating effects than global warming will.

  68. John Whitman says:

    Kev-in-UK says:
    November 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    [ . . . . much of the body edited out by me . . . ]

    The sooner climate science, and the environmental movement start listening to real scientists in an impartial manner the better.

    ——————–

    Kev-in-UK,

    You entire post was well said.

    John

  69. Katherine says:

    Dave Wendt says:
    November 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    In re the graph I mentioned in the post above. You have to click on the photo sequence at the top right of the text several times to get to it. Sorry I neglected to include this before.

    Did you mean this image:
    Relative sea level record based on dated corals from Barbados, Araki, and assorted Caribbean islands compared to V19-30 δ18O sea level proxy.

  70. Binny says:

    Anyone with even a passing interest in human history, knows that humans have always thought/hoped that they could control the climate.
    All that was required was the appropriate sacrifice to the appropriate god.
    The only thing that has ever changed was the type of sacrifice and the particular God.

    Nothing has changed, we are simply witnessing what history tells us is normal human behaviour.

  71. morgo says:

    I agree with CIRRIUS MAN 100%

  72. Robert of Ottawa says:

    Sorry, I appreciate your effort to write, but you lost me right here when you described the AGW POS as an (unmotivated) scare;

    WRONG! It was clearly and always motivated by idealogues who wanted, worse than profit from the scare, to gain control of humanity.

    The eviro-mentalists truely are fascists, in the same vein as Trotsky, Hitler, Stalin, Mao et al.

    THEY MUST BE RESISTED!

    Understand this: Due to technology, mostly the internet and air travel, the globe has become a “community”, whether anyone likes it or not. Some, eco-fascists par example, see it as a means to rule the world. The idealogues ALWAYS want to control others. The GREEN enivros WILL make common cause with the GREEN muslims …. to their, and our, detriment.

    There are further global wars coming up, each as existentially necessary as WWII. I predict there will be WWV and WWVI. I hope I live long enough to see victory in both.

  73. Jim D says:

    Brian H says:
    November 6, 2010 at 5:03 pm

    I knew that would confuse someone after re-reading it, and sure enough…
    The 1000 times population increase is since the mid-Holocene warming (my guess) which was claimed to be 4 degrees warmer, but looking into it since I find that was only at the pole, where I suspect it didn’t affect anyone, so it was a red herring in the first place, and may have just been put there to mislead the readers.

  74. cohenite says:

    eadler says “These omissions are so obvious I am surprised it has taken 40 responses for someone to notice.” To which the obvious retort is that this article is so accurate that it took 40 responses before an acolyte of the faith could muster some sort of specious reply.

    John Cook is an authority for nothing; he is a warehouse for AGW agitprop; when comments refer to his site I know intellectual onanism is what is going to be offered. This particular bit of IO from eadler focuses on 2 paradigms of AGW, climate sensitivity and the exceptional nature of today’s “warming”.

    In respect of climate sensitivity, Lindzen and Choi’s 2nd paper, Spencer and Braswell’s 2nd paper and Knox and Douglass’s many papers including their most recent one [ http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf ] all show a climate sensitivity much less than relied on by AGW.

    In respect of past warmings and the role of CO2 it is clear from Beenstock’s analysis that CO2 is a bit player while McShane and Wyner’s analysis of official AGW temperature history reveals that history to be a statistical sham. McKitrick, McIntyre and Hermann’s analysis of the accuracy of the AGW modeling completes the picture of a scientific farrago.

    For me though perhaps the best analysis of the utter disconnect between CO2 and temperature is contained in Frank Lansner’s piece:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

    eadler completes his comment with a few other lies such as climate change was much slower in the past [ http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full ] and the usual alarmist claptrap which is predicated on a deep pessimissm and, as has been argued recently, a profound misanthropy towards humanity which underpins much of AGW.

  75. Owen says:

    Peter Miller says:
    November 6, 2010 at 4:50 pm
    “As a geologist, similar to many others commenting here, I believe most of CAGW is BS, but then again one has to remember:

    1. Geology is a real science, which is always seeking and questioning , while ‘climate science’ is like a religious sect, totally rigid in its beliefs, with its adherants committed to distorting the facts for their own personal gain.”

    What trash. I’m a chemist, will an underlying theoretical basis that makes geology look not all that rigorous, and I would never say such things in public about other scientists. What arrogant character assassination. What wild presumptions about motive. Is that a demonstration of your scientific approach?

  76. Enneagram says:

    However, AGW´s keep on preaching everyday and everywhere in the world; today at CNN en español, there was a guy preaching on the inminent Climate Change, saying we were already in it….
    What so important is it there behind?, it is not money alone, but money and power; and what worries the most is that, if they succeed, forget that word called Freedom, it won´t exist anymore!. Can you imagine how much money is it spent at every moment, all around the world, to pay for these ADS?…”They” will be collecting their investment soon…

  77. Brian H says:

    Strong;

    I’m sure BP dumping craptons of oil into the gulf is going to have far more devastating effects than global warming will.

    Nope, neither nor. Now or later. Inconvenience, and some costs, but no devastation to be had.

  78. BS Footprint says:

    Bob Newhart says:
    November 6, 2010 at 12:15 pm
    Have we gotten any smarter? Even with a communications boom of the ’80s and ’90s brought about by internet, we are still only sheep following (or preaching) one agenda or another.

    I’m following (and preaching) MY agenda. It may appear similar to other agendas but this one is mine. And it’s nothing like the one put forth by the pro-AGW/ACC crowd.

  79. Owen says:

    A number of commenters here have made the argument that climate has changed in the past, so what’s new? Of course it has changed, many times and in major ways – you think this fact somehow escaped the notice of climate scientists? The question is why? Many of the previous changes, deduced (of all things by by paleoclimate scientists) from proxy or ice core evidence, are understood in terms of orbital or precessional changes of planet earth. Current CO2 increases provide the best understood model for what is now occurring (and plenty is occurring), all of your disinformation notwithstanding.

  80. BS Footprint says:

    davidmhoffer says:
    November 6, 2010 at 2:13 pm
    [...]
    The “do gooders” are exasperated that the rest of us cannot see the wisdom of what is obvious to them, and so commited are they to the conclusions they have drawn that presenting evidence to them is futile. Just as they ignore the science before their eyes they ignore the plight of millions whose real catastrophes are far more easily proven. They can admit to neither because both causes are predicated on the notion that all the world’s problems will go away if we would just listen and do as we’re told.

    Remarkable that in a law abiding society they have actual influence. Can you imagine preaching the dire consequences to humanity of his agricultural practices to Robert Mugabe in a public forum in Zimbabwe? The preaching would be short, brought to an end by a bloody public beating. No wonder the “do gooders” stay away from the real problems.

    Right over the target, you are. Meaningless fixes to non-problems, forced upon compliant, unquestioning people yearning to relieve their (unnecessary) feelings of guilt for being so fortunate, when so many are not…

  81. BS Footprint says:

    Murray Duffin says:
    November 6, 2010 at 2:55 pm
    [...]
    The reductions of fossil fuel energy will take place, even if not because of AGW fears. That is the first problem we should be addressing, and I guess we will start in about 3 years time, a decade too late to stave off a crisis. Now I will get flamed by people here who have the same kind of religious faith in plentiful fossil fuel supply that the warmers have in AGW.

    No flames from me (I do question your use of the term ‘crisis’).

    But I do have a question: Why is it that every ‘crisis’ facing civilization requires a coercive, centralized, top-down solution?

  82. Policyguy says:

    FYI,

    When I first entered this policy world I thought strongly that I needed to better understand Climate. So I joined the AGU and focused on papers on paleo climate, paleo oceanography, paleo geology, etc.. These fields, I found, are not corrupted by the funding for the climate models. These are true fields of scientific inquiry.

    The clear conclusion of these intellectual inquiries, over at least a year, was that this climatic system within the current ice age (quartenary) has a consistent pulse of two stable systems. One cold (approx. 100,000 years) and one warm (approx. 20,000 years). The cold is more stable than the warm.

    I also was exposed to the theory that as long as one continent is located on one pole or the other that we would stay in the current ice age (since 2.6 million years ago).

    So, I view the “current” climate contest discussion of the last one hundred years, and computer “climate” programs discussions as a tempest in a tea pot.

    The alarmists have ignored the larger field of data that would shred the AGW proposal. This is so egregious because contradictory evidence exist in abounding depths. These folk just choose to ignore it for a political benefit.

    And , by the way, there are those who know this and do it consciously and then there are those who just follow. We need a strategy to address the people that want to find an answer and help them find a way.

    So the major point of this post argument is to suggest that people carefully examine the basis of the claim.

  83. I am a friend of Geraldo Luis since the early 90s, and remember he was the first one to use the term “eco-pesimists” when dealing with the ozone hole scare and Greenpeace’s campaign in Brazil against their nuclear stations.

    As for books written in Spanish about climate change, there are very few, indeed. The last one published was by book “Clima Feroz”, available from the web in:

    Clima Feroz

    It was this book that prompted a Spanish official organization, “Casa de América”, to invite me to speak about the impending global cooling on October 9th, 2010, in Madrid. In the same event, two other speakers gave their version of climate change: Martín Caparrós, a well known Argentinean journalist who spoke about the lie “catastrophic” climate change is, and the former Greenpeace Spain head, Juan López de Uralde, who spoke about the urgent need to curb CO2 emissions by adopting immediately solar and wiond energy.

    The speeches (20 minutes each) can be seen in: http://www.casamerica.es/temastv/climaferoz ,
    Caparrós: http://www.casamerica.es/temastv/el-clima-esta-loco

    López de Uralde:http://www.casamerica.es/temastv/revolucion-renovable

  84. Methow Ken says:

    In above comment ~12 hours ago Ern Matthews mentioned the movie Agora. I snapped it up at WalMart; Hypatia is one of my heros from antiquity, and the story of the destruction of the Library of Alexandria one of the great tragedies of the latter days of ancient Imperial Rome (although Byzantium went on for another ~1000 years). And I agree those lessons from over 1600 years ago need to be remembered; i.e.: What can happen when politically-correct fanaticizm (”religiously-correct” in that earlier example) gets the upper hand over objective science and hard data.

  85. LazyTeenager says:

    Geraldo says
    ———-
    The wild oscillations of the Quaternary are the general climatic condition faced by Humankind ever. We have been coping with them quite successfully and nothing suggests that we cannot continue to do so (as long as common sense and non-partisan science prevail).
    ————-
    That’s weird. I could have sworn I was living in a cave at the time and that several times the human race was nearly wiped out. It’s funny how your memory goes a bit funny as you grow older. Maybe the ice ages, the super floods and the continent wide droughts are a figment of my imagination.

  86. Dave Wendt says:

    Katherine says:
    November 6, 2010 at 5:21 pm
    Dave Wendt says:
    November 6, 2010 at 12:27 pm
    In re the graph I mentioned in the post above. You have to click on the photo sequence at the top right of the text several times to get to it. Sorry I neglected to include this before.

    Did you mean this image:
    Relative sea level record based on dated corals from Barbados, Araki, and assorted Caribbean islands compared to V19-30 δ18O sea level proxy.

    Yes, thank you, I couldn’t get the image to come up as a separate page.

  87. don penman says:

    Co2 does not provide the best model of what is happening today,co2 has been rising while temperatures have remained the same recently.There is nothing unusual happening with the climate we have today .As time goes on and we reach 2050 and then 2100 and nothing unusual happens with the climate you would think that you will be proved wrong but co2 influence on climate has become dogma .Politics is more important than science in this debate , a small group of people have decided that they know better then us what needs to be done about climate change, the views of the majority must be heard on climate change in the UK and Europe and not just in the US.

  88. JPeden says:

    Owen says:
    November 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm

    Current CO2 increases provide the best understood model for what is now occurring (and plenty is occurring), all of your disinformation notwithstanding.

    Amazing, isn’t it, and all by the ipcc Climate Scientists purposefully not employing the Scientific Method. Instead, simply repeat CO2CAGW ad nauseum et infinitum, and it comes true!

