Former Vice President Al Gore stuck his foot in his mouth while speaking at the Copenhagen climate change summit when he claimed that, "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr. Maslowski that there is a 75 percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years." Interesting but not so quick as the scientist that Gore quoted denied giving concrete numbers to which later Gore's office admitted that the figure was "one used by Dr. Maslowski as a 'ballpark figure' several years ago in a conversation with Gore" (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6956783.ece). Interesting error in science indeed, especially in light of those hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit.
While I do acknowledge that the climate warms and cools, I do not subscribe that it is as manmade that most on the left would like us all to believe. As I am writing this, Andrea Mitchell had Gary Hart and a former General on to discuss how climate change is a national security threat. The Left is losing the battle and has not gone to the bag of tricks that Bush used, i.e. WMD's, to push the climate change agenda. Let's all be honest, what is playing out in Copenhagen is not about being good stewards of the Earth; rather it is about plundering the coffers of the Industrialized World by Third World and developing countries. The EU has announced that it will give 500 million euro's to Africa and the Caribbean (http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE5BE1BI._CH_.2420) and the United States upped their ante that will be set at $9 billion for 2010. By the way it was President Bush that led to the tripling of "direct humanitarian and development aid" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/30/AR2006123000941.html).
That being said, it is time that we take a time out and look at the science of climate change. A friend of mine posted this webpage on my Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedaily.com%2Freleases%2F2009%2F11%2F091124140957.htm&h=a0758a2cd40ea99ae8b12077acd89c03 After reading the article I posed this question: Park says that "a strong correlations exists between sea-surface temperature and CO2 levels in the tropic areas. Conversely, in places with a lot of trees and other biomass to soak up much of the atmospheric CO2..." Wouldn't that lead us to believe that deforestation and the lack of biomass – will need a definition on that – is the root cause of the "inerannual time scales" that results in less CO2 absorption? So, shouldn't the push be for more forests and biomass instead of "Cap and Trade" legislation? Or did I read what he said incorrectly? It appears to me that Park is applying correlations found in tropical oceans to all waterways which does not equate when he says "in places with a lot of trees and other biomass" the oceans are able to absorb access CO2. Can't have it both ways…"
I have not seen an answer to this question. Perhaps someone here will help me understand or correct me if I am miss-understanding Parks report. All of this is why we need to have a robust debate void of emotion and political influence. Is that even possible? Plus, if Gore was told of the prediction by Dr. Maslowski took place several years ago, wouldn't that mean that we will see no polar ice cap in the next one or two years?
So...you're in favor of greater scare tactics instead of sound science, right?
ReplyDeleteLets talk about sound science...
An abstract must be written(why it was done), methodologies be presented, data compiled, conclusions reached, and finally it must be peer-reviewed by independent reviewers who also study the same field. These are the marching orders that are given anytime someone gets to publish their findings in a scientific journal. Climate scientists for years have been compiling this data only to come up with reasonable results to demonstrate that the climate is warming due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere brought on my manmade resources.
There is no agenda. Scientists do not care what Al Gore says. The national security debate is what politicians and TV talking heads bring up just to get the skeptics all blood-thirsty.
Conservative blogs and FoxNews(spurred by the energy industry) have provided no actual research themselves. They have provided no actual data, have not displayed any of their methodologies, nor have they had "findings" peer-reviewed.
Good science includes 2 attributes: validity and reliability. On the skeptic side, not one pile of information that gets announce on the conservative blogs or FoxNews has any validity nor reliability and yet, Viper, it keeps coming.
Do you really want a debate on climate change? Or are you just comfortable enough to watch the cable news programs so that you can make an informed decision?
Personally, I don't think that you've read very independently into what cap-and-trade is all about. Most climate scientists do not like it, simply because they don't think it goes far enough. Most energy companies would actually make out, but first they need to press on with the skeptic talk
Anon...I do want a debate on the science. The trouble is that our science is limited to just a section of the Earth's existance and they are trying to expand that to a bigger picture. There has been science done that is counters the "manmade" climate change philosophy. The trouble is that climate change is becoming a political hot potato and is a major push by the Left as the new bogeyman.
ReplyDeleteIt has been reported and not reputed by the climate control Left that while the northern ice caps are decreasing during the summer months the southern ice caps are increasing. If manmade climate change was real then why wouldn't the ice caps in the south be decreasing as well? Why, as Park pointed out, is the oceans in areas of adequate forestation and biomass is actually absorbing the CO2 in the area?
I agree that the media is putting their own spin on it. As I said, let's have a debate. Put those who believe in "manmade" climate change with their science on one side of the auditorium and put those that do not believe in "manmade" climate change with their science on the other side. Televise the event and hold the debate over a course of a week. At the end of the debate, we will have more informed people to make an accurate decision on the topic.
If man is truly, through coal plants, really attributing to the increase of CO2 and choking off the Earth's eco-system then why have "Cap and Trade". Why not eliminate all coal plants? Simply put we cannot as our economies would revert to the stone age. So, why not start building two or three nuclear power plants in each state and let those coal plants know that once they are operational the coal plants go bye-bye? Instead Congress, Dem's that is, want to develop a derivative market, which the Germans are already experiencing fraud in, to handle the CO2 emmissions. If CO2 is the enemy then eradicate it.
Also, why do you or anyone else not answer my question I had after reading Dr. Park's findings?
I actually read the findings and came to the conclusion that says...so what? Increasing the biomass will do exactly what? This was a news clip that showed ongoing research. For all you know the scientists just started and came up with some preliminary findings. Things like this are like recruiting calls for students to study with principle investigators who have an interest in supplying the world with more CO2 absorbing biomass-does it mean that the CO2 will decrease? That is why we conduct research. Does this adequately answer your question? Interesting topic but really does very little.
ReplyDeleteYou see, the real problem here is that you really are not interested in the science, just the debate...where is it written that the southern ice caps are increasing? I haven't seen it. Actually I have read the contrary, that the Ross Ice Shelf is disappearing at an alarming rate. I would be interested to see some ACTUAL scientific data on this. Of all the scientists who conduct the research, a vast majority of them hypothesize man-made global warming. So I guess what we (conservative America) will do is argue. We'll spit on those who research this. We'll tell them that their research is all a hoax and that they are ridiculous to even come up with such theories. This is the conservative blogs and Fox news way of debating.
Now if you are skeptical, thats fine. But where I have the problem is those who consider it a hoax. Hoax...really? So many climate scientists achieving the same data? Wow...
Are you familiar with the sulfur-dioxide problem in the 80's and 90's? Sulfur-dioxide is a pollutant from the burning of fossil fuels. It is the primary cause of acid rain. How did the US become so remarkably successful in reducing the SO2 emissions by over 33% since 1983? From an emissions trading program like cap-and-trade. Is it nuclear power you want? Sure, but the cost is substantial. Plus the waste for them is an issue for dispute.
As one who sees both sides of the issue, you seem remarkably as one who only is seeing one side. It is almost like you and the other conservative bloggers are waiting patiently for the science to disprove itself. It's been about 40 years...hasn't happened yet.
I do want a debate on the science. There is science swirling around the issue of "manmade" climate change. I'd like to line up the science for those that believe in "manmade" climate change against the science that displays skeptical findings. Let's set aside the media, let's set aside the politics, let's set aside the emotional attachment to this issue and put the sciencitific data to the test.
ReplyDeleteI do recall the acid rain issue but honestly do not recall what was done to reverse the trend. Yes, there is a substantial costs to building nuclear power plants. The waste issue is nearly a non-issue if we do one thing; repel the law signed by President Carter to allow for the re-using of spent rods. The technology has progressed to re-use spent rods more safely than during the 80's. France currently re-uses thier spent rods thus reducing nuclear waste.
To get back to the science of the climate change debate. I don't see the debate as a "Hoax" as many conservatives do because the natural ebb and flow of the climate exists naturally without any influence from man. Does the things we do on Earth affect the atmosphere, sure. But the bigger question is what are the major contributors? And if Dr. Park's assessment is accurate than I'd say the deforestation and lack of biomass is the main culprit. How do we know that melting ice caps and the opening of the northern passage is a bad thing? Maybe this is a good thing.
So you think that the fact that the CO2 has rising in the last 100+ years, coinciding witht he industrial reveolution, to levels not seen in 16 million years is just a coincidence and not man made?
ReplyDeleteThe signal largest emitter of CO2 is you and me. So, I see the rise of CO2, although some data says the percentage has not increased, is from the rise in population around the world and the deforestation. The Industrial Revolution is not contributing as much as the population explosion and deforestation.
ReplyDeleteCould you please provide, again if you have, a source for humans being the biggest contributor? According to the EPA, it's the burning of fossil fuels: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/co2_human.html
ReplyDeletehere is the science:
ReplyDeletehttp://escholarship.org/uc/item/96z2x9gw
And here is a good recap of it...
http://blog.pdamerica.org/2009/11/iot-stop-global-warming-10-21-2009/
The science does only take into consideration of the American population while the blog extrapulates the data to equate it to the world population.