This is a familar set of issues in one article. – Anthony
By INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:20 PM PT
Environment: The solar wind is slowing, but Al Gore is still spewing hot air. The Oscar winner is promoting civil disobedience to stop energy and economic growth as the first U.S. emissions cap-and-trade program begins.
Speaking before Bill Clinton’s Global Initiative, junk science advocate Gore called on young people to take the law into their own hands because the climate, he claims, is a-changin’. He told the gathering in New York City that “the world has lost ground to the climate crisis” and the time for action is now.
“If you’re a young person looking at the future of this planet and looking at what is being done right now, and not done, I believe we have reached the stage where it is time for civil disobedience to prevent the construction of new coal plants that do not have carbon capture and sequestration,” Gore said to loud applause.
His comments come two weeks after a British jury acquitted six Greenpeace activists accused of causing property damage at a power plant. The jury felt the “protest” was acceptable because the “protesters” feared the plant would contribute to global warming.
Luddites of the world, unite!
On the same day Gore spoke, scientists involved in NASA’s Ulysses project reported that the intensity of the sun’s solar wind was at its lowest point since the beginning of the space age – one more indication that the sun, the biggest source of energy affecting the Earth, is getting quiet.
The weaker solar wind appears to be due to changes in the sun’s magnetic field, but the cause is unknown. Sunspots, which normally fluctuate in 11-year cycles, are at a virtual standstill. In August, the sun created no visible spots. The last time that happened: June 1913.
The results of the Ulysses spacecraft’s mission, according to Jet Propulsion Laboratory project scientist Ed Smith, show that “we are in a period of minimal activity that has stretched on longer than anyone anticipated.”
The consequences for Earth are enormous. The lack of increased activity could signal the start of what is known as a Maunder Minimum, an event that occurs every couple of centuries and can last as long as a century. It leads to extended periods of severe cooling such as what happened during the Little Ice Age.
It may already be happening. The four major agencies tracking Earth’s temperature, including NASA’s Goddard Institute, report that the Earth cooled 0.7 degree Celsius in 2007, the fastest decline in the age of instrumentation, putting us back to where the Earth was in 1930.
The climate is changing, but not in the direction Al Gore thinks. As the Earth demonstrably cools under a weakening sun, a 10-state coalition on Thursday held the nation’s first carbon allowance auction to deal with a warming trend that may have ended a decade ago.
They will impose a minor league version of the Lieberman-Warner economy-killing cap-and-trade rationing system in which emissions are limited by a progressively lowered cap. Emission permits are auctioned off by government, making it a cap-and-tax system. Permits can be traded or sold between companies like baseball cards.
The Lieberman-Warner bill would mandate emission cuts of 44% below 2007 levels. The Environmental Protection Agency estimates that it would cost as much as $3 trillion a year in lost GDP in an economy of roughly $14 trillion. It dwarfs the current financial crisis. But then, it’s for a good cause – right, Al?
The New York-based Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, launched Thursday, strives to freeze CO2 emissions through 2014 and then gradually reduce them to 10% below current levels by 2018. The states participating are Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Like its bigger cousin, it’s a job- and growth-killing plan in a time of economic crisis. As the sun slows and the Earth cools, it’ll mean higher energy prices during colder and snowier winters.
Al Gore’s hippie legions may have to wear their winter coats.
Mike Dubrasich (13:06:42) : “The problems we face as a society today will not be solved with “science.” They require moral fortitude and the courage to cast aside corrupt leadership through peaceful democratic action. It does not matter whether the globe is warming or not; freedom from authoritarianism and amoral government controls is too precious to discard, too vital to let whither.”
If what you mean by “science” are ‘acedemic’ endeavors and pipe dreams, I whole heartily agree.
I contend that the engineering community needs to finally speak up loudly about energy. There needs to be candid, basic and facutal recommendations. We only have so much buildable technology we can currently (next decade) harness for our energy needs.
The only way we can legislate a reduction in CO2 is by rationing our power, fuel, windows and doors, lighting, clothes, meat consumption and/or . We can’t snap our fingers and have clean energy. We are decades out of any true, scalable renewable energy supply.
meant to say:
1913 was only a small slow down compared with 1813 which was much more severe. The Cycle is right on track for a “1813” type cooling this time.
So if somebody throws something into the intake of Al’s personal jet, grounding him for awhile, thats ok, ’cause they’re saving the climate.
Huh???
Enough of this tedious sniping.
If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore is mistaken, please cite it.
i’ll give u one john….
what about the whole of science recognize that CO2 didnt not rise before Temp anytime in history….the opposite to what he says in his religious movie.
Hockey stick 1 was shown to 0 statistical significance by the Wegman commission. The following link is provided http://www.climateaudit.org/. The hockey stick has been the example that computer models have created and the temperatures predicted to match the model. There predicted warming as shown by the models has not happened even when CO2 has increased above the lower bounds of the model inputs, in the real world. The Arctic ice cap didn’t become open water as predicted with more than a 50% certainty. Currently the sun has been in a deep minimum, coupled with the solar winds being at a 50 year low as reported by NASA might have something to do with the declining global temperatures. I am not sure if the Wegman commission will satisfy your request for a citation but it is a fact. Further a link to courts in the U.K.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/7037671.stm, rather old news.
John Philips:
Fine. Here: click
I’ve got lots more. Go ahead. Call me on it.
Al Gore doesn’t deserve a Nobel Peace Prize with an attitude like this one. I believe that taking it away from him would be the best for the future of humanity!
Ecotretas
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/
Imagine… Winning the Nobel Peace Prize and then inciting civil disobedience!
Gore has been very, very wrong on sea level rise. The rate is less than 14″ per hundred years.
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Here is another report from academics.
http://www.physorg.com/news139757535.html
John P. — I don’t get your point. Are you saying that IBD misreported Gore’s statements inciting civil disobedience? I don’t think they did, since his statements were widely reported by other news outlets.
Are you saying that you will believe Gore said what he said only if reported in academic (peer-reviewed) literature?
Are you saying that civil disobedience is justified based on some findings of NASA’s Goddard Institute? Is that your personal view or the official position of NASA?
What types of civil disobedience do you advocate? Vandalism? Arson? Some other form of property destruction? Rioting? Letter bombs? Please be specific. Again, are those your personal recommendations or those of your employer?
I am a taxpayer and thus pay your salary as well as fund NASA. How do you think I should react to NASA and your endorsement of (Gore’s call for) civil disobedience? You accuse people of “tedious sniping.” What do you mean by that?
When Nobel Peace Laureate Gore’s desired civil disobedience happens, do you wish to take the credit or blame?
Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Gore is making the outrageous claims, he needs to prove he’s right. His hockey schtick has been discredited over and over again, he misrepresents ice core data (lies), misrepresents the state of polar bears (lies again), misrepresents the reasons for the shrinking snows of Kilimanjaro (more lies)… You need to show where he’s right if you expect us to take him seriously.
I am thinking this John Philips is probably a gore hater like most of us…..getting his rocks off watching others hate him.
Who in their right mind would come into this blog and ask such a blatantly stupid question?
Mike B. above is absolutely on target. A profound moral cancer has spread through our political establishment.
Ah, the 19th century was no better. Much worse, actually. For example, the Tilden-Hayes election was stolen outright. The most corrupt senator today is a boy scout compared with the 19th century average.
We have folks defending pc and AGW, etc., sure. But we used to have folks defending slavery and the worst excesses of the robber barons (who, I admit, did create a lot of national wealth).
Even the questionable loyalty of today’s press during war doen’t hold a candle to the outrages of the norther press during the Civil War.
Life is not only better today on every level conceivable, but even more sensible and level headed (Lord help us). Even stipulating all the modern idiocy.
Hmmm. I wonder if John Philips is the same person signed on as “John Philip” [sic] on The Register. (It sure sounds like him.)
Oh, BTW, shameless plug:
I got a 3-page Global Warming article published.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/
Please feel free to drop by and comment!
REPLY: I’ve read Evan’s article a couple of days ago, well done and worth the time! Congrats Evan. – Anthony
John Philips (17:32:46) :
Enough of this tedious sniping.
If anyone has an example from the academic literature that demonstrates that the central value of 3 °C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2 °C (2.2 °F) please prove it.
Hmmm. I wonder if John Philips is the same person signed on as “John Philip” [sic] on The Register. (It sure sounds like him.)
Yes. Curious, a reference he gave,
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Increase_In_Atmospheric_Moisture_Tied_To_Human_Activities_999.html
“Basically, “fingerprinting” involves searching for a computer model-predicted pattern of climate change (the “fingerprint”) in observed climate records.”
claimed a couple contributing authors, who I found had just published this about the same time:
A recent analysis of satellite observations does not support this prediction of a muted response of precipitation to global warming.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/317/5835/233
So the models are dependable yet not dependable.
The phrase “brown shirts” comes to mind, though.
Brownshirts is such a nasty word. We prefer “earth tones”.
Has anyone critically reviewed this latest analysis by Mann? Where can I find it?
Mac is giving it the works over on Climate Audit.
weapons grade Balonium
Busted.
It IS the same John Philip(s) I mentioned earlier.
He used the exact same phrase (against me) over on the Register.
You accuse people of “tedious sniping.” What do you mean by that?
cf his commentary on my article? #B^1
I encourage you-all to go over there and comment, too (pro or con, I’m easy). So far he’s the only WUWT person who has commented on it . . .
Here’s the link again.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/22/global_warming_mitigation_vs_adaptation/
P.S., thanks, Rev. It was largely thanks to your blog that I got the opportunity.
Yes, Glenn, it is.
Nobel and Oscar winning senator Gore
Gore may have the Nobel, but he did not win an Oscar. His film, or more correctly, the producers of his celludoid slide show won the Oscar. Actors in Oscar winning films do not get to claim the title unless they too are individual winners in the Best Actor class.
Smokey
A five year cooling trend is entirely consistent with the science, here is Josh Willis of JPL..
“Indeed, Argo data show no warming in the upper ocean over the past four years, but this does not contradict the climate models. In fact, many climate models simulate four to five year periods with no warming in the upper ocean from time to time. The same is true for the warming trend observed by NASA satellites; it too is in good agreement with climate model simulations. But more important than agreement with computer models is the fact that four years with no warming in the upper ocean does not erase the 50 years of warming we’ve seen since ocean temperature measurements became widespread. Nor does it erase the eight inches of sea level rise we’ve experienced in the past 100 years. Both of these are important indicators of human-kind’s effect on the climate.”
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2008/03/31/josh-willis-on-climate-change-global-warming-is-real.aspx
Fortunately we can sidestep a discussion of the statistical merits of PCA and so forth on the Hockey Stick itself, as none of the published reconstructions since shows a MWP warmer than today see here http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646
On sea level Gore discussed what would happen if half the West Antarctic and Greenland were to melt, without giving a timescale. His analysis is spot on, I would agree that he should have said that this will likely take centuries, however we are likely in for a rise of 0.5-1.4m this century. http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/315/5810/368
So, still waiting for a reference that shows Gore and the peer-reviewed science to be at odds.
Evan – will you be correcting the factual errors I pointed out in the Register piece? To remind you of a few…
– You confused CO2 with CO2e
– You confused consumption with production
– You stated Stern used the worse case IPCC scenario – he did not.
and in your latest comment you seem to be implying you haven’t actually READ the review that you are critiquing. Can this be true 😉
JP.
PS You’ll be telling me next that Steve Goddard is his real name.
Most scientists say Gore is reliable.
Between March 19 through May 28, 2007 Harris Interactive conducted a mail survey of a random sample of 489 self-identified members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union who are listed in the current edition of American Men and Women of Science. A random sample of this size carries a theoretical sampling error of +/- four percentage points
Major Findings
Ninety-seven percent of the climate scientists surveyed believe ‘global average temperatures have increased’ during the past century.
…
Eighty-four percent say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that ‘currently available scientific evidence’ substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; the rest are unsure.
…
Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’ rates better than any traditional news source, with 26% finding it ‘very reliable’ and 38% as ‘somewhat reliable’. Other non-traditional information sources fare poorly: No more than 1% of climate experts rate the doomsday movie ‘The Day After Tomorrow’ or Michael Crichton’s novel ‘State of Fear’ as very reliable.
http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
The problem with most surveys is how the study population was selected, the qualifications of the studied population to opine on the questions asked and the questions themselves.
Before I can comment on this survey, please provide the above information.
Thank you.
There is a, possibly discredited, theory called the Gaia Principle. It asserted that the Earth was a single living organism and looked after itself.
Is it possible that the increases in CO2 were Gaia putting on an extra jumper to keep life alive?
Yes I know it’s a very “Hippy” thought and not really fit for a serious site but it might be a way of stopping the hippy army of Al Gore from killing millions of people with the coming cold.
“John Philip” said in the Register comments:
So, where is water vapor? Or is that inconvenient?
JP goes on:
In fact, where economic supply/demand curves intersect, there is no difference between supply and demand. They are in balance. The same thing occurs with consumption and production; how can more production be consumed than is produced? And overproduction is quickly rectified, because warehousing overproduction is costly.
The real problem here is the endless, nitpicking arguments by trolls who constantly move the goal posts. They always morph their arguments, in order to avoid the fact that the climate is cooling, not warming, and that CO2 has such a miniscule effect on temperature that its very tiny effect is swamped by just about every other forcing.
Yet grown men, including Nobel Prize recipients and nameless, unaccountable UN “scientists” actually propose sequestering CO2 at a cost of $trillions. The net result would have the same effect as having the government pay millions of otherwise productive workers to dig 10X10X10 foot holes in their back yards — and then paying them to move those holes to different locations. That would accomplish just as much as sequestering carbon dioxide, which is vital to all life on earth.
The AGW/CO2/climate catastrophe hypothesis has been repeatedly falsified, therefore taking beneficial CO2 out of circulation is a profoundly stupid idea. Deal with it.