    After all, Owen, “The Monkeys know it is true because they always say it is true.” – Mogli, “The Jungle Book” movie.

  89. davidmhoffer says:

    Owen says:
    November 6, 2010 at 6:22 pm
    What trash. I’m a chemist, will an underlying theoretical basis that makes geology look not all that rigorous, and I would never say such things in public about other scientists. What arrogant character assassination. What wild presumptions about motive. Is that a demonstration of your scientific approach?>>

    No, I’d say it isn’t a demonstration of his scientific approach. Looked more like an observation to me, rather accurate observation at that.

    Oh, and might I ask about this commitment you claim you have to not be critical of other scientists in public. Are you telling me that if you knew the truth about… oh I don’t know, say Laetril, before anyone else, that you wouldn’t go public with the information? What kind of misanthrope are you?

  90. davidmhoffer says:

    Owen says:
    November 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    A number of commenters here have made the argument that climate has changed in the past, so what’s new? Of course it has changed, many times and in major ways – you think this fact somehow escaped the notice of climate scientists?>>

    I think it pretty obvious that they noticed. That’s why the keep adjusting the temperature record to make the warming period in the 30′s and 40′s smaller and smaller. Oh yeah, then there’s that 1,000 year temperature reconstruction using just seven trees (7!) from Siberia (because Siberia represents the climate of the planet you know), weighted ONE of the trees to account for 50% of the data, and all just to make the MWP disappear. Yeah they noticed, and they decided to rewrite history to match their theory.

    Owen says:
    November 6, 2010 at 6:45 pm
    The question is why? Many of the previous changes, deduced (of all things by by paleoclimate scientists) from proxy or ice core evidence, are understood in terms of orbital or precessional changes of planet earth. Current CO2 increases provide the best understood model for what is now occurring (and plenty is occurring), all of your disinformation notwithstanding.>>

    Bull. Orbital or precessional changes cause variance in solar flux considerably larger than than the corresponding changes in temperature on earth. The logical conclusion is that there are other (natural) processes that regulate the earth’s temperature and tend to mitigate orbital/precessional changes.

    You go on to claim CO2 is the “best understood” model for current changes. You are correct. It is the best understood by far. We haven’t a clue how clouds work, how the oceans circulate at depth, how ice grows and retreats affecting the albedo, and on and on and on. Now of languages other than English, I understand some German. I understand German far better than any other language other than English. For example, snel! means hurry, or right now. OK, I’m out of examples, I don’t know any other words. So despite knowing only one word of German… you get the drift. We know squat about all kinds of things and with Co2 we know just a bit more than squat.

    Lastly, if you’re going to claim disinformation, then be specific. You made claims, I addressed them directly. Screaming disinformation without a rebuttal backed by solid explanation of facts together with logical analysis to show that it is disinformation is little more than cryning aloud about the monsters under your bed that you haven’t checked for yourself but you are certain they are there because Billy down the street said they were and they would eat you unless you have him your lunch money. Well there are monsters, but they’re in your head, not under bed, and they only reside there because you believe what Billy said.

  91. KenB says:

    Thanks to Cohenite and others who took the trouble to reply to the lame (feeble) efforts of those that accept CAGW alarmism as gospel and keep trying to regurgitate it here, as scientific fact. You guys covered the issue so well, saving me from making some jet lagged intemperate replies !! Cheers!!

  92. Soren Bundgaard says:

    Artikel from the Danish Niels Bohr Institute 11. February 2009

    Avoid both greenhouse and Icehouse

    By controlling the emissions of fossil fuels, we might postpone the start of Earth’s next ice age, new research from the Niels Bohr Institute at Copenhagen University. The results have just been published in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters.

    Viewed from Earth’s historical perspective, we live in a cold time. The biggest climate challenge that humanity has ever faced has been to survive the ice ages that have dominated climate during the past million years. It was therefore not surprising that prominent scientists as the Soviet climatologist Mikhail Budyko, in the relatively cold 1970 welcomed the manmade global warming from CO2 emissions as a means to prevent future ice ages. There are still proponents of continued high emissions from fossil fuels because of this is a good thing. But is the extreme global warming, which follows a reasonable or necessary price to be paid to keep ice at bay?

    The image shows the ice maximum penetration the northern hemisphere during Earth’s last Ice Age. Maybe we can postpone the next Ice Age 500,000 years by regulating afbrændingen out fossil fuel products, according to new research.
    Graphics: Martin Jakobsson, Stockholm Geo Visualization Lab.

    In an article in the scientific journal Geophysical Research Letters ‘Long time management of Fossil Fuels two limit global warming and Avoid ice age onsets’, shows Professor Gary Shaffer from Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University, who also heads the research team at the Danish Centre for Earth System Science (DCESS) how we can keep the Earth out of both Icehouses half million years into the future.

    Building the ice caps
    Ice ages start when the conditions at high latitudes makes all the snow that falls in winter does not melt but will stay over the summer, so that over time build up thick ice sheets. Such conditions depend mainly on summer solar radiation and atmospheric CO2 concentration. The radiation varies on time scales of respectively 20,000, 40,000 and 100,000 years, due to small changes in Earth’s orbit around the Sun and the Earth’s tilt relative to the pitch. Critical summer insolation, which will start construction of ice sheets, may be considerably lower if the atmospheric CO2 content is high, because it creates a greenhouse warming effect.

    Professor Shaffer made for the next 500,000 years with DCESS model to calculate the evolution of atmospheric CO2 content for different strategies from fuel emissions. He has also used results from models of climate-ice sheet to find out how summer solar radiation at high northern latitudes, which is critical to start an ice age, depends on the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.

    Calculations show that if we continue “business as usual ‘and within the next few centuries burn all 5,000 billion tons of available coal reserves of fossil fuels, we will have a global warming of almost five degrees above current levels. It will mean that the start of the next ice age will be exposed to about 170,000 years from now.

    Carbon may delay Ice Age
    If we contrast controls the burning of fossil fuels, so the use of fossil fuels must be reduced globally by 20% in 2020 and 60% in 2050 (compared to 1990 levels), the maximum global warming may be less than one degree above the present. Similar reductions in fossil fuel use has been suggested by several countries like Germany and England

    In this scenario, the burning of large remaining stocks of fossil fuels will be tailored to increasing atmospheric CO2 content high enough and long enough to ward off the forces that would otherwise start a new ice age around minima in summer as long as possible. In this way the current stable interglacial climate extended for about 500,000 years, or three times as long as in “business-as-usual case.

    Ice Age Fighters begins, when conditions on the north-latitudes means that all the snow that falls in winter does not melt in summer, but will remain year after year, so that gradually built up thick ice sheets. Photo: Hans Oerter, Alfred Wegener Inst. Bremerhaven.

    Valuable climate control
    “It seems that intense ice ages that Earth has experienced in the past million years has been helped by declining levels of atmospheric CO2. Our present atmospheric CO2 level is about 385 ppm (parts per million) is already higher than before the transition to these ice ages, “explains Professor Schaffer, and he adds that” The Earth’s orbit is currently nearly circular, which means that the current minimum in summer at high northern latitudes are not very deep. We have already increased the atmospheric CO2 content enough to keep us out of the next ice age in the next 55,000 years for the current configuration of Earth’s orbit. ”

    He concludes that “the reserves of fossil fuels may be too valuable in the regulation of future climate that we can allow the reserves consumed within the next few centuries. Of extreme global warming is also too high and unnecessary price to pay to avoid a new ice age. ”

    Links: http://www.nbi.ku.dk/Nyheder/nyheder_09/drivhus_og_frysehus/

    Artikel i Geophysical Research Letters: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2008GL036294.shtml

    Danish Center for Earth System Science, DCESS-modellen: http://www.dcess.dk/

    Niels Bohr Institute Universite
    Contact: Gertie Skaarup
    skaarup@nbi.dk

  93. Ralph says:

    .
    AGW propaganda was never about climate, it was all about setting up Global Institutions with access to Global Taxes. Once you become a taxing authority, you become a self-serving, self-perpetuating organisation capable of anything within the limits of your tax-take.

    This is Club of Rome stuff.
    http://www.clubofrome.org/eng/home/

    This is why we have had a:
    Global Sars ‘pandemic’
    Global birdflu ‘pandemic’
    Global swineflu ‘pandemic’
    Global migrations
    Global cause of poverty (not sheer laziness)
    Global Warming
    Global racism (although that seems like an oxymoron to me)
    Global financial crash
    Call for global currency, to replace the dollar
    etc. etc.
    http://www.globalissues.org/

    In order to defeat the AGW propaganda, you need to know the nature of the beast you are fighting.

    .

  94. Beesaman says:

    So the Warmists have diverted billions of dollars away from food, water and sanitation for the poorest people on the planet. One day folk will realise this, unfortunately by then the so called scientists and the polititians and hangers on that supported AGW will have made enough money out of that AGW pot to retire. We need to make sure that when the day comes that we do call time on this nonsense of AGW that a reckoning of some sort happens. Not for our sakes but for all those who died because of AGW. In number terms they will dwarf those of any war fought during that time.

  95. cedarhill says:

    Kev-in-UK @ November 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Mostly, as you say, it’s better to be a good “steward”. However, being a “greenie” is just wrong since hydrocarbons and their use are, and will be, just about limitless. Take a brief divergence into synthetic fuels and you’ll find, with electricity, we can simply manufacture “clean” hydrocarbons. The folks at Los Alamos even have written studies on the subject. The technology has been around for decades. Simple stuff: make dry ice for carbon and oxygen, electrolyze water for hydrogen and oxygen then dial up whatever form you wish. Add some capitalistic interest along the way and even those systems become even more efficient. Toss in a virtually unlimited energy sources of uranium and thorium and you’re off and running with a few billions of years of energy that fit within our existing infrastructure (i.e., as in gasoline/petrol stations, gas for heating/cooking and, of course, the excess electricity generated from nuclear power plants for your lights). Compare the cost to “go greenie with the mythical renewables supplying all our energy needs” and the difference is truly staggering.

    The real issue is the central one: how much longer should the developing world’s fear mongers be allowed to slaughter (yes, right word) humans due to malaria (thanks to Silent Spring), “frankenfood” banning, and the like.

    The greenies and others should simply get over the fact that just being human creates waste. Substituting one form for another, mostly with little gain or, worse, usually by increasing the amount of waste, is just plain wrong headed and emotional. Even if you believe in a “managed economy”, it makes 100% no sense to replace perfectly functioning infrastructure with one that is even less efficient versus using the same monies to build a nuke plant in the Sub-Sahara to purify water, provide heating/cooling, clean sanitation, etc. How foolish, selfish and ignorant can one be to allow millions to die all for the sake of bragging about how green you are.

    Become a steward and make rational decisions. If not, go build those greenie houses with the organic human waste composter in the kitchen. At least we can smell you when yo go out in public.

  96. John Whitman says:

    And , by the way, there are those who know this and do it consciously and then there are those who just follow. We need a strategy to address the people that want to find an answer and help them find a way.

    So the major point of this post argument is to suggest that people carefully examine the basis of the claim.

    By Policyguy on November 6, 2010 at 7:33 pm

    ———

    Policyguy,

    You have voiced an important strategy. We should lend all assistance to those who would think for themselves. That is an inspiring thought.

    John

  97. Francisco says:

    I have found an article where Geraldo Luís Lino describes his presentation in a conference of Portuguese-speaking countries on “Global Change and Natural Disasters,” that took place in Rio de Janeiro last June. I’ve translated below the main points he made, as he summarizes them.
    http://www.midiaamais.com.br/ambientalismo/3431-geraldo-luis-lino
    [...]
    –During 90% of the history of this planet, atmospheric temperatures were higher than at present. On the other hand, 90% of the Quaternary period (the last 2.6 million years) has seen glacial conditions with temperatures significantly lower than at present, and layers of ice up to 4 km thick covering much of the northern hemisphere.

