backtop

Print 332 comment(s) - last by welshlaw.. on Jan 20 at 1:34 AM

Dr. William Happer  (Source: Princeton University)
Scientist fired by Al Gore was told, "science will not intrude on public policy".

Noted energy expert and Princeton physicist Dr. Will Happer has sharply criticized global warming alarmism. Happer, author of over 200 scientific papers and a past director of energy research at the Department of Energy, called fears over global warming "mistaken".

"I have spent a long research career studying physics that is closely related to the greenhouse effect", said Happer. "Fears about man-made global warming are unwarranted and are not based on good science."

Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process. "The earth's climate is changing now, as it always has. There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past."

In 1991, Happer was appointed director of energy research for the US Department of Energy. In 1993, he testified before Congress that the scientific data didn't support widespread fears about the dangers of the ozone hole and global warming, remarks that caused then-Vice President Al Gore to fire him. "I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".

Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday, as he asked to be included in a Senate Environment and Public Works report of scientists disputing global warming alarmism. Happer joins 650 other scientists on the list, many of whom have been interviewed previously by DailyTech.

"Computer models used to generate frightening scenarios from increasing levels of carbon dioxide have scant credibility," Happer concluded.

In response to Happer's remarks, Senator James Inhofe, ranking minority member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said, "The endless claims of a consensus on man-made global warming grow less and less credible every day".

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 2:49:47 PM , Rating: 1
This is beyond idiotic. Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field, who wants to blame the loss of his job on the anthropomorphic 'beast' that is climate change. He was fired for testifying to congress about a field of science in which he has no experience or credentials. For a government employee, that's understandably a pretty gross offense. Happer is at the far end of the crackpot stick, claiming that UV doesn't cause cancer, when the biggest clinical trials in medical history show that it does.




RE: Happer != Expert
By Oregonian2 on 12/23/2008 2:54:44 PM , Rating: 3
I just wish some of this global warming would come to the pacific northwest. In the thirty years that I've lived in this area, I've not seen anywhere near the snow that I've seen here in the last week than any (other) five year period combined. It's also been snowing in Las Vegas -- they might like some global warming too.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By whiskerwill on 12/23/2008 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
Climate is just weather averaged over time. Global warming does not mean "colder winters". That CO2 is still up there, trapping heat, remember? In theory, at least.

Even more embarrassing, we didn't have a hot summer, we had an extremely mild one.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:06:53 PM , Rating: 1
Well, what time do you average over, then? Obviously, it isn't just a question of one year's average temperature (that's exactly one sample in climate terms). What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes. Nobody can say anything conclusive about warming or changes in variability even in the last ten years of climate history, so it's always silly to pin short-term temperatures on either warming or cooling trends.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 3:42:03 PM , Rating: 5
> "What you really need to look at is year-on-year changes."

Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming.

Which of these periods is the correct one to use?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 4:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
I'd be willing to bet masher's data is good, but at least one of the graphs you posted is not accurate. The second one looks like the data published by NASA before they discovered the Y2k bug that showed 1998 to be the warmest year on record when it really was 1934. In fact, the corrected data had the majority of the top ten warmest years on record before WWII. I'm sure masher can elaborate.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:36:24 PM , Rating: 1
Masher's point is still relevant even if the times are off. Which period do we use and why? You seem to think you are an expert so enlighten us.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Ammohunt on 12/29/2008 2:49:01 PM , Rating: 3
The earth has been warming since the last Ice Age...I for one am glad of it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:34:06 PM , Rating: 5
Satellite Time Series Data on Tropospheric Temperature Readings, straight from the source:

ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_mon...

Plug them into your favorite graphing or data analysis program yourself. No statistically significant warming since 1995, and a slight cooling trend since the end of 2000.

The Medieval Warm Period was unquestionably warmer than today-- which explains why, as glaciers roll back in Greenland and Scandinava, we find the remmants of Medieval farms and mines beneath them.

As warm as the MWP was, it was nothing compared to warming events such as the Bolling Interstadial, some 15K years ago or the Atlantic Postglacial Period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:44:55 PM , Rating: 2
He said it better than I did below....


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By vulcanproject on 12/23/2008 7:05:18 PM , Rating: 5
the old adage '73 percent of stats are made up. including this one.' couldnt be more apt. global warming is as much about stat and counter stat as about good science these days. the truth is that as a race, we still know crap all about this planet, let alone it's quirks and cycles over millenia.

i dare say by the time we have proven absolutely conclusively the matter one way or the other, the planet will either gone up in smoke, or we will have the technology to correct it all anyway! lol


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Dharl on 12/24/2008 12:15:51 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Climate science really isn't about misrepresenting statistics.


You're absolutely right! It's about money . Climate Change aka. Global Warming/Cooling has been nothing more than the "bailout" of the scientific community for decades. I remember when I was younger being told the next Ice Age was coming. Flash forward 15 years and you start hearing the exact opposite. How the world's sea levels are going to rise.

Now it's even worse with the Climate Change crap, heck they had to change the name not for science but for PR.

First off let's use some common sense. You have governments, colleges, and others willing to give out millions upon millions in grants to the study of Global Warming. There are plenty of greedy scientists, on both sides of the issue, willing to hold out their hands to that kind of cash for their research. Oh, and if it helps them live out an elabortate lifestyle then so be it...

Second, any scientist, or an individual with common sense, who tries to discredit Global Warming is going to have one heck of an uphill battle on their hands. For every one "Cherry Picked" source that can be provided, there are ten opposing Global Warming related views out there. They aren't "Cherry Picked" their called the minority or less vocal.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:27:22 PM , Rating: 1
If I recall, before masher2 started his blog for DailyTech and sold out in the name of psuedoscience, he was a little snooty, but now he has shown his true colors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ttowntom on 12/24/2008 8:06:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
NOAA and the IPCC won't touch that data
If you look on their website, you'll see that NOAA scientists use the SSMI data in much of their research.


RE: Happer != Expert
By rbuszka on 12/31/2008 2:13:31 PM , Rating: 2
Could I not as easily say that scientists who suggest man-made global warming as the cause for recent rises in global temperatures are more concerned about their own recognition than about "good science"?


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 6:07:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Nice cherry picking there.one shows statistically significant warming (that's the one you ignored), and the other shows statistically insignificant warming
Nice attempt to spread FUD, but the dataset he linked was the RSS satellite data, not the UAH/Christy dataset referring to in your Youtube post.

And by the way, your video is old. As of now, none of the satellite datasets show ANY statistical warming over the last 12 years or so.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:13:46 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Then surely you are aware that the UAH and RSS data suffer from similar uncertainties
A land dataset like NASA's GISS suffers from much larger uncertainties. Urban heat island, temperature stations that get closed, moved, put next to heat sources, measured at different times of day, a hundred other things. Even something so simple as a different kind of paint on the Stevenson Screen around the thermometer can make difference of a couple degrees. And to top it all off, places like NASA's GISS apply their secret sauce of hundreds of thousands of "corrections" that make older years cooler, and recent years warmer.

But the most inconvenient fact of all is that even the land temperature sets show cooling now. They only show it going back a few years instead of ten or more, but they still show it. But don't worry. As soon as James Hansen (the global warming fanatic who runs NASA's GISS) has a little more time to "correct" his data, he'll be showing warming again.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:42:37 PM , Rating: 3
Great, Tropospheric Temperature Readings. Unfortunately however, we live on the ground, and those are the numbers which are important to our lives. Also, if we are cooling since 2000, how are all the top 10 of Earth's warmest years since 1997??

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999

(Since 1880)
(Source: National Climatic Data Center)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 6:45:32 PM , Rating: 2
My great great great great great great great great grandfather's high altitude jet plane has proven that your numbers a lie.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 9:32:00 PM , Rating: 3
Oh get off of your cross.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:35:04 PM , Rating: 1
Little difficult to "lie" with raw and accurate data. The top ten globally warmest years since 1880 is just that, no debate about them.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:25:03 PM , Rating: 5
The NCDC data is far from "raw and accurate". It's a massaged dataset that contains hundreds of thousands of various corrections, adjustments, and fudge factors. It also is measured by stations that 50 or 100 years ago, were in open fields. Today, they're next to parking lots, a/c heat exhausts, even barbecue grills. Here's one example.

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/05/how_not_t...

The Surface Stations project has looked at hundreds of these stations. Almost half of them have serious problems like this.

BTW when one looks at those few temperature stations that are still in rural areas, they show little or no warming trend.


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:12:20 PM , Rating: 5
Two questions come to mind: What were the 10 coldest years on record, and is the last 128 years of climate records truly representative of the Earth's entire billion year history of climate?

IMHO, the title "EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS" is a tad bit myopic in its scope.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gary Right On on 12/27/2008 1:26:55 PM , Rating: 3
You forgot to mention that these are the Earth's Top Ten Warmest years that you know about.

EARTH'S TOP 10 WARMEST YEARS

1- 2005
2 - 1998
3 - 2002
4- 2003
5 - 2007
6 - 2006
7 - 2004
8 - 2001
9 - 1997
10-1999


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:04:01 PM , Rating: 3
No they're not the 10 warmest years on Earth. Good temperature records go back less than 150 years. That's right when we came out of the little ice age, so its not surprising to see temps going up.

Besides we know from ice cores and other records that temperatures were a lot hotter at various times in the past. When computer models can tell us exactly why those times were hotter, maybe we can trust them to explain whats happening today.


RE: Happer != Expert
By bfonnes on 1/19/2009 11:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
so, let's do Jurrasic Park and revive the dinosaurs... Maybe they can tell us something...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:18:11 AM , Rating: 1
I didn't forget to mention anything. Right at the bottom I posted the source and time range, since 1880.

Oddly enough, 2008 is going to take the #10 spot on that list. Where are those people saying "the past century of global warming was wiped out in the past 2 years alone" now??


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:44:40 PM , Rating: 2
I should add that your statement about the so-called Medieval warm period is also incorrect. This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature. See, e.g., http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/medie...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:46:57 PM , Rating: 1
And two more graphs to show the same thing, as if one isn't enough:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/c/c1/2000_Y...

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/images/b/bb/1000_Y...

Nah, we aren't warmer now...... LOL


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
I would say the NOAA's website is a more accurate source than some "global warming art" site. LOL!


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/23/2008 8:25:09 PM , Rating: 1
Look at all that ice going down, oops we forgot to include Anartica. Oh well it just one small tiny piece of ice, it won't matter. Plus, it wouldn't get me more funding to show the total going up. If NOAA is publishing graphs that leave out Anartica then it is intentionally skewing data Which frankly, means I need to look at all their data with a skeptical eye. Note: one graph only goes to 2000 and therefore is irrelevant to the last 9 years conversation. If you take the high point as your starting point then the graphs do show cooling in the last 9 years. This is correct but if you take one year later it is a warming trend. All depends on the dataset you choose.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Learn to read. The first ice graph does go past 2000, it is just not marked on the scale of 10 year increments since we have not yet reached 2010. Doh! Also, the second graph shows all the way to 2007 specifically. Antarctica was left off because it shows no statistical trend either way.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:52:10 PM , Rating: 4
Learn to read. I said one graph. Not graph one. Showing no statistical trend either way is significant. Leaving out Antartic is still intentionally leaving out relevant data. Or as you would say cherry picking the results that correlate to the conclusion you desire to show. Rightly is was mentioned that picking one graph thats shows no change was wrong when another shows rising temps. Failing to leave out the largest ice mass on the planet is also wrong. Even if it shows no change.


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:36:25 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with trying to prove GW by saying "Look! The ice is melting!" is that polar ice STARTED melting when the (last) ice age ended. Just because it hasn't stopped in the last 100 years proves nothing at all.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:20:10 PM , Rating: 5
> "And NOAA's data says the exact same thing:"

Did you even look at the graphs to which you linked? The NOAA charts bear out my claim. For instance:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

Clearly shows little to no trend in the troposphere (where AGW predicts the most warming should appear) since 1995 and a slight cooling trend since 1998. Even the surface record shows a cooling trend there, albeit of shorter duration.

You may be referring to this graph:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/globalwarming...

However, you've likely failed to notice the data there ends in 2006, and the blue trend line is a decadal average anyway. If you look at the discrete measurements themselves, you'll see the same signal.

Of course, the signal over the entire scale of ~150 years is still warming. But starting the scale at 1860 can be quite misleading. Looking back to the 13th century, the picture becomes considerably different -- and a good bit less frightening:

http://img291.imageshack.us/img291/2102/39126595uk...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
Claim for what? Both temperatures for the troposphere show a clear positive trend to anyone who passed 5th grade math.

And yes, the data ends in 2006. So what? The trend is still there, and 2007 and 2008 do not bring the graph down. The 5-10 year average is what shows the trend. Discrete data points are worthless. But if you really want to include them, both 2007 and 2008 are still in the top 10 warmest years on record.

Also, did you fail to notice your saving graph only goes through 1977??


RE: Happer != Expert
By omnicronx on 12/23/2008 7:16:36 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/ipcc2007/fig61...

Look at 1000-1200, there definitively some big spikes there.

quote:
This notion has been thoroughly debunked in the literature.
Lets stop right there, Europe is not the world. Literature proves nothing, unless you have sources from all around the world, which most definitively does not exist. North America was not even discovered until the end of the Middle ages.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 8:05:33 PM , Rating: 1
We have reconstructed temperature data from all over the world. That is how we have temperature data going back millions of years.


RE: Happer != Expert
By pomaikai on 12/24/2008 2:53:29 AM , Rating: 3
reconstructed based off of calculations using a theory that could be incorrect? I am waiting for the "oh crap" moment where they realize they forgot one important piece that causes them to throw everything out the window and start all over.

I am not disputing any data that has been collected, but I dont believe for one second that they can accuratley predict what the weather was 150,000 years ago with any accuracy other than "it was cold" or "it was hot". All we can do is take pieces of what we learned and try to fill in the blanks. Thats like filling in a crossword puzzle without all the clues, sure you could make words fit and finish the puzzle, but whos to say it is the correct words without all the clues.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 3:01:27 AM , Rating: 2
We are discussing the so-called medieval warm period -- a broad, long-term trend in average european temperatures in the middle ages, not the weather on Sunday, March 27th, 1334 AD. Nobody stated or implied that we knew the precise weather (although, FWIW we do have some knowledge of that because monks tended to record such things). I'm not sure what you're claiming, but there isn't really any connection between the first and second paragraph of your post.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:03:22 AM , Rating: 2
doesn't matter. Proxies have much less resolution than direct observation of course. Reconstruction by proxy is not that good considering data-point smearing and the simple averaging process of proxies.


RE: Happer != Expert
By sviola on 12/24/2008 6:50:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, you are wrong. Norses were in America in the 10th Century. They colonized Greenland for 500 years (and it still belongs to Denmark). And Leif Ericson settled a colony in Newfoundland in the year 1001.


RE: Happer != Expert
By texasredbud on 12/24/2008 10:41:23 AM , Rating: 2
So the MWP is cooler than the climate today, but it was still a period of significant warming. Do we know why the climate warmed up during that period? If one looks back over time, there have been significant fluctuations in climate that were 'natural' (not caused by human creation of CO2). How do we possible know that the current warm period is not a natural variation? It would appear that the MWP was natural, so why not this warm period?


RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 5:56:10 PM , Rating: 3
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
"In summary, it appears that the late 20th and early 21st centuries are likely the warmest period the Earth has seen in at least 1200 years." "It appears" is hardly a conclusive statement. And hardly "thoroughly bebunked" his statement. Not to mention it is from the IPCC not NOAA. I keep seeing graphs of shrinking glaciers as proof of global warming. Yet, evidence of a smaller glaciers in the past is irrelevant. Which is it? Are shrinking glaciers a sign of global temps or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:28:42 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
So please explain the farms under the glaciers. The link does not explain the emperical evidence. You link to a computer generated "reconstruction". While ignoring the emperical evidence that it was warmer.
There's more than empirical evidence that the MWP was warmer than today. Quite a few research papers indicate such. Here's one example:

http://www.ncasi.org/publications/Detail.aspx?id=3...

Here's another that indicates not only was the MWP warmer than today, but that the Roman Warm Period (before the Dark Ages) was even warmer still:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/284...


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 3
your chart is horribly skewed.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articlePictures/globa...

"The past 9 years have been the warmest on record since 1880"
-pretty sure the 10 warmest years in descending order are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938, 1939.
IBD recently quoted these numbers as well.
http://ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=31458...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 10:38:43 AM , Rating: 1
My chart is based off raw data, and is quite correct. You however quote the temperatures for just Greenland (which is NOT the world), and quote an editorial (not a scientific source, which also lists no references for it's data), which does not even list correct data itself.

My data is straight from legit sources, where is your made up data from?? Someone who doesn't even know the difference between weather and climate??


RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 12:18:21 PM , Rating: 3
your are correct that the chart is of Greenland and not Global. My point was more that the time period used in the chart is a more accurate depiction of long term trends than using only data from 1880-present. Can you show me a chart of global climate trends over the same time period found in the chart i posted? I've actually found that to be harder to locate than you would think.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 1:10:37 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I can show you long term charts. In fact I can go back even further to show that we are at or near a temperature high point, and at or nearing an ice low point.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8...

But the last 2000 years shows it perhaps the best
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1...


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:10:50 AM , Rating: 3
Wow I din't know thermometers were 2000 years old. (Wasn't it 1724 or something)

Proxies are no substitute for direct observation. Considering the error bands on observable data, and all the issues of land use changing, proxy reconstructions are much much worse.
All you have proven is that you can google. Tell me in your school did they teach you that a value such as delta 1.26C +/- 3C was pointless or not?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Finn Maccool on 12/27/2008 5:07:04 PM , Rating: 5
Marduke, quoting Wikipedia for accuracy is like kissing your sister for a hardon. Especially on any politically correct topic like global warming. Newspapers have run stories about the hordes of fruitcake enviros that infest Wikipedia and how they slant every story.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/29/2008 10:20:06 AM , Rating: 1
Ok, so what do you have to say about the NOAA graphs that show the identical information?? I have posted several of them here.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ddarko on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Andy35W on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 10:42:56 AM , Rating: 4
what??? did you even look at the chart you posted? you see that spike between months 228-240? That would be the year 1998. please show me how you can draw ANY sort of upward sloping trend line from 1998 to present. (and please refrain from getting in to semantics about that period being 10 years instead of 9.)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By ironargonaut on 12/24/2008 6:53:28 PM , Rating: 1
First, you call him dumb because he comments that the chart shows exactly what he says it does. The comments are about 1998 to present so you post a comment about 1880 to 1997? And you call him dumb? Your wiki chart shows exactly what he said. To be frank picking from 1998 to present to base a trend on is misleading because you are starting at a spike. Quit the name calling and instead reply from 1999 to present is cleary a rising trend. Or point out that yes that is true the TREND is decreasing but that the average of those ten years is still higher then the average of any ten years since 1880. Ten years is not going to make or break global warming. The trend is rising temps over the last century+. The question is it man caused or natural variation.
Can someone please explain to me how in your first chart el nino/nina changes the global temps? Global temp is supposed to be an average heat i.e. energy. How does a wind moving the energy from one location to another change the amount of energy in the system. Unless, I am mistaken the energy is neither created nor destroyed.


RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Over a 9 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 100 year period, the earth is warming.
Over a 1500 year period, the earth is cooling.
Over a 13,000 year period, the earth is warming."

Well said. Thats probably the most simple concise example that I have seen... In other words, dont panic... The Earth is gonna do what its gonna do. We evolved to teh point we are, because we are smart and able to adapt to a changing environment.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By retrospooty on 12/24/2008 8:48:01 PM , Rating: 4
Wrong how? The point is that the Earth goes through these phases, warmer is not going to kill us. You think the earth was warmer 15000 years ago? It was in an Ice age. Its been in and out of them again and again for the past several million years...


RE: Happer != Expert
By TETRONG on 12/24/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By rcc on 12/24/2008 5:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
lol, what happened? You find out you are getting a lump of coal tomorrow?

It's fine to disagree with someone, encouraged even. But the personal attacks are just juvenile.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global warming does not mean "colder winters".


It does for high latitudes. A.K.A. much of the Northern Hemisphere. Global warming screws up the ocean currents which bring warm equatorial waters to high latitude areas, meaning those areas are no longer warmed, and they get.... you ready for this.... colder!!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 3:39:42 PM , Rating: 1
Last I checked temperature is far from the only controlling factor involved in currents, so this seems a bit silly to say with such certainty, this is of course unless you think "global warming" affects planet rotation and moon gravitational forces.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
No, the warmer temps melt the ice, which dumps fresh water into the ocean, which screws up the currents. It will get colder, the ice will return, and we'll be in for another VERY cold period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 3:59:15 PM , Rating: 5
So if it gets warmer, you can blame global warming. And if it gets colder, you can blame global warming also.

Cool, we can't possibly be proven wrong!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By jimbojimbo on 12/24/2008 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 5
Don't you know? People are more powerful than the sun!! We completely control our environment and the sun has absolutely nothing to do with it at all. Yep, nothing.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Regs on 12/29/2008 3:01:25 PM , Rating: 5
My flatulence has flared up every 11 years causing a 1.3 W/m2 variance in solar output.

In all due respect to the discussion at hand, everything we have referenced come from poorly developed models. There is still much to discover of what actually causes climate change.

It's human instinct to demonize and manifest an evil to something we do not fully comprehend. In this case it's our neighbors.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:05:06 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that short-term variability (particularly increases in variability) isn't inconsistent with the predicted changes. Nobody but CNN and FOX actually use these seasonal weather events as evidence in support of or opposition to the scientific viewpoint. Find me a paper that says 'Winter 2008 is cold --> global warming', or even 'july 2008 was hot --> global warming.' None of the scientists do that, only the politicians and journalists.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phattyboombatty on 12/23/2008 4:50:07 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
None of the scientists do that, only the politicians and journalists.

BS! Scientists are the worst at making sensationalist claims to score a headline. You are naive if you think scientists are somehow above playing politics.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
There's a difference between "science politics" and plain old vanilla politics. For the most part, the scientists publishing these provocative headlines may want increased support of their theory from other scientists, or to bring attention to their work. But unlike in politics, in science one only has to respond with a point-by-point rebuttal of an overreaching paper. That will shut them up pretty well, and sadly there isn't a congressional version of this... the closest thing to it is the cycle of attack-defense ads we see in elections. I would support an effort to require a brief description by each member of congress for each vote, to demonstrate that they understand and argue effectively for the issues they support. That way, they could at least be called out on the basis of their claims.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phattyboombatty on 12/23/2008 5:10:24 PM , Rating: 3
I would be shocked if congressmen even fully read a single bill they voted for or against during their terms. Most are simply told how to vote by lobbyists or their political party, or in other cases they engage in vote-trading schemes where they agree to vote for another congressman's bill if that congressman votes for his bill. Still other congressmen vote for bills because they have successfully added pork for their home district to the bill.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 4:19:31 PM , Rating: 1
You still didn't explain how temperature is the major factor in tides when it isn't.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:24:04 PM , Rating: 3
I didn't say anything about the tides. Those are controlled by gravity, specifically the sun and moon.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 5:22:05 PM , Rating: 1
Saline and fresh water have different densities. When you dump a bunch of fresh water into the North Atlantic for example, you can diminish the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents that keeps much of the east coast and Europe warm.

This was a much bigger worry a few years ago, and it's not really an immediate worry for right now, but it will most likely be one mechanism that helps the transition from our current warm period to the oncoming cold period.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 5:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Saline and fresh water have different densities. When you dump a bunch of fresh water into the North Atlantic for example, you can diminish the Gulf Stream and North Atlantic currents that keeps much of the east coast and Europe warm.


I understand how it works, I want to know how it somehow has more to do with currents than the other 3 forces working on them.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Not only that, how they proved that it affects the currents and to what degree.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
We have present day data, and historical data, and models which all agree as to what happens when you dump lots of less dense fresh water into denser saline water. The sensitivity has been heavily discussed and debated over the years, the the same affect still happens regardless.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 10:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
When the Gulf Stream moves warm surface water from the equator north through the Atlantic, the water cools, gets saltier due to evaporation and becomes very dense. By the time it approaches the coast of Newfoundland, or further northeast in the Norwegian Sea, it becomes dense enough to sink. This process is called overturning. The dense water then slowly travels through the deep water southward into the Southern Hemisphere, with the return flow to the north occurring at the surface.

But when freshwater gets mixed with the salty water in the North Atlantic, it makes the water less dense and slows the overturning process and the ocean circulation.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ttowntom on 12/24/2008 8:11:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
but it will most likely be one mechanism that helps the transition from our current warm period to the oncoming cold period
This is a great way to try to square the current cooling trend with global warming, but it just doesn't add up. If ocean currents change and prevent warm tropic water from coming north, then the tropics should be heating up much much faster (all the global warming heat is being concentrated there). But that's not happening.

Its not something we even need to debate anyway because as you admit, all the data says that ocean currents aren't shutting down at all.


RE: Happer != Expert
By rcc on 12/24/2008 5:16:23 PM , Rating: 2
There are scientists that believe that, and I don't necessarily disagree. But you can't state as fact that that is what happens.


RE: Happer != Expert
By arazok on 12/23/2008 3:41:31 PM , Rating: 2
So when the ice caps melt as a result of global warming, this is because the N/S hemispheres are getting…colder?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 3:48:48 PM , Rating: 1
Backwards. The ice melts because it's warm, then the N/S hemispheres get colder. We are at the top of a warm period, and it will soon get MUCH colder.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:11:37 PM , Rating: 2
It's simple. It's part of a cyclic change the Earth goes through. It has been getting warmer for a while. We are at or very near the peak of a warm cycle. It will then turn and go the other way, getting colder -- And that is for a global scale. Along the way there will be large local and short term variations in either direction (these are predicted to happen). As the climate changes, there will be erratic weather behavior.

And just a reminder for some of you out there, weather and climate are NOT the same thing, so get this arctic blast out of your ass.


RE: Happer != Expert
By arazok on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:27:28 PM , Rating: 2
That's totally wrong, try reading what I wrote. The high latitudes are not yet cooling, everything is still warming globally. Eventually everything will get colder, but the high latitudes will do it first and help trigger the reaction.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:07:51 PM , Rating: 5
Why are still quoting that website? Global warming art? Is that run by the IPCC? NOAA? Fox news? You're cracking me up here.


RE: Happer != Expert
RE: Happer != Expert
By bednarjm on 12/24/2008 7:58:01 PM , Rating: 2
LOL dude. that PS was funny. i need to take advantage of that too.


RE: Happer != Expert
By omnicronx on 12/23/2008 7:30:50 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Global warming screws up the ocean currents which bring warm equatorial waters to high latitude areas, meaning those areas are no longer warmed, and they get.... you ready for this.... colder!!
Unfounded! In theory you are right, if there was only one current to deal with, but its well known that large bodies of water such as the ocean have surface and bottom currents. The desalination caused by melting ice is not enough to change these underwater currents thus the end result is just the surface current changing directions (this happens because low density (cold/more salt) water will always move on top higher density water (warm/less salt). The entire Northern hemisphere would have to melt in order for significant temperature changes to occur.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/24/2008 10:46:35 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
this happens because low density (cold/more salt) water will always move on top higher density water (warm/less salt)


Completely wrong. Saline water is more dense than freshwater, not less. Basically, that means that melting ice forces the warm salty equatorial waters deeper, so they cannot warm high latitudes. You should have learned that back in elementary school.

But you are right, there are both surface and deep currents that are both very important to keeping high latitudes warm. But freshwater screws up the cycle of interaction between them, stalling out the system in place.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Wixykid on 12/24/2008 10:16:26 AM , Rating: 2
I love those podcasts put out by the Princeton Review "LSAT Logic in everyday life". They love to debunk these sorts of articles.
So let's begin:
"Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process": One question here is the definition of Natural. Like it or not, we are part of the earth's ecosystem. That is irrefutable. We take resources from our surrounding environment, and put back into the environment. Help me out here - what is UN natural about that. The thrust here is that Happer believes that this would have happened anyway with or without us. Indeed, looking at world wide temperature variability data over time, we realize that the earthly environment that the human race grew up in has been relatively quiet - almost gentle. What we do not know and cannot tell is (except for landmark events) what were the causes of these past spikes. We all know about the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 - but what caused the CO2?

"There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past": This is a statement that cannot be proven. Sure, there is no evidence that this is so, but there is also no evidence that it is NOT so. Just a thought - it seems that quality of life is closely related to how well a species is adapted to it's environment. So what happens if the environment changes faster than the species can adapt?

"I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said.": I have a real problem with this one. I find it hard to believe that Al Gore would have originated this statement. The way the paragraph is written, it implies that he did, but it is not consistent with his personality. It would have been better if Dr. Happer had given a name to the statement.

I would have to concede that true scientific method has not been applied here - I am not sure that it is possible on the scale necessary. I DO know that for the first time in recorded history, our race has information on a marco change in the environment that could be in advance of the actual "Qualitative" changes - AND have the ability to act on it. It would be irresponsible not to act on this data - especially if the world as a whole will benefit from the effort. Recent News and data from around the world is indicating a superstorm of difficulties for our children and grandchildren. All peoples of ALL nations are going to have to work together to avoid another dark ages (think of all the good work that will be lost if that occurs). For what it's worth, it seems to me that if nothing else, the global warming issue is a good rallying point. I simply can't see any negatives to it.

W


RE: Happer != Expert
By Moklar on 12/25/2008 12:55:32 PM , Rating: 2
I was just waiting for someone like you to give such an example to contradict global warming.

It really shows you have no clue about what the global warming phenomenon is - notice it says "GLOBAL" it doesn't necessarily have nothing do with your regional weather, it's the average GLOBAL temperature going up.

(waits for this fact to be rated down).


RE: Happer != Expert
By Major HooHaa on 12/30/2008 9:37:20 AM , Rating: 2
My view is that, if you look at the world, it is made up of interlocking and interdependent habitats and eco-systems. I also think that Humans have altered in a major way, practically every single habitat and eco-system on the planet.

Add to that pollution and a massive reduction of the planets bio-diversity... How can all this not have an effect?

I often wonder about what the fossil record for this time period will look like. There would be this layer of tarmac and concrete, with many species and habits in existence below it. But hardly any natural habitat or species above it. If we then died out and a species evolved to take our place, would they think that a giant asteroid made of concrete and tarmac hit the planet which killed off most of the life on the planet?


RE: Happer != Expert
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/23/2008 2:57:05 PM , Rating: 5
Unfortunately climatology and AGW research is full of smart people speaking beyond there area of expertise. This is true of both critics like Happer and supports like Hansen of GISS.

I think a lot of the changes suggested by governments and scientists in response to global warming are ultimately good choices whether global warming proves true or not, and I think the public realizes this.

