Scientific Consensus?

[Gomer]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harold7

Market forces are doing exactly what you say you want MTA, high gas prices are forcing a reduction in driving, people choosing to buy smaller, more fuel efficient cars instead of SUV's and pickups already, however, since most renewable energy technology other than wind is still a long way from efficient and affordable application, the only way to get where you want to go in the interim is an increase of domestic oil production to mitigate the crippling gas price increases if we don't... can our economy survive if crude hits $200 a barrel or more, we can start converting coal to fuel for transportation on a large scale as well.... what are we going to do when the truckers can't afford to drive anymore?

I don't see how a massive application of new government energy bureaucracies, and taxation is going to do anything other than create 1933 all over again, but then maybe that's the intent...,allowing Obama to be the next FDR so he can implement what the Left has always wanted, FDR's Second Bill of Rights.

There is no short term transition from a hydrocarbon based economy to a Green energy system, the costs and logistics of such a change are insupportable unless you plan on creating a dictatorial, socialists system where the government can impose change through force.

The real solution is for the government to let market forces work, get the government out of the subsidy business for all of our economy, any government research money that goes to energy companies is only going to end up in the stock options and bonuses the executives give themselves, it's not their money so why should efficiency mean anything , the longer they drag it out, the more money the government will give to them... if they're forced to use their own corporate funds for energy research they have to answer to the stockholders for inefficiency and incompetence, the profit motive will drive innovation some thing government bureaucracy has never excelled at doing... you just have to have a business friendly tax environment to make it work.

Market forces are going to come up with the best solution for those at the top of the pyramid, not the bottom.

Like I pointed out in another thread... there is no profit to be made in using/selling any less of anything. Big Business has ZERO interest in reducing the demand for anything. The concept of conservation doesn't stand a chance against the advertising machine. Burn it in the government furnace? Burn it in R&D into alternative energy. Invest in efforts to increase supply and production??? We ought to be investing in efforts to reduce demand and waste!!!!!

Those companies that currently suck and scrape it out of the ground leaving a wake of destruction behind them have ZERO interest in seeing any success whatsoever in efforts to harness the massive amount of energy output by the sun, the tides, and subterranean mass of the Earth. Who is going to invest in something like that that has a direct return on investment that is limited financially but an indirect benefit to society that is immeasurable? This effort is suppressed by the machinations of the entanglement of Big Business with Big Government.

They are only interested in a product they can sell for $$$$. They are not interested in harnessing the power of the sun, geothermal energy, or the savings that can be had through improvements in efficiency.

The Big $$$$ energy companies have a vested interest in selling some form of something that costs money to produce. Big $$$$ encourages people to use more to sell more. They have no problem subsidizing wasteful products and they use their $$$$ force to suppress things that might result in people using LESS (opposition of CAFE standards). That is why they buy patents to viable alternative technologies in order to sit on them (e.g. large format NiMH tech).

Big Energy is not going to come up with the best solution for society. They are going to come up with the best solution for Big Energy. They are going to come up with the solution that allows them to continue to aggregate wealth at the top at the expense of those at the bottom. They are going to flex that $$$$$ influence in our government to ensure that the solution to the alternative energy problem is the most beneficial to their bottom lines, not ours.

What is wrong with mandatory recycling?
What is wrong with mandates requiring responsible packaging?
What is wrong with laws that would allow me to shut down the pipeline of waste flowing into my mailbox every day?

The only efficiencies big business is interested in are those that are pre-consumer.

Let's not add a tax to gasoline. Let's cut Big Oils' subsidies. Let's pour $$$ into a Manhattanesque Energy Project. A real one... not one that lines the pockets of corporate interests. Let's drive home the point that we don't have enough... and that using less is the same as making more. Regardless of what our long term solution is to the energy problem, conservation is going to have to be a keystone.

[MTAtech]

My advocacy of an oil authority that pumps oil from federal lands is based on the fact that the land belongs to the American people and they should benefit from selling their oil, not the oil company stockholders. In the past, oil companies have cheated the government out of royalties and although they're pulling it from government lands, they still sell it at market price.

Other federal authorities already have proven that they can manage energy. THE TVA provides electircity to millions. The Long Island Power Authority had to takeover the private Long Island Lighting Company when LILCO mismanaged the company.

[Theophylact]

Nobody ever does anything until there's an emergency. Then they throw money at it until they solve the immediate problem; but that's hardly efficient. We could have saved trillions of dollars and billions of tons of CO2 if we had started developing alternate sources of renewable energy in the 70s. But practically the first thing Reagan did when he got in was to kill the funding for SERI (now NREL).

Now, of course, everything will be much costlier, and years have been lost.

[MTAtech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Theophylact

But practically the first thing Reagan did when he got in was to kill the funding for SERI (now NREL).

Not to mention ripping down the solar panels on the WH that Carter installed.

[Harold7]

Well Gomer, we agree about something at last... I say do away with all federal subsidies to every form of business, whether farms or hi-tech, automobile or anything else... let them spend their own money for research, market demands will let them know where the profits lie and they can invest accordingly.

Big Business, Big Oil, whatever you call them really has no control over demand of a finite resource, if they aren't allowed to provide more to meet demand market competition will produce a less expensive alternative in response to price increases of what BB(Big Business) or BO (Bog Oil) produces.

In a fair, competitive market the consumer's demand is what drives price and product... in the oil market demand is out-pacing supply, so prices go up... if BO isn't allowed to provide new supply to meet the demand you really can't say they have any control over the price of oil, American BO controls a very small percentage of the world oil market.

MTA...So who wrote the legislation that allowed the oil companies to cheat the government out of royalties for the leases they bought, I'm sure it wasn't just those evil, rascally Republicans alone, I'm sure there were some Democrats helping as well, I'm not sure what expertise the government has in drilling for oil and gas, but most likely they'll put the process out for competitive bid, so you'll still see BO involved unless some foreign oil company gets the contract and then there go all those high paying union jobs for Americans to foreign companies... of course if Maxine Waters, D-Calif. has her way BO will become government run BO and then all the stockholders are the ones getting screwed... you know pension funds among others.

[Sarah L]

Real RENOWNED Scientists are tired of this junk science.

Factors pointing to the Sun, greater disruption of RF communications worldwide over the last 20 years.

Warming signs on both Mars (greatly diminished polar ice cap) and Jupiter(greater changes in storms, increase in storms).

Proven cause of past cooling and warming events of the Earth.

Good enough for me. Very heavy weights pointing at that big light bulb in the sky. You know the thing responsible for all weather on the Earth in the first place.

Like putting a ton weight on a scale measured against a 10 pound weight.

[Sarah L]

DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

Quote:

Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure. But now, that evidence has been supplanted by hard scientific fact. All four major global temperature tracking outlets (Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH, RSS) have released updated data. All show that over the past year, global temperatures have dropped precipitously.
A compiled list of all the sources can be seen here. The total amount of cooling ranges from 0.65C up to 0.75C -- a value large enough to wipe out most of the warming recorded over the past 100 years. All in one year's time. For all four sources, it's the single fastest temperature change ever recorded, either up or down.
Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.
Let's hope those factors stop fast. Cold is more damaging than heat. The mean temperature of the planet is about 54 degrees. Humans -- and most of the crops and animals we depend on -- prefer a temperature closer to 70.

Historically, the warm periods such as the Medieval Climate Optimum were beneficial for civilization. Corresponding cooling events such as the Little Ice Age, though, were uniformly bad news.

Update 2/27: The graph for HadCRUT (above), as well as the linked graphs for RSS and UAH are generated month-to-month; the temperature declines span a full 12 months of data. The linked GISS graph was graphed for the months of January only, due to a limitation in the plotting program. Anthony Watts, who kindly provided the graphics, otherwise has no connection with the column. The views and comments are those of the author only.

[Sarah L]

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton, the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is an atmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I have learned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental consultant and former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg.

Natural Resources Stewardship ProjectUnderstanding Climate Change: The Natural Resources Stewardship Project reconsiders the Kyoto Protocol (Kyoto Accord) and Canada's environmental policy.

[Pexster]

Quote:

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on. No more than anecdotal evidence, to be sure.

The "anecdotal evidence" noted above does nothing to disprove global warming theories. In some cases, it may even support them. The author clearly needs to do some homework, and I stopped reading after that first paragraph.

[Sarah L]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pexster

The "anecdotal evidence" noted above does nothing to disprove global warming theories. In some cases, it may even support them. The author clearly needs to do some homework, and I stopped reading after that first paragraph.

And you missed the hard science that followed.

Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil, See No Evil.

Guess the Climatologist in my other article is off your Christmas list. Want another Climatologist? Hmmm? Saving a really good one just for you guys. You see its a big stinking pile that Climatologists all agree on your so called science. Some of the Premier best are speaking out, but you would know that if our press bothered to publish what they have to say.