    –During most of the Earth’s history, concentrations of the much vilified carbon dioxide were 5-15 times higher than at present; in fact, only in the transition between the Carboniferous and the Permian periods –nearly 300 million years ago– were CO2 levels as low as in the Quaternary period.

    –Within the Quaternary, sea levels have fluctuated between 130 meters below and 4-6 meters above present levels, and these fluctuations were controlled mostly by the cycles of glaciation and deglaciation.

    –The Quaternary is the period with the most drastic and rapid climate fluctuations in the history of the Earth, which means these are the conditions that the genus Homo has had to deal with during its entire existence.

    – During the last 800.000 years, the Earth has had cycles of glaciation and deglaciation at fairly regular intervals of almost 100.000 years; with eight glaciations of nearly 90,00 years separated by warmer interglacials of 10,000-12,000 years. The current interglacial, called the Holocene, has already lasted nearly 12,500 years, and evidence suggests that it should be followed by a new glaciation whose precise onset, however, is impossible to predict.

    –It is irrational to try to change the entire energy base of the world economy, more than 80% of which depends on fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal), on account of the current and extraordinary hysteria about a slight rise in the thermometers (0.8 deg C between 1850 and 2000, which is perfectly explainable within the climate cycles observed in the Holocene).

    –What is needed with regard to the climate issue is to leave the catastrophism behind; see it rather as a complex, chaotic, non-linear system and try to increase our resilience to any future climate conditions, whether these turn out to be warmer or –as it seems more likely– colder.

    Above all, I have repeatedly emphasized the absence of any concrete scientific evidence whatsoever to support the “anthropogenic” hypothesis, which is based mainly on the projections of mathematical models. Even if these models are useful scientific tools, they are nowhere near being able to adequately simulate the complex dynamics of climate. Therefore, they should not be used to justify policy decisions of global reach, such as the proposed restrictions in the use of fossil fuels.
    [...]

  98. eadler says:

    cohenite says:
    November 6, 2010 at 6:11 pm

    “eadler says “These omissions are so obvious I am surprised it has taken 40 responses for someone to notice.” To which the obvious retort is that this article is so accurate that it took 40 responses before an acolyte of the faith could muster some sort of specious reply.

    John Cook is an authority for nothing; he is a warehouse for AGW agitprop; when comments refer to his site I know intellectual onanism is what is going to be offered. This particular bit of IO from eadler focuses on 2 paradigms of AGW, climate sensitivity and the exceptional nature of today’s “warming”.

    In respect of climate sensitivity, Lindzen and Choi’s 2nd paper, Spencer and Braswell’s 2nd paper and Knox and Douglass’s many papers including their most recent one [ http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~douglass/papers/KD_InPress_final.pdf ] all show a climate sensitivity much less than relied on by AGW.”

    Lindzen and Choi’s paper should not have been published, and was full of errors, and the rebuttal that was published was so embarrassing to Lindzen that he is working on a correction. Space doesn’t permit a full discussion of the other papers. Whatever estimates of climate sensitivity you might believe, this key concept wasn’t really mentioned in Lino’s diatribe against the idea of global warming.

    “In respect of past warmings and the role of CO2 it is clear from Beenstock’s analysis that CO2 is a bit player while McShane and Wyner’s analysis of official AGW temperature history reveals that history to be a statistical sham. McKitrick, McIntyre and Hermann’s analysis of the accuracy of the AGW modeling completes the picture of a scientific farrago.”

    The pros and cons of modeling are not mentioned in this article which is a part diatribe. The first part is a pure rant, followed by the fallacious argument that climate has always been changing, and therefore the current era is nothing new, followed by the argument that man has survived climate change and has worse problems to contend with, so why bother about climate change.

    “For me though perhaps the best analysis of the utter disconnect between CO2 and temperature is contained in Frank Lansner’s piece:

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf

    This analysis is totally flawed. You must beware of amateurs like Lansner.
    The reason CO2 lags temperature is well understood. The end of an ice age is triggered by orbital and axial changes . The temperature rise causes CO2 to increase, which is a positive feedback mechanism further increasing the temperature.

    http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html

    Modelling by Susan Solomon shows that the C O2 in the atmosphere is reabsorbed by the earth’s oceans very slowly.

    http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/07/19/19climatewire-without-carbon-emissions-cuts-the-anthropoce-83697.html

    “eadler completes his comment with a few other lies such as climate change was much slower in the past [ http://www.pnas.org/content/97/4/1331.full ] and the usual alarmist claptrap which is predicated on a deep pessimissm and, as has been argued recently, a profound misanthropy towards humanity which underpins much of AGW.”

    The article Cohenite cites does point to rapid climate change in the past, but it clearly says that civilized man has not had to cope with rapid climate change, which was my point. Here is the key sentence in the introduction.

    “Such abrupt changes have been absent during the few key millennia when agriculture and industry have arisen.”

  99. Kev-in-UK says:

    @cedarhill
    Of course, being ‘green’ is more about stewardship rather than pure naked type environmentalism – scrimping and saving on resources for scrimping and savings sake!
    Not sure why you needed to mention hydrocarbon production? My view is that all wastefulness is just, well – wasteful – and should be avoided. It matters not, if an item can be replaced cheaply or expensively – if it is at the end of its useful life, fair enough, but wastefulness (IMHO) is tantamount to greed – because by wasting something one is ‘grabbing’ resources that could have been used to produce something for someone in a more needy position? I am not preaching here – just trying to be pragmatic. The fashion type purchases, the unnecessary cars, laptops, etc, etc are something that the developed world comes to expect – what are the developing countries to expect? – what happens when 6.6 billion people ‘expect’ to be able to buy a new car/laptop/steak as and when they want? – because those that currently don’t have that chance (a few billion chinese?), will no doubt ‘covet’ that opportunity? I guess I mean we should be leading by example – any casual observer would surely laugh/cry at our food wastage when they see the starving in Africa?

    On the energy front – have you considered that even pumping out gigawatts of nuclear electricity could still potentially affect the climate? At least with renewables, relying on basically incoming energy (rather than stored energy resources) the net thermal effect must be zero? Hence, even if a limitless source of energy supply was available, should wastefulness be encouraged?