Fossil fuels, while in abundant supply currently, will run out eventually. Additionally most emissions reducing technologies also reduce other chemical emissions such as sulfur and nitrides, which are proven to cause unpleasant environmental effects. And developing alternative energy technologies such as solar and nuclear power is critical to future space exploration.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:02:21 PM , Rating: 1
Alas, yes, the politicization of it has created a lot of stump-speakers. Unfortunately, scientists have to come out and play policy expert, because there are too many misleading policy makers with deep pockets they'd like to line with some combination of ballots and campaign cash.

I agree, there are countless reasons to make a lot of the proposed changes. The recent finding that coal and petroleum reserves are systematically overestimated is particularly disturbing ( http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/world-c... ), and I hope we find alternatives before we use up what should be our "back-up" resource.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:47:37 PM , Rating: 2
The assumption you have is that scientists have no ambitions or motivations themselves outside the realm of science. I have worked in accedamia at LANL and I find it is rarely the case. Most scientists I have worked with are childish, arrogant, and most have had political or monetary motivations to advance science. Not generalizing too much I hope. Just stating my experience. I also need to mention some of the physicists I met could hardly find their way to a bathroom!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:37:44 AM , Rating: 2
Los Alamos is hardly a representative sample. LANL is a great place to work if you're very smart but incapable of getting along with other people. It also makes you a great match for nuclear weapons research, which extends this self-centered attitude to foreign policy.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 1:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Sandia, or CalTech, or MIT is any different.
I guess the nerds at LANL are of a different breed then the rest of the nerds around the world! Considering that we had some of the brightest folks from all over the country and all over the world I would think LANL is a very good sample. And unless you worked there you don't know. (Little secret, LANL is not just about nuclear phsyics.)

BYW, where do you work? Disney Land?

The point that you are missing, or dodging is that people that work in the fields of science are motivated by the same goals, and agendas as everyone else. No one I ever met worked their ass off just to advance science. Aren't you getting paid? Don't you get something for publishing that paper? Maybe recongition? Money? More Grants? Better Job? Aren't those things a return on your efforts?

You act like scientists are some objective gods who let the science speak for itself, when history and simply opening your eyes say otherwise. Scientists are some of the most prideful, arrogant, and pigheaded people you will ever meet. What other body of professionals to a man thinks that he is the smartest person who walks this earth? Univerity science faculty are much much worse, as they are typically more arrogant and in my experience tended to be the most politically motivated.

Considering how snobby and arrogant you are you are probably a grad student or post doc right now for some equally snobby prof. Either that or a new prof yourself.


RE: Happer != Expert
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:20:42 PM , Rating: 5
All good things, yes, and most reasonable people are willing to accept this concept.

Why then, are we continuing to polarize this issue with FUD and rationalizing it with lame cliche's like 'the end justifies the means'?

If the general public has become so mentally lame that they cannot be given the evidence and allowed to decide for themselves, then we've far larger problems on our hands than an AGW doomsday scenario.


RE: Happer != Expert
By ZachDontScare on 12/23/2008 3:37:57 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Unfortunately climatology and AGW research is full of smart people speaking beyond there area of expertise. This is true of both critics like Happer and supports like Hansen of GISS.
...
Fossil fuels, while in abundant supply currently, will run out eventually.

What you say about speaking in areas beyond one's expertise also applies to energy economics. Fossil fuels will never 'run out' - thats impossible. They'll just get more expensive to access to the point that an alternative will replace them because the alternative is cheaper. There will ALWAYS be oil remaining in the ground, it'll just be harder to get at. The idea that we'll just 'run out' of oil some day is simplisticly naive. It just doesnt work that way.


RE: Happer != Expert
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 3:46:46 PM , Rating: 5
You're right, Princeton physicists aren't qualifed to talk about the physics of atmospheric heat absorption. But industrial engineers like Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC, are.

Makes perfect sense to me. :-|


RE: Happer != Expert
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:02:20 PM , Rating: 3
>>industrial engineers like Rajendra Pachauri, head of the UN IPCC are.

I agree that would be a poor idea. I hope that the UN official take their climatological opinions from dedicated climate researchers primarily, and cite these researchers properly.

>>Princeton physicists aren't qualifed to talk about the physics of atmospheric heat absorption.

To say that Happer's sweeping comments are directed at his opinions on the physics of heat absorption by atmospheric gases is specious at best. While he may have opinions on this topic, he's addressing general global warming phenomena, which is by nature inherently a climatological phenomena best observerable in broad statistical trends, studies of sun activity and its effects, historic climate studies, and studies on atmosphere dynamics by dedicated experts. Climatologists may occasionally need to call in physicists of various disciplines or chemists to help explain specific phenomena, but overall the best person to study climatology is a dedicated climate researcher, who is schooled in and performs most of their research in the subject.

Happer is an atomic physicist, not a climatologist. He seems a talented atomic physicist, but that does not make him a talented climatologist or lend credence to his climatological opinions.

It'd be kind of like a very smart aerospace engineer giving advice to Microsoft in how he thinks they should fix their API problems. In MOST cases he's pretty unlikely to have insight that the programmers don't.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:14:17 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Happer is an atomic physicist, not a climatologist. He seems a talented atomic physicist, but that does not make him a talented climatologist or lend credence to his climatological opinions.
Exactly right!!!! So we should unilaterally ignore anyone that is not in the climatology field directly. Like you stated,
quote:
climatological phenomena best observerable in broad statistical trends, studies of sun activity and its effects, historic climate studies, and studies on atmosphere dynamics by dedicated experts.


And since you're not an expert in the climatology field, your comments and opinions don't mean squat either. I propose that your next article simply be a posting of url's to the experts in the field, the actual climatologists. We'll take it from there. Thanks in advance.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Flubber88 on 12/23/2008 6:27:47 PM , Rating: 2
According to the IPCC, there are also less than 100 qualified climatologists in the world today (that number will increase, of course, as the money, prestige, and fast-track promotion opportunities will draw more scientists in like flies to....honey).
But that's all by the by. I don't need a degree in climatology to tell when a graph is meaningless crap due to cherry-picked starting/ending points or to point out that since AGW computer models can't even "predict the past" when applied to historical data, they are useless.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:58:39 PM , Rating: 3
Physics is physics. The only issue would be not being up to date on current research. Just becuase he is an atomic phsysicist doesn't mean he forgot his gas laws!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:48:58 PM , Rating: 3
We called Industrial Engineers Imaginary Engineers at my school. That is where all the dropouts went from the other areas.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 9:53:28 PM , Rating: 3
Our engineering washouts went to Civil Engineering and Business School....


RE: Happer != Expert
By Goty on 12/23/2008 3:03:48 PM , Rating: 5
A "mediocre scientist" who is currently a member of one of the most prestigious physics departments in the world.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:14:10 PM , Rating: 3
Since Feynman, people have gotten this idea that good physicists can solve all of our problems. The truth is that, while very smart, they can't always be a Jack of all trades (and I say this as a physicist myself). Feynman famously led the inquiry that identified o-rings as the cause of the space shuttle disaster, using his intuition about thermal expansion and contraction of all materials.

But a) Feynman was a very special and brilliant physicist, and b) climate science is much more complicated than thermal expansion of an o-ring. It takes a long time to make a dent in the literature, and while physicists are well-equipped to make sense of the individual processes, it still takes enormous effort to piece together the whole picture (few people, even among climate scientists, manage to do this -- and most are former physicists who have devoted decades to studying the problem). He may be knowledgeable in his own field, but there's no evidence that he's done more than read a few climate paper abstracts in Nature.


RE: Happer != Expert
By kattanna on 12/23/2008 3:28:25 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
it still takes enormous effort to piece together the whole picture


and im sure no one has the "whole picture" even now.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:00:54 PM , Rating: 1
True, and sadly I actually reckon that Masher2 has more of the picture than Happer in this case. Anyplace you look, somebody will be crying foul because their job was given to somebody better-equipped to do it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Goty on 12/23/2008 3:57:26 PM , Rating: 1
Oh, I'm not contesting the OP's claim about a physicist not being uniquely qualified to make such statements, I'm just pointing out that Happer obviously isn't a "mediocre scientist" is he's employed by Princeton.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 3:05:08 PM , Rating: 4
That isnt what he said. He questioned whether the alarmists in the Clinton administration were correct in their assumptions a depletion in ozone would cause such a grave situation. His question regarding UVB wasnt denying it had ill effects, only that it wasnt as bad as the alarmists would have you believe. Funny that the same logic and emotion are being applied to global warming as ozone depletion back in the early 90's. Little real science, lots of emotion, and a religious indoctrination and enforcement that rivals medieval europe.


RE: Happer != Expert
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:10:35 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds more like an epidemiological trial than a clinical trial. I don't think there's an IRB ever concieved that would sign off on such a trial ;)


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 1
Absolutely, my mistake (wish we had edit buttons!)

My point was that the link between UV and skin cancer is as bulletproof as the link between drinking vodka and being drunk, although you're right -- clinical trials these were not (at least I hope not!) ;)


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:10:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
(Carl Sagan)
Thats the crucial point about the UVB studies you mentioned. There are plenty that do indicate increased ground UVB, and the theory/models certainly suggest that it is increased when the hole is wide open. A few, as you point out, have not found any evidence of anything, and are probably just the result of poor experiment or too little data.

There were certainly a lot of over-the-top stories at the time. That always happens with scientific findings. But imagine what might have happened if we hadn't taken action to reduce CFCs. There's a reason that schoolkids in australia have to wear hats outdoors. Glad it didn't have a greater impact before we noticed the problem and fixed it.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 4:27:01 PM , Rating: 2
Didn't they show that holes in the o-zone were cyclic, natural and had not been caused by man?


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:52:16 PM , Rating: 2
No: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ozone_depletion
quote:
Scientists have been increasingly able to attribute the observed ozone depletion to the increase of anthropogenic halogen compounds from CFCs by the use of complex chemistry transport models and their validation against observational data (e.g. SLIMCAT, CLaMS). These models work by combining satellite measurements of chemical concentrations and meteorological fields with chemical reaction rate constants obtained in lab experiments. They are able to identify not only the key chemical reactions but also the transport processes which bring CFC photolysis products into contact with ozone.


There is a strong seasonal cycle (that's presumably what you're referring to), but a more important catalytic response that is inter-annual. This response has reversed since the inception of the Montreal protocol.
quote:
Since the adoption and strengthening of the Montreal Protocol has led to reductions in the emissions of CFCs, atmospheric concentrations of the most significant compounds have been declining. These substances are being gradually removed from the atmosphere. By 2015, the Antarctic ozone hole would have reduced by only 1 million km² out of 25 (Newman et al., 2004); complete recovery of the Antarctic ozone layer will not occur until the year 2050 or later.


RE: Happer != Expert
By juserbogus on 12/23/2008 6:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Didn't they show that holes in the o-zone were cyclic, natural and had not been caused by man?

double talk or you are misinformed. while the "holes" themselves were cyclic, the size and scope were because of man made CFCs. There is also good evidence that would allow you to conclude that the case was the CFCs as well.

actually, this is a good example of a huge environmental problem that we were able to reverse.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:33:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's a reason that schoolkids in australia have to wear hats outdoors.
Yes because it has nothing to do with overexposure to the sun.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Marduke on 12/23/2008 4:36:18 PM , Rating: 2
Or the hole in the ozone over the country....


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 5:16:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Or the hole in the ozone over the country....
That follows Australia around like a dog on a leash.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:04:53 PM , Rating: 2
... which is good to avoid because of... oh yeah! UVB! From the hole in the ozone above their heads! Which was created by catalysis from CFC emissions!


RE: Happer != Expert
By Flubber88 on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Happer != Expert
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:37:46 PM , Rating: 1
Thanks for this, I thought that was the case but haven't looked into it as heavily as you seem to have. I always wondered about the ozone hole panic attack, didn't really make sense. I remember when they tried to explain it in school, it made no sense then either.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 9:01:49 PM , Rating: 1
It's amazing that you would write so much without sourcing any of your absurd claims. Even wikipedia knows that what you've stated here is plainly false, and cites numerous careful studies to prove it. Please, do not listen to this drivel. If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


That's the scientific spirit!!!! Nothing proves facts like dogma!


RE: Happer != Expert
By King of All Cynics on 12/24/2008 4:00:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
If you have a concise list of claims with sources to back them up, I'd be happy to explain why they are mischaracterized or how they have since been debunked.


That's the scientific spirit!!!! Nothing proves facts like dogma!


RE: Happer != Expert
By juserbogus on 12/24/2008 12:32:35 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
utterly discredited ozone hole nonsense
you are gravely misinformed.


RE: Happer != Expert
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:48:48 PM , Rating: 3
Sagan also has a nice quote on the early astronomers extrapolations of conditions on Venus. They looked through their telescopes, saw heavy cloud cover as must have existed on primeval Earth, and concluded conditions must be similar.

Data: Can't see a damn thing.
Conclusion: Must be dinosaurs there!

A similar phenomena has predominated in AGW research. We lack good data on nearly every aspect of long-term climate feedbacks, but we have plenty of people pretending our extremely sparse data is definitive and absolute.

CO2 is unquestionably a greenhouse gas, but the all-important question is climate sensitivity...and almost no one is doing actual experimental research on that question. GCMs (climate models) have been calibrated with a sensitivity based not on any value calculated from a priori or experimental verification, but based on the amount the earth has warmed over a given period. That contains the implicit assumption that the majority of said warming is GHG-based, simply because we can't think of a better alternative.

A considerable amount of research in the past few years, however, indicates that sensitivity has been considerably overstated. The modeling camp refuses to believe this for obvious reasons-- their models tell them otherwise. We've gotten to the point where the models are being used not to confirm or predict, but rather being used in place of experimental data itself. That's a problem for science no matter how you slice it, regardless of the truth or not about anthropogenic global warming.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:56:28 PM , Rating: 4
Au contraire, monsieur, research on experimental constraints of climate sensitivity are one of the best-funded areas of climate research. This ranges from lab experiments on "out of normal range" physical processes to work better parameterizations into GCMs, to paleoclimate studies of corals, benthic forams, etc... to place constraints on SST sensitivity.


RE: Happer != Expert
By BPB on 12/24/2008 11:02:43 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
A few, as you point out, have not found any evidence of anything, and are probably just the result of poor experiment or too little data.
Do you realize what you are saying here? They are wrong because you don't agree with them. You sir, are what I would call a True Believer.


RE: Happer != Expert
By meepstone on 12/23/2008 4:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
yeah, im sure he waited 15 years to complain about the loss of his job. real good arguement loser.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:12:27 PM , Rating: 2
He didn't. The story is 15 years old. About the only other news on the subject is this terrible, old, archived piece:
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/...

From 1993 . Hot off the press, fellas.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:36:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
He didn't. The story is 15 years old.
Wow, that's soooooo old. Didn't people shank their own meat back then?


RE: Happer != Expert
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:53:11 PM , Rating: 2
Your reading comprehension is as bad as your understanding of science. Did you miss this part of the article?

quote:
Happer's latest remarks were made yesterday..


15 years old versus one day. Wow, you were close.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 12:09:20 PM , Rating: 1
I think jenga is going to cry.

Ever notice the global warming crowd says:

-1- he's a scientist if he talks up global warming

-2- he's a tangential peripheral crank if he does not

-3- if you argue with then they say "please cite a peer reviewed paper supporting your point" ......but point #2 obviates doing that.

These global warmers are like the meth users in denial. They will lie to your face even when its obvious they are lying.

Nothing I hate more than liars and thus the global warmers are highly disliked.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:10:52 PM , Rating: 1
I'm terrified that people like you know the secret of reproduction.


RE: Happer != Expert
By phxfreddy on 12/26/2008 12:36:07 AM , Rating: 1
Mmm...you mean little old me:

-1- engineer in RF design / masters degree in EE DSP ?

