The National Research Council, an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, has been commissioned by the U.S. Congress to conduct a massive review of the body of scientific research conducted on climate change. Yesterday, in order to communicate the results of that review, that council released three reports. One of those reports, entitled Advancing the Science of Climate Change, focuses on the state of the research process itself.
On the question of the reliability of climate change research, the National Research Council report concludes:
“Science has made enormous progress toward understanding climate change. As a result, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that Earth is warming. Strong evidence also indicates that recent warming is largely caused by human activities, especially the release of greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Global warming is closely associated with other climate changes and impacts, including rising sea levels, increases in intense rainfall events, decreases in snow cover and sea ice, more frequent and intense heat waves, increases in wildfires, longer growing seasons, and ocean acidification. Individually and collectively, these changes pose risks for a wide range of human and environmental systems. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”
http://publiccitizenenergy.org/
Tomas,
Any comments? Do you still deny that climate change is caused by human activities? If so I’d love to read your numerous scientific research papers on the subject. You must be more of an expert than all of these other scientists.
Uh… someone once sent an email to someone… uh… Al Gore has a big house… uh… you use light bulbs!
Global Warming is a natural occurance. More carbon was placed into the atmosphere during that last volcanic eruption than was done by industry over the last 5 years. Regardless…it’s about money…The Dean wants more funds for his school…so he will say what it takes to grind you fools into donating cash. But the general populus knows better now. The Green Affect is fading….and it’s about damn time. Time to roll the steaks over on the coals…
Tomas,
Now I know you are speaking out of your ass with no data backing you up. You said:
“More carbon was placed into the atmosphere during that last volcanic eruption than was done by industry over the last 5 years.”
That is absolutely FALSE!!
Read here:
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html
Human emissions of carbon dioxide are annually at least 100 times that of all of the world’s volcanoes combined.
FACT!
Tomas, your point about volcanic eruptions isn’t supported by actual scientific study, which concludes that volcanic eruptions have an extremely minor impact compared to human influences.
You’re actually ignoring a scientific review, the most thorough of climate change science that’s ever occurred in this country, because you just have some kind of vague sense that it’s not right?
Where’s your data, Tomas? Where’s your data?
My data comes from the same place your data providers get theirs…from their ass….Anyone can manipulate anything at anytime to prove their point to further their agenda. No I don’t buy it….never will….We are coming to the final stages of the last ice age, Global warming is natural occurance and you can not do anything to stop it, you can not change civilization’s behaivor, you can not tell people to step back in time to do things they were doing it 100 years or so ago. It’s foolish. You can live that way if you want to, can practice your that life style if you like, but you can not force me to do so…screw your mercury laced toxic light bulbs, you over priced insanely costly to insure hybrid cars, your food supply reducing ethonol, your unsightly inefficent wind turbine farms in my backyard and all the other “Tips to stay green” horseshit.
Let me just be clear on what you’re saying:
1. Data (which is another word for “pieces of information”) can be manufactured and made to look real at any time.
2. Therefore you can’t trust information as a basis from which to make decisions.
That’s a pretty interesting world view, Tomas, and it has some pretty stark consequences.
Tomas, do you actually believe that the National Academy of Science truly gets its data “from their ass”? If so, you’re not paying attention to the detail. Their National Research Council spent a great deal of time conducting the largest ever U.S. review of scientific data that had been collected and published in a huge number of studies by a tremendous numbers of scientists. They examined the validity of the data and the validity of the scientific analysis of that data.
If that’s not good enough for you, if you really believe that’s just pulling data “from their ass”, then your true problem with the science of climate change is that you don’t like science. You prefer a mystical, magical kind of world in which people peek their heads out the door and kind of get a rough hewn “sense” of what’s real.
Tomas, that’s fine for you to play around with at the individual level. For the rest of us, the stakes are too high.
It doesn’t really matter whether harmful manmade climate change is or isn’t real.
The government (we have been told) has spent nearly $100 billion over the past 20 years for conscionable men and women of science to develop research to support the AGW hypothesis. This hypothesis cannot be “proved” in our lifetimes or the lifetimes of our children and their children. Nevertheless, the Precautionary Principle says the research compels us to act upon the AGW problem that scientists have identified. Scientists and government officials have proclaimed a crisis. So what is the solution?
Manmade climate change has been caused by burning of fossil fuels, so the consensus tells us. Obviously, we must find an alternative energy source that replaces the use of fossil fuels. Are we doing this?
If global warming is the crisis that we are told, the development of affordable 24/7 alternative energy must be a national (and global) priority. This development will take time and cost a lot of money. But it’s not being done.
So far, the government has promoted biofuels, windmills, and solar panels to generate power, but these technologies have limitations that prevent them from replacing our reliance on fossil fuels. If/when carbon trading schemes are put in place, our industrial base and our transportation systems will have to pay (to whom?) for the carbon they consume. This is supposed to create an incentive to replace the use of fossil fuels with something else. But the “something else” doesn’t exist, except on small scales vis. wind, solar, etc. So the reliance on fossil fuels for the vast majority of our power generation will continue, and the price of everything will “necessarily skyrocket”. At some point in time, development of an affordable 24/7 alternative energy must be developed. Period.
Governments haven’t spent a penny for this development work. They have every incentive NOT to do so. A new, 24/7 alternative energy source will make carbon trading obsolete, as well as windmills, solar panels, and biofuels. To exist, the aforementioned actually REQUIRE continued reliance on fossil fuels to provide primary power to society. Stated differently, the existence of an affordable 24/7 energy source that doesn’t burn fossil fuels would replace fossil fuels, windmills, solar panels, biofuels, and cause the carbon trading (derivatives) market to become just as worthless as sub-prime mortgages.
Stated still differently, our government and a handful of big corporations have worked together to create a multi-trillion dollar scheme that “cannot be allowed to fail”, and which WILL fail if anyone ever actually invents an alternative 24/7 energy source. The masterminds behind this are truly evil, greedy geniuses.
Do we actually have a crisis? Is harmful manmade global warming real, or is it only a shill for selling us products we don’t need or for adding more taxes, laws, and regulations that dramatically change our way of life?
In the final analysis, there are only two ways to end our reliance on fossil fuels. One is to develop an alternative 24/7 source of energy. The other is to deprive society of fossil fuels.
What is the role of government in all of this? When will we have a coherent national energy policy? When will we have a WWII-style “Manhattan Project” to develop the needed alternative to fossil fuels? When will we proclaimed it a national goal to develop the alternative energy? Having spent $100 billion to identify the problem, when will the government spend at least as much to develop the needed alternative?
All we can do is watch our government parlay years of scientific research into grandiose schemes for making a select few rich beyond comprehension… schemes that must continue to rely on fossil fuels for their continued existence… schemes which will serve to redistribute the national wealth into the hands of the a select elite group… schemes which will do little to significantly reduce our use of fossil fuels.
So you see, it doesn’t really matter whether harmful manmade climate change is or isn’t real.
It isn’t at all true that “governments haven’t spent a penny” on developing reliable alternative energy.
I’d like to introduce you to Tom, JeffM. JeffM, meet Tom. You both agree that we’re going to hell in a handbasket and nothing really can be done to stop it. You guys could get together and start a small business together. Call it the Dichotomy Cafe, mebbe.
Hey Jim, thanks for the introduction. JeffM, glad to meet you. i think our civilization is collapsing (it’s a slow process, generally, but speeds up at times) from our misuse of the planet. The interacting effects of climate change are going to make life very difficult for our species (and a lot of other plant, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.) before long (geologically speaking). As Green Man and Jim point out weekly, measurements of these factors indicate the direction of things and it’s continually getting worse. We (humanity) aren’t listening or, more importantly DOING ANYTHING SIGNIFICANT about it, so it will continue. In fact, we’ve waited so long to do anything at all that now we have feedback loops kicking in that cause the release of even more harmful gases than CO2 (methane from melting tundra and permafrost areas like Alaska and Siberia). So now, even with a Manhattan Project attitude (which would take a while to get up and running) it’s most likely too late to affect the negative climate changes in the near future – the time frame that will cause the collapse of the ecology of the planet, the oceans becoming too acidic to support marine life, the climate becoming too erratic to grow enough crops (in industrial agriculture – enough to feed our population), and the like (including Peak Oil). We’ll see resource and water wars LOCALLY and all over the planet, panic, starvation, and chaos. Right now it’s just getting under way. We see it, but are too set in our ways to change our elitist way of living to do what’s needed. Nature may force us into these changes anyway for a while before making life unbearable. After the planet rids itself of us it may slowly begin to balance itself out, with only a very small human population left (living in very harsh conditions).
i’ve been saying this for a while, especially after reading and digesting all i can on the many facets of our condition. To me, it’s undeniable (the course we’re on). i don’t want this to be the case and hope i’m wrong (i have grandchildren), but it looks grim and when we continually are subjected to massive pollution (from oil spills to driving our polluting vehicles), our economic system based on debt, piss poor “leadership” from the people in power, and government(s) that don’t work for their constituents, the conclusion seems foregone.
Jim:
If you are saying that our government IS spending significant funds to develop a new 24/7 energy source, please elaborate!
For over 20 years, the government has very patiently paid $100 billion to “prove” that manmade climate change is harming the planet. It appears that the government got what they paid for to prove it is happening. OK, so what’s the solution? How many windmills and solar panels will it take to replace fossil fuel energy? How much corn will we have to grow to distill enough alcohol to power our transportation systems? If taxing carbon will make us burn less fossil fuels, our industrial production must decrease proportionately. Of course that will make us more dependent on foreign imports… until foreign producers not longer accept the dollar as payment. It appears our government is bent on orchestrating the collapse of the dollar. If so, it follows that we’re heading toward creation of a global currency, with a world governance to go with it. But I digress,
Without a new 24/7 energy source, we’ll have no recourse but to pay the government’s carbon tax, either directly to the government or to the big corporations who own the Chicago Climate Exchange. If our government is actually making an all-out attempt to develop the new energy source, it’s as closely guarded a secret as the WWII Manhattan Project to build the atomic bomb.
You say the government is developing the needed alternative energy. I say, “Tell us where you got this information.” All I see is the government creating a multi-trillion dollar “green” industry whose biggest threat to survival IS the development of alternative 24/7 energy. President Obama tells us it’s time for action. His words only translate into using less fossil fuels with nothing in existence to replace them, and (courtesy of his EPA) more intrusive regulations restricting our daily use of products that require fossil fuels to manufacture. Stated differently, the government has defined a problem (i.e., harmful manmade climate change), has not identified its solution, and is taking down a road that leads to God-Knows-Where. Creating a coherent national energy policy would be a prerequisite first step toward solving the problem. But our government is, instead, preoccupied with institutionalizing the new green industry and its part-time energy sources that can only supplement fossil fuels. Until we develop a new 24/7 energy source, the problem cannot and will not be solved.
Thanks for introducing me to Tom.
JeffM, you said “governments haven’t spent a penny” on the development of such energy. Clearly, they have. To disprove your statement, all I need to do is show you one such system. So all right, let’s pick one.
Wave-based ocean generators of electricity. The Department of Energy devoted $40 million in research funds to the development of wave-based generators. I anticipate you’ll say something about how that’s a pittance, but you said not a penny, and that’s not true. The $40 million also does not reflect research support through the likes of the National Science Foundation. The test beds off our coast are being used now in active development of the technology.
JeffM, I’m not saying more doesn’t need to be done. I’m rejecting your dichotomous approach to talking about it, which is to say that because not enough is being done nothing is being done.
Jim:
Your suggestion that wave based ocean generators could replace 24/7 fossil fuels is a bit of a stretch. The government has spent an average of about $5 billion per year over the past 20 years for research that supports the claim that mankind’s fossil fuel emissions are killing the planet. President Obama has proclaimed that it’s now time for action. Yet all we hear about is $40 million for wave generators? While the government desperately tries to pass a Cap and Trade style law to create a $10 trillion per year carbon trading scheme, just remember: If anyone should actually develop a 24/7 replacement energy for fossil fuels, the world financial system will collapse. There would no longer be a need for oil, gas, coal, windmills, solar panels, ocean wave generators, and carbon derivatives trading. The “green” industry would go bankrupt and the trillions of dollars per year would go up in the smoke (“smoke” screen for saving the planet) that it really is.
Thus, there can be no new, 24/7 alternative energy source to fossil fuels. I suspect that the $40 million thrown at ocean wave generators accomplishes nothing except to exist to feebly counter claims that the government is doing nothing. If the government spent $5 billion per year to identify the problem, and now proclaims the problem to be of crisis proportions, a response of tremendous magnitude would be expected. We haven’t seen such a response. We will not see such a response. The government is preoccupied with building the too-big-to-fail green energy industry… an industry which will continue and solidify our reliance on fossil fuels… an industry which will do little to nothing to stop mankind’s CO2 emissions. Going down this road, the only way government can significantly reduce manmade CO2 is to deprive our manufacturing and transportation systems of fossil fuel energy, with disastrous results.
In the final analysis, it matter little whether you and I are “Warmers” or “Deniers”, or whether our individual beliefs have validity. The government has paid $100 billion in public funds and patiently waited for scientists to identify this “problem“, and we now see where this is all heading. We are all losers. If years from now it can be proved that manmade climate change was not a threat after all, we’ll be stuck with the green industry and all of the government controls it imposed upon its citizens. If years from now it is proved that manmade climate change is real, we’ll still have to find that elusive, 24/7 alternative energy… if government will allow it to happen.