    Ultimately, I reckon we should take a tip from the N.A. Indians, Aboriginals, and similar ancient tribes – who’s primary mantra was to take only what you need and look after the resource. Animals do it with protection of their food territory, for example. It’s common sense, is it not? I suppose, this is basically my own view of what being green is all about. It’s not about living in mud huts and hugging trees – it’s a mentality against wasteful human greed and the selfish approach – something which we are all guilty of – why do folk eat 16oz steaks when apparently 2oz of daily protein is all thats required for a human body? The answer is simple – it’s because they can (in the developed world) – then said folk are whining on about needing to diet! – but surely, a little bit of ‘self control’ would prevent so much wastage!
    Again, I am really not preaching (but I realise it may appear so) – and I’m not advocating any green religion (I am about as religiously inclined as a housebrick) I am just explaining my position – philosophy is deffo not one of my interests, but like everyone else, self preservation is! Ultimately, the human race has to preserve itself and the sooner folk understand and take joint responsibilty the better.
    I am totally against the AGW crap – but we could and should be doing more to help our entire environment – and to coin a well known phrase in the UK – ‘Every little helps….’

  100. Francisco says:

    eadler says:
    “Modelling by Susan Solomon shows that the C O2 in the atmosphere is reabsorbed by the earth’s oceans very slowly.”
    ————–
    “Modelling….. shows” is a silly phrase, if “shows” is meant as “demonstrates/proves” or anything along those lines.
    Modelling shows what you’ve shown the model. So “modelling by Susan Solomon shows” should be translated as “Susan Solomon says”.

    The NYT article you link also says that models gave the following insights:
    * Every 1 degree Celsius of warming — roughly 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — would reduce rainfall in the American Southwest, the Mediterranean and southern Africa by 5 to 10 percent.

    * Stream flow in SOME river basins — including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande — would drop by 5 to 10 percent.

    * Yields of SOME crops, including U.S. and African corn and Indian wheat, would fall 5 to 15 percent.

    * And 1 to 2 degrees Celsius of warming is enough to double or even quadruple the area burned by wildfires in the American West.

    So we may ask: how do models know, for example, that higher temperatures produce less rain?
    The answer, plainly, is that the models “know” this because this is what the models were told to know. And how did those who tell them know? Well they didn’t know either, but they told them all the same, as if they knew, so that once the models regurgitate what they were told, the modellers can claim they know because the models told them so.
    Climate models are a merry-go-round for some adults who like to play at being “the scientists.”

  101. John Day says:

    @article:
    “In the not too distant future, it will likely be difficult to understand how so many educated people believed in and accepted uncritically for so long a scientifically unproven theory like the so-called Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).”

    It is likely that we will find that this hoax is not accidental stupidity, but rather a well-funded and expertly orchestrated campaign perpetrated on these educated but hapless dupes, by rich and powerful forces, the same ones who invented the monikers “big oil” and “conservative conspiracy” to divert attention from them.

    It is no accident that mainstream broadcasting and newsprint outlets suffer horrendous ratings decline and subscription losses by “stubbornly” following the CAGW line. These are mostly “for profit” organizations (except NPR) whose boards of governors instinctively “follow the money” for raising the profit margins.

    So what were they thinking? Why not ‘pander’, as they always do, for the highest ratings? Are they making an exception on CAGW purely for idealistic reasons?

    It’s hard to believe they could all be that naive/stupid. I submit this prima facie ‘pattern of stupidity’ as prime evidence that there is another force motivating their quest for profit and/or power.

    Having said that, I believe these commercial media companies should remain free to conduct their businesses as their boards see fit. Let the market decide who shall remain in business. You don’t want to defeat economic fascism by using the same fascist methods.

    NPR is a different story. As a federally funded ‘public’ media outlet they must have “no business” in promoting activist causes such as CAGW. Of all the networks, they should strive to be the most ‘fair and balanced’ of them all.

    NPR has excellent programming, which I have enjoyed for years. Where else can you hear classical and bluegrass music? (cough.pandora…xmradio..cough).

    So, for the first time in my adult life, I would not be dismayed to see Congress pull the plug on all of their funding unless they clean up their act.

    Let the Congressional Subpoenae roll!

  102. don penman says:

    Article from Danish Niels Bohr Institute 11/February 2009
    I feel that what is being claimed here is [snip ~ E] even if I was to except the fact that co2 can keep us out of the next ice age (unproven they use the word could) we have other sources of carbon that we can oxidize besides fossil fuels (grow trees for instance) or we could release the co2 in limestone ,we could even start to manufacture co2 as we do nitrogen if we believed that this would keep us out of an ice age.

  103. Leonete Thiesen says:

    Que barulho emmm meu amigo…aja mangas, aja panos…

  104. cedarhill says:

    Kev-in-UK November 7, 2010 at 7:26 am

    Missed the point of the article? Global warming, etc., is bunk. Diverting resources to “fix” a fraud is simply foolish.

    About waste. You’re being a bit extreme about calling things wasteful “greed”. Most systems are inefficient. Usually highly inefficient. For starters, check your toilet sometime and measure your intake versus what your output is in fluids and solids to get an idea of how efficient the own body processes stuff. Can’t think of anything that doesn’t produce waste. Usually lots and lots of waste. What we have done is become better stewards. Not long ago an ag professor said that modern agriculture uses everything in a pig except the squeal and they’re working on that. Go back and read the part about being a good steward. Stewardship is a never ending balancing act. Capitalism and “greed” are what makes folks want to figure out a way to use the squeal. Point is just about everyone except the greenies (like Gore, Cameron, attendees at the yearly save the universe vacation spot) are pretty good stewards since they understand that the better steward they are the better life they can live. You object to someone deciding to buy a car each year. I’d agree it would be a poor choice but I support their freedom to forswear other stuff and buy that yearly car. I’m just not that much of a socialist or dictator.

    I’ve no idea what “helping the environment” means. If it means being a good steward, then I’d agree. If you mean something other than being a good steward then perhaps you can explain?

