K
kimmielittle
Guest
When the facts don’t add up to the claims…IMO… it’s unethical / ignorant to ignore the FACTS.
- Status
When the facts don’t add up to the claims…IMO… it’s unethical / ignorant to ignore the FACTS.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Let me say first of all, what an entertaining and enlightening thread this is - thanks to Kimmielittle’s diligence in responding to AGW’s promotion by other posters. Great debate skills, Kimmie!
I have read through 20 pages so far, so forgive me if this has been entered into the official record of AGW debunking.
petitionproject.org/
31,487 American scientists including 9,029 Ph.Ds signed the petition. No money was provided to any of them for signing.
Now, for me, the “theory” of AGW falls apart based on two obvious facts. It’s not even necessary to go into any of the science if you just THINK for a few minutes about the absurdity of the assumptions involved.
And, polluting the planet purposely is another subject that frequently gets confused with AGW. No one believes that we shouldn’t be good stewards of what God gave us. The two subjects are different but are easily confused.
Great debate skills, Kimmie!I have read through 20 pages so far, so forgive me if this has been entered into the official record of AGW debunking.
petitionproject.org/
31,487 American scientists including 9,029 Ph.Ds signed the petition. No money was provided to any of them for signing.
Now, for me, the “theory” of AGW falls apart based on two obvious facts. It’s not even necessary to go into any of the science if you just THINK for a few minutes about the absurdity of the assumptions involved.
- How can we as humans ever decide what is the optimum temperature for the planet to be? Is it the same temperature that we as human beings feel comfortable with, and if so, is it the temperature that the Masai of Kenya feel comfortable with, or the Inuits of Alaska, because those are 2 very divergent air temperatures? And is it water temperature or air temperature that we are measuring? Is it both? Are we changing both the air temperature and the water temperature? Wow, we are so powerful! Pretty presumptuous of us to put ourselves in the place of God and decide that not only are we affecting the climate of the entire planet, but that some fixed point that we decide upon is the “right” climate or temperature to try and fix in place. Absurd. But secular humanists and progressives do believe that we are little gods and there is no other Higher Power in charge of the universe. At least, they believe that if it helps them pull off schemes like this one in which they make billions and we change our behavior based on junk science.
- The means to measure the earth’s temperature in any reliable way still do not exist. We’d have to take a reliable temperature reading from the entire surface of the planet including the oceans. The temperature readings used to promote this AGW “theory” were taken in locations that had obvious scientific flaws - i.e. next to air conditioning units, on top of roofs, near other heat sources. And, the temperature of the earth is not a fixed point, so that Al Gore’s “The Earth has a fever” statement becomes positively humorous (but the man is a billionaire because he’s appealing to people who largely can’t THINK for themselves).
And, polluting the planet purposely is another subject that frequently gets confused with AGW. No one believes that we shouldn’t be good stewards of what God gave us. The two subjects are different but are easily confused.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Did the bacterium vibrio cholerae only start killing people *after *it was proven that it was the cause of Cholera? If AGW is a fact, it wil have effects; those of us who believe that it is real, naturally think that such effects happen as well. You disagree that AGW is real; obviously, if it’s not real, it has no effects. I don’t know what you mean by ‘proven’ (because nothing is ever proven completely beyond all doubt); if ‘proven’ means merely shown to be very likely true, then you can’t merely assert that it isn’t ‘proven’, because, afterall, whether or not it has been “proven” in that sense of the word is exactly what we’re debating here.
Evidence of the effect of acidification on marine life is rather conclusive, actually. When CO2 dissolves in water, it increases the quanitity of H+ ions in the water, increasing its acidity. This follows from undisputed facts of basic chemistry. Not surprisingly, it has been observed that the acidity of ocean water has increased by 30% since the beginning of the inductrial revolution. (see: antarctica.gov.au/about-antarctica/fact-files/climate-change/ocean-acidification-and-the-southern-ocean)
f you read the wikipedia page on ‘Ocean acidification’ there are a myriad of other sources on the subject.
There was an article in *Science *magazine not too long ago about how this acidification has led the erosion of the shells of marine animals. More importantly, however, is the (negative) effect of acidification of the quantity of plankton, the basis of the marine food chain, which also produce around half of the world’s biologically produced oxygen. I believe this is on the wikipedia article for ‘phytoplankton.’
I’ll look for that article I mentioned in *Science *about acidification and marine life.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
How did Ender get suspended? I don’t see anything on this thread where he was being rude or anything. Another member was banned, maybe not for this thread but this discussion seems to always have been civil and mostly free from attacks.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Like it or not, human beings have come to have tremendous influence on the world in the past few hundred years. It is not presuptuous at all to recognize (for better or worse) the extent of this influence; rather, we should except the responsibility comcomitant with this power, as the saying goes, with great power comes great responsibility. And it is true that the temperature of different regions or of different ecosystems are different and change differently. Some may increase as other decrease. However, when one speaks of increasing temperatures in relation to AGW, it is average temperature that matter; global warming doesn’t mean that every square inch of the planet is becoming warmer; it means that the overall temperature, the net amount of heat being retained by the atmosphere, is increasing. As for which temperature is “the best temperature,” who knows? However, we generally prefer temperatures at whick we can grow more crops, inhabit the earth in greater numbers and more comfortably. And whether it is “junk science” is precisely what we’re debating. Personally, I don’t know how one can just dismiss it as “junk science.” You may think it is ultimately unconvincing, but enough intelligent people have put enough honest research into it and produced a sophisticated enough case that it can hardly be characterized as junk.
Al Gore isn’t a billionaire, he’s just really rich. And just because he’s a hypocrite doesn’t mean he’s wrong on this one particular issue. And don’t characterize all those who agree with AGW with Al Gore; he’s not a scientist, just a demgogue. I’ve never read any of his books, nor have I ever followed anything he does or says, so it wouldn’t make much sense to associate me or others who think AGW is real with him.
And while overall temperatures cannot be measured exactly, they can be measured approximately. How approximately they can be measured (and how effectively they *are *measured by scientists) are matters for debate, not to be dismissed by mere assertions.
I most certainly do not have a 6,000 sq foot house or a private jet. I live in a 60 sq foot dorm room, I don’t own a car (I can’t afford one) and even when I do go home (again, certainly not a mansion) my dad keeps the thermostat at about 60 degrees or even less. Nor am I part of any green movement.Your generalizations are not entirely accurate.
K
kimmielittle
Guest
However, which effects are you giving credence to? Do you also give credence to the fact that a slightly warmer temperature has SAVED 174,000 lives per year over colder temperatures, in the USA each year?
I have seen the AGW side argue that 33,000 lives were lost last year, because of AGW. This number doesn’t include the 174,000 in the USA or in other parts of the world, that didn’t die. UK currently average about 20,000 per year in cold related deaths.
If weighing evidence …one must weigh all the evidence
We have not proven the hypothesis of AGW. …BUT it is not just proving the hypothesis of AGW…The claims need be proven, as well.
- Discussions of increased summer heat waves and deaths should also include the reductions of winter cold waves and hypothermia deaths. Far more people die of cold.
- Increased costs of home air conditioning need to be discussed in the same context as reduced heating costs.
- Increased mismatches between food availability in ecosystems need to also include reduced energy demands needed to maintain body temperature, such as for marine mammals and the fact that plants and cold-blooded animals usually grow faster when warmer rather than colder. Thus the food of most fish and mammals grows faster when warmer.
- Discussions of coral reef bleaching need to include the expansion of coral reef habitats.
- Discussions of agriculture and forestry problems such as regional droughts and changing types of plants must include the expansion of production areas, general increased precipitation, and CO2 fertilization.
Yes, it works fine in a lab and model runs. The problem is the Oceans, like the Climate are not closed systems… no test tube ].
co2science.org/articles/V13/N9/EDIT.php
co2science.org/articles/V13/N23/C1.php
**
**
We have a long way to go before we state we understand
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Thank youLet me say first of all, what an entertaining and enlightening thread this is - thanks to Kimmielittle’s diligence in responding to AGW’s promotion by other posters.
We can’t AND that is a huge problem with AGW
ABSOLUTELY !!!
J
John21652
Guest
Your response here indicates why so many people are either just plain sceptical about AGW, or reject the idea totally. Your words "…those of us who beleive that it is real,…" once you had written them down, should have started alarm bells ringing in your own mind, for you are admitting that the support for the AGW hypothesis is nothing but a belief system. Considering that the proponents of AGW wish to bring about massive social and economic change to our societies through harsh legislation, high taxes and massive income re-distribution, the prudent thinker would state that to bring about massive social and economic dislocation based on a “belief” is utter folly. It is akin to meadieval thinking. Furthermore, you even admit that AGW is not proven and go on to state that nothing is ever proven beyond all doubt. Of course that statement is just plain wrong, or else we wouldn’t be sending spacecraft aloft, or be able to switch on lights in our dwellings. Science in fact does prove things beyond all doubt and it has been this that has driven the development of the world and allowed the planet to support billions of people. There are thousands of scientists who state that AGW is not proven.
Further, you write that because something is *"…merely shown to be very likely true, then you can’t merely assert that it isn’t ‘proven’." *What you are saying, in effect, is that even though something is not yet proven to be true, but could possibly be true, is true and no-one can say otherwise!! Surely, something is either proven to be true, or it is not proven to be true and will never be true until the proof is obvious? Unless, of course, you wish to believe otherwise, which means proofs are irrelevant.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
First off, I don’t know what claims others make about the specific death toll of global warming, but my belief is that it is logically impossible to prove that this death or that death was or was not caused by the occurrence of global warming, just as it would be impossible to say that one particular downward point on the DOW was the result of the economic crisis, or that it was just the result of typical fluctuations in the business cycle. If someone dies of a heat stroke on a certain day, who can say that, if global warming didn’t occur, the temperature that particular day still wouldn’t have been 102 degrees, he still wouldn’t have died. And the opposite can be said of someone freezing to death.
Generally, when I think of 'the effects of global warming (I don’t know if this is atypical, as I don’t spend much time around environmentalist circles), I don’t think of heat strokes, but of the more macrocosmic potential effects, like on the percentage of arable land, food supply, occurrence of illnesses, and so on. I’ll stick with those.
First, about ocean acidification. The occurrence of acidification isn’t just based on abstract chemistry, it has actually been observed by scientist taking samples from ocean water; the increase of 30% I mentioned was not from an experiment but from samples.
The first article you posted was interesting. The authors brought up some good points on what they addressed; I do have a few objections though; they assume that marine biota will have time to adapt and evolve before CO2 by the time expected CO2 levels predicted by the IPCC are realized; they may be partially right, but natural history shows that organisms adapt to drastic changes in their environment, even ones slow to occur, in two way: some evolve, others go extinct. We cannot only assume that all marine biota (let alone the ones used or eaten by humans, who are already disadvantaged by having the cleverest creature on the planet as a predator) will evolve and adjust; In addition, adaptations may well include reductions in biomass (which would mean less food for fishermen) and change in the chemical make-up of marine biota. It is already unsafe for some people to eat too much of some kinds of fish (like certain kinds of mackerel, tuna, and shark) because the mercury content of their flesh causes mercury poisoning (this, I believe, is natural, not the result of any human activity). How the biochemistry of marine life changes to adapt to a more acidic environment may substantially reduce the oceans’ contribution to human sustenance.
Now, onto the important things I think your articles miss altogether. It’s all well and good that sea-grass photosynthesis may increase with increased CO2, and that corals are somewhat secluded from the bulk water most effected by acidification. However, this ignores the fact that the arguably single most important marine organism, plankton, do live in bulk water and are not secluded by a diffusive boundary layer, and phytoplankton, which perform the majority of photosynthetic activity in marine ecosystems, and are far more important to the food chain than sea-grass or even all other photosynthetic marine biota combined, are declining in number by about 1% per year. The decrease has been linked to increasing water temperatures. (sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/07/100728131705.htm) Your point that while climate change may cause decline on one side (in quantity, cost, or whatever), it may be cancelled out elsewhere, while in general a worthy point and a possibility to consider, is not applicable in the case of phytoplankton. Whatever increase their may have been in colder regions formerly less hospitable to plankton has not compensated for the decline elsewhere. The effects of declining plankton populations alone is likely have tremendous effects on the rest of marine biota, as they are essentially the foundation of the oceanic food chain.
Apprently my post is too long. Continued below…
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Also, the uptake of Carbon dioxide by sea-grass is practically inconsequential compared to the uptake by plankton. Aside from converting CO2 to oxygen, as they die and sink to the bottom of the ocean and become sediment, plankton play a key role in the “biological pump”, which plays an important role in the carbon cycle. As the quantity of plankton declines, this would reduce the ability of the ocean to absorb excess CO2 from that atmosphere.
On the other issues you list pertaining to the potential compensation for negative effects of global warming , one should not assume that the compensation will match the negative effect. Plant life doesn’t need to decline overall to have a negative effect on humans; even if it just changes. For example, if deciduous forests decline, we can’t exactly replace our lumber supply with palm trees. Also, even if we gain as much inhabitable territory in the far north as we lose to expanding deserts near the equator, rising water levels would tilt the balance toward a net loss. Also, even if one assumes that decline in food availability in one region is cancelled out equally in another, this will still lead to massive migrations of human populations that could upset the social order in much of the world. In other words, we in North America and Europe better learn to get along with Middle-Easterners and Africans.
This is only a partial answer to your post, as I don’t know enough about, for example, comparative heating and cooling costs and such to respond to every aspect of the post, so I refrained from commenting. Maybe I’ll do some research and try later. I like to follow the maxim of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: “Wovon man kann nicht sprechen, davon muss man Schweigen“, or, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
I realize that from reading a few of my posts on this thread one might get the impression that I am in love with phytoplankton.
On the other issues you list pertaining to the potential compensation for negative effects of global warming , one should not assume that the compensation will match the negative effect. Plant life doesn’t need to decline overall to have a negative effect on humans; even if it just changes. For example, if deciduous forests decline, we can’t exactly replace our lumber supply with palm trees. Also, even if we gain as much inhabitable territory in the far north as we lose to expanding deserts near the equator, rising water levels would tilt the balance toward a net loss. Also, even if one assumes that decline in food availability in one region is cancelled out equally in another, this will still lead to massive migrations of human populations that could upset the social order in much of the world. In other words, we in North America and Europe better learn to get along with Middle-Easterners and Africans.
This is only a partial answer to your post, as I don’t know enough about, for example, comparative heating and cooling costs and such to respond to every aspect of the post, so I refrained from commenting. Maybe I’ll do some research and try later. I like to follow the maxim of philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: “Wovon man kann nicht sprechen, davon muss man Schweigen“, or, whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.
I realize that from reading a few of my posts on this thread one might get the impression that I am in love with phytoplankton.
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
That is my point. Just because some of us human beings think that WE have the right to establish the conditions that are correct for the entire planet, does not mean that we really do have that right or that ability. Look, volcanoes have caused more air pollution and effects from the ash than than anything humans have ever done to this point. And we can’t control that one little bit - any of the active volcanoes could blow tomorrow and cause massive disruption - just look at what happened last year over Europe at Christmas. Do the AGW people factor volcanic eruptions into the equations? Heck no, because you can’t get people to stop driving SUVs if you blame it on volcanoes.
Honest research, you have GOT to be kidding me??? The “scientists” who put forth this junk LEFT OUT the Medieval Warm Period so their hockey stick graph would be more alarming, thus netting them more government funding and causing a whole ripple effect throughout society. Have you read the East Anglia emails? They admit that the “science” was falsified. Science is not about agreement, it’s about duplicating results. AGW is not science, it is religion - the religion of secular humanism that says humans are responsible for all the evil on the planet and if we were no longer here, the earth would be better off. Secular humanists believe WE are gods in our own right, thus they are miserable because they think God is dead so they hate themselves and everything divine around them. We’ve been trapped in their spell for 40+ years now and it’s time to speak the magic word and wake up.
So what about those 31,000 scientists who signed a petition stating that the AGW theory was claptrap? All 31,000 of them were being paid off? 31,000 is many times more than any of the AGW crowd can ever muster, because AGW is a LIE.
Follow the money, son, it’s always about the money. Al Gore is not only a hypocrite, he’s a filthy rich hypocrite and a liar, and yes, he’s 100% wrong on this, but he doesn’t care as long as the checks keep rolling in.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
None of your assertions here seem to have any merit. I make know claim or concession that belief in AGW is a “belief system” akin to a religious belief. Believe it or not, the word “belief” does not apply only to religions and ideologies. If someone asks me, ‘In what year was Dwight Eisenhower born?’, I might respond ‘I believe he was born in 1890.’ This does not indicate a religious or ideological belief. It is a synonym to ‘I think’ or ‘I am of the opinion that.” I could use the word ‘know’ but I find it somewhat pretentious to assert certain knowledge about which I am debating. I (apparently unlike you) do not like to assume that my interlocutor is simply wrong from the beginning. That can be decided at the end. To avoid confusing, I’ll use words like ‘think’ and ‘opine’ from now on. Happy now?
And please, stop trying to decide for me what I believe (which is ironically just what you would l probably accuse the federal government of doing). I never advocated “massive social and economic change,” redistribution of wealth, or high taxes. Once again, when you quote me and respond to my posts, address ME. Not Al gore, not some figment of your imagination; not some stereotype you have in mind address ME and MY views as I present them. If you’d really like to know my views on economic policy, then ask me, but that’s not the topic of this thread. Enough with the ad hominem arguments! Especially since there not even directed at anyone to whom they apply.
Furthermore, it is a practice of science not to assume anything to be 100% proven. Of course, any philosopher can remind us that we can’t prove that our senses our reliable sources. However, we generally assume that what we see or hear is real. That is an epistemological debate, however, and not really relevant hear. Scientists also use the word ‘prove’ rather cautiously. You cite technological advancements as evidence of the truth of certain scientific truths. I’ll avoid going on a tangent about how usefulness and truth are not necessarily synonymous, but that is also more of a philosophical issue. I will bring up, however, that we can make great advancements with knowledge that is “nearly true” but still in a sense false. For example, humans were making great strides forward in engineering, electronics, and other fields that relied on the contemporary body of knowledge in Physics before Einstein’s teory of relativity showed the previous system to be “false.” Many advancements were made by scientists unaware of the implications of the theory of general relativity; however, while the theory had tremendous implications, they did not greatly affect certain practical applications of the principles of physics.
I differentiate between proving something beyond ALL doubt and proving something beyond REASONABLE doubt, but the difference isn’t really important here. What is important to note here is that I refrain from saying that AGW is proven (even proven in the sense that the theory of general relativity was ‘proven’) because the nature of climatology (which deals largely with trends) does not, for the most part, allow for the level of ‘mathematical’ certainty that is more or less allowed in other sciences, like physics or chemistry.
Also, I am amazed at your claim that something is either proven true, or isn’t and therefore should be discarded. This is absurd. There are situations in which someone might tell you there is an 80% chance that a certain event will happen. Well, 80% certainly isn’t 100%, so it’s not proven that the event will happen. By your logic, we are simply to assume that it won’t happen, just because there isn’t 100% certainty. I don’t assert that AGW has been proven firstly because I am not a scientist, let alone a climatologist, and therefore am not going to make such a bold assertion about a controversial subject about which I only have some amateurish knowledge. I do think, however, that AGW is most likely true; certainly more likely true than not, and that the more we learn about the science of climatology, the more convincing the overall evidence will continue to become. In my mind, the word “proof” implies 100% or infinitesimally close to it, and I try to humble enough to avoid making such a claim when I don’t come close to knowing everything there is to know on the issue.
continued below.
R
Raskolnikov
Guest
Again, stop with this. You’re not even twisting my words; you’re just making them up altogether. It is possible that I will be mauled by a mountain lion tomorrow, but very unlikely, so I’m not counting on it. It is very likely (but not certain) that the mailman will deliver the mail tomorrow, and so I expect it to come. My position on global warming, again, is not merely that it is possibly real, but that it is very likely real. See the above paragraph again to be reminded why I refrain from proclaiming absolute certainty.
M
Monte_RCMS
Guest
Note from Dr. S. Fred Singer received a couple of hours ago:
Fred Singer is traveling again, this time to Southern California. His tentative schedule for the first and second week of January includes stops at JPL, Cal Tech, UCLA, Chapman U., UC-I, and Scripps Oceanographic Institute. On Jan 7 he will give a public talk at Chapman University, Orange, CA, at 1 pm in 404 Beckman. For other possible lectures open to the public, please contact Ken@Haapala.com.
A Special Report to Friends and Supporters of SEPP
By S. Fred Singer, Chairman SEPP, /12/20/10
The months from Nov 2009 to Nov 2010 have been momentous and spell a sea-change for Global Warming policy:
It started with the release of the Climategate e-mails and the spectacular collapse of international negotiations in Copenhagen (dubbed Flopnhagen). It continued with the discovery of well-publicized errors in the IPCC report that have eroded public confidence in the IPCC process. The various efforts to whitewash the manipulations of the Climategate principals have come to naught; no one believes them. And it ended with the US midterm elections that brought a group of self-professed climate skeptics to the 112th Congress, eager to investigate climate misdeeds.
Yes, Siree. Come January 2011, it will be a new and different ballgame. This is the beginning of the end of the hyped GW scares by Al Gore and Jim Hansen. The final days of the failed Kyoto Protocol are near.
SEPP Business
We at SEPP have not been sitting on our hands:
We set up the group called VA Scientists and Engineers for Energy & Environment, with chapters in five major population centers. VA-SEEE has been educating the public through lectures, newspaper articles, and pamphlets. We actively support our Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in his quest to extract the e-mails of ‘Hockeystick-inventor’ Michael Mann from the University of Virginia. We try to keep Governor McDonnell from investing public funds in uneconomic energy schemes.
You may have noticed that our web site is being revamped and updated, thanks to the splendid efforts of Exec VP Ken Haapala. The readership of TWTW (The Week that Was) is expanding steadily and sending us rave reviews.
Climate Science
I have spent much time fending off attacks on the NIPCC summary report [2008] Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf (See the attached semi-popular talk.) I have submitted three papers to scientific journals; they are now undergoing peer-review.
I am also in the process of updating the NIPCC summary – a major undertaking. And with co-authors Craig Idso and Prof Bob Carter, we are preparing the next edition of the full NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered-2, to be published in 2013.
The last 12 months have also been busy ones for talks, both popular and scientific, in far-away places like India (twice!), Singapore, Colombia, and at least a two dozen all over Europe and the US. I stopped counting them but want to mention several debates (London, Princeton, Purdue) and a special briefing in Berlin for members of the Bundestag. The last drew a violent reaction from the German Green Party; they are listening and getting worried.
Earlier this year SEPP joined the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and FreedomWorks in filing a joint petition in the Federal courts challenging the scientific basis for the EPA’s supposedly scientific finding that CO2 threatens human health and welfare. This EPA finding is the basis for EPA’s efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions. SEPP provided the scientific expertise, CEI the legal expertise, and FreedomWorks the broad based, grass roots support for the petition.
After Christmas I will be setting off on a lecture tour of Southern California for more climate talks --both technical and popular. We cannot neglect the latter as a way of reaching the public.
In this connection, please look at my articles for the American Thinker. You can find them at americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ Be sure to look also at Comments from readers.
I close by thanking you, the Friends of SEPP, for your generous donations. Our work depends on your continued support.
Season’s Greetings and best wishes for happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.
Fred
Fred Singer is traveling again, this time to Southern California. His tentative schedule for the first and second week of January includes stops at JPL, Cal Tech, UCLA, Chapman U., UC-I, and Scripps Oceanographic Institute. On Jan 7 he will give a public talk at Chapman University, Orange, CA, at 1 pm in 404 Beckman. For other possible lectures open to the public, please contact Ken@Haapala.com.
A Special Report to Friends and Supporters of SEPP
By S. Fred Singer, Chairman SEPP, /12/20/10
The months from Nov 2009 to Nov 2010 have been momentous and spell a sea-change for Global Warming policy:
It started with the release of the Climategate e-mails and the spectacular collapse of international negotiations in Copenhagen (dubbed Flopnhagen). It continued with the discovery of well-publicized errors in the IPCC report that have eroded public confidence in the IPCC process. The various efforts to whitewash the manipulations of the Climategate principals have come to naught; no one believes them. And it ended with the US midterm elections that brought a group of self-professed climate skeptics to the 112th Congress, eager to investigate climate misdeeds.
Yes, Siree. Come January 2011, it will be a new and different ballgame. This is the beginning of the end of the hyped GW scares by Al Gore and Jim Hansen. The final days of the failed Kyoto Protocol are near.
SEPP Business
We at SEPP have not been sitting on our hands:
We set up the group called VA Scientists and Engineers for Energy & Environment, with chapters in five major population centers. VA-SEEE has been educating the public through lectures, newspaper articles, and pamphlets. We actively support our Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli in his quest to extract the e-mails of ‘Hockeystick-inventor’ Michael Mann from the University of Virginia. We try to keep Governor McDonnell from investing public funds in uneconomic energy schemes.
You may have noticed that our web site is being revamped and updated, thanks to the splendid efforts of Exec VP Ken Haapala. The readership of TWTW (The Week that Was) is expanding steadily and sending us rave reviews.
Climate Science
I have spent much time fending off attacks on the NIPCC summary report [2008] Nature Not Human Activity Rules the Climate sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf (See the attached semi-popular talk.) I have submitted three papers to scientific journals; they are now undergoing peer-review.
I am also in the process of updating the NIPCC summary – a major undertaking. And with co-authors Craig Idso and Prof Bob Carter, we are preparing the next edition of the full NIPCC report Climate Change Reconsidered-2, to be published in 2013.
The last 12 months have also been busy ones for talks, both popular and scientific, in far-away places like India (twice!), Singapore, Colombia, and at least a two dozen all over Europe and the US. I stopped counting them but want to mention several debates (London, Princeton, Purdue) and a special briefing in Berlin for members of the Bundestag. The last drew a violent reaction from the German Green Party; they are listening and getting worried.
Earlier this year SEPP joined the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) and FreedomWorks in filing a joint petition in the Federal courts challenging the scientific basis for the EPA’s supposedly scientific finding that CO2 threatens human health and welfare. This EPA finding is the basis for EPA’s efforts to control carbon dioxide emissions. SEPP provided the scientific expertise, CEI the legal expertise, and FreedomWorks the broad based, grass roots support for the petition.
After Christmas I will be setting off on a lecture tour of Southern California for more climate talks --both technical and popular. We cannot neglect the latter as a way of reaching the public.
In this connection, please look at my articles for the American Thinker. You can find them at americanthinker.com/s_fred_singer/ Be sure to look also at Comments from readers.
I close by thanking you, the Friends of SEPP, for your generous donations. Our work depends on your continued support.
Season’s Greetings and best wishes for happy, healthy, and prosperous New Year.
Fred
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Over 31,000, of which over 9,000 are Ph.Ds
"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."
K
kimmielittle
Guest
T
TheRealJuliane
Guest
Thanks, great website!
I always liked this list a lot: Stuff blamed on global warming.
numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
I always liked this list a lot: Stuff blamed on global warming.
numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
K
kimmielittle
Guest
Dear Moderator:
Please allow this thread to stay open.
There is much educational material PRO and CON here.
Pretty Please
Please allow this thread to stay open.
There is much educational material PRO and CON here.
Pretty Please
K
kimmielittle
Guest
- Status