I’m attending New York Green Fest this weekend. The Green Fest promises to “celebrate sustainable living and Green politics”, but I’ve that even within this group of people who ought to be among the most environmentally aware, there are patches of of soot grey obscuring the green color.
One attendee from close by, who uses electricity obtained through the burning of coal that very likely is obtained through mountaintop removal mining, mentions her interest in organizing against the construction of wind turbine. She doesn’t want it in her backyard, she says.
Another attendee, a college professor, confided to me in private conversation that, “I’m not sure climate change is real.” She said that, though she’s not a scientist herself, she gathers that there is a great deal of controversy and disagreement among scientists about whether climate change is actually happening. She also speculated that the measurements of rising global temperature might be due to the “urban heat island effect”, with temperatures measured only in cities with increasing amounts of hot pavement. (Actually, where temperatures are measured as warming the most is in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all.)
It’s a testament to the effectiveness of corporate-funded misinformation campaigns that these ideas are coming up even amongst a gathering of Green Party activists. It seems that environmental education efforts need to take place as much within eco-oriented groups as without.
What is going on is more extremes in weather, higher highs, lowere lows, more and stronger tornadoes, hurricanes, and blizzards.
Human intervention in the climate has caused greater instability.
So its not specificly global warming though the rise in temperatures has been enough to cuase massive glacial melting.
Sick your heads in the sand if you wish but greater weather problems are ahead of us.
Hey, Les!
So why are there fewer hurricanes? Why are there fewer tornadoes in the Midwest? And why, as noted by geologist Robert Felix, are 90% of the worlds glaciers growing?
The problem with the claim that human activity is destroying the climate is that we are simply too small and insignificant to be capable of it. How can we even hope to compete with the Sun, volcanic activity, cosmic rays, and ocean currents?
And what of all the climate change that went on long before we even existed, let alone had an Industrial Revolution? How did we do that?
Face it, Les! We just don’t have that kind of power!
Fewer than when, Montag? Can you conceive of the concept of weather variation within larger climate changes?
Well, Green Man…
…I clearly recall Hurricane Katrina being blamed on Pres. Bush and his environmental policies. We were told (I believe that Algore said it, although I could be wrong) that we will see more and stronger storms of that ilk. None of which has come true as yet.
Mann’s various “hockey stick” graphs have been thoroughly debunked, so we can’t find any help there.
Yes, weather varies within a given climate, just as climate varies. And nothing we as humans do is powerful enough to counteract the various cycles of the Sun, orbits, vulcanism, ocean currents, and even climate variation. To believe otherwise is hubris of the highest order.
Not to be too picky, Montag, but the pace of hurricane formation was faster over the last decade than at any time for a thousand years.
Alright, Jim!
Then why is it that we are only up to Anna and Bill in this year’s hurricane season, which is almost over?
Because you’re using a different unit of time. Duh.
This reasoning is thoroughly circular.
AGW must be right, therefore any evidence, one way or the other, is proof that AGW is right. The fact is, no hurricane expert will dare say that AGW contributes to more and bigger hurricanes Since 2004, the frequency and severity of hurricanes had decreased, rather than increased. Further, average temperatures have declined since 1998 (Dr. Roy Spencer, using NASA data) and the Arctic icecap is at or exceeding 1979 levels.
Furthermore, no one has demonstrated that mankind has a greater impact on Earth than the Sun, vulcanism, ocean currents, cosmic rays or even the climate itself.
I stand by my statement that AGW is nothing but a myth put forward by those who would separate you from your money and your Liberty. You see, green really is the new red!
who wants to warm the earth? no one has billions to promote emitting even more CO2 except teh oil and fossil fuel companies.
Um, Green Man. Not all volcanos are constantly erupting or erupting with the same intensity. Secondly, how many times may have Larsen B broke off even a little bit and we didn’t know it because we didn’t have satellites or observers down there? This one documented case of Larsen B breaking off doesn’t constitute proof of AGW. See, that’s science, as opposed to religion. In science, you don’t always assume something just because it’s convenient to your weltanschauung.
So, for example, I wouldn’t have to come up with a scenario in which volcanoes never observed to be related to Larsen B ice sheet breakup are nonetheless responsible for it, on the basis of an assumption that Larsen B has been doing certain things while people aren’t watching, with no evidence left of these events?
Les, what increased storms? I live in tornado alley and though we’ve had a few this year, it is actually below average. I live in Texas, so we also suffer from hurricanes. And we haven’t had a named atlantic storm this year, yet. By the way, hurricane season starts June 1. So, you might try watching the news before you declare that we’ve had more outbreaks of severe weather. The biggest storm in recent memory was Katrina but it hit the Grand Isle, not New Orleans, as a cat 3 downgrading to cat 2. In 1954, New Orleans was hit by Bertha, a cat 3. Same problem then as this time. The levees broke and Lake Ponchartrain flooded the city. The Army Corp of Engineers re-built the levees to cat 3. In the years before 2006, they mentioned that the levees needed repair and should have been upgraded to withstand cat 5. In 2005, New Orleans had a bond hearing to vote money to beef up the levees. The leaders and citizens decided against it.
70 hours before Katrina’s landfall, Pres Bush had signed over fed disaster money and guard units and red cross were already stationed. After the storm, Mayor Nagan of New Orleans and Gov. Banco of Louisiana both denied the Guard and Red Cross access to New Orleans for fear of drawing more people into the city. Yet, people want to blame Bush for it. Then again, those are just facts. What do I know?
Here’s an idea. If people who DON’T believe in Global Warming DON’T believe in Global Warming, and people who “DO” believe in Global Warming DON’T believe in Global Warming, then maybe you few stragglers that actually truly do, are just incredibly stupid. I know that’s a tough reality to face, but the fact is there are those who lie outside the bell curve, and it has to be someone. Given the absolutely hilarious “proof” of global warming that some of you are offering, I’m quite inclined to believe that its you.
I am a chemical physicist. If I even felt any of you die-hards had the capacity to understand them, I could give you a thousand reasons why Global Warming is a laugable idea. But of course none of you would believe it because you are convinced that some evil military industrial new world order oil company has brainwashed me. An idea that ties in nicely with the conspiracy theory that explains why you are stupid and complete failures in life. It’s not because you are ACTUALLY stupid, its just that well funded forces beyond your control are throwing obstacles at you. Is that about how it goes?
Newsflash. You’re ACTUALLY stupid. The best thing you can do is trust the overwhelming majority of scientists who REJECT Global Warming wholesale. It is a hoax and it will cost you dearly. So you have to believe that, despite the contempt I harbor for your ignorance, that I am in fact telling you this for your own good. Take it or leave it, but you better be ready to own the outcome. Because you certainly will be paying for it.
Can I sum up there, Dubld? You are really smart, you have proof that global warming isn’t happening, and you could show us that proof if you wanted to, but you don’t want to show us that proof. And we’re all stupid.
I’m bowled over.
Global Warming is a hoax: The optical depth of CO2 is measured in single digit meters at 390ppm and increasing CO2 levels impact change in absorbtion at a logarithmic rate, the most prevalent greenhouse gas is H2O and its prevelence attenuates CO2 impact, and every single GCM model requires the fantastic to point of absurdity positive feedback level of about 400% to ‘jack up’ CO2 impact from a nominal 1.2C/doubling CO2 to much higher, mainly by incorporating positive feedbacks from clouds and water vapor … that are not based on realism, and indeed multiple studies (Spencer, others) have data contradicting these assumptions.
The models predict temp changes levels that the temperature data over the past 50 years does NOT confirm, indeed contradicts. They predict increases of 0.2C/decade, but CO2 increases about 40% in the past 60 years and the temperature increase was about 0.4C TOTAL, far below the model predictions.
Data has a funny way of contradicting bad models, and the data is disproving the bad IPCC models over time.
You can go to http://climateaudit.com to get educated as to the holes in the pseudo-science behind the AGW religion, or you can bask in your ignorance.
Ooops, that should be: http://www.climateaudit.org/
Climate Audit.
W-i-i-i-tch!!
The information campaign is much better funded than the “misinformation” campaign.
Much media attention has relentlessly focused on the influence of “Big Oil”—but the numbers don’t add up. Exxon Mobil is still vilified1 for giving around 23 million dollars, spread over roughly ten years, to skeptics of the enhanced greenhouse effect. It amounts to about $2 million a year, compared to the US government input of well over $2 billion a year. The entire total funds supplied from Exxon amounts to less than one five-thousandth of the value of carbon trading in just the single year of 2008.
Apparently Exxon was heavily “distorting the debate” with a mere 0.8% of what the US government spent on the climate industry each year at the time. (If so, it’s just another devastating admission of how effective government funding really is.)
As an example for comparison, nearly three times the amount Exxon has put in was awarded to the Big Sky sequestration project2 to store just 0.1% of the annual carbon-dioxide output3 of the United States of America in a hole in the ground. The Australian government matched five years of Exxon funding with just one feel-good advertising campaign4 , “Think Climate. Think Change.” (but don’t think about the details).
Perhaps if Exxon had balanced up its input both for and against climate change, it would have been spared the merciless attacks? It seems not, since it has donated more than four times as much to the Stanford-based Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP).5, 6 Exxon’s grievous crime is apparently just to help give skeptics a voice of any sort. The censorship must remain complete.
I do not believe CO2 is a climate driver, I believe that if the SUN didn’t shine t-morrow no amount of CO2 would keep us warm for more than 2 days… I believe in energy self sufficiency because of the enormous cost increases force on to individuals from our Govt, Energy that comes from renewable Hydro. So the Math goes out the window when a renewable power source is being exploited purely for more and MORE MONEY to pay the Money changers. Something does not add up. Skeptic.
The Math? The Math?!?
You don’t have any math, Pauls. The 2 on the end of CO2 doesn’t count.
I do not believe that demand is a driver of price on the stock market. If stock markets were declared illegal I don’t think you could sell anything on a stock market, no matter the demand!
I do not believe that electric ovens heat anything, I believe that if the ELECTRICITY were cut off tomorrow no electric oven would heat anything.
“… in the polar regions, where there are no cities at all”
… and hardly any actual thermometers…
Any cause of general average warming will warm the poles more than the tropics, and the Arctic winter varies year-to-year with storms and currents. The Antarctic, mostly sitting on solid rock, has much less variation. Penguins and polar bears have been around for at least half a million years and done fine in global climates 2 deg C warmer than today. Relax.
Craig, the fact that you think there are hardly any thermometers in the Arctic only shows that you’re ignorant of polar research programs. Why don’t you try to actually study the science before you take a position against it?
Oh, there are lots of thermometers, all recording dutifully. But their output has been almost entirely ignored since 1990 in favour of the much more “convenient” process of extrapolating measurements from a few more comfy installations around the fringes.
Are you joking, Brian? Not only are thermometers at the older stations still being monitored, additional systems for assessing present and past temperature have been established and tested and retested. Current understandings of temperature trends are based upon multiple consistent sources of information, not just “extrapolating measurements from a few more comfy installations around the fringes.”
Goodness me, where did you hear this nonsense?