  105. Brian H says:

    don penman says:
    November 7, 2010 at 11:12 am

    Article from Danish Niels Bohr Institute 11/February 2009
    I feel that what is being claimed here is [snip ~ E] even if I was to except the fact that co2 can keep us out of the next ice age (unproven they use the word could) we have other sources of carbon that we can oxidize besides fossil fuels (grow trees for instance) or we could release the co2 in limestone ,we could even start to manufacture co2 as we do nitrogen if we believed that this would keep us out of an ice age.

    Well, the limestone would work. But growing new trees actually withdraws CO2 from the air (that’s where they get their carbon), so you’d have to burn old trees, not grow new ones. And neither CO2 nor nitrogen can be “manufactured” in that sense.

  106. Brian H says:

    Kev-in-UK;
    Your arguments are entirely specious, as they covertly presume a “zero-sum” game for the products of economic activity. When pressed, Greens always fall back on some version of, “Well, x, y, and/or z have to run out some time! This will deprive future generations/poor nations of their fair share, so they shouldn’t be used now!” This is fallacious on so many levels it’s hardly worth debating, but I will at least suggest you take a sabbatical and study “economic substitution” and its history.

  107. Bill Illis says:

    CO2 didn’t stop Antarctica from glaciating over – it was 1,400 ppm during the initial glaciation.

    Just as CO2 was falling, getting close to 280 ppm (for perhaps the very first time in Earth history), Antarctica promptly melted back again. So, yeah, CO2 has never stopped an ice age from starting up – like 34 Mya, 160 Mya, 360 Mya, 440 Mya, 635 Mya, 715 Mya, 2.2 Bya and 2.4 Bya.

    The time it takes for CO2 to be returned to 280 ppm (after we stop adding it to the atmosphere) should be the exact amount of time that we have been adding to it.

    CO2 is being absorbed by plants and oceans at 50% of our emissions. As the concentration has risen, the amount absorbed by plants and oceans rises proportionately (other scientific fields would be able to explain this to climate scientists like Susan Solomon and her silly model – I don’t know, maybe it will have something to do with partial pressures or something non-silly and scientific like that).

    So let’s say at 1935, CO2 was 300 ppm (which it was). If we stop emitting in 2085, it will take 150 years to get back down to 300 ppm.

  108. Kev-in-UK says:

    @Cedarhill
    wooah! I wasnt interested in either economics or philosophy – just the good stewarding bit, which I am happy to say, makes relative sense to me. My point about wastage was simply that – it’s wastage, and largely unnecessary and can be avoided by largely practical means and simple adjustment of human attitude. I have no objection to anyone wanting a new car (I didn’t say that at all – what I said (or tried to say) was that everyone covets such things, which is natural but impractical and also wasteful) – all I said was 6.6 billion people want the same thing but its not a practical proposition to give it to them! and would probably be wasteful (of resources) to boot! A basic car is good for at least 100000 miles easy (is it not?) – so why do some folk want a new one each year? I don’t know, I am just posing the question! Whether they can afford it is kind of irrelevent – nevertheless, if they can afford it, but don’t need it – the logical conclusion is that its wasteful!

    @Brian H – I must have written my post badly – I was not advocating (or trying to advocate) some green policy (I am not even a member of any green organisation) – merely that wastefulness is pointless! The resources aspect is simply fact – ‘saving’ or rather ‘being careful’ with resources makes sense, does it not? – do you not do the same with your salary every month? I wasn’t posing or even considering any economic view – something I openly admit to knowing nothing about – I was merely presenting (what I consider) a logical view of human nature and the needs and greeds which ultimately result in the actions you and I take as individuals. Why do you vote for who you vote for? – I presume that its because you believe it will benefit yourself in some way? I am saying that that is normal behaviour, a la the ‘selfish gene’ – one follows self preservation?
    What I am advocating, as opposed to demanding, is that a little restraint and common sense may reduce the human selfishness and demands thereby imposed upon the planet to satisfy such selfishness! Does that not make sense? What is wrong with that? Yes, I am sure such an attitude would alarm the big corporations as they couldn’t ‘sell’ stuff to us as easily, and presumably the economic growth figures would stagnate? But I know nothing of economics and seriously have no desire to understand them! To me, as a scientist, bankers and economics are way above my head!
    and finally, as for a sabbatical, being a self employed engineer, thats kind of impossible – I have to work to put food on the table, etc, etc – and reading about economics is the last thing on my mind and is certainly not something that I can have any effect thereon!

  109. Sam Hall says:

    Kev-in-UK says: all I said was 6.6 billion people want the same thing but its not a practical proposition to give it to them!

    You don’t give it to them, they earn it by creating wealth. Wealth is not a zero-sum game. Look at Microsoft, they created a vast amount of wealth with only brain power as inputs.

    The entire world could have an American standard of living if they would fixed their problems, which are almost 100% government.

  110. Brian H says:

    Kev-in-UK;
    OK, as an engineer, consider that if “waste” is occurring, then there’s implicit inefficiency going on. Unless blocked by misconceived “regulation” or other distortions, that necessarily offers opportunity for someone else to come to market with something better (= more economical, less wasteful).

    Neither restraint (i.e., gubmint regulation), nor common sense (unless it is well-informed about “unseen” second-order consequences), nor deploring of “human selfishness”, will avail. Only better alternatives (hence my reference to “economic substitution”) will work. Consider as an engineer: if platinum is too expensive as a catalyst for a process or device, discovery that titanium will work as well transforms the equation.

  111. JimF says:

    Kev-in-UK says:
    November 6, 2010 at 3:48 pm

    Well stated, sir!

    eadler says:
    November 6, 2010 at 4:59 pm

    You, sir, are an idiot. Can you prove me wrong? Thought not. Case closed.

  112. Cherry Pick says:

    eadler says:
    November 7, 2010 at 6:10 am

    If I work as a peer-reviewer I can summarize why I recommend rejection. “Full of errors” is not plausible.

    And later

    Why do you write these insults while you actually approve Lansner’s tenet? Alleged
    positive feedback is another story.

  113. nofate says:

    davidmhoffer says”Left off your list is also a matter that another commenter referred to, which is death by politics. Millions live in daily fear of death from agents of their own government…”

    As a government’s power becomes more centralized and concentrated in one person or small group, it becomes less representative of the people and more likely to kill its own citizens, believing that it must do whatever is necessary to achieve what it believes is best in the minds of the one dictator or small group of elites. This condition has actually been a historical reality through most of history right up to the present.

    From <a href="http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM&quot;: “Communist governments have almost without exception wielded the most absolute power and their greatest killing (such as during Stalin’s reign or the height of Mao’s power) has taken place when they have been in their own history most totalitarian. As most communist governments underwent increasing liberalization and a loosening of centralized power in the 1960s through the 1980s, the pace of killing dropped off sharply.

    Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.”
    II 128,168,000 VICTIMS: THE DEKA-MEGAMURDERERS
    4. 61,911,000 Murdered: The Soviet Gulag State
    5. 35,236,000 Murdered: The Communist Chinese Ant Hill
    6. 20,946,000 Murdered: The Nazi Genocide State
    7. 10,214,000 Murdered: The Depraved Nationalist Regime

    III 19,178,000 VICTIMS: THE LESSER MEGA-MURDERERS
    8. 5,964,000 Murdered: Japan’s Savage Military
    9. 2,035,000 Murdered: The Khmer Rouge Hell State
    10. 1,883,000 Murdered: Turkey’s Genocidal Purges
    11. 1,670,000 Murdered: The Vietnamese War State
    12. 1,585,000 Murdered: Poland’s Ethnic Cleansing
    13. 1,503,000 Murdered: The Pakistani Cutthroat State
    14. 1,072,000 Murdered: Tito’s Slaughterhouse

    Depending on your source, these figures can vary, but I think the point is made.

  114. Kev-in-UK says:

    @Sam Hall – ok, my bad writing again, I guess – I wasn’t implying ‘giving’ as in for free but really meaning ‘supply’ to them – as in manufacture and distribute something that they see as desirable. My basic point is that human desires i.e. ‘greed’ as opposed to human ‘needs’ are poles apart. If everyone actually had a sunday sports car and a 2nd (holiday) home, etc, etc this would, in my opinion, be wasteful of resources.

    @Brian H – yes, I agree. I think you are simply saying that increasing efficiency reduces waste, which of course is true, and further, is indeed common sense and part of the manufacturing and ultimately the environmental stewardship process. However, in the ‘meantime’ – i.e. whilst waiting for all these efficiency developments to arrive, personal choices are being made by essentially everyone on the planet (at least in developed countries) which contribute to the current wastefulness, and a little self control from everyone would reduce this waste.

  115. nofate says:

    I keep seeing the argument being made that goes something like: “It was 4 degrees higher in the past and humans coped so no big deal. But what if warming really is human caused and we are going 6 degrees higher? Shouldn’t we be taking steps to control our production of CO2 (carbon, coal, oil, cow farts, meat consumption, whatever)??? It’s a crisis we can’t take a chance on allowing to happen!”.

    I really don’t understand how supposedly competent scientists can come to the conclusion that CO2 is a driver of earth’s temperature???

    I know I’m a broken record, but here’s another ice core graph, from a NOAA webpage showing that the warm temperatures we are enjoying at present, could fall off a cliff at any moment and plunge us into the next 100,000 year glacial. That’s why they call this Holocene warm period an “interglacial”, right?

    From the mouth of NOAA: “Large, continental ice-sheets in the Northern Hemisphere have grown and retreated many times in the past. Times with large ice-sheets are known as glacial periods (or ice ages) and times without large ice-sheets are interglacial periods. The most recent glacial period occurred between about 120,000 and 11,500 years ago. Since then, the Earth has been in an interglacial period called the Holocene…
    Notice the asymmetric shape (from the above linked graph) of the Dome Fuji temperature record, with abrupt warmings shown in yellow preceding more gradual coolings.”
    JoNova has a series of graphs here that show CO2 and temp with temp leading the way, generally. And of course there is the article (eadler tweak) by Frank Lansner using Vostok data that was published in WUWT

    As a simple minded technical type non-scientist, very visually oriented type guy, I draw two main conclusions from all this:
    1. CO2 is a ruse being used to draw off resources, political, academic and financial, of those who would continue to do actual scientific inquiry rather than accept the conclusions of the power elite statists.
    2. We are living on borrowed time. With every year that goes by, we are another step closer to the next glacial period. We need to start preparing. But I’m not going to hold my breath. I’m just going to stock up on warm clothes and stuff. But there’s probably no need to go overboard there either, as I may be dust by the time it arrives.

    cohenite: re: eadler, a true AGW believer. Well said!

  116. Brian H says:

    Kev;
    your calls for self-control are hand-waving. Be an engineer, not a preacher.

  117. MarkR says:

    “no scientific way to attribute causes”

    Consider a parcel of air that you’ve tracked in space for some time. Then imagine you force the air into a balloon and then run up a hill with the balloon.

    If you graph the movement of the air, the movement in the balloon is smaller than its historical, “natural” movement. By your logic, there is no scientific way to demonstrate that the air moved because it was inside the balloon and I was pulling it around. I think that there is.

    There might not be a statistical way to distinguish the movement based only on position(time) data, in the same way that perhaps you can’t determine that temperature(time) of Earth allows determination of a human cause (I haven’t done the statistics so I don’t know). But since we have a lot more information than that (i.e. physics and other observations – I saw it was put in a balloon and then dragged along!) we CAN use science to determine attribution.

    Sure, if you ignore the vast majority of evidence, you can conclude what you want: but the scientific community has chosen not to do that.

  118. denis says:

    I’ve seen some reports that Obama was one of the original players (along with Gore, among others) involved in the establishment of the (hopefully dying) CCX – The Chicago Climate Exchange !

    … and he is still regularly referring to “climate change” !

  119. Alvin says:

    I see the makings of a youtube video. Make it so!

Comments are closed.