-2- IQ = 160

-3- triathelete?

...yah terrible because you liberals do not stand a chance to get a chick when I am around. Well even if I am not around since libs are such femmy wimps.


RE: Happer != Expert
By SoCalBoomer on 12/25/2008 4:53:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is beyond idiotic. Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field, who wants to blame the loss of his job on the anthropomorphic 'beast' that is climate change.


Then it's a good thing we have YOU to put us straight, now isn't it? I mean, with your impeccable credentials, your lengthy CV, your extensive list of publications. . .

Oh wait, you have none of those things - instead, you're proficient in ad hominem. You disagree with him so you slander him.

Way to go. Like that. Good job! Way to use that "crackpot stick" my friend. . .


RE: Happer != Expert
By FPP on 12/25/2008 10:41:53 AM , Rating: 2
This is another example of the Global warming Mafia blaccklisting sicentists who disagree with them. In Oregon, the Governor eliminted the position of the State meteorologist because he disagreed with him on this.

Take a good look folks at the face of the left.


RE: Happer != Expert
By JimCouch on 12/29/2008 2:28:43 PM , Rating: 3
I think if your globes are warming you must have wet your pants!... I think the earth will take care of herself and will be warming and cooling long after we humans are gone.


RE: Happer != Expert
By Bruce Frykman on 1/6/2009 6:41:56 PM , Rating: 2
I am quite curious on how ones measures the merits of a "climate scientist"

Just what credentialing process is required to possess authoritaive opinion on this subject? At what instant in time does one pass through a door that makes ones beliefs and opinions more worthy than that of anyone elses?

As we have come to learn, this dismal "science" is not about observation, hypothesis, experiment, and confirmation. Its rather about hypothesis, funding, and endless gala conferences at world class tropical resorts (alway at some hapless taxpayer's expense). Essentially this cult is no different from any other religion except perhaps that the degree of excess is somewhat more muted with the world's long established religions.


RE: Happer != Expert
By welshlaw on 1/20/2009 1:19:12 AM , Rating: 2
Please, the scientists who support the AGW theory are mostly political hacks. It is a bad theory based on extrapolations of extrapolated data. Any scientist willing to testify in a court of law that the AGW theory is fact, would leave the witness stand after cross examination with a new orifice.


Wonderful
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:45:05 PM , Rating: 5
I wonder what fantastic crisis they will think of next to terrify people into policy changes?




RE: Wonderful
By jbourne77 on 12/23/2008 2:46:16 PM , Rating: 5
Equal opportunity housing?


RE: Wonderful
By derwin on 12/23/2008 5:08:39 PM , Rating: 4
lol, that made my day


RE: Wonderful
By maverick85wd on 12/24/2008 4:40:25 AM , Rating: 2
right after they take my guns maybe


RE: Wonderful
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 3:09:52 PM , Rating: 1
Well right not Global warming seems to be working. Until that crisis has subsided they dont need to think of a new one.


RE: Wonderful
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 3:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
Global climate warming has taken a back seat to the economy. I guess it's hard to milk that turnip when it's dry.


RE: Wonderful
By Jim28 on 12/23/2008 9:28:46 PM , Rating: 2
Thank God!
Boy I am tired of hearing about AGW.


RE: Wonderful
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 3:52:30 PM , Rating: 2
That's the agenda of liberal fascists; come up with one crisis after another to justify more "government solutions." Just look at the war on drugs, the war on poverty, the war on disease in Africa, the war on climate change, etc, etc. Government programs never fix any of these things; they only squander our tax dollars.


RE: Wonderful
By teflonbilly on 12/23/2008 4:42:15 PM , Rating: 4
That's not a liberal fascist agenda, that a governmental agenda. best way to keep people under control is to keep them fearing something other than their own government. Or fear their government so much they cant do anything about it. Almost every country uses this tactic to some extent.


RE: Wonderful
By eye smite on 12/23/2008 8:03:22 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with it being a gov't agenda, and I've been saying since they started the buzz phrase global warming that it was BS. lol


RE: Wonderful
By cmdrdredd on 12/23/2008 8:17:25 PM , Rating: 5
Except in this country we have Gun Rights so we can actually fight back against tyrannical government. That is the point of the 2nd amendment which in today's society is forgotten.


RE: Wonderful
By teflonbilly on 12/25/2008 12:38:37 AM , Rating: 2
Its not a matter of fighting back. Its a matter of seeing the enemy. if your government leads down the wrong path but you follow because it seems right, eventually you end up so far from where you want to be, that you can't see the way back.

Ok that sounds all esoteric, but really all I mean is that you can be lead into a path or wrong by your government and not realize you need to fight back until its too late. Propaganda, and misinformation are key tools in all governments. Even benign ones (if there is such a thing.)

As for global warming itself. I think we need to stop focusing our attention on that and focus ont eh negative impacts of pollution on ourselves. People get sick and die from pollution. Be it car exhaust, factory belches, or any number of other forms. Are we having an impact on our climate? Nobody knows that for sure. Nobody.
Is our pollution affecting our quality of life? Yes. At the very least we can't enjoy a clear night sky in a major city like we used to. Some cities have air quality warnings posted on a regular basis to protect the elderly or infirm.I am very lucky. I live in Vancouver BC Canada. Air quality is great. We get our power from hydro electric, and we have great clean mountain drinking water. But not all the world is so lucky.

Sorry for the ramble. I get on a line of thought and my mind won't stop!


RE: Wonderful
By bigjaicher on 12/23/2008 5:43:27 PM , Rating: 2
You know, it's people like you that keep me from thinking that this country is completely insane. Especially the war on disease in Africa. I mean, why do we even care? Some people say it's an investment in the well-being of the people around the world. Really, does it make a return to us, the taxpayers? Why should I be forcibly impresssed into giving money into a cause that won't affect me in any way? It's a good cause, but I feel that if you want to give money to these charitable causes, you should be able to do it on your own terms. The same for the rest of those progams.

I hate how we try to expand our government, when all it really is doing is providing jobs to rich, incompetent people whose mommies and daddies bribed the dean of some college to let them get in and graduate, when there are some people who are actually competent that are worse off. The government's primary job is to stop people from killing each other and punish those who do. Anything else takes a backseat to the job that the government is currently failing at.


RE: Wonderful
By xmichaelx on 12/23/2008 9:14:04 PM , Rating: 1
"Why should I be forcibly impresssed into giving money into a cause that won't affect me in any way?"

Because it affects your grandchildren a great deal. This is one of the few areas where the U.S. is showing a long-term view. In all seriousness -- and this is not a put-down -- I strongly recommend that you take a basic economics class, where you'll learn that the entire U.S. financial structure is built on growth. That means that the more new markets become viable, the better our economic outlook.

As many Asian and South American countries reach parity with us (over the next 25-50 years), Africa becomes the greatest source of potential consumer growth and cheap manufacturing. This makes it very much in our interests to end disease there and try to create the foundation for potential African 1st World countries.

Yes, it's cynical and somewhat Machiavellian, but it's also how we are able to continue to function as a mostly capitalist economy.


RE: Wonderful
By Ringold on 12/23/2008 9:22:35 PM , Rating: 4
While all that is true, specifically targeting disease only skirts around the heart of all of Africa's ills; poor government. Without effective government in those countries, it's all for nothing.


RE: Wonderful
By Duwelon on 12/23/2008 11:47:06 PM , Rating: 2
A government is only as good as it's people. Were there a group of industrious people who loved the rule of law there would be a shining jewel of a country there, somewhere. It's just one dictator after another, one ethinical group slaughtering another.. I really think most of the people in Africa are insane.


RE: Wonderful
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:29:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Because it affects your grandchildren a great deal
Even assuming GW continues, why should slightly longer growing seasons, a milder climate, and about 25 centimeters of extra sea level terrify my grandchildren? Every time the planet has warmed up before (the Roman era, the Medieval Warm Period) its been a good thing for civilization. It's the cold periods where we starve and society breaks down.


RE: Wonderful
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 11:18:54 AM , Rating: 2
trivia time!

Q: Which one specific person has provided more aid and helped the sick and poor in Africa than anyone else in human history?

A: George W. Bush

Q: What is the largest Ponzi scheme in human history?
(hint: not Bernie Madoff)

A: Social Security

:)
Merry Christmakwanzukkah


RE: Wonderful
By DeathBooger on 12/23/2008 9:00:34 PM , Rating: 2
Just like the war on terror, right numb nuts?


RE: Wonderful
By rninneman on 12/28/2008 3:25:42 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure what side you are taking regarding the war on terror, but I'll assume you think I would lump the war on terror with every other "war" I listed based on your "numb nuts" comment. I specifically did not mention the war on terror because I consider that different from the others mentioned. Without getting too deep into the differences, mainly it is that the war on terror is the result of thousands of innocent Americans being killed and the continued threat of harm to innocent Americans that is real whereas the others pose no such threat.


RE: Wonderful
By DEVGRU on 12/23/2008 5:07:36 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I wonder what fantastic crisis they will think of next to terrify people into policy changes?


Easy.

You're an anti-gay/homophobe/hatemonger if in California you voted for Prop. 8, or, you're a racist/biggot if you voted against Obama.


RE: Wonderful
By howarchaic on 12/23/2008 6:04:00 PM , Rating: 3
Guess I'm a lovemonger racist/biggot.


RE: Wonderful
By Jiggz on 12/23/2008 10:05:20 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason, earth was able to passed through the so called ICE Age and it wasn't from man made carbon dioxide! I'm not saying we shouldn't take care of mother earth, but geez, there's just too much FUD (Fear Uncertainty and Deception) about global warming!


RE: Wonderful
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 2:18:25 AM , Rating: 2
el-oh-el man u r rite how did we not think of that ar-oh-eff-el

*rolleyes*


What's the Quote?
By lukasbradley on 12/23/2008 3:09:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
"science will not intrude on public policy"


Whom are you quoting? Or are you misquoting Happer? The use of "will not" infers that someone explicitly stated this to him.

quote:
"I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said. "I did not need the job that badly".


That's from the article. It's been published elsewhere as well. If it is the only quote, and you're paraphrasing, don't put quotes around it. You're changing the context of the statement from a summation from Happer into a quoted direct statement from a Gore rep, or Gore himself.

If it is a direct quote, excellent. I'd love to know who said this to Happer.

If not, and you are paraphrasing, it's trashy journalism.




RE: What's the Quote?
By rninneman on 12/23/2008 3:59:11 PM , Rating: 3
I thought it was pretty clear that when he was fired, someone related to Gore firing Dr. Happer spoke those words to him. Whether it was Gore himself or a staffer doesn't make that much difference because we have known that Al Gore and his ilk have ignored science from the beginning.

Al Gore couldn't afford to pay attention to science back then; he was too busy inventing the internet.


RE: What's the Quote?
By lukasbradley on 12/23/2008 4:10:20 PM , Rating: 3
That's my point, and I feel it is an EXTREMELY important one. It gives you, the reader, a "pretty clear" indication that those words, verbatim, were said to him. If they were, that is a travesty of both public policy and science.

In reality, I am willing to bet that nothing of the sort was spoken to Happer, and the real quote is his interpretation of what happened.

The manufactured quote (I'm assuming at this point it is manufactured) by the author continues this illusion, and further steers the conversation away from science, and into petty he-said-she-said politicing. It's transparent to me, and it's bad journalism. If this were the WSJ or the New York Times, they would get blasted for it. I'm holding to hold Daily Tech to the same standards.

Down-rate me all you want.


RE: What's the Quote?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 4:21:06 PM , Rating: 1
A journalist can only report what was said to him. Quite obviously I wasn't on the scene in 1993, to record exactly what was said between Gore and Happer. Nor do I believe the article suggests that I was.

However, I have faithfully recorded Happer's position as to what was said to him, leaving the reader to trust or not in his veracity.


RE: What's the Quote?
By lukasbradley on 12/23/2008 4:57:04 PM , Rating: 2
Where did you get the quote "science will not intrude on public policy"? You are the one who put it in boldface quotes. You're making it sound like you interviewed him. Did he say this as a direct quote from someone else? If so, who said this exact statement?

If all true, and can be directly attributed to someone, it's very damning.

But I don't think you did interview him. It seems to me you are bastardizing the original quote from 1993 to make a more sensational point.

Sensationalism is one thing; projecting your summation as a direct quote to a governmental official is quite another.


RE: What's the Quote?
By ddarko on 12/23/2008 6:31:54 PM , Rating: 4
Wait, you're calling yourself a "journalist"? LOL.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 2:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
Masher, please clarify, as others have asked: where did you get the quote. You state
quote:
A journalist can only report what was said to him.
presumably to imply that you interviewed somebody and that the quote is directly from said interview. Well? Are you going to answer, or just run and hide?

The last guy I contacted about one of your articles was pretty angry with your mischaracterization of his paper. I'm just suggesting that you do at least a little bit of your homework and attribute your quotes, because that's the sort of thing that actually can lead to legal consequences. It's a fine line, but you seem shockingly compelled to cross it.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/24/2008 12:05:10 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The last guy I contacted about one of your articles was pretty angry with your mischaracterization of his paper.


Hmmm someone needs to get a life.

Let me get this straight. You read an article on DT, didn't agree with it, and tracked down and contacted the persons paper who the article was based on and had corespondence with said person ?

WOW ! I would LOVE to have that much time on my hands and nothing better to do.

Masher had made lots of enemies on DT because he wins arguments with facts and doesn't back down. But attacking him because of this quote seems really cheap and lame. Every SINGLE quote from every single journalist is taken out of context or paraphrased. Almost every time you read one. Honestly, don't blame the player blame the game.

IN this case the quote CAME from Harper, did it not ? I fail to see how Masher should be compelled, or obligated, to find out what Harpers quote was based on or who told him that.

Missing the big picture aren't we ? Scientists have been forced and bullied to tow the lie on man made global warming for years. We have been duped, and there is a huge movement to silence men like Harper and sequester data that doesn't back up global warming theory. This shouldn't be a shock to anyone.

I fail to see how nitpicking Masher on the source of the sources quote is going to change the dynamic of the article.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:17:01 PM , Rating: 3
If by 'tracked down,' you mean that I googled the guy's name and spent 30 seconds writing a two sentence e-mail, then yes, you have it straight. Better a minute than a life wasted blindly listening to uninformed mouthpieces for misguided policies.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Pythias on 12/26/2008 1:56:06 AM , Rating: 2
Care to provide evidence of that?


RE: What's the Quote?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:05:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The last guy I contacted about one of your articles was pretty angry with your mischaracterization of his paper
I find that very difficult to believe, especially as you fail to provide any concrete details. The last time such an accusation was made, the scientist in question took the trouble to contact me himself after the article was published, to denounce the many emails he'd received, accusing both him and myself of mischaracterization or worse:

Across dozens of interviews, not one researcher I've interviewed has ever complained to me or the DT editors that they've been misquoted. However, if you still feel justified in your accusation, feel free to email the DT editors, who will be happy to investigate and issue a retraction, should your claim bear veracity. Or you can even write the article yourself, which they will certainly publish. You certainly can't ask for more than that.

If only certain other media outlets had such accountability. I've spoken to several scientists who have been interviewed by CNN, the BBC, and the like, and bitterly complain of being utterly mischaracterized.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Jim28 on 12/29/2008 10:57:34 PM , Rating: 2
Jenga are you going to respond to this?

Since you threw down the gauntlet and masher accepted. Come clean I call your cards. Who was mischaraterized and where are his words claiming so?

