This is not the sort of op-ed we are used to seeing in the Washington Post. But I found it funny nonetheless. – Anthony
With Al Due Respect, We’re Doomed
By Dana Milbank, Washington Post
Thursday, January 29, 2009; Page A03
The lawmakers gazed in awe at the figure before them. The Goracle had seen the future, and he had come to tell them about it.
What the Goracle saw in the future was not good: temperature changes that “would bring a screeching halt to human civilization and threaten the fabric of life everywhere on the Earth — and this is within this century, if we don’t change.”
The chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, John Kerry (D-Mass.), appealed to hear more of the Goracle’s premonitions. “Share with us, if you would, sort of the immediate vision that you see in this transformative process as we move to this new economy,” he beseeched.
“Geothermal energy,” the Goracle prophesied. “This has great potential; it is not very far off.”
Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. “I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,” the Goracle spoke.
A third asked the legislative future — and here the Goracle spoke in riddle. “The road to Copenhagen has three steps to it,” he said.
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho) begged the Goracle to look further into the future. “What does your modeling tell you about how long we’re going to be around as a species?” he inquired.
The Goracle chuckled. “I don’t claim the expertise to answer a question like that, Senator.”
It was a jarring reminder that the Goracle is, indeed, mortal. Once Al Gore was a mere vice president, but now he is a Nobel laureate and climate-change prophet. He repeats phrases such as “unified national smart grid” the way he once did “no controlling legal authority” — and the ridicule has been replaced by worship, even by his political foes.
“Tennessee,” gushed Sen. Bob Corker, a Republican from Gore’s home state, “has a legacy of having people here in the Senate and in public service that have been of major consequence and contributed in a major way to the public debate, and you no doubt have helped build that legacy.” If that wasn’t quite enough, Corker added: “Very much enjoyed your sense of humor, too.”
Humor? From Al Gore? “I benefit from low expectations,” he replied.
The Goracle’s powers seem to come from his ability to scare the bejesus out of people. “We must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization,” he said. And: “This is the most serious challenge the world has ever faced.” And: It “could completely end human civilization, and it is rushing at us with such speed and force.”
Though some lawmakers tangled with Gore on his last visit to Capitol Hill, none did on the Foreign Relations Committee yesterday. Dick Lugar (Ind.), the ranking Republican, agreed that there will be “an almost existential impact” from the climate changes Gore described.
As such, the Goracle, even when questioned, was shown great deference. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.), challenging Gore over spent nuclear fuel, began by saying: “I stand to be corrected, and I defer to your position, you’re probably right, and I’m probably wrong.” He ended his question by saying: “I’m not questioning you; I’m questioning myself.”
Others sought to buy the Goracle’s favor by offering him gifts. “Thank you for your incredible leadership; you make this crystalline for those who don’t either understand it or want to understand it,” gushed Sen. Bob Menendez (D-N.J.), who went on to ask: “Will you join me this summer at the Jersey Shore?”
The chairman worried that the Goracle may have been offended by “naysayers” who thought it funny that Gore’s testimony before the committee came on a morning after a snow-and-ice storm in the capital. “The little snow in Washington does nothing to diminish the reality of the crisis,” Kerry said at the start of the hearing.
The climate was well controlled inside the hearing room, although Gore, suffering from a case of personal climate change, perspired heavily during his testimony. The Goracle presented the latest version of his climate-change slide show to the senators: a globe with yellow and red blotches, a house falling into water, and ones with obscure titles such as “Warming Impacts Ugandan Coffee Growing Region.” At one point he flashed a biblical passage on the screen, but he quickly removed it. “I’m not proselytizing,” he explained. A graphic showing a disappearing rain forest was accompanied by construction noises.
The Goracle supplied abundant metaphors to accompany his visuals. Oil demand: “This roller coaster is headed for a crash, and we’re in the front car.” Polar ice: “Like a beating heart, and the permanent ice looks almost like blood spilling out of a body along the eastern coast of Greenland.”
The lawmakers joined in. “There are a lot of ways to skin a cat,” contributed Isakson, who is unlikely to get the Humane Society endorsement. “And if we have the dire circumstances we’re facing, we need to find every way to skin every cat.”
Mostly, however, the lawmakers took turns asking the Goracle for advice, as if playing with a Magic 8 Ball.
Lugar, a 32-year veteran of the Senate, asked Gore, as a “practical politician,” how to get the votes for climate-change legislation. “I am a recovering politician. I’m on about Step 9,” the Goracle replied, before providing his vision.
Prospects for regulating a future carbon emissions market? “There’s a high degree of confidence.” The future of automobiles in China and India? “I wouldn’t give up on electric vehicles.” The potential of solar power in those countries? “I have no question about it at all.”
Of course not. He’s the Goracle.
“Natural historic parameters” do not include the contribution of substantial anthropogenic GHGs to the atmosphere.
But they do include, in geologic terms, increases of naturally occurring GHG’s (code word for CO2) and there is not much evidence that the gas increases caused temp increases (CO2 increases lag temp increases). I’m still not sure why “man-made” CO2 is supposed to create different climate reactions than naturally occurring CO2. That said, one of the biggest problem in determining the past reaction to GHG’s is that the farther back you go geologically, minute details of climate reactions are lost forever – you only get a general idea of what went on.
I have a question – How do you disprove anthropologically caused global warming… er, I mean climate change. If it gets warms, it’s our fault. If it gets colder, it’s our fault. If we get too much rain, not enough…. you get the idea. Everything that happens is assumed to be because of the extra gasses we’ve spewed into the atmosphere. The theory of climate change borders on fraud because it seems that, by design, it CAN”T be disproved. If it can’t be disproved, it’s not science.
That said, I’m all for a cleaner environment. I’m even for reduced CO2 emissions (what can it hurt). What I’m not for is purposely damaging an already weak economy, based on a theory that, as it has currently evolved, is impossible to disprove.
You obviously haven’t seen Heidi Klum in a bikini… 😉
So nobody in the senate dared to ask Al how he got to the Testimony?
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Senate’s top environmental lawmaker offered a preview on Wednesday of major component of climate change legislation she said could be introduced “in weeks, not months.”
“We are not sitting back and waiting for some magic moment,” Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, told reporters. “We’re ready to go.”
TonyB,
My apologies for not promptly responding to your very interesting post [on 1/31/09 @06:26:32] on this thread: click
First, let me say that an attempt is continually being made by Simon to frame the argument in a way that makes it appear that I accept and defend everything Dr. Beck has said. I do not accept that characterization. But I have an open mind regarding Beck’s findings, which appear legitimate and technically unrefuted.
I also note that Beck has been completely open, forthright and transparent regarding his methodology and data collection, and as can be seen in your post of January 31, he has taken the time to respond in great detail to Simon’s questions. I urge anyone interested to read Beck’s responses in that post, and decide for themselves [and for those interested, Dr. Beck’s website is here: click]
I would like to make one further comment: If Drs. Mann and Hansen were as open and forthright regarding their data and methodologies as Dr. Beck is, the AGW/CO2 issue would have been put to rest long ago. The only reason that CO2 is still taken seriously as the central culprit in global warming is the refusal of Hansen and Mann to provide transparency, and to respond directly to their critics. Instead, they hide out, and refuse to provide the raw data necessary to falsify their CO2/global warming hypothesis. That is not science; that is advocacy.
Dr. Beck repeatedly makes the point that he is not arriving at global assumptions, but rather, he is doing a comprehensive study of over 90,000 extremely accurate CO2 readings, taken over many years and in many locations, often by prominent scientists.
Beck’s work adds substantially to our knowledge of past atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. Believers in the AGW/CO2 hypothesis intensely dislike the fact that CO2 levels have been much higher in many locations in the recent past such as 1940, and also at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, than current levels. That fact derails the AGW/CO2 hypothesis.
Dr. Beck’s work has withstood falsification. If anyone believes otherwise, Beck is, as always, ready, willing and able to explain the data and his methodology. His is a prime example of how a scientist should conduct research.
In refuting Simon Evans’ simplistic reasons for his belief in AGW and therefore Evans’ willingness to choose or vote for our contemporary society to walk the plank, Walter Cronanty wrote:
Sorry, Simon, you’re dead wrong. It is the “AGW contingent” that must prove they are right. Why? Because it is the “AGW contingent” that proposes we crater our economy [such as it is, right now] to “solve” a problem that no one knows for sure is a problem. No more drilling, no more nukes, no more coal, no more hydro-electric, no more internal combustion engines, no, no, no….
Returning to Jeff L’s (and others) wiki project idea, a great quote from the Global Warming Petition Project could headline each unit of information distributed. It clearly suggests what our future might be like if we could sideline The Goracle and his ilk: “Thus, rather than a $300 billion trade loss, the U.S. would have a $200 billion trade surplus — and installed capacity for future U.S. [energy] requirements.” (P. 36)
just a profit-eager government.
Just have a look at Scott’s diary when he got caught in 40 below weather and find out if that’s too cold to snow.
When asked by Kerry if some of the cap & trade profits could go to the taxpayers footing the bill, Gore replied icily …”possibly”. Told me right then & there what’s on his mind. We must bear the sacrifice while the energy companies increase thier profits, which he was very careful to ‘safeguard’.
I really don’t like to see science being a political puppet, but they are the ones doing it.
As one current example of government wasting precious resources on anti-GW boondoggles, we have a serious water shortage in California, which is about to lead to a serious food shortage of various items. California supplies a big part of the fruits and vegetables in the U.S., but that is likely to change this year due to lack of fresh water.
So, what is our state government doing about it? Well, let’s consider the past. When we had a shortage of electric power, the state purchased power from other states, including nuclear from Arizona, hydroelectric from Washington and from Nevada, and coal-based power from Utah. We purchase crude oil from Alaska, and other countries because there is not enough oil production in California to supply the refineries.
We also take some water from the Colorado river system, under a pact with a few other states including Nevada and Arizona.
But, now that we are in a dire water shortage, our government enacts a Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006, aka AB 32, in which CO2 and other GHGs will be dramatically reduced by command-and-control plus a bit of cap and trade.
And the farms will continue have no water, so the grocery stores across the nation will have fewer and therefore more expensive produce and fruit.
Does anyone else think that maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to build some seawater desalination plants? Oh wait…those take electric power…and those create CO2.
My suggestion is to get used to fewer veggies and fruits, folks.
And, that will have a world-wide ripple effect on food prices. Count on it.
Thank you, Al Goracle. Just what we needed, right when we needed it.
I miss guacamole already. (tasty Mexican dish made primarily from avocados, a major crop in California).
Smokey (18:04:14) :
Well, since you mention my name 🙂 –
I have an open mind regarding Beck’s findings
Do you?
CO2 levels have been much higher in many locations in the recent past such as 1940, and also at the very beginning of the industrial revolution, than current levels. That fact derails the AGW/CO2 hypothesis
Ah, it seems that you don’t! Maybe what you and I understand by ‘having an open mind’ is just entirely different?
It’s fine, Smokey – you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless, but that’s just my opinion!
(Incidentally, I haven’t finished reading through the CO2 thread, having been away at the weekend, so I’ve no idea whether or not Beck has responded to my questions as you suggest).
@a jones (13:41:37) :
[…] “For some time I have being trying to persuade people to use ‘By Gore’ instead, so you can say ‘By Gore it’s cold today’.” […]
You just rustled up an instant convert here. I’ll use that tomorrow at work. The temperature is forecast to drop like a stone in my neck of the woods. We’re expecting 0-4 deg F tonight and not much of a warmup tomorrow.
Simon Evans (18:06:23) :
“I am in favour of nuclear research (which should not have been held back all this time) and consider nuclear as a necessary part of an energy strategy going forward,”
As you appear to be defending Sen. Gore, I thought you were in agreement with his statement: “Another lawmaker asked about the future of nuclear power. ‘I have grown skeptical about the degree to which it will expand,’ the Goracle spoke.” You say you are for nuclear power, yet no one truly believes that a nuclear facility will be coming on line soon in the US. Rather easy rhetoric, like President Obama saying he is for nuclear power – as soon as we solve the problem of spent uranium – never saying when, given our current, and soon to be expanded, EPA regulations, he expects that “problem” to be solved, nor what he expects the solution to be.
Many AGW alarmists often are “cafeteria” alarmists. That is, when the results of their polices are considered, this proponent is for nuclear, that one isn’t. When internal combustion engines are discussed, some [most notably, Sen. Gore] recoil in horror, while others, such as you, apparently, say you can live with them, but wish that they more efficient [on that, I can agree]. The problem is, when the arguments are hammered into policy, we end up with no new energy production- be it coal powered, petroleum powered, hydro powered or nuclear powered [or wind powered, if it’s in Sen Kennedy’s backyard – or if it might impact on migratory birds – must do an environmental impact study, doncha know].
As to hydro-electric, I do not know what you consider “(sensible considerations applying),” but no prominent “green” proponent that I have read lately has ever applied “sensible considerations” which would allow for the construction of new hydro-electric facilities in the US. Again, like President Obama and his “support” of nuclear power.
“The Chinese, Indians, etc. need to cut emission trajectories. ‘We’ need to help stimulate that response.” And how, pray tell, do you expect to do that?
Nice words – little reality.
That is, perhaps, what bothers me most about AGW proponents. No one, including me, wants to increase man-made CO2 emissions – not because I have a great fear of them, but because it seems common sensical [if that’s a word] that the more that we can use renewable resources, the better. That being said, the cost of the cure of lowering our CO2 emissions to the levels espoused by Sen. Gore, et al., is ridiculous. To say that we could do that without significantly lowering our, and the world’s, standard of living is, at best, disengenuous.
Finally, we get to this sentence: ” Action in respect of AGW seeks to protect our future standard of life, not to damage it.” First, while this may be true as to you, I believe it is absolutely false as to many of your allies. Some of the most virulent, leftist, anti-indultrialized world luddites I’ve ever encountered were rabid AGWers. They simply want us all to live in caves.
Second, I’ve read some projected figures on mitigation – but none, repeat none, have been realistic when looking at all costs, including the costs of lost opportunities. It reminds me of projections of LBJ’s “Great Society” – not even close [when has a grandiose government project come in under budget?].
So we get back to the burden of proof – until someone can prove that AGW exists, I’ll take cautious baby steps towards renewable energy because it makes sense in many ways. But if you want trillions and trillions of dollars, to wrench our basic economy from carbon based energy production to something else, you’ve got to do better than you’ve been doing.
You seem, Simon, to be an intelligent proponent of AGW. Looking at the points above, I have some thoughts (not proofs, not arguments, just thoughts). I’m not a climate scientist, but physics was my major, and I understand some of what I see flying through the air from left to right and back again. Not all, mind you, and I’m more than happy to be shown to be wrong – that is after all how we learn.
1) On your first point, I agree (to a certain extent) that there is an understanding of the basic physics of IR absorption by CO2. There are other scientists who disagree, though, I should point out. The problem is that the magnitude of effect of this IR absorption on global temperature is not as well known experimentally (ie: at the level of our complex planet) and is in any case theoretically relatively small. Do we really believe that a gas making up 0.03% of our atmosphere by volume can cause the whole thing to run out of control? Really? Enter your second point.
2) This is the kicker. Water vapour (95% of the GHG effect – that’s more like it!) must be employed as the positive feedback mechanism, otherwise the whole alarm thing peters out. However, this effect is unproven, beyond the relative humidity evidence you mentioned. In my opinion this is where more research could be directed. If it turns out that the positive feedback is true, then yes I believe we may have a problem. I’m keeping an open mind on the issue but right now I don’t see a lot of convincing evidence. Also, it appears it hasn’t happened in the past. Not proof, of course, but something to bear in mind.
3) This is the weakest of the three arguments, as I’m sure you know (since it’s not #1 or #2). The lack of understanding of other forcings is hardly a good argument to use, especially since the downward temperature trend over the past decade is not well explained by previous models (otherwise they would have predicted it), and is itself therefore probably due to some “other forcing”.
As a further discussion of other forcings, what happened during the MWP is troublesome. How did global temperature soar higher than it is now, stay high for ages (but not run away uncontrollably), then dip down into the LIA all without the slightest regard for CO2 levels? I just don’t see the sensitivity to CO2/water vapour positive feedback that is being assumed. Even the Team recognize the MWP as a major problem, and explains why they have tried so hard to re-write history.
Just in case you believe the assertion that the MWP never happened, may I say that the only evidence against it comes from the Team and associated bench members. Not good enough – history and many other scientists back up the existence of the MWP, and it’ll take a lot more than some rather dubious statistical magic to make it disappear for me (and I suspect, most other people).
Al Gore is my shepherd
He is only aware of what he wants
He makes me lie down on park benches outside his mansion
He leads me beside the polluted water of his strip mine
He leads me in the path of Kyoto for his legacy sake
He restores my doubt in brain dead politicians
His jet emits the holy co2
His excise doth make my pockets empty
His movie makes children sleepless
Yea, though I walk dark in my house his 3 are comfortable lit
Surely his condition for power will follow me all the days of my life
And I will see votes held to the light on Thanksgiving forever
Whatever, Simon. If you can falsify Dr. Beck’s findings, I look forward to seeing it. But so far, Beck has answered every last one of your points — which are no doubt the best you’ve got.
Now, about that repeatedly falsified AGW/CO2 hypothesis…
Simon Evans (18:36:28) :
“you’re welcome to believe in Dr Beck’s findings if you wish to. Obviously I think they’re valueless”
Now, what was that about an “open mind”?
One more thing on the “cost of mitigation” of CO2, or more properly said, the cost of banning man-made production of CO2.
Well let’s look back at another “scientific consensus.” What was the cost of banning the use of DDT? Really, in dollars and cents, probably not much, except for the manufacturer [evil capitalist, no doubt]. But, what of the real cost? The unintended consequences? Roy Innes, national chairman of the Congress Of Racial Equality (CORE), wrote this article:
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results.html?artId=19127
The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT has been a travesty worse than colonialism ever was, a human rights violation of monstrous proportions.”
He wrote: “Not surprisingly, there has been another holocaust of Africans every few years, and malaria deaths since the 1972 DDT ban may in fact exceed the entire World War II death toll.”
So, what was/is the real cost of the “mitigation” of DDT? Until we are sure of what we are doing, we should at least do no harm.
Roger Sowell (18:26:50) :
You can thank the Dept. of the Agriculture for running precipitation enhancement stations that eventually result in the precipitation getting up and going elsewhere in California.
Just like the did in 1975 in Nevada County, and lo & behold, the 76-77 drought in California had it’s epicenter in …. guess where?
They did it again in Modoc County, driving the precip to Ore/Wash and sending the remnants around to the Southern Sierra.
We should thank them profusely for making 2009 a really bum year for agriculture in California, adding insult to injury. They are getting quite good at steering the water away from this state.
Just think of what miracles they can perform once they get the green light to combat Global Warming with even more sinister Climactic Experiments.
Walter Cronanty (20:52:17) : The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT has been a travesty worse than colonialism ever was, a human rights violation of monstrous proportions.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:DDT-3D-balls.png
shows it as a simple 2 Benzene rings stuck to one end of an ethane with one CL each on the rings and the other end of the ethane CL saturated. First made in the late 1800s. Looks easy to make.
So why doesn’t one of these countries suffering so badly just withdraw from the Stockholm Convention and make their own? If my population was croaking off from malaria, I’d “roll my own” in a heartbeat…
Can’t take much more than a college chem lab to make pounds of it.
Likely because they were threatened with the cut off of foreign aid if they did.
E.M.Smith (00:37:08) :
Walter Cronanty (20:52:17) : The subtitle: “The West’s policy on DDT
The wiki states:
The use of DDT in vector control has not been banned, but it has been largely replaced by less persistent alternative insecticides.
The Stockholm Convention, which entered into force in 2004, outlawed several persistent organic pollutants, and restricted the use of DDT to vector control. The Convention was signed by 98 countries and is endorsed by most environmental groups. Recognizing that a total elimination of DDT use in many malaria-prone countries is currently unfeasible because there are few affordable or effective alternatives, the public health use of DDT was exempted from the ban until alternatives are developed. The Malaria Foundation International states that “The outcome of the treaty is arguably better than the status quo going into the negotiations…For the first time, there is now an insecticide which is restricted to vector control only, meaning that the selection of resistant mosquitoes will be slower than before.”[26]
Despite the worldwide ban on agricultural use of DDT, its use in this context continues in India[27] North Korea, and possibly elsewhere.[11]
I don’t see the problem. You can buy it from China and India. It is still legal for vector control (and keeping off the crops makes it less likely to fail for vector use).
Looks to me like a ‘non-problem’. If you have a malaria problem you can buy it and use it. Doesn’t seem like anyone is stopping this use.
“Hey – how about this as an idea – that we colectively assemble some documents like this. A wiki project of sorts, but broken into easily digested chuncks that could be sent out via email – either as pdf’s or ppt’s. Maybe a big picture one to start with but follow ups with smaller sub-sections, such as geologic perspective, influence of oceans, influence of the sun, etc. Nice concise documents , but with key data plots and tons of links to follow up material. Send them to your friends, family & govt representatives. They can fwd on to others. Could educate a lot of people.”
A problem I have found is that if you dont have a passion for the subject matter, you probably aren’t going to spend the time to learn about it, but people will spend 5 minutes looking at a pre-digested version sent to them via email & will hit the fwd button to send it to others. Problem is having that nice condensed version to send out.
It would be nice to keep the documents evergreen – so as new data & research become available they can be linked in.
Any ideas of how to make something like this happen?”
Here’s what I submitted on another thread:
Anthony: When your $10M WUWT-earmarked-slice of the recent appropriation for climate research reaches you, I suggest the following project: set up a sister site, or a portion of this site, that contains the best posts, including point/counterpoint exchanges, from WUWT’s threads, organized by topic. Topics would be such things as:
Antarctic
Arctic Ice
Glaciers
Urban Heat Islands
Temperature Records
Siting Problems
Hockey Stick
Sea Level
Ocean Oscillations
Computer Climate Modeling
Hansen’s Intemperance and Crusading
CO2’s posited feedback cycle with water vapor
Soot
Etc., etc. The editing could be a minimalistic rough cut (eliminating small irrelevancies, for instance), and no segues or commentaries need be inserted (at least initially) to smooth transitions between segments within topics, or to provide introductions–and yet the result could still be fantastically educational in getting new visitors up to speed. It would also simplify the task of responding to posts by naive AGW-ers: They could simply be referred to the appropriate thread in the Summary Section (as I hereby dub it).
Hi Anthony,
Europe is reeling from cold temperatures and the results of incompetent energy policies, since they have relied on intermittent wind power when they really needed fossil fuels or nuclear power to survive.
Here is one of my newspaper articles from 2002. It is a much more accurate indicator of recent climatic events than the IPCC reports, and includes a prediction of global cooling. The global cooling predictions was provided in a phone conversation with paleoclimatologist Dr. Tim Patterson, who based his comments on the Gleissberg Cycle.
My predictions on energy are proving correct. It is deeply regrettable that politicians worldwide have been so badly advised on this critical issue for the survival of our societies.
Best regards, Allan
*********************************
Kyoto Hot Air Can’t Replace Fossil Fuels
Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002
The Kyoto Accord on climate change is probably the most poorly crafted piece of legislative incompetence in recent times.
First, the science of climate change, the treaty’s fundamental foundation, is not even remotely settled. There is even strong evidence that human activity is not causing serious global warming.
The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common. Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
The last big Ice Age, when Canada was covered by a one-kilometre-thick ice sheet, ended only about 10,000 years ago, and another big one could start at any time in the next 5,000 years. Mankind clearly didn’t cause the rise and fall of the last big Ice Age, and we may not have any ability to control the next big one either.
It appears that increased CO2 is only a minor contributor to global warming. Even knowing this is true, some Kyoto advocates have tried to stifle the scientific debate by deliberate misinformation and bullying tactics. They claim to be environmentalists — why do they suppress the truth about environmental science?
Some environmental groups supporting Kyoto also lack transparency in their funding sources and have serious conflicts of interest. Perhaps they are more interested in extorting funds from a frightened public than they are in revealing the truth.
Do they not know or care that Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment by causing energy-intensive industries to move to developing countries, which are exempt from Kyoto emission limits and do not control even the most harmful forms of pollution?
The Canadian government wants to meet its Kyoto targets by paying billions of dollars a year for CO2 credits to the former Soviet Union. For decades, the former Soviet Union has been the world’s greatest waster of energy. Yet it will receive billions in free CO2 credits because of the flawed structure of Kyoto. No possible good can come to the environment by this massive transfer of wealth from Canadians to the former Soviet Union.
Kyoto would be ineffective even if the pro-Kyoto science was correct, reducing projected warming by a mere 0.06 degrees Celsius over the next half-century. Consequently, we would need at least 10 Kyoto’s to stop alleged global warming. This would require a virtual elimination of fossil fuels from our energy system. Environment Canada knows this but doesn’t really want to tell you all the economic bad news just yet.
What would the economic impact of 10 Kyoto’s be? Think in terms of 10 times the devastating impact of the oil crisis of the 1970s (remember high unemployment, stagflation and 20 per cent mortgage rates) or 10 times the impact of Canada’s destructive and wasteful National Energy Program. Be prepared for some huge and unpleasant changes in the way you live.
Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) account for 87 per cent of the world’s primary energy consumption, with 13 per cent coming from nuclear and hydroelectricity. Is it possible to replace such an enormous quantity of fossil fuels?
Hydrogen is not an answer — it is a clean secondary energy currency like electricity, but it is made from primary energy such as fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.
Kyoto advocates want expanded renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, and solar power and biomass to provide our future needs. Is this possible?
In 2001, there was a total global installed capacity of eight gigawatts (GW) of geothermal power and 25 GW of wind power. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, this equals only one quarter of one per cent of worldwide primary energy consumption. The contribution of solar electrical power generation is so small as to be inconsequential. To replace fossil fuels, we would need to increase all these renewables by a staggering 33,000 per cent.
Of course, wind doesn’t blow all the time — wind power works best as a small part of an electrical distribution system, where other sources provide the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it will probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1,000-megawatt wind farm would cover a land area of 1,036 square kilometres, while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers about 36 square kilometres. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible for miles due to the height of the towers and kill large numbers of birds.
What about solar? The electricity generated by a photovoltaic solar cell in its entire lifetime does not add up to the energy used to manufacture it, not to mention the requirement for vast areas for solar farms. These solar cells make sense only in limited special applications or in remote locations.
Hydroelectric power is another renewable, but environmental activists don’t want more hydro because it dams rivers.
What about biomass solutions such as ethanol? Canada, the United States and a few other countries may have available crop land for ethanol to partially meet our local needs, but it is clearly not a global solution.
Many developing countries will reject renewable energy due to higher costs, since renewables usually require subsidies to compete with fossil fuels.
Conventional nuclear fission or, someday, fusion are the only two prospects that could conceivably replace fossil fuels. But Kyoto activists hate nuclear.
Conservation is a good solution, but Canada has been improving its energy efficiency for decades, in response to rising energy prices. Significant improvements have been achieved in heating and insulation of homes, automotive mileage and industrial energy efficiency. However, Canadians live in a cold climate and our country is vast. There are practical limits to what we can achieve through energy conservation.
So where will all the energy come from if we eliminate oil, natural gas and coal? Kyoto supporters have provided no practical answers, they just want to ratify this flawed treaty. It would be nice if our energy supply solutions were simple, but they’re not. In the long run, if we implement Kyoto we will have only two choices — destroy our economy and suffer massive job losses and power blackouts, or break the terms of Kyoto, which will be international law.
Instead of Kyoto, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a much better understanding of science, industry and the environment. It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil — and no country should be exempt.
Then there might be a chance to actually improve the environment, rather than making it worse and wasting billions on the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord.
*******************************
E.M.Smith (00:58:24)
“Looks to me like a ‘non-problem’. If you have a malaria problem you can buy it and use it. Doesn’t seem like anyone is stopping this use.”
The question is not DDT’s availability, it is the economic penalties for using it. I suggest you read some of the articles at:
http://www.fightingmalaria.org
“Consider what happened with DDT, a highly-effective insecticide banned by the EU. Many developing countries have stopped using DDT — even though it is only sprayed indoors and not on crops — for fear that their agricultural exports will not be allowed in Europe.”
Thus, developing African countries can “pick their poison” [pun intended]. They can use DDT and exacerbate their already grinding poverty due to EU banning agricultural exports, or they can not use DDT and die of malaria.
On balance, I’m not at all sure that “environmentalists,” whether they are attacking CO2 or DDT or nuclear power or hydro-electric power or the myriad of other items they seem to be constantly attacking [the latest I’ve read about is an initially successful attack on a proposed transmission grid for a solar power farm in California because the wires would go through a state park], are benefitting the world. While many of their concerns may be valid [not at all sure that CO2 fears are well-founded], many of their ill-thought out, unrealistic solutions do incredible harm.
Stan Needham , well done . That is an example of what I meant .
Dear Senator Lugar,
….
My simple question to you is, what kind of climate would you like to legislate?
Do you have a specific level of temperature, relative humidity and precipitation in mind.
If so, what scientific principles will your legislation address to ensure that the desired parameters are met.
Be very specific in your answer because my future support for you is at stake.
That is the spirit !
Be all sure that when a politician receives a dozen of such letters from HIS voters , he notices .
When it is hundreds , he begins to think .
And when it is thousands he begins to be afraid .
Very afraid .
Do NOT complain that your local representative is a moron !
Make him change or kick him out .
It should be very clear to everybody that the support of politicians for AGW came only because they came to the conviction that the votes come without a price .
They only need to say that they will save the planet from the hell that is upon us and people will blindly accept everything and vote for them .
In every single other isue they must take risks , arbitrate , choose and with every decision potentially loose voters .
AGW is a god blessed issue for politicians – everybody wants to save the planet and nobody will be here anymore after 100 years to see how badly they screwed up .
So it is my , our , your duty to tell them that THERE IS A PRICE .
There is a short term price because spending trillions to destroy economy will show in destroyed jobs and plummeting standards of living and be very sure that people will notice THAT .
And there is a short term price for them personnaly because when people notice and become angry , be very sure that those responsible will be happy if they find a carwasher job afterwards .
It is irrelevant if some average temperarature will increase by 0.5 or 2°C or not at all in 100 years .
Peopole whose jobs get destroyed today , whose living standards decrease today , get angry tomorrow and that is what is relevant .
Tell them that , write them that .
Be sure that they will listen and it is not written that Obama’s and Gore’s environmental delirium must come true .