Dr. Roy Spencer on Planet Gore
At the risk of losing my tongue-in-cheek position as Rush Limbaugh’s “Official EIB Climatologist,” I’m going to weigh in on his argument against Jim Geraghty’s view that the Republicans’ chances in the next presidential election are being hurt by those of us not willing to give in to the scientific “consensus” on global warming.
First, the science. After many years in this line of work, I’ve come to the firm conclusion that global warming is one of those research areas where scientists think they know much more than they really do. In many ways, putting a man on the Moon was far easier than understanding the climate system. Yes, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas - a minor one. And, yes, humans burning fossil fuels produces carbon dioxide: one molecule of CO2 for every 100,000 molecules of atmosphere, every five years. But is this a recipe for a global warming Armageddon? I’m betting my reputation on: “No”. Recent research has made me more convinced of this than ever. So, why would a minority of scientists like me dare to disagree with a 56-percent majority (that is how many of the 530 climate scientists polled agreed that global warming is mostly caused by humans)?
I can certainly appreciate Jim Geraghty’s concern over the short-term political risks of doubting the paradigm of manmade global warming. But the long-terms risks of giving in to it are far greater. How much easier this would all be if it was only as simple as buying hybrid cars, compact fluorescent light bulbs, and building more energy efficient homes. But the public needs to know that all of these meager efforts will have no measurable effect on global temperatures, no matter how much warming you think there will be in the future. This is the one subject for which I believe “hoax” is an entirely appropriate label when it comes to people’s motives for advancing such solutions. Either “hoax,” or “stunning stupidity.” Rush is right - mankind depends mostly on petroleum and coal for its energy, and nothing is going to change that until human creativity, fueled by the extra wealth created by free markets, leads to new energy technology breakthroughs. Are we “addicted to oil”? Sure, just like we are addicted to food. Try quitting. What will people do when they realize that going along with the 56-percent scientific majority has resulted in them giving up much of their personal freedom in the process? I wouldn’t trade that freedom for any presidential candidate. Read full story here.
By Roger Pielke Sr., Climate Science
The University Corporation for Atmospheric Research is a not-for-profit consortium of universities that grant Ph.D.s in fields related to atmospheric science. UCAR’s primary activity is managing the National Center for Atmospheric Research. However, UCAR is moving from its stated goal of “understanding the atmosphere-the air around us-and the interconnected processes that make up the Earth system, from the ocean floor to the Sun’s core” to obvious political advocacy. UCAR is sponsoring a National Teach-In Day.
JANUARY 31: NATIONAL TEACH-IN DAY