Fill in jepordy song here.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Reclaimer77 on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: What's the Quote?
By FPP on 12/25/2008 10:43:34 AM , Rating: 2
The fact is, this is just another example of the left blacklisting anyone who disagrees with them.


RE: What's the Quote?
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:20:06 PM , Rating: 4
If it was pretty clear, there should be some evidence of that. If the point is to make you think that it was pretty clear, when there was in fact no such quote or implied message, then questionable journalistic practices have prevailed.


Lynch him!
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 2:50:27 PM , Rating: 3
Clearly a blasphemer!

Funny Gore fired him for not towing the line. I think Bush has been blasted for doing this same thing. Somehow Gore will be defended for this while the same people will blast Bush.




RE: Lynch him!
By skipulrich on 12/23/2008 3:42:28 PM , Rating: 2
Uh… President Bush did finally concede and make his administration’s policy, that global warming is “real.”
The current administration is just not actively doing much about it. They state fears that further regulation on business and energy production will hurt our economy by restricting business as compared to other countries that are doing nothing about global warming like China and India. It is interesting that Europe and Japan are doing alright financially (compared to us) while still keeping much more strict environmental goals.


RE: Lynch him!
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 3:57:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It is interesting that Europe and Japan are doing alright financially (compared to us) while still keeping much more strict environmental goals.
Really? Don't get out much, do you? LOL!

PS - LOL!


RE: Lynch him!
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Lynch him!
By ddarko on 12/23/2008 6:56:49 PM , Rating: 4
This is simply a lie.

U.S. CO2 gas emissions in 2007 was up 19.4% compared to 1990, the base year used in the Kyoto protocol. In 2007 alone, U.S. CO2 emission increased by 1.6%:

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0521-energy.html

Compare that to the EU which saw a 7.7% DROP in CO2 emissions in 2006 versus 1990:

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iDrEcc3tKvzg-t...

Obviously, the comparison year is not the same - 2007 for the U.S. and 2006 - but EU emissions increased by 1.1% in 2007, meaning that EU emissions are still far below the 1990 levels:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-change/european...

And the latest reports indicate that in 2008, EU CO2 emissions may drop 10% from 2007:

http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idU...

If it wasn't clear before, it should be clear now: Asher is simply making stuff up.


RE: Lynch him!
By HaZaRd2K6 on 12/23/2008 10:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
*applauds*

Very well-said, good sir. Finally someone who got rated up for calling masher on his BS.


RE: Lynch him!
By Ringold on 12/24/2008 12:33:54 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And the latest reports indicate that in 2008, EU CO2 emissions may drop 10% from 2007:


And it only took a global economic meltdown to achieve it. Fantastic. How does this really support anyones point in the long run? Proof positive that economic malaise is good for the environment?


RE: Lynch him!
By BreathingCausesGW on 12/24/2008 12:03:53 PM , Rating: 2
that number you quote is slightly off. US CO2 emissions have increased from 5,021.4 MMTCO2e (million metric tons of CO2 equivalent) in 1990 to 6,021.8 MMTCO2e in 2007, or a 19.9% increase. However, TOTAL US emissions increased from 6,241.8 MMTCO2e in 1990 to 7,282.4 MMTCO2e in 2007, or a 16.67% increase.
Here's the data from your source's source.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html

and while Investors Business Daily is not a official govt agency/site, they do a good job in providing a short analysis of the countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol, explanation behind the numbers(i.e. severe economic contraction in Russia and former Soviet Union countries for most of the 90's was the largest contributor limiting their emissions), as well the negative economic impact Kyoto would have had on the US.
http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=3...


RE: Lynch him!
By Reclaimer77 on 12/24/2008 12:09:25 PM , Rating: 1
There is no accurate way to measure an entire countries or continents COS emissions. I'm honestly amazed at you guys quoting these numbers as gospel.


RE: Lynch him!
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:48:51 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
This is simply a lie. U.S. CO2 gas emissions in 2007 was up 19.4% compared to 1990
Nice cherry picking! US emissions were going up very fast in the 1990s.

But they emissions went down 1.3% in 2006, and barely rose in 2007.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic...

Europe went up three times faster than the US since the year 2000, India went up six times faster, and China went up..well, you won't believe how much. Just look at the chart and see for yourself.

http://www.willisms.com/archives/2007/02/trivia_ti...


RE: Lynch him!
By BladeVenom on 12/23/2008 4:32:34 PM , Rating: 3
But Al Gore stopped ManBearPig.


Where did all the cranks come from?
By ffakr on 12/23/2008 6:36:35 PM , Rating: 1
Wow, I haven't frequented DailyTech for a while. Where did all the cranks come from? It's like LGF around here.

There's a lot of crap in this thread. Too much to respond to quote by quote.

Just a few things I wanted to get off my chest:

- The University I work at isn't Princeton (we rank higher is overall Academic Experience). Not withstanding I've got a whole building of Global Warming believers in our GeoPhysical Sciences buildings. I believe that's even true of our Knight of the Crown. Yes, we've actually got a Sir doing research here (in the US).. it's kind of cool in a geeky sort of way.

- Though GeoSci is in my Division, it isn't my group. However, through talking with them I'm under the impression that the modeling increasingly matches the experimental [observable] data. That isn't to say that it didn't and now it's starting to.. that's to say that there is parity and it's getting closer.

- I agree that there are Global Warming alarmists out there, just like there are literally millions of people in the U.S. who won't believe in Global Warming just because it's been branded "liberal" by the Republican Party. I'm fairly liberal and I've got a very conservative brother. He's not stupid so it's depressing to see how he parrots the same stupid conservative talking points.
The consensus among people who ACTUALLY STUDY THE ATMOSPHERE is that Global Warming is, at least in part, a reality. I'll stick with that opinion for now.

- Someone blamed "liberals" for using fear to push agendas. Welcome to 2008.. we never thought you'd ever recover from that coma. I've got some crazy-ass stories to tell you about these Bush and Cheney guys.. P.S. we're being recorded.

- I don't generally like Tom Freidman but there is one thing he said which I thought was insightful (though obvious). He said 'If Global Warming is a hoax, it's the greatest hoax ever'. I don't recall the exact quote but his point was that there is no long-term down side to buying into Global Warming.. right or wrong.
We should be moving away from 19th century technology anyway. EVEN IF global warming is a total hoax.. if it gets us moving away from fossil fuels it'll be the most brilliant, beneficial hoax ever.
What we see in public opposition to Global Warming falls into two categories.. 1. It's Liberal so it's a lie and 2. It'll cost business in the short term.
1. FU, and 2. too bad.

- 'It's pretty cold today'.
I think people actually believe crap like this. They're talking about small AVERAGE changes over long periods of time. One cold week in the mid-west is completely irrelevant. More over, Global Warming (if true and if the modeling is correct) will lead to increasingly erratic weather phenomenon. One prediction is the drastic cooling of Europe as melting polar ice drifts down into the tropical ocean streams.
My brother even told me 'It's fake because they had to change the name to Climate Change'. Yea.. because it's climate change.

And finally..
- After nearly 8 years of recently graduated Young Republicans in charge our Science and Research organizations, people are claiming that liberals distain science.
...
....
.....
sorry.. It took a second to recover from that one. We're coming out of the Most anti-science administration in my lifetime.. by far. We've had social science majors redacting scientific papers for christs sake.
It's not the dirty hippies that are out trying to dumb down this nation. From NASA to local boards of Education stocked with anti-evolution Fundies.. the far right has been actively surprising science for a long time.
Thank god Obama won and we've got Scientists running research organizations again (or we will in another month).




RE: Where did all the cranks come from?
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 8:47:14 PM , Rating: 2
Finally, more sensible people showing up. I usually stay away from DailyTech precisely because they support this type of article (which is designed to attract shouting crowds). I'll only click in here when I see Michael Asher spreading misinformation, as he is here. I wish the editors would realize what this does to their overall credibility, as I've really enjoyed articles by their other authors.

Trying to guess where you're working... Caltech (they have a division called GPS), or Northwestern (they have a 'Sir' in chemistry I believe), or perhaps someplace else. In any case, greetings, and excellent points (particularly with respect to policy and kneejerk politicization of the issue).


RE: Where did all the cranks come from?
By Ringold on 12/24/2008 1:11:08 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Finally, more sensible people showing up.


Perhaps only in tone. On substance, though..

quote:
I don't recall the exact quote but his point was that there is no long-term down side to buying into Global Warming.. right or wrong.
We should be moving away from 19th century technology anyway. EVEN IF global warming is a total hoax.. if it gets us moving away from fossil fuels it'll be the most brilliant, beneficial hoax ever.


He still falls victim to the typical left-wing mistake of completely discounting costs. My first point would be that, yes, I agree with this idea we should be moving away from 19th century technology -- and industries. Now I wish liberals would join me in telling the "Big Three" to get stuffed instead of supporting failed industrial policies to prolong 19th century jobs in this country.

The second point is that the economists who have looked at the cost/benefit of global warming and don't have a personal dog in the fight have seemed to conclude that the level of spending proposed by global warming advocacy groups and left-wing political parties is far, far beyond what would be optimal. In other words, with their level of spending $1 spent on the margin towards CO2 emission reduction would negate far less than $1 of damage or have less than $1 in benefits. Yes, this means that global warming could, if true and in a worst-case scenario, cause some discomfort. However, I have not seen any credible work that suggests even under a worst-case scenario we will as a planet not still be far wealthier by 2100 and 2200 even if we did very little to abate climate change (assuming, again, we are the cause). It's a matter of spending the optimal amount to make us either really, really well off or just really well off.

The countries that would be most adversely impacted by global warming, unfortunately, are also those countries that can least afford to buy in to expensive, low or no-carbon energy. They need cheap energy to grow. It's how every major world power I can think of has achieved prosperity; do we now deny these billions of people the same path we took? Do we risk their future in trying a new path to developed status? Or are Western citizens expected to pay some kind of special third-world tax to build free solar, wind and other types of low-carbon power for these countries?

Perhaps the issue is not understanding opportunity costs. Thats the fatal flaw in this idea that even if we end up finding out our global warming theories were false it's still a good investment. No, the market always in the long run makes better investments than the government. The only argument to the contrary is when there is a market failure, something markets can not account for -- and that failure is supposedly global warming. If there is no global warming, and billions (trillions, eventually) were spent towards that end, then obviously that money has been spent in a less than efficient way. That money, more efficiently allocated by private hands than top-down government mandate, would accrue greater benefits. Sure, we'd still have some useful technologies, perhaps, after years of all kinds of research and policies aimed at global warming. It's just silly, from an economics perspective, to praise that as some sort of "win" when it's not the optimal possible outcome. Given the scale and cost of measures advocated by people like Al Gore, it would not be the most "brilliant, beneficial hoax ever," it'd be the most expensive and costly in human terms ever -- since a lot of the burden of slower economic growth will be paid by those who are already poor.

Well, no. It would be the most brilliant hoax ever, I'll give the OP that.


By luigi1111 on 12/24/2008 2:56:08 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo... He had a couple good points and some not so good ones. Good job completely debunking one of the not so good ones:)


By Gary Right On on 12/27/2008 1:35:38 PM , Rating: 2
"The consensus among people who ACTUALLY STUDY THE ATMOSPHERE is that Global Warming is, at least in part, a reality. I'll stick with that opinion for now."

Just add for the record that climate change, global cooling and global warming by other names, is natural having taken place continually for millions of years. The crap about man-made climate change is pure conjecture not based on science. A check on the statistical significance of the weather data demonstrates a confidence level of zero for the predictions made by all of the alarmists.


By phxfreddy on 12/24/2008 12:13:55 PM , Rating: 2
Drink more koolaid


By Reclaimer77 on 12/25/2008 10:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Global Warming (if true and if the modeling is correct) will lead to increasingly erratic weather phenomenon. One prediction is the drastic cooling of Europe as melting polar ice drifts down into the tropical ocean streams.


Yes, IF TRUE. It seems to me you have taken it as absolute fact already. And anybody who doesn't tow the line is just a science bashing "Republican" naysayer. So make up your mind, which is it ?

There is some evidence, when skewed, to support "Climate Change". However nowhere in your rant is the sheer MOUNTAIN of contradictory evidence and facts that dispute climate change theory.

quote:
I'm fairly liberal and I've got a very conservative brother. He's not stupid so it's depressing to see how he parrots the same stupid conservative talking points.


Your brother secretly pities you. I'm sure to him, its depressing seeing his brother spew biased liberal crap taught to him by his "research" college buddies who will report whatever keeps the research grant payola flowing.

quote:
- Though GeoSci is in my Division, it isn't my group. However, through talking with them I'm under the impression that the modeling increasingly matches the experimental [observable] data.


Well there you have it ! Concrete proof that global warming is true ! People you talk to, working in a division thats not even yours, has convinced you their work is the truth. Amazing !! I.. I've been such a fool ! Now that you put it that way, I can't believe everyone isn't on board with this !
/sarcasm

I don't blame you for not saying what University you actually represent. If, in fact, you do " work " for one. This immature rant of yours would be a black eye on any school.


By welshlaw on 1/20/2009 1:34:45 AM , Rating: 2
A consensus does not make it fact. There was a consensus of scientists that Newton's theory of gravity was complete for well over two hundred years until Einstein proved the theory was not complete. Votes count in politics, not science. The fact that supporters of the AGW theory continually point to a consensus, indicates the science behind the theory is very weak, otherwise they would not have to point to a consensus.


It snowed in South Texas...
By HostileEffect on 12/23/2008 3:35:06 PM , Rating: 5
Other than that sleet and ice rain I saw when I was much younger. This year -2008- Is the first time in my entire life that I have seen it snow in South Texas. Taking snow in South Texas into consideration, global warming has zero credibility with me.

As for climate change... well... climate is always changing, water pours, fire burns... wind blows... earth... what does earth do again? What ever, in the end, Bruce Willis got the woman.




RE: It snowed in South Texas...
By truk007 on 12/24/2008 2:04:25 AM , Rating: 2
Earth ROCKS!!!


RE: It snowed in South Texas...
By Totalcarbs on 12/29/2008 10:15:15 AM , Rating: 2
Global warming means it gets COLDER as well as HOTTER. I guess thats something to complicated for stupid people to understand.


MANBEARPIG!!!
By jbourne77 on 12/23/2008 2:45:39 PM , Rating: 3
MANBEARPIG!!!




RE: MANBEARPIG!!!
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 2:47:46 PM , Rating: 4
Are you cereal?


Funny Story
By DtTall on 12/23/2008 4:34:42 PM , Rating: 5
Remembered reading this and thought it was funny. Note: This is not saying anything about my opinion of global warming.

By Richard Strimple

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but I have detected a new crisis that I have named "the daylight change crisis". I first noticed it sometime around the end of June this year. I started paying attention and created computer models and sure enough I was right! We are losing daylight at an astonishing rate. Each day we are losing approximately 2 minutes of day light and my computer models predict total darkness by next July.

I have been able to detect this phenomenon around the entire Northern Hemisphere. And here is the scary part: the day light appears to be leaking to the Southern Hemisphere.

I have some frightening new information from my daylight change research. The data indicates drastic changes to the environment that have already started.

Many species of birds and millions of individual birds have left the northern hemisphere. The impact of the loss of these birds is unimaginable.

Insect life has been severely affected and most can no longer be observed.

Large mammals have been observed lying in a state of near death torpor in their dens.

Crop production has fallen to dangerously low levels. My models predict famine in the near future.

These and other effects of the loss of day light demand our immediate attention if we are to prevent a climate catastrophe.

Where is Al Gore when we need him?




RE: Funny Story
By Wixykid on 12/24/2008 10:20:24 AM , Rating: 2
lol

See what we get for plugging the Ozone Hole - A heat backup!

lol


He is in so much trouble
By montgom on 12/23/2008 3:25:40 PM , Rating: 5
Sadly, even if this fellow is right, going against popular opinion (pop science) will only cause him trouble. If he knew what was good for him, he would just repeat the mantra of the global warming folks and move on. And get a job. And grants.

Wisconsin was covered in mile thick glaciers awhile back. Today, it is covered in 38 inches of snow. I am so glad mother nature has the cycle of cooling and warming, or I would be under a mile of ice.

But, I must now declare that global warming is caused by mankind and not nature. Whew, I have now adopted the "religion" of global warming caused by mankind and not nature. I am back in the fold of the greenies. My job is safe and I will not be flamed for expressing a difference of opinion.

We all know how intolerant some folks are anyone who expresses any opinion contrary to the current global warming hysteria. Please don't attack me for just expressing my opinion.
Bob




Is it now climate change
By montgom on 12/23/2008 3:36:07 PM , Rating: 4
I forgot to mention, it is no longer global warming, it is now called "climate change". Global warming was not getting the traction they expected, so it is being marketed under a new name "climate change". Global warming was being laughed at more than feared. Hopefully climate change won't get laughed at as much?

We call this same old "stuff", new bag.

Bob




Endless Supply Of Mirth This Holiday Season
By ddarko on 12/23/2008 6:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Asher never fails to deliver the laughs. "Science" he titles his political agenda. Tell us, Asher, why the only blog posts you ever publish support one side? Is that "science", to only present views that support one side? To cite only one side? To ignore everyone else? Your distortions are so obvious, it's laughable. Oh boy, 600-some odd scientists have signed a petition! As we all know, they make up the complete universe of all scientists on Earth! There is 100% consensus! Ignore the THOUSANDS of other scientists, professional organizations, and research that support human impact on global warming!

Asher: Yep, if I don't mention it, it's not true.




By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:45:18 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Tell us, Asher, why the only blog posts you ever publish support one side?
That's a fair question. The answer, however, is quite simple. Any research which supports (or even appears to support) AGW is instantly reported in hundreds of other media sources, sources I'm sure everyone hear already views.

In my opinion, there just isn't a lot of news value in parroting what people have already heard many times before. The goal of this column is to give you the news you're not hearing from other sources.


By DHM on 12/28/2008 1:29:37 AM , Rating: 2
The source is a Newsweek article of about a year ago (emphasis mine):
quote:
Since 2000, according to published reports, the former veep has transformed himself from a public servant with around $1 million in the bank to a sparkling private consultant with a net worth estimated to be north of $100 million. He's a senior adviser to Google, a board member at Apple and now a newly minted general partner at Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers, the Silicon Valley venture-capital firm that made billions investing early in Netscape, Amazon and Google. Gore has pledged to hand over his KP "salary" to Alliance for Climate Protection, a nonprofit he chairs. But the gift is more symbolic than material. Gore's salary—his cut of the 2 percent "management fee" that KP partners get on all investments—is typically a sliver of the total compensation that VCs receive. If Gore's profit-sharing deal is anything like the firm's other 23 partners, he's also in line to collect tens of millions of dollars a year. That's because partners carve up 30 percent of the profits if and when the alternative-energy start-ups that KP supports go public or are sold. (Kleiner Perkins declined to comment on Gore's compensation, but his communications director, Kalee Kreider, confirmed that he plans to donate only his "guaranteed income" to charityShould Gore's prospecting unearth a clean-energy gold mine the size of Google—which earned billions for KP partners—his share of the loot could make him U.S. history's richest ex-veep. .)

http://www.newsweek.com/id/71011

Gore's net worth now over 100 million:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/117/features-g...

ABC News cited the above in this story:
quote:
Now, according to a new article in Fast Company magazine, the former U.S. vice president is worth at least $100 million. "I think he feels that he's doing things that are innovative and transformational and in sectors, which he thinks are in badly need of change, and I think he's enjoying being right," said Ellen McGirt, a Fast Company writer.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3281925
So far, all these sources are friendly to Gore.

Human Events,(http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22663) which is a conservative organization, writes about his extensive business connections who stand to benefit from carbon credit trading.




By Jim28 on 12/29/2008 11:06:15 PM , Rating: 2
and that says it all about this AGW crap.


Happer
By Wixykid on 12/24/2008 9:07:37 AM , Rating: 1
I love those podcasts put out by the Princeton Review "LSAT Logic in everyday life". They love to debunk these sorts of articles.
So let's begin:
"Dr. Happer views climate change as a predominately natural process": One question here is the definition of Natural. Like it or not, we are part of the earth's ecosystem. That is irrefutable. We take resources from our surrounding environment, and put back into the environment. Help me out here - what is UN natural about that. The thrust here is that Happer believes that this would have happened anyway with or without us. Indeed, looking at world wide temperature variability data over time, we realize that the earthly environment that the human race grew up in has been relatively quiet - almost gentle. What we do not know and cannot tell is (except for landmark events) what were the causes of these past spikes. We all know about the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 - but what caused the CO2?

"There is no evidence that the changes differ in any qualitative way from those of the past": This is a statement that cannot be proven. Sure, there is no evidence that this is so, but there is also no evidence that it is NOT so. Just a thought - it seems that quality of life is closely related to how well a species is adapted to it's environment. So what happens if the environment changes faster than the species can adapt?

"I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said.": I have a real problem with this one. I find it hard to believe that Al Gore would have originated this statement. The way the paragraph is written, it implies that he did, but it is not consistent with his personality. It would have been better if Dr. Happer had given a name to the statement.

I would have to concede that true scientific method has not been applied here - I am not sure that it is possible on the scale necessary. I DO know that for the first time in recorded history, our race has information on a marco change in the environment that could be in advance of the actual "Qualitative" changes - AND have the ability to act on it. It would be irresponsible not to act on this data - especially if the world as a whole will benefit from the effort. Recent News and data from around the world is indicating a superstorm of difficulties for our children and grandchildren. All peoples of ALL nations are going to have to work together to avoid another dark ages (think of all the good work that will be lost if that were to occur). For what it's worth, it seems to me that if nothing else, the global warming issue is a good rallying point. I simply can't see any negatives to it.

W




RE: Happer
By Reclaimer77 on 12/25/2008 11:36:27 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
We all know about the correlation between earth temperature and CO2 - but what caused the CO2?


There is no link to CO2 levels and temperatures. And none of the models used even takes into account the suns output levels during those times.

Its been stated time and time again by reasonable scientists. C02 levels are NOT what drives global climate.

quote:
"I was told that science was not going to intrude on public policy", he said.": I have a real problem with this one. I find it hard to believe that Al Gore would have originated this statement.


You do ? Why ? Is the man a saint now ?

quote:
I would have to concede that true scientific method has not been applied here - I am not sure that it is possible on the scale necessary. I DO know that for the first time in recorded history, our race has information on a marco change in the environment that could be in advance of the actual "Qualitative" changes - AND have the ability to act on it. It would be irresponsible not to act on this data -


Act on data that you just admitted isn't proven, can't be quantified, and is on shaky ground at best. And you say "macro change" is if THAT'S even a fact !

quote:
All peoples of ALL nations are going to have to work together to avoid another dark ages


... Wow. Did you really just type that ?


By Brainonska511 on 12/23/2008 3:23:12 PM , Rating: 2
I don't care what some random scientist says about global climate change (as it should be called) - the evidence will speak for itself .

There needs to be continued research into the area. There also needs to be policy change - even if emissions from cars/power plants/factories don't accelerate the green house effect, they cause other problems like acid rain and smog. The other problem is, if we are causing an accelerate green house effect, by the time the evidence can show it, it might be too late for us to do much to reverse it, hence the reasons for pushing some cleaner energies now.




This Just In! Sun warming the Earth!
By menace on 12/23/2008 5:16:37 PM , Rating: 2
Look at this chart on sunspot activity. The black line is a windowed average. Kind of looks familiar, doesn't it? Is CO2 somehow responsible for making the sun have more spots too?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers....

Now we have a year or two where sunspot activity is showing signs of taking a vacation like it did during the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age. What do we get? Snow in Seattle, snow in Malibu, snow in South Texas, snow in Las Vegas, the coldest December in the midwest I can remember since I was a kid in the 60's (back in the days when they were "predicting" another ice age was coming).

Is this unwarranted skepticism? If you believe all of the past scientific "consensus" then today the human race would have died off due to famine and disease effects of exponential overpopulation and the inability of agriculture to keep up and depletion of fishing stocks. We would be flat out of oil because there were only enough "reserves" in 1980 to last another 20 years. Due to mankinds effects on extinction, there would be half the known species today than in 1980 and nature's "food chain" would collapse. Pollution would be out of control and every city in the US would become a smog bound mess like LA in the 80's. Etc. Etc.




Global Warming my @$$
By Ratinator on 12/23/2008 5:35:01 PM , Rating: 2
2 weeks of sub -25 F temperatures in December.....I would kill for global warming right about now.




its all a load of nonsense
By Guttersnipe on 12/24/2008 6:22:46 AM , Rating: 2
we are moving towards what? 9 billion people? 12 billion? whatever it is, it will totally nullify any efforts in the west no matter how far we bend everyone over. and right now people slap themselves on the back over token efforts. its all token is the inconvenient truth if you believe the claims of climate disaster folks. the reality is the world is breeding like crazy, resources are strained and will only get worse. the poor and hungry don't give a sh*t about carbon emissions. in fact they'll emit tons burning everything in sight as fuel.




Unscientific conduct.
By PKmjolnir on 12/24/2008 7:07:51 AM , Rating: 2
The sad part about the climate change issue is that whatever scientific foundation it may have had it's been tainted by politics, resulting in the substitution of the science part with majority vote and baseless belief.

Ask someone with no whatsoever education in science about global warming and he'll know for sure it exists, explain to him the issues of current models and he'll be think you're an asshole and liar because you violated his personal beliefs. Pay his friends to support your version, and he'll instead feel cheated because no one told him earlier.

So suddenly we have a situation where i can dictate the public opinion of the validity of scientific issues by being a heartless liar with a fat wallet. This is a bad situation, this should be apparent to everyone, no matter what their position on climate change is.

Whenever we have new science in the making(especially when it's highly abstract such as climate analysis) we need skilled people in both camps, and we need to listen to both camps too unless we want to find out the hard way that the prominent leaders of the field have been pulling our leg for the last few decades to bolster their own fame and profit.




Hogwash, Boneheads
By FPP on 12/24/2008 11:18:34 PM , Rating: 2
This is a real sicentist who has put the brakes on what is nothing more than a liberal hoax to tax energy.

Among these scholars is John R. Christy, Director of the Earth System Science center at U of Alabama and co-recipient of the 2007 Nobel peace prize.

It's time dispassionate scientists took over from posers like Al Gore. They are coming out and it's about time.




It doesn't matter
By Doogie on 12/25/2008 12:19:08 AM , Rating: 2
It doesn't matter if the climate is warming or cooling or if we caused it or if it is from the sun.

What matters is the worry about climate change has caused us as a race to reduce pollution. I don't know about you guys but I can't see the mountains clearly anymore in the summer. Asthma rates have been climbing, cancer rates have been going up. If a side effect of the panic over climate change reduces these by products as we go to solar and wind power plus better gas mileage I won't be complaining one bit.

Frankly I doubt there is much we can do about climate change because there is a very strong possible it is from the sun but we can make the air a whole lot better while we try to effect climate change. Heck if I'm wrong and it is man made even better if we clean up our act.




By trigg on 12/25/2008 2:05:06 AM , Rating: 2
   Carbon-dioxide is a building block of life on this earth. Without carbon-dioxide there would not be any life on earth.
All grass and trees, all vegetation, in short, all our food and all the food which the animals eat, is mainly made up of carbon from carbon-dioxide in one form or another.

When people burn fuel or something else burnable, carbon atoms from the fuel attach to two oxygen atoms from the atmosphere to form carbon-dioxide or CO2, which in turn is released into the atmosphere where it blends in as invisible gas.

The earth is constantly producing (making) carbon-dioxide in many ways, both from the sea and land, for instance by converting (rot, decompose) everything dead back into CO2 and by releasing it into the atmosphere again. The temperature is a big factor when the earth "makes" the carbon-dioxide and the warmer it gets on earth (by the heat from the Sun) the more and faster the CO2 is produced.

   The last century experienced a climatic warming trent and at the middle of the century the amount of carbon-dioxide in the atmosphere was about 300 Parts Per Million.  That is 3/100 of 1 percent. But at the beginning of this century the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere was up to about 360 PPM. That is about 20% increase in half a century.

  The amount of CO2 which people release now into the atmosphere is estimated to be about 3% of the total. The other 97% is released into the atmosphere by the nature it self.

In pre-historic times the amount of CO2 probably rose to over 5000 PPM of the atmosphere, or about 15 times more than it is now.
     
  The more the carbon-dioxide is produced and released into the atmosphere, the more the plant life will use of it, utilize it and thrive better.




By shachar2 on 12/25/2008 4:59:45 AM , Rating: 2
The same thing happened centuries ago when a scientist had the audacity to say that the earth revolves around the sun and was rightfully killed

What's the difference between that incident centuries ago and this one? besides us being "civilized" and the new guy not getting killed

This is just me a bit mad this isn't right there should be a law or a guildline against it.
If he wanted to keep his job all he needed to do was babal mambo jombo about the earth heating up and blame someone (us).

This just proves what some scientists were saying all along: this debate is more political and less scientifical




By William Gaatjes on 12/25/2008 6:09:42 AM , Rating: 2
Don't cheery pick data that shows cooler or warming periods. It is a tangled form of many variables. If you wish to understand, for example start to combine solar activities and the related effects, planet alignment, cumulative effects of the ocean's, the magnetic field variations, the effects of landmass and the effects of life on this planet for a few hundred thousand years. Then tell me what you see.

I will give you the answer, you cannot see it because we do not have the data. Therefore the only save way is to assume we play a role and make sure we create a closed balanced loop ourselfs. We need technological improvements now more then ever. And blind green hippies or greedy mindless pleasure cravers should not hold intelligent people back and their technological advancements back...




BS!
By LegalPhoton on 12/25/2008 4:27:46 PM , Rating: 2
"Happer is just another mediocre scientist in a tangential field"

Right. That's why he was director of energy research at the U.S. Department of Energy for two years. Many top scientists are in agreement with Happer, including the majority that make their living doing global-warming related research. How do I know? I've conducted on large scale NASA, NOAA and NCAR funded research programs and have discussed these topics with top researchers from around the globe. Global warming is a cash cow for academic research.




Scientific Studies???
By diggernash on 12/26/2008 9:13:51 AM , Rating: 2
It is amazing the number of people that will cling to science as an all knowing, all seeing deity. People collect, analyze, and publish all scientific data. This means that it is inaccurate, even if we put ourselves in a fantasy land where no science is conducted and payed for, solely to advance the political agendas of others. In any data set as large as world wide temperatures, the way you analyze the data has more to do with the outcome than the data set itself.

Every religion has to provide a resolution to the question, "How does the Earth end?" Why would you expect science to be any different?




Research not Modeling
By Claydough on 12/26/2008 11:30:23 AM , Rating: 2
Personally as a society we should be putting more money into Research (i.e. bigger data sets) then throwing money at Modelling.... all modelling is at best is quess work. If forecasters can't predict accurately out to 7 days how can we believe the computer models are accurate for a earth wide system 50 years from now? I'm all for moving money to develop a larger research base so we have a better idea of whats going environmentally, whether that is global warming or not I don't care... knowledge is the key.




Isaiah 51:1-16
By hiscross on 12/26/2008 12:11:42 PM , Rating: 2
Global Warming is real and there is nothing man can do to stop unless he repents. GOD built this planet and has a righteous plan to save it. The question we should all asked our self are we saved?




Martian temperature
By arisch on 12/26/2008 2:22:21 PM , Rating: 2
How come Mars' mean temperature is -46 degrees Celsius but has an atmosphere composition consisting of about 95% CO2? If co2 causes heat, then why isn't Mars hot?




GLOBAL WARMING
By JT545 on 12/27/2008 5:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
The Global Warming movement will destroy this country.




Anthropogenic Climate Change
By Stands4reason on 12/29/2008 2:23:45 PM , Rating: 2
Dr W Happer does not by any means stand alone in his views on the Climate Change issue.

There is considerable room for discussion on the different theories relating to climate change. I suppose I would be considered a 'mediocre' analyst, but I have worked through some of the theories. I do not find that the numbers produced by the IPCC stand up to close scrutiny.

Whilst the Ground Station temperatures showed an increase, sonde ballon and satellite readings showed a slight decline. However, like Dr Happer, I conclude that there have been changes in climate ranging from the Global Cooling scare of the seventies to the Global Warming scare of the latter part of the 1990's.

The truth is that there has been no INCREASE in global average temperature observed this decade although this decade average is higher than those immediately preceding it. In fact cooling has again been observed in 2008.

In fact many eminent climatologists have indicated that, because of the current poor level of understanding of the most prevalent green house gas, water vapour, and how radiation may be affecting cloud formation (which has a cooling effect), all theories on the cause of climate change are essentially inconclusive.

As water vapour appears to constitute over 90% of the total of GHGs and as natural CO2, CH4 (TRP = 21) and N2O (TRP = 310) occur in much larger quantities than the man-made contirbutions, the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is mathematically very weak.

One may find some indication of pathological science as purveyed by the IPCC in that they had to drop the infamous 'Hockey Stick' Curve due to a fatal mathematical flaw in the algorithm used to manufacture it. The HSC Was formerly the basis of their work. The IPCC was never created with a remit to objectively seek a cause for climatic variations...it was to show how mankind's CO2 emssions cause climate change (current trendy bandwagon = global warming)...hardly a firm starting point for objective research.

But, hey the bandwaggon is on the road and those who seek a return to science have an uphill struggle on their hands. Well done to speak out, Dr Happer!!! Much work to do challenging the climate zealots!




scant credibility?
By delfeld on 12/29/2008 2:32:30 PM , Rating: 2
"Scant credibility"? He is not saying that it is not true, but rather that he doesn't find it believable. This is a con job, and we don't need to fall for it.




global warming
By Arligoth on 12/30/2008 8:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
While realizing I'm coming late to the party, I thought I'd mention something I read about a year ago. There are some "reputable" scientists who say that there is no "Global Climate" other than in hopelessly simplistic computer models. There are dozens of highly complex and interconnected regional climates, all of which are changing constantly, affecting one another, etc., etc. I'm just a civilian, but the notion is intriguing.




By Nuke08 on 12/24/2008 9:53:39 AM , Rating: 1
you want to believe this MMGW garbage even though many respected scientists say it is folly. I feel sorry for you. BTW do you wear a tin foil hat on a regular basis. Cheers.




What about the polar bears?
By knowom on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
That's enough!!!
By BlendMe on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
One wonders who pays these guys
By BZDTemp on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By whiskerwill on 12/23/2008 3:02:22 PM , Rating: 3
You're right, snow on the beach in Malibu means the planet is heating up!


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By JasonMick (blog) on 12/23/2008 3:46:29 PM , Rating: 5
...And you both prove, that one sensationalist comment means an opposite sensationalist comment is coming soon...


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 5:32:47 PM , Rating: 2
For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. The ying to its yang if you will.


By mindless1 on 12/29/2008 2:59:46 PM , Rating: 2
yin, not ying


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By garbageacc3 on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
By ironargonaut on 12/23/2008 8:16:25 PM , Rating: 1
Then please explain how when the GLOBAL temp drops it is blamed on the el-nino/el-nina can't remember which one? If the global temp. average can be changed by a redistribution of the energy i.e. heat within the system then it is not really an accurate average. Which means the scientist who said it is an idiot or the measurements they use to base the average on are skewed to one geographical area.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Elementalism on 12/23/2008 3:07:59 PM , Rating: 5
Is Princeton not paying him?!?!?!?!?!?! Is Princeton in the pocket of big oil?

Who pays the scientists who preach global warming? Govts you say? Now why would govts want to scare people into giving up more of their wealth and power?


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:24:53 PM , Rating: 2
Not paying him enough, at least. His DOE job was much more lucrative (gov't research posts are, as a rule ~30-60% higher pay than the equivalent academic post, mainly because your research is dictated by the bureaucracy to a larger degree).


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By whiskerwill on 12/23/2008 3:31:26 PM , Rating: 5
According to many sources, Al Gore alone has cleared over $100M in profits from his global warming books, movies, speeches, and appearances. That doesn't count his investments in carbon-trading companies, which could wind up being many times as much.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 3:48:08 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
coal and oil companies take by exploiting our common resource: the atmosphere.
Yes because coal and oil obviously come from the sky.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 4:01:38 PM , Rating: 2
Then the plants take the CO2 in and break it up, push out oxygen and use the carbon to make their pieces. I would say the carbon will come right back, wouldn't you?


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 4:34:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not as quickly as you or I would like:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/co2_data_...
and http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/csiro/csiro-spo.h... (click "graphics")

For some reason, those darn plants can't just spread to cover 130% of the globe in one century!


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For some reason, those darn plants can't just spread to cover 130% of the globe in one century!
Irrelevant because as you said, oil and coal come from the sky.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:13:23 PM , Rating: 3
Learn to read, or point out how
quote:
it pales in comparison to the benefit coal and oil companies take by exploiting our common resource: the atmosphere.


means

quote:
oil and coal come from the sky.


Particularly when I clarify that fossil fuels and atmospheric oxygen are, in economic terms, "perfect complements" because they require combustion with atmospheric oxygen in order to be put to use.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 5:36:34 PM , Rating: 2
That is like a 29PPM jump in about 17 years. I don't see how that indicates anything but cycling. On top of that start factoring that we have cleared massive amounts of plants and it makes more sense that it would move up a bit.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 5:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Try 36% over preindustrial levels: http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/CO2_Simple...

And it's hard to explain exponential growth as a cyclical process... know what an exponential is in the frequency domain? Another exponential. Find me a geophysical process with an exponential FT, and I'll find you a beer.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 8:23:39 PM , Rating: 1
That is still less than 100PPM in about 250 years. Would you not agree those periods were spent doing a lot of deforestation continuing for most of the time till now? This could easily account for this increase. I'd like to see more data showing long before our heavy deforestation before jumping to any conclusions.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 8:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not going to do all of your research for you. There are entire fields of science devoted to this subject. Suffice it to say, the carbon cycle vegetative feedback is not as elastic as you suggest. Obviously it comes into equilibrium eventually, but it kind of matters if the timescale for this adjustment is 10 vs. 10,000 vs. 1 million years. Most geochemical weathering feedbacks are on the latter timescale, and vegetative feedbacks (if indeed they are negative) are certainly longer than 1,000 years.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 9:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
Can somebody explain the rating system on DailyTech's comments? I'm just stunned to see Spuke ("Yes because coal and oil obviously come from the sky") getting marks of 5, when clear statements of fact with references get buried into the red.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Gzus666 on 12/23/2008 10:59:06 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I'm not going to do all of your research for you. There are entire fields of science devoted to this subject. Suffice it to say, the carbon cycle vegetative feedback is not as elastic as you suggest. Obviously it comes into equilibrium eventually, but it kind of matters if the timescale for this adjustment is 10 vs. 10,000 vs. 1 million years. Most geochemical weathering feedbacks are on the latter timescale, and vegetative feedbacks (if indeed they are negative) are certainly longer than 1,000 years.


I didn't ask for the run around, I asked for your thoughts and answers on things. I am starting to question your intentions as being just a random fact spouting machine that you pre-prepared rather than actually knowing the things you claim.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 1:52:55 AM , Rating: 3
And I'm not going to attempt to answer inane and irrelevant questions accompanied by bizarre claims of explanation like:
quote:
Would you not agree those periods were spent doing a lot of deforestation continuing for most of the time till now? This could easily account for this increase. I'd like to see more data showing long before our heavy deforestation before jumping to any conclusions.


All of this stuff is covered in basic textbooks on the carbon cycle. Some good places to start:
http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/Water...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_cycle

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?s...

As I said, this is all stuff which has been worked out time and again in great detail. There's always new research in the field (it will not cease to be interesting any time soon), for example a recent Nature geosciences paper indicating greater-than-expected carbon burial in Australian soil. I'm not an expert in geochemistry or photosynthetic respiration, but I've read all of this material and a number of other sources -- enough to know that there is no question about the origin of the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By porkpie on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By walk2k on 12/23/2008 4:03:52 PM , Rating: 2
Oil profits also go to lobbyists to keep climate change legislation off the books. Pull your head out.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:43:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oil profits also go to lobbyists to keep climate change legislation off the books. Pull your head out.
That's obviously not working. Pull YOUR head out.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By ebakke on 12/23/2008 6:03:38 PM , Rating: 3
Part of every industries profits go to lobbying to ensure legislation isn't passed (or ignored) that would limit their future profits. The oil industry lobbies just like the agriculture industry lobbies - to protect its interests.

The assumption or insinuation that the oil industry is different, or somehow worse in this regard is getting old.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By ebakke on 12/23/2008 6:04:07 PM , Rating: 2
*industry's


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Ringold on 12/24/2008 1:44:50 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Whatever Gore has made, it pales in comparison to the benefit coal and oil companies take by exploiting our common resource: the atmosphere.


Unfortunately, that doesn't hold water. The coal industry is quite excited about clean-coal technology, technology no longer a theory but operational reality now in Germany, even if it is slightly more expensive. Environmental advocacy groups continue to claim that there is no such thing as clean coal, and last time I made the rounds at all the major environmentalist websites they all objected to clean coal in the guise of carbon sequestration. So please, let no one pretend environmentalists actually care that coal uses the atmosphere, a common resource. The solution is on the table to remove that use, or at least the negative part of its use, and these people still do not care.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Ringold on 12/24/2008 4:37:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As far as I'm concerned, coal is the enemy of the human race.


Oh boy, here comes the Church of Global Warming morality. You can pretend to be balanced and have a even keel all you want, but while you link to some textbook, I'll link you to the real world.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/SmartHome/story?i...

quote:
The opening of the plant divided environmental groups in Europe. Some regard CCS technology as a potentially valuable weapon in the battle against climate change, while others see it as an expensive distraction from the pursuit of cleaner renewable-energy technologies.


That was just the first thing I happened to click on in Google, there are many articles covering the story, but I quoted the above. What that part above really means is that there are two groups of environmentalists in this world. There are those whose concern is science and the environment and who advocate moderate responses, not extreme ones, and have an open mind to solutions. The second group are the brain-washed anti-energy zealots who, knowingly or not, advance a Marxist agenda. The only good energy is expensive energy, as cheap energy allows mankind to continue to and expand upon its prosperity -- which, in case you haven't swung by Greenpeace's website lately, human prosperity is a bad thing. You sound to be leaning towards the latter group to me with this blind rejection of clean coal. They also oppose nuclear -- go figure.

At any rate, utility companies clearly think you and whatever text book you cite is misguided, as they are happy to invest large sums of money in the technology if they need to. Between one of those planned 1000mw plants that can run 24-7, rain or shine, and a huge sprawling field of solar panels that produces power part of the time, at high cost, or wind power that is variable and isn't available nationally, I'll take a 1000mw new clean coal plant.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 4:58:45 PM , Rating: 1
I would characterize burning three times as much coal in order to sequester the output as an extreme, rather than a moderate response. I don't know how you pin that on morality; I pin it on common sense. And of course coal and utility corporations love it, because burning three times as much coal gives them a hell of a lot more business. I also resent that you bin me with Greenpeace, claiming that I am against nuclear power because I don't buy into the clean coal myth. I happen to be a strong supporter of nuclear energy, and I have evaluated fuel distribution and storage on-site in France, where I was much impressed by their willingness to move beyond scare tactics and engineer solutions to the inherent risks.

You've obviously been reading the wrong sources on the availability of renewable sources, as solar and wind power are largely complementary. Using smart grid technologies, it is easily possible to provide more like 70% of electricity by wind, hydro, and solar alone, the slack being taken up by a limited number of nuclear, natural gas, and coal plants (in that order). With improvements in storage technology, which will inevitably come, it will be possible to increase that margin much further. All we need is better batteries, and connecting PHEVs to the grid is a very good start to that.

Feel free to continue to consider me to be a 'religious marxist zealot,' but I hope that my rational description of the problems and possible solutions will convince you and others that the only polarizing politicization is coming from your end of the table.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 5:01:23 PM , Rating: 2
^^^ Forgot to include a link to a nice quick article on the complementary nature of solar and wind power: http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/12/could-t...


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Ringold on 12/25/2008 5:11:02 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
I would characterize burning three times as much coal in order to sequester the output as an extreme, rather than a moderate response.


Maybe you're just not up on the progress of things. New coal plants can get around 45% efficiency; clean coal technology can achieve slightly more than 30% according to wikipedia, though I believe I saw a European pilot plant which had 35%. I'm not sure how that translates to "three times more coal."

The wiki entry is also interesting; environmentalists don't even hardly raise the out-dated points you do, they instead give laser-like focus on the environmental damage of mining, transportation, etc. I find that to be revealing in and of itself!

quote:
And of course coal and utility corporations love it, because burning three times as much coal gives them a hell of a lot more business.


Do explain why a utility company would make more money by having higher operating costs. Keep in mind also that utilities are often regulated, and governments may not let them pass on just unlimited cost increases. Obviously coal miners would like clean coal technology if it were highly inefficient, but coal mining firms are usually separate from utility companies. Even a vertically integrated firm would strive for a solution that used the least coal possible, as coal mined but not used in their own operations could be sold to the market.

Beyond the engineering, the fatal flaw is visible if you just follow the money. Utility firms see a future that will soon mean they are charged for each ton of CO2 they emit. They see the progress made in a variety of fields; solar, wind, nuclear, as well as coal. Some invest minimally in solar and wind to meet mandated minimums or for PR, a few happen to have access to truly great renewable resources and use them, but following the money (and the CEO's comments) it's clear they think the best solution is nuclear, or, barring that, clean coal to power the future. When making these investment decisions, they're thinking of the grid, likely future government policies, etc. So while I don't know the engineering involved in carbon sequestration, I do know that betting against the market is a good way to go broke.

quote:
I happen to be a strong supporter of nuclear energy


Thats to your credit then! I apologize.

quote:
You've obviously been reading the wrong sources on the availability of renewable sources, as solar and wind power are largely complementary.


Only limited parts of the US are viable for wind power, leaving only solar.. such as here in Florida. I do know that the theory is that conventional, possibly fossil fuel fired, plants would exist to take up the slack should renewables not be renewing on any particular day. In reality though, when environmentalists fight tooth and nail every new powerplant that utilities try to build, I have no reason to be optimistic that sufficient slack capacity will be allowed to exist. I cite California's insane energy policies and situation as evidence of that.

Even here in Florida, and admittedly perhaps this state is not normal in all respects, but in my life time I've witnessed the nuclear power plants here (including one within eye sight, if I get up on my roof) not so much as blink at category 3 hurricane force winds. The same winds shut down the space coast for months -- but uninterrupted nuclear power made possible by a structure that is basically a wall of impenetrable concrete, rebar, etc. I somehow doubt commercial scale solar panel farms would fare so well. That leaves Florida with the expensive option of piping in renewable energy from other states over a presently non-existant smart grid.

quote:
With improvements in storage technology, which will inevitably come, it will be possible to increase that margin much further.


In the long run, we'll have cold fusion reactors in every home. In the short term, clean coal is very nearly here, and nuclear of course already is here. Environmentalists like Greenpeace and Sierra club get under my skin because they refuse to give any ground at all in the short term to help bridge society in to the future. We'll have many options by 2030 or 2040 -- but in the mean time, the whole world faces huge increases in electricity demand by just 2015.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By andrinoaa on 12/24/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Ringold on 12/25/2008 5:23:25 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
You guys must be arguing about the cause , right?


I'm not sure I've ever really argued that. I've expressed disbelief at the "consensus," and think it arrogant a civilization that just 30 years ago wasn't sure what killed the dinosaurs now believes it can successfully model a planetary climate over long periods of time, but I try to stick to the economics -- and even when I do that, I assume global warming is true, because the economics tend to be that much against the proposals of people like Al Gore.

quote:
Some , like Masher have jumped on the "Bury it at sea" wagon.


The Germans are burying it under ground. Work for you? I think you might be talking about nuclear waste -- but then you'd be straying off topic.

quote:
If coal companies are happy to clean up their shit, I am more than happy for coal power stations.


Isn't that the point of carbon sequestration?

quote:
The problem, dickhead is that your "prosperity" is a fucking illusion. Hasn't the economic collapse shown you anything?


Oh, don't be such an idiot. If not for your blind adherence to what your liberal idols have told you, you'd probably be a smart guy. There are many contributing factors to this "collapse" (spoken like a spoiled child of the 90s who has no memory of what a real collapse is and is too lazy to read and learn what they were like), but environmental issues certainly isn't one of them, and energy prices may have only been symptom rather than an underlying cause; as global demand backed off, so did energy prices, suggesting some fundamental basis for the overall up trend of previous years. Unbalanced global growth (Americans saving too little, Europeans spending too little), lax global monetary policy after the last recession, and an international housing boom that went too far are all top candidates. I guess issues like hard money don't fit so easily in to your hate-capitalism bull, and easier to take jabs at, say, George Bush than Alan Greenspan.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By walk2k on 12/23/2008 4:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
How much of that has he donated to charity?

<crickets>

Yeah that's what I thought.

Pull your head out.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By ebakke on 12/23/2008 6:05:43 PM , Rating: 1
You didn't include any numbers or sources...

Did the crickets imply that the previous poster didn't know the answer, and that the answer was... a lot? Or did the crickets imply that Al Gore hasn't donated much, if any, to charities?


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jim28 on 12/29/2008 11:21:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actually it is well known that liberals are usually generous with other people's money. Look at the Obama/Biden ticket for charities. It was 1% or so before running for president and then it went up to around 5%? (Not sure and too lazy to look it up even though it isn't that hard.)


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By hemmy on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:31:06 PM , Rating: 3
dammit man - you're supposed to use proper case here -> 'Big Oil', or even better 'BIG Oil'. This is the proper use of class-warfare buzzwords that will allow us to get all the little guys to unite behind our cause.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:47:37 PM , Rating: 3
Big oil is a red herring to lead us astray from fighting the real monster: big coal. The oil companies are like friendly stuffed animals in comparison.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By ebakke on 12/23/2008 6:06:51 PM , Rating: 2
And here I thought bigger was better.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By RMSe17 on 12/24/2008 5:27:59 PM , Rating: 2
Wow Jenga, I lost count of how many times you replied in this thread.. must be really passionate about this global warming theory...


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 5:39:03 PM , Rating: 2
It's kind of a perfect storm: I'm stuck in an airport terminal with just my laptop and free WiFi, and Masher posts another one-sided (i.e., wrong-sided) article with no factual basis. What are the odds? Fortunately, karma seems to be in effect, and I've just gotten a free first class upgrade on a non-canceled flight which gets me where I'm going just in time for x-mas dinner. Cheers and happy holidays.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By walk2k on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 3:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Concerned scientists and environmental leaders - profit motive = $0
Because Al Gore doesn't make a dime from the man made global climate change warming. And scientists don't get grants from researching man made global climate change warming. Oh yeah, no one makes a dime here.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By walk2k on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By porkpie on 12/23/2008 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 5
Are you serious? Gore has made ten times more than the past five VPs combined. His fame and wealth have EVERYTHING to do with his anti-global warming tirade.

"Big Oil"'s money goes to shareholders, not scientists. The tens of billions that government and environmental groups pays pro-AGW scientists and policy pundits goes directly to them. We've created a whole class of people whose jobs depend on keeping the fear tactics rolling.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By FPP on 12/25/2008 6:20:43 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly correct. It is the liberals version of the missile gap they trotted out in the 1960's proven to not exist.
The liberal intelliguista relies on the false enemy to sell their ideas, because they cannot gain and hold power to their satisfaction on their own merits.

This sciences is rationale-based, not hypothesis-based. These so-called experts see a phenomena and then blame it on global warming, when no controlled or provable link of any kind exists. This makes virtually everything either a cause or effect of global warming.

Consequently, this becomes a religion. Gore is the Pope, Acadamia is his house of cardinals, and the public ed system is his diocese-system. Control over the scientific community is asserted by liberal politicians who have their challengers blacklisted as in the case of the state meteorologist in Oregon, where the position was defunded because he did not agree with the commie governor.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:47:25 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
As for grants, are you seriously going to sit here and compare non-profit university and other research insititutions with the $TRILLIONS of dollars made by Big Oil?
Are you seriously going to compare d!ck lengths? Gore and friends still MAKE money off of this. Making money is making money. Who determines which is evil when they're both generated from the same source (exploitation of carbon)?


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Jim28 on 12/27/2008 12:47:28 AM , Rating: 1
There is a difference.

Big oil makes lots of money providing a needed commodity, energy, to the people. So at least you get something for the money you pay.

Al Gore an all the Global Warming idiots do not povide a product ot service to anyone but themselves. THey then pubicly judge and damn everyone to green hell when they themselves do not practice what the preach at the church of green trees and judge everyone else. So far the only thing the global warming idiots have provided is jack shit. And jack left town. (Anyone remember that line?)


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By Natfly on 12/23/2008 4:08:32 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Besides, what happens if we're wrong? We end up with cleaner air and water and more efficient energy sources. It's a win-win so why not?


We end up spending trillions of dollars in a knee-jerk reaction that essentially makes a global live-action reproduction of Chicken Little - The Sky is Falling.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By meepstone on 12/23/2008 4:07:12 PM , Rating: 3
i live in florida and we just got overa month of 50 degree weather. i dont remember it being cold for this long ever. apparently global warming is taking affect.


By Cheesew1z69 on 12/24/2008 9:18:17 AM , Rating: 1
No we didn't....I live in Fl too and it was not that cold all month.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By bpwilldo on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By kayronjm on 12/24/2008 1:20:36 PM , Rating: 2
Due to most molecular energy absorption transitions in the carbon atom being very forbidden (due to the structure of the molecules), carbon is one of the least photon-absorbing molecules present in our atmosphere. It does not contribute much to the greenhouse effect, at least no where near as much as water molecules from water vapour. THAT is the major culprit in the greenhouse effect!
Over 65% of it is due to water vapour's presence in our atmosphere. A simple quantum mechanical analysis of these allowed transitions will show you that even on a large scale, man-made gases do not impose much of a greenhouse effect.

Also consider that if more of the Earth's ice melts and there is more evaporation into water vapour, thus increasing the water vapour quantity in the atmosphere. This will naturally lead to more and larger cloud formation which directly translates to lowering temperatures as more of the Sun's direct radiation gets reflected back into space.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By FPP on 12/25/2008 10:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
Easy. It is the Global warming cabal that pays them. This guy is just another scientist who got on the blacklist that Gore and the liberal facists have for those who are willing to dissent.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By FPP on 12/25/2008 11:09:02 AM , Rating: 2
This is how Al Gore repaired his career. After 2001, he became this 300 lb. alchoholic, speaking incoherently, because his handlers were no longer controlling every word out of his mouth.

By latching onto this subject, he managed to charm the pants off the Nobel committee, in an utterly bewildering display of scientific ignorance on their part.

As a result, he got speaking gigs to generate cash, got on several boards so he can try to steer legislation, all with the greenback flowing towards him.

Now, with the liberals in office, they can blacklist scientists, get them fired from their postions, control the funding machine, and the outcome of the pseudoscience of the age.

This is not science: This is a religion, just like Michael Creighton said. Like the Catholics, they are setting up a theorcacy, with Gore, or some other person as the Pope. Like the 1500's, they wish to be a law making body. They will conduct an inquisition if necessary, to achieve their goals. They want Acadamia to be their church, withblind followers, the scholars as their cardinals and a public ed system as their missionaries. The Nobel committee is the official rubber stamp, the guarantor of the new belief.

This is the face of religion in the 21st century. Now on your knees and pray!


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By FPP on 12/25/2008 10:58:23 AM , Rating: 2
We know who pays them.

This science is not real Hypothesis-based science. It is rationalization-based. The scientist has a theory about C02 warming the planet, but cannot either tie C02 to the warming, or prove, conclusively, that the planet is even warming.

Consequently, they launch into computer model studies, with parameters that generate a desired result, or point to every kind of global phenomena and rationalize global warming as the cause of all of them.

The liberal intelliguista, knowing this is a way to expedite their luddite environmental philosophies, latches onto this as fact. Anyone disputinng it is descended upon, losing their job, or being blacklisted for funding. Extremist Jihadists like Dr. Hansen at NASA, acting on both their blind beliefs and their runaway egos, fix temperature numbers to fit their pseudoscience, and are caught in the act by amateur scientists as pirinted on this website.

Is this the science of this generation? No thanks!


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By masher2 (blog) on 12/26/2008 6:33:44 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Over 65% of it is due to water vapour's presence in our atmosphere. A simple quantum mechanical analysis of these allowed transitions will show you that even on a large scale, man-made gases do not impose much of a greenhouse effect.
Water vapor has a much wider absorption spectrum, sure. However, some of the most compelling research I've seen recently indicates that, in extremely cold periods, CO2 does become a significant GHG. But, as the planet warms and water dominates in the atmosphere, CO2's effect becomes minimal.

This is some of the first modelling that doesn't contradict the actual paleoclimatic record of the planet. We know that past events of extraordinarily high CO2 never led to runaway warming before. But we also know that ice ages didn't begin until CO2 levels dropped to modern-day levels, triggering what appears to be a degree of climate instability.


RE: One wonders who pays these guys
By FPP on 12/30/2008 3:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
What is Notable here is that the Clinton administration thought well enough of him to hire him and then, once he actually did his job by being honest in his opinion, they fired him for it. Now, the Global Warming nazis seek to dismember him, after a lifetime career of excellence.


Whaty, Whaty?
By skipulrich on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: -1
RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/2008 3:38:07 PM , Rating: 5
I understand how desperately you wish to discredit all skeptical scientists, but Dr. Lindzen of MIT (who I have spoken with myself) has never stated anything like "smoking doesn't cause cancer". Lindzen has said many times that the risks of passive smoking (i.e. second hand smoke) have been overstated for political purposes -- a view shared by many epidemiologists.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:42:56 PM , Rating: 2
And supported by the data. Second-hand smoke did not, in fact, meet the statistical requirements to be classified as a Class A Carcinogen.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By Jenga on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By masher2 (blog) on 12/23/08, Rating: 0
RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By Spuke on 12/23/2008 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
but I'm pointing to the absurdity of a scientist with little knowledge of an external field professing to be an expert in it.
I think it's absurd that people that are not qualified AT ALL are commenting on who's qualified and who's not.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:25:33 PM , Rating: 4
I love it when people pull statistics out of their ass to justify a point they obviously care so little about that they can't be bothered to cite their numbers.

Or, maybe I'm being too hard here - maybe '99%' was more of a figure of speech. Still, we're talking about scientific data here... aren't we?


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By Jenga on 12/23/2008 3:37:10 PM , Rating: 1
It's hard to take a poll of scientists that everyone will accept (where you draw the line between "expert in relevant field" and "non-expert in irrelevant field" is extremely grey in climate science). But FWIW:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/570...

quote:
"The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."


And almost all of those papers were written long before the politicization of the issue (the study came out in 2004, and the avg. year of publication of the papers in the study was 1998). Ah, those were the days -- when scientists could say something, and people would take it at face value, or at worst shrug and walk away, having not understood the issue in the 30 seconds they devoted to it.

That's a finding that only surveys of "state meteorologists" (aka TV weathermen who pass a two-page true/false quiz on identifying clouds), or those conducted by the Heartland Institute dispute. (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on...
)

But I'll grant that the number is not 100% by any definition -- the real question to ask is, what is the most informed view a person can take. I believe that Carl Wunsch is the person to listen to here, as he is an extremely skeptical scientists who accepts almost nothing without very solid evidence: http://puddle.mit.edu/~cwunsch/
The truth is somewhere in the middle: we know some things, we suspect others, and we speculate on a few. It's always important to distinguish between these things, and the cautious scientist usually does good job at this.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By clovell on 12/23/2008 3:39:27 PM , Rating: 2
Nicely done. I'll take some time and look at Carl Wunsch. Happy Holidays!


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By icrf on 12/23/2008 4:23:58 PM , Rating: 3
I remember writing a report on global warming for high school chemistry class back in 1996-7, so it was popularized enough that I knew about it and would pick it as a topic. I came to the same conclusion then, with resources available at the time, that I do now: the global climate is changing, it has always been changing, but there isn't anything definitive that suggests it is human impact driving the change.

I wasn't a climate specialist then nor am now, but few people in the world with an opinion on this are, so all the rest of us can do is look at information and reports available and weigh them as we see fit.

I'm all for cleaner air and I'm not opposed to the changes, but lets drop the scare tactics and do it for the right reasons. We don't judge ideas by their own tangible merits anymore, the "greenhouse gas emissions" and "carbon footprint" just drown out other potential details, like long-term cost efficiency and sustainability or waste resource utilization.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By cmdrdredd on 12/23/2008 10:06:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually you're wrong, very receintly a gathering of scientists from all over the world all signed off on a paper written and discussed during the gathering/meeting that said that Global Warming is not man made and is simply a natural cycle. Period.

Now, the Democrats of the US and other liberal groups who actually participate in acts of terrorism and destriction of private property (remember the group that tore up that guy's Hummer?) would have you believe they were lieing.


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By Jenga on 12/24/2008 2:23:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
very receintly a gathering of scientists from all over the world all signed off on a paper written and discussed during the gathering/meeting that said that Global Warming is not man made and is simply a natural cycle. Period.


Wow, they said it just like that, huh? I bet all those "science" journals just assumed we all knew this, and left it to your uncle to report in a chain e-mail. Oh well! Surely he's a more reliable source than the scientific community!


RE: Whaty, Whaty?
By edwynmine on 12/24/2008 7:33:33 PM , Rating: 1
Actually he's talking about the NIPCC report:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/10/nipcc_manh...

Probably is, I should say. There's been 5 or 6 different reports signed by groups of scientists that say GW is a natural cycle.


"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki