Is Manmade Global Warming Real?

[lynnvinc]

Here are some more visuals you can create yourself. The following is the zonal surface temperature anomaly average for Feb 2000-2012 compared to the base period of 1951-1980. The warm colors (warmer areas) grossly outweigh the cool colors (cooler areas) and even the white no-change areas, which indicates that the 2000-2012 the average temps around the world are mostly above the base period, esp in the northern higher latitudes.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gist..._HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2000_2012_1951_1980.gif

**You can create your own maps like this selecting your own months & years at data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/

Here’s one just for Feb 2012 compared to the base period. As I’ve mentioned you need much longer periods to make assessments, and one short-term weather pattern does not climate or climate change make – which is why I have not commented on the relative heat wave gripping much of the U.S. this past month or so. But it is an interesting map, also showing Europe and E. Asia cooler than usual. You can play around with this program and see how longer periods show greater overall warming, unlike many shorter periods**

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gist..._HR2SST_1200km_Anom02_2012_2012_1951_1980.gif

 

[kimmielittle]

RE climate sensitivity articles Kimmie posted – I put those up over on RealClimate, and one initial response from a blogger there was:

Knappenberger reads a bit like desperate propaganda to me.

Ha ha ha ha…

I’ve tried to warn you of quoting from echo-chambers

See if you can follow your bloggers desperate attempt to hide the pea.

He / she addresses the referenced link thusly:

Do be mindful that the references he makes present two different forms of sensitivity – equilibrium sensitivity & transcient sensitivity or transcient cllmate response (TCR). TCR is a smaller value. The tiny IPCC graph (on page linked below) would convert Gillett et al’s 1.3-1.8 TCR into something like 2.0-3.0 equilibrium.& Padilla’s 1.3-2.6 into 2.0-5.0 equilibrium. These are hardly what you’d call low figures.

ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-5-2.html

Of the rest, Schmitter et al was being praised by deniers a few months back for chopping of the “fat tail” from sensitivity estimates. It was not greatly ‘low’ other than that. Chopping the long fat tail is an exercise Knappenberger tries to join in on but gives no supporting evidence for it.

Olson is not lower than the IPCC. That leaves Aldrin et al giving 1.1-4.3. The lower end of the range may be low but note the quote via Knappenberger “…but this estimate increases if an extra forcing component is added, see following text.” The ‘following text’ would perhaps be worth reading before judgment is made. Knappenberger presumably did but says squat.

As I said ‘desperate propaganda.’

Now, see if you can get your blogger friend to actually read and comprehend what the link was referencing.

Here is the pea…

masterresource.org/2012/03/lower-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
QUOTE:

In the intervening years, there has been substantial research into the probability distribution which contains the earth’s equilibrium climate sensitivity and the emerging bulk of evidence suggests that the IPCC’s “likely” range for the equilibrium climate sensitivity is much too large and that the possibility that the equilibrium climate sensitivity lies above 6°C is vanishingly small—if not entirely ruled out. Even the chance that it exceeds 4.5°C has been markedly reduced to being no more than about 5% (if not even less).

And when it comes to the “best estimate” of the “most likely” value of both the equilibrium climate sensitivity as well as the transient climate response, it is refreshing and encouraging to see new results from different research groups pointing to a lower number than that forwarded by the IPCC in its AR4.

He references this IPCC graph:

But, the excerpts above do reflect the general conclusion of each paper, as well as what makes them noteworthy. In fact, the IPCC in its Fifth Assessment Report (which is now under construction) will be terribly remiss (and misleading) if they present a Figure that looks anything like Figure 1 (above) from their Fourth Assessment Report.

I would add that the above graph has come under criticism for other reasons, lately. but you won’t hear about it in echo-chambers ].

Some criticism can be found here:
judithcurry.com/2011/07/05/the-ipccs-alteration-of-forster-gregorys-model-independent-climate-sensitivity-results/

judithcurry.com/2011/07/07/climate-sensitivity-follow-up/

 

[lynnvinc]

Ha ha ha ha…

I’ve tried to warn you of quoting from echo-chambers

See if you can follow your bloggers desperate attempt to hide the pea.

I was under the impression that you preferred bloggers to scientists & peer (pal, as you say)-reviewed studies, since they would be more honest with nothing to gain, etc.

So, I’ll just wait and see if some working climate scientists respond to it…

I personally don’t trust non-climate scientists…which would also include Klappenberger, who perhaps knows less about those articles than what the blogger wrote. The blogger seemed to make valid claims. We’ll await the scientists on this.

You and I, afterall, are mere bloggers

However, I’m glad to see you now accepting AGW, albeit with a lower sensitivity.

So now let us join forces and mitigate in sensible, feasible ways for the sake of the life of the world, instead of working against each other

 

[kimmielittle]

**Some graphs to consider –

For instance, the solar irradiance one that shows the solar cycle over the past 30+ years, and how we’ve been in a solar irradiance decline and somewhat deeper “solar minimum” for the past 10 years – which should have caused significant global cooling (which it did not)**

Hmmmmmmmm…

Why is it so hard for you pro AGW people to understand that there is a lag between solar activity, and that you need a prolonged period with lower solar activity for the effect to truly be seen?

During the last decades we have had the strongest solar cycles on average in over 8000 years.

Even the weakest cycles in last decades have been pretty high in activity.

It is only in recent 18 months - 2 yrs ] years that we have entered a deep grand minimum, so you cannot expect a immediate drop in global temperatures. But either way we already see some changes and global temps have started dropping like a rock since this summer.

Some of us who think sun is driver actually predicted the change in weather patterns seen over last years with jet streams moving more south, which is in exact contradiction to what should happen according to AGW theory.

It will probably take another decade before the full effects start to be seen.

solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/images/ssn_predict_l.gif

**The next graph is of ocean heat content, which is increasing…and that is to some extent where a portion of the global warming has gone. **Where? Oh, wait… you mean 700 meters 2,296.6 feet ] below the ocean surface? Y.T Song & Colbert 2011 ]? Nice hypothesis but …observational evidence can’t find it…nor the conveyor which took it down 700 meters…nor the physical properties that makes it stay there.

osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2012/anomnight.3.22.2012.gif

http://i54.tinypic.com/28ix0yc.jpg

http://i55.tinypic.com/2i7qn9y.jpg

I don’t see the increase you claim.

It looks like an OTC hiatus??.

One of the problems with the AGW - CAGW hypothesis is that there is nothing within the hypothesis that allows for a hiatus in the warming.

The properties of GHGs does not change from year to year ie., it does not on some years stop absorbing and re-radiating LWR, or re-radiating only upwards and not downwards etc.

The hypothesis dictates and allows no other option ] that as GHGs increase in concentration at least until a saturation point is reached] the temperature of the atmosphere must go up… IT IS A ONE WAY ONLY CYCLE.

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/bastardi-10-years1.gif

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/overlayco21.png

Women knowledgeable in “kitchen physics” would understand this: “A watched pot never boils” (i.e., it takes a really really long time to heat up a huge quantity of water):

 

[kimmielittle]

I was under the impression that you preferred bloggers to scientists & peer (pal, as you say)-reviewed studies, since they would be more honest with nothing to gain, etc.

Actually, instead of echo-chambers, I debate with scientists

So, I’ll just wait and see if some working climate scientists respond to it…

Why? Can’t you address the simple statement he made?

You and I, afterall, are mere bloggers

No, I actually do climate research

However, I’m glad to see you now accepting AGW, albeit with a lower sensitivity.

Actually no…I don’t accept the hypothesis of AGW - CAGW and claims… as it stands

I believe it is Natural Climatic Cycles that are the main drivers of temperatures rising and lowering I have never said that CO2 doesn’t have some part to play in / with those Natural Cycles …Just not the main driver of temperature rises ] I don’t know why you haven’t figured this out by now…I’ve said it enough.

So now let us join forces and mitigate in sensible, feasible ways for the sake of the life of the world, instead of working against each other

Why do you assume that I already don’t?

 

[kimmielittle]

EDIT: Sorry messed up the graphs two posts below.

Here they are:

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12284

http://forums.catholic-questions.org/picture.php?albumid=1691&pictureid=12283

 

[lynnvinc]

The next graph is of ocean heat content, which is increasing…and that is to some extent where a portion of the global warming has gone.
Where? Oh, wait… you mean 700 meters 2,296.6 feet ] below the ocean surface? Y.T Song & Colbert 2011 ]? Nice hypothesis but …observational evidence can’t find it…nor the conveyor which took it down 700 meters…nor the physical properties that makes it stay there.

It took me a while to figure that one out. It’s not so much that the deeper waters are warmer than the waters above, but that they are warming a bit more rapidly.

However, since I just got that graph from the web, it’s possible you may be right. I haven’t looked into what the scientists (I trust) are saying about it. Tho I think I did read somewhere some months back that they were saying a portion of the warming is going into the oceans. And that sort of makes sense…to me at least.

 

[ACCT]

please

lets try to keep from getting this closed and people banned.

I do not make this stuff up. The threats from global warming are a lie! I document my statement from a peer-reviewed report that you can access from the link that I provided. 19,200 scientists signed a petition entitled “Petition Project.” The report said, in essence, that the threats of global warming were a lie. Do you want the names of the 19,200 scientists too? Let me quote from their report:

“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 plan and animal environments of the earth.”

oism.org/pproject/

 

[lynnvinc]

RE the extreme record-breaking heat waves and other extreme events, Stephan Rahmstorf has a good post on RealClimate.org ( realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/03/extremely-hot/#more-11281 ).

He explains it is a matter of stats/probabilities & the proper question would be “How much more likely did global warming make this heat wave?”

He points out that it is not a simple linear relationship between the amount of global warming – say, 1C – and the amount of a heat wave anomaly.

Possibly in the situation with warming, the soil has dried out over the previous months because of that extra 1 °C. So now you lost evaporative cooling, the incoming sunlight turns into sensible heat rather than a large fraction going into latent heat. That is a non-linear feedback, and not an imagined one. Detailed studies have shown that this may have played an important role during the European heat wave of 2003 (Schär et al. 2004).
…

For illustration, let’s take the most simple case of a normal distribution that is shifted towards the warm end by a given amount – say one standard deviation. Then, a moderately extreme temperature that is 2 standard deviations above the mean becomes 4.5 times more likely (see graph below). But a seriously extreme temperature, that is 5 standard deviations above the mean, becomes 90 times more likely! Thus: the same amount of global warming boosts the probability of really extreme events, like the recent US heat wave, far more than it boosts more moderate events.

---

References:

Otto et al., Reconciling two approaches to attribution of the 2010 Russian heat wave, Geophysical Research Letters 2012, VOL. 39, L04702, doi:10.1029/2011GL050422

Schär, C. et al. The role of increasing temperature variability in European summer heat waves. Nature 427, 332–336 (2004).

He also linked his recent article:

"A decade of weather extremes," Dim Coumou & Stefan Rahmstorf,
Nature Climate Change, 2012, doi:10.1038/nclimate1452, Published online25 March 2012 [for more info and graphs, see http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1452.html ]

ABSTRACT: The ostensibly large number of recent extreme weather events has triggered intensive discussions, both in- and outside the scientific community, on whether they are related to global warming. Here, we review the evidence and argue that for some types of extreme — notably heatwaves, but also precipitation extremes — there is now strong evidence linking specific events or an increase in their numbers to the human influence on climate. For other types of extreme, such as storms, the available evidence is less conclusive, but based on observed trends and basic physical concepts it is nevertheless plausible to expect an increase.

 

[lynnvinc]

I do not make this stuff up. The threats from global warming are a lie! I document my statement from a peer-reviewed report that you can access from the link that I provided. 19,200 scientists signed a petition entitled “Petition Project.” The report said, in essence, that the threats of global warming were a lie. Do you want the names of the 19,200 scientists too? Let me quote from their report:

“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 plan and animal environments of the earth.”

oism.org/pproject/

I’m not wasting time on this, except to say that the list doesn’t contain any real climate scientists saying AGW is not happening (tho it did contain some that were saying AGW was happening, and they had their names taken off).

It is mainly a list of wannabe armchair climate scientists (not much above the level of bloggers like Kimmie and me), like dentists, economists, geologists (not specializing on climate science), astrophysicists, statisticians, and engineers, etc (anyone who might have a “Dr.” in front of his/her name).

If you’re really keen on this list, I’ll find the sources that totally bunk it. However, I think it may not be worth my time, if you have definitively made of your mind and cannot be dissuaded. You might be able to find some of their names and bogus “science” here: realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki

BTW, I think Exxon and the Koch Brs, etc fund the org that created that list…or at least they are funding various key parts of the denialsphere.

Meanwhile climate scientists actually studying climate change and publishing in reputed science journals to a person say it is happening (tho a few claim it will not be too severe or dangerous).

 

[Calliso]

I do not make this stuff up. The threats from global warming are a lie! I document my statement from a peer-reviewed report that you can access from the link that I provided. 19,200 scientists signed a petition entitled “Petition Project.” The report said, in essence, that the threats of global warming were a lie. Do you want the names of the 19,200 scientists too? Let me quote from their report:

“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 plan and animal environments of the earth.”

oism.org/pproject/

sigh This petition is really a load of **** and not a good argument to use against global warming. skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
First of all many if not most of the scientists that signed it were in fields not remotely related to climate science or things related. I mean computer scientists? electric engineers? And even if you could argue that well they might have all had enough knowledge to make an informed decision all those scientists are a tiny fraction of the total scientists in the world. But anyway the link basically breaks it down really well.

As for the paper itself this looks like a good rebuttal. climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

 

[lynnvinc]

sigh This petition is really a load of **** and not a good argument to use against global warming. skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project-intermediate.htm
First of all many if not most of the scientists that signed it were in fields not remotely related to climate science or things related. I mean computer scientists? electric engineers? And even if you could argue that well they might have all had enough knowledge to make an informed decision all those scientists are a tiny fraction of the total scientists in the world. But anyway the link basically breaks it down really well.

As for the paper itself this looks like a good rebuttal. climatesciencewatch.org/file-uploads/Comment_on_Robinson_et_al-2007R.pdf

Thanks, Calliso.

I think the goal of such groups like OISM, aside from annihilating life on planet earth, is to waste the time of climate scientists and people like us, who are striving to reduce harm to life on earth.

Ultimately these groups, I’m beginning to believe, are founded by the devil. I realize it’s unpleasant to consider the devil. At most people would give a hat-tip to God and Heaven, but when it comes to the devil and his wiles and Hell — off the radar screen.

Of course, we could blame human nature, which is pretty much fallen, but this denial of AGW and refusal to even consider it has reached such proportions so far beyond the point when it became a public concern in the late 1980s (reaching sci certainty on 1st studies in 1995, with knowledge of the GH effect for over 100 yrs) that it’s harder and harder for me to attribute this denial (of eating this apple or killing this Abel) to fallen human nature.

I would simply appeal to those skeptical of climate change, but still open to Jesus, to turn to God in prayer. And also those who accept climate science to turn to God in prayer. This is a very serious material “this worldly” problem, but it is also a very serious spiritual problem of our age with a huge portion of souls at risk, souls of those who refuse to do right, and those trapped in the harms of AGW and angry at the perps.

Follow our pastors’ (popes, bishops) instructions – be prudent and mitigate AGW, even if you have doubts. There is no harm in turning off lights not it use, or the myriad of other sensible, feasible actions we can take that would reduce our GHG emissions by 30, even 60% (And once you’ve saved lots of money from that, perhaps you can afford a Leaf or Volt and drive it on alt energy, like wind or solar ).

 

[Calliso]

Thanks, Calliso.

I think the goal of such groups like OISM, aside from annihilating life on planet earth, is to waste the time of climate scientists and people like us, who are striving to reduce harm to life on earth.

Ultimately these groups, I’m beginning to believe, are founded by the devil. I realize it’s unpleasant to consider the devil. At most people would give a hat-tip to God and Heaven, but when it comes to the devil and his wiles and Hell — off the radar screen.

Of course, we could blame human nature, which is pretty much fallen, but this denial of AGW and refusal to even consider it has reached such proportions so far beyond the point when it became a public concern in the late 1980s (reaching sci certainty on 1st studies in 1995, with knowledge of the GH effect for over 100 yrs) that it’s harder and harder for me to attribute this denial (of eating this apple or killing this Abel) to fallen human nature.

I would simply appeal to those skeptical of climate change, but still open to Jesus, to turn to God in prayer. And also those who accept climate science to turn to God in prayer. This is a very serious material “this worldly” problem, but it is also a very serious spiritual problem of our age with a huge portion of souls at risk, souls of those who refuse to do right, and those trapped in the harms of AGW and angry at the perps.

Follow our pastors’ (popes, bishops) instructions – be prudent and mitigate AGW, even if you have doubts. There is no harm in turning off lights not it use, or the myriad of other sensible, feasible actions we can take that would reduce our GHG emissions by 30, even 60% (And once you’ve saved lots of money from that, perhaps you can afford a Leaf or Volt and drive it on alt energy, like wind or solar ).

Well to be honest I seriously doubt this institution wants to elimanate all life on the planet. I mean that would mean them too! Really I do think money and greed does have alot to do with the motivation of these people. The ones that run and are a part of these organizations at least. And while I do imagine the devil is quite pleased with the amount of delay these people have caused in us taking real action I donlt think these organizations are formed by him. I think we need to be really cautious about making such harsh and what many will see as off the wall claims. Because it just makes it less likely that people will take us seriously. Really though ultimately we need to get people to listen. To really look and think about what the science is saying. Because you know I was once pretty skeptical about this whole AGW thing. Oh I didn;t completely deny it but figured that the warming was likely mostly natural with us having only a little effect. It wasn;t until I think I stumbled on real climate one day and really started researching that I began to learn the truth. Really to me the theory of AGW makes sense it is more coherant then the claims of the skeptics and deniers. Who seem to bounce all over the place, from claims global warming isn;t happening to its natural and a all bunch of conflicting reasons as to what is happening. 99% of which doesn;t really fit the evidence we see or just would not work period like I have heard claims of it being heat from the earths core! The one decent claim could be the its cloud related. But even that seems rather unlikely. But the point is I think if we could get people to really listen and think we could convince people. The problem is many people donlt want to listen and think, they just want to continue their lives thinking they have nothing to worry about from this AGW thing because thinking it is just all a bunch of hooey and a hoax is alot more comforting then accepting that it is happening. Cause lets face it those of us who except AGW wish it was all false! But we need to be careful about how we deliver our message. And this is something I need to work on as well. I can get pretty irritated at times which is probably why I donlt come on these threads as much as I used to. Just got burnt out answering the same accusations and claims over and over and over and over again. But there are probably still those out there that could be convinced and we donlt want to make them want to shut us out and just listen to the other side because of how we come across.

 

[adv]

Plant more Trees?

 

[Jerry_Miah]

The national science academy of every country that has one and the overwhelming majority of scientists in related fields say climate change is real. The case on the other side is very small and it only gets so much attention because it is funded by mega-corporations (Big Oil, etc) whose profits are threatened by any change towards lessening the massive pollution of the planet. So FOX TV and talk radio is full of shills saying it’s not real, while the scientific establishment is full of serious people who warn it is.

 

[Cristiano]

… So FOX TV and talk radio is full of shills saying it’s not real,** while the scientific establishment is full of serious people who warn it is.**

In the past decade the number of retraction notices for scientific journals has increased more than 10-fold while the number of journals articles published has only increased by 44%. While retractions still represent a very small percentage of the total, the increase is still disturbing because it undermines society’s confidence in scientific results and on public policy decisions that are based on those results, says Casadevall. Some of the retractions are due to simple error but many are a result of misconduct including falsification of data and plagiarism.

 

[Calliso]

Cristiano:
And I am still not sure how that is supposed to mean that climate science is currupted? I mean your link mainly talked about biomedical research not climate science.

 

[Cristiano]

And I am still not sure how that is supposed to mean that climate science is currupted? I mean your link mainly talked about biomedical research not climate science.

It is not about climate science in particular, this was just an example on how we should be careful when putting full trust in scientific institutions. I quoted this because I was reading about it this morning and I was too lazy to look for similar articles related to other fields.

The issue has been booming in different scientific fields for the last few decades. The problem is not limited to papers (even peer reviewed ones). It is amazing what you might see when you do peer reviews of proposals for grants from the National Science Foundation or other institutions.

 

[Calliso]

It is not about climate science in particular, this was just an example on how we should be careful when putting full trust in scientific institutions. I quoted this because I was reading about it this morning and I was too lazy to look for similar articles related to other fields.

The issue has been booming in different scientific fields for the last few decades. The problem is not limited to papers (even peer reviewed ones). It is amazing what you might see when you do peer reviews of proposals for grants from the National Science Foundation or other institutions.

Oh I do agree we should be careful. We do need to be careful about becoming too careful though and mistrusting. Yes there are bad apples in every field doesnl;t mean they are all bad or even the majority are bad you know what I mean?

 

[lynnvinc]

It is not about climate science in particular, this was just an example on how we should be careful when putting full trust in scientific institutions. I quoted this because I was reading about it this morning and I was too lazy to look for similar articles related to other fields.

The issue has been booming in different scientific fields for the last few decades. The problem is not limited to papers (even peer reviewed ones). It is amazing what you might see when you do peer reviews of proposals for grants from the National Science Foundation or other institutions.

I think you are on target. Science that is funded in whole or part by industries will likely be corrupted. Read, for instance, TOXIC DECEPTION: HOW THE CHEMICAL INDUSTRY MANIPULATES SCIENCE, BENDS THE LAW AND ENDANGERS YOUR HEALTH, by Fagin and Lavelle. If I recall there is a mention how scientists working for the Formaldehyde Institude even went to prison for falsifying the science.

Also see: “Whitewashing Toxic Chemicals” by Begley - thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/05/03/whitewashing-toxic-chemicals.html

There have been journal editors who have had to step down for their editorials against environmental scientists, because they are funded by the very industries the environmental scientists have found causing harms. See archive.bcaction.org/index.php?page=newsletter-46h

The general principle is this: If the science finds no harms from suspected environment hazards – be suspicious, look into who is funding the science, etc.

Even if scientists are doing legit work, don’t take chances; scientists are striving to avoid the false positive of making untrue claims (they can’t afford to be the boy who calls wolf). We would to well to follow the medical model of striving to avoid true dangers (we wouldn’t want to be the villagers who get eaten by the wolf – we don’t need 95% certainty the lump is cancerous to want it treated, or that the chemical is poisonous to avoid serving it to our children – 70% or even less certainty that it these are harmful might be enough for us to avoid them and choose something safer.)

Same with AGW. Back in 1990 I (and JPII) wasn’t going to wait around until science reached 95% certainty (which it did in 1995) to start mitigating this potentially very dangerous problem – more out of compassion for the poor who are most at risk than fear it will harm me.

Unlike Calliso, who was a AGW skeptic until reading RealClimate posts and discussions, I came to RealClimate thinking the climate scientists, like so many other scientists, had probably sold out to the dev-oils, or at least would play the “reticent scientist” card of saying we don’t know nothing bec there isn’t 99% certainty on it. I was pleasantly surprised to find that they are forthcoming, honest people, who go to great trouble to explain things rationally and clearly at our level.

I still caution against scientific caution, but the RealClimate scientists have restored my faith in mankind…to some extent. There is still the denialsphere up to their usual tricks of sowing seeds of disinformation on AGW.

There are also plenty of universities and colleges that are dependent on funding from Big Oil and the Chem Industry, etc (esp with dwindling funds from states), where scientists knowing who’s buttering their bread continue to deceive. One has to be very careful. I personally know of some cases…

---

Here are some notes from a class I teach on Environmental Crime & Justice:

INDUSTRIAL & FRAUDULENT SCIENCE of enviro safety

• Industrial Bio-Test fraudulent studies on pesticide (CEOs sent to prison)
• fraudulent dioxin studies showing no harm
  28, not 14, cancers in exposed group
  2, not 6, cancers in control group
• note: EPA does not have enough funds, so many studies carried out by industries
• Alar story
  • NRDC figured harm to children (only adults are used in studies)
  • Uniroyal claimed it was safe
  • The media lambasted NRDC as “junk science”
  • later when children were factored in, NRDC was found to be correct
  • Note: only advantage of Alar is making apples redder

DISCREDITING THE SCIENTIST:

• climate scientists
• Rachel Carson
• Sheil Zahm (pesticide researcher)
• Sandra Steingraber (biologist), Living Downstream: an Ecologist Looks at Cancer & the Environment
  (denounced by editor of N. England Jnl of Medicine,
  who is funded by WR Grace – which polluted Woburn, MA)
• attack science itself

NO SCIENCE:

• most chemicals have not been studied
• most not studied in conjunction with others
• if studied, only studied for 1 or 2 effects