Interesting commentary


My radio station  has an opinion commentator named Bruce Sessions. He does a daily radio vignette called “Tidbits from the BS Notebook” which is a fun twist on his initials.

He wrote a commentary on CO2 and IPCC policy today that is worth a look. It involves a letter from Hans Schreuder, an Analytical Chemist and nine other scientists, who are members of parliament and Nobel Prize recipients.

Check it out and let him know what you think.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
D. Quist
May 8, 2008 2:55 pm

Here is the only reference to an original document I could find.
I look forward to the demise of this mess. Kind of like Y2k. Lots of hysteria followed by a anti-climactic fizzle.

May 8, 2008 4:18 pm

It’s been a bad month for the warmies….

Brian D
May 8, 2008 4:40 pm
May 8, 2008 5:25 pm

This should be the link to the Shreuder letter:

May 8, 2008 5:32 pm

Thanks for this, I will certainly try to send this round the net. :]
With no evidence of a new sunspot cycle beginning, a new Maunder minimum is a possibility that must be considered as well.

David S
May 8, 2008 6:56 pm

Politicians don’t like to admit they did something stupid because it makes them look… well …stupid. Also I think there may be more behind the AGW story than just a mistake. It may well be a deliberate attempt to stifle development and to line the pockets of certain well-connected people. If that is in fact the case the policy makers are not going to let reality get in their way.

Evan Jones
May 8, 2008 7:18 pm

Basic and policy oriented. Since it is policy of which I approve, I . . . approve.
However, I confess I am tired of hearing from the Nobel Peace Prize winners. I want to hear from winners of the more scientifically meaningful Nobel Beauty Prize.

May 8, 2008 9:39 pm has been updated with April data. No surprises.
We’re still in the 23/24 minimum. But you knew that….

Pierre Gosselin
May 9, 2008 12:38 am

You own a radio station?
REPLY: Well I do, but it s a HAM radio sttaion, this AM News format station is where I deliver daily forecasts.

Jeff B.
May 9, 2008 12:42 am

I agree with David S. The whole climate obsession is far more of an inroads for Marxism than anything else. But like all Marxists schemes, it will eventually collapse on itself.

May 9, 2008 5:45 am

Great T-Shirt. I had to buy one for myself.

May 9, 2008 7:44 am

Typical how the graph to support global cooliong always seems to start from the El Nino high of ’98! It would quite different if the graph started from the ’70’s, but wait, that would invalidate the letters message…wouldn’t it?

Wondering Aloud
May 9, 2008 8:11 am

Yes MIke we should certainly start all graphs at or near the date when the Earth was at the lowest temperature possible, certainly the lowest of the last century. Starting anywhere else might lead people to believe that global warming is not a catastrophy. And for pity sake do not under any circumstances suggest it may be natural, cyclic or of any benefit. “We need to protect our phony baloney jobs gentlemen.”
Oh, and don’t forget to buy your carbon offsets.

May 9, 2008 9:20 am

Hmmmm… I start my graph for global cooling from the Holocene Optimum!
The AGW’ers are using 1970 for their graphs to show the dangerous warming trend ( and therefore starting at the bottom of a ~30-year cooling trend), so if we are discussing the PDO inversion of 1998 and the cooling trend thereafter, why not use 1998 as the starting point?
Heck, lets rewind to the Little Ice Age (accepting for the moment that it actually existed) and show a REAL warming trend but wait, that would undermine the argument that warming (if that actually exists) is CO2-driven.
Despite the obfuscation of the media and the Gore acolytes, the real issue under debate is what is driving the trends, not the trends themselves.
Analyzing the trends is a tool to help determine what driving the change. Simplistically, if the global temperature is cooling, but CO2 is rising, it starts to become self apparent to all by the most zealous that CO2 is no where near as big a driving force as IPCC likes to pretend.
Back in the old days, when I was in school for Atmospheric Sciences, it was accepted that the sun was the major driving force of global temperature. Nothing I have read in the intervening years has convinced me otherwise.
Personally, I think the only way to combat AWG’ers is to fight a holding action to keep the government from doing anything too stupid until the Gore minimum builds enough momentum for the general electorate to realize the AGWer’s are pulling the wool over their eyes. Sadly, by then it may be too late to prepare to combat the effects of a Dalton-like minimum (~ in 2030) on the world’s food supply while well on the down-slope after hitting peak-oil.

D. Quist
May 9, 2008 1:56 pm

Mike K.
Lets assume for a moment that the AGW models are absolutely correct.
I have a simple question for you. If these scientists are so d— good, then they can tell us precisly, when and where, every sea rise and regional climate change will happen. Based on this we will be able to create precise, complete and long range plans, for every conceivable problem.
But no, they don’t know and we don’t have any answers. So, instead you try to ram down our throats some rehashed neo-soviet central plan, that consists of some pre-packaged “we must suffer for our sins” solution.
I don’t buy it. The Sovjet system died because it doesn’t work. US capitalism prospered and succeded because it works. This country has solved more problems and provided more prosperity then any other society on this planet.
IF AGW is real, then our children will stand on our shoulders and they will rise to the occassion and solve the problem.
Personally I don’t think there is a problem to be solved.

May 10, 2008 1:54 pm

“Kind of like Y2k. Lots of hysteria followed by a anti-climactic fizzle.”
Don’t even begin to compare AGW with Y2K. Y2K could have been a serious problem, but work was done in the years leading up to it, which resulted in the anti-climactic fizzle you speak off. For some reason, because the world didn’t end, people think the money was wasted.
But, just like Y2K, there are the AGW charlatans/profiteers. With Y2K they were making sure desks and staircases were “Y2K Complient”. With AGW they are selling carbon credits and ethanol.

D. Quist
May 11, 2008 12:22 am

” Don’t even begin to compare AGW with Y2k”
I think AGW is a hysterical version of Y2k. The difference is that there was no political value in Y2k. It did not occur during an election year in this country. In addition it had an end-date. Not much political use, once the date was passed.
I am very aware of the actual costs of what had to be done for Y2k. That money was mostly well spent. The excess and hysteria I speak of, is the kind that is completely unrelated to the actual facts. My favorite being the remark that “some coffee makers use controller chips that are vulnerable to the Y2k problem”. Now who the h— sets the date on coffee pot? Never mind what coffee pot relies on the date to actually brew coffee. And what pot would care if the current year ends in 00. It is not calculating interest rates now is it?
AGW is rehashing many of the same cataclysmic end of civilization predictions. The cause is different, the result is all the same. The human race can’t handle it. We are doomed, etc.
The most laughable is the idea that sea-rise will cause massive problems. Who in their right mind can think that a 1-10mm per year over 100 years is going to cause a massive crisis. My possible grand children will be in their fifties! To worry about a three foot sea rise over 100 years is nonsense. Every road, port, rail track, house, building or bridge, in existence today, will have to be replaced/repaired within the next hundred years. Having to move it or raise it a few feet will add little to the overall cost. The areas that are low lying, can do as the Dutch, get a few trucks, a loader or two and add a few feet of dirt and concrete, they’ll have decades to finish the project!
No, the problem is the media. We get idiotic movies like “The day after tomorrow”.
Mankind is very resilient. If we need to we can, and will, prosper in a changing world. Even the idea that there might be mass extinction of plant and animal life is ridiculous. As we develop a better understanding of biology we realize that many species are very adaptable. The few that aren’t we can most likely help, come the time, 40-80-100 years from now.
As, I said. Our children will stand on our shoulders. Look back at the last hundred years, see the enormous challenges and accomplishments. Each generation over the last hundred years have provided enormous leaps forward, using ideas and solutions that were mere fantasies a generation before.
To believe that the next three or four generations coming after us can’t do the same is ignorant. The knowledge we have in store now, is more like a keg of TNT. Future generations will find countless ideas, in every aspect of human existence, and put them to use in ways we are incapable of imagining.
So AGW, if it is real, is no more challenging then Polio, or the nuclear threats of the cold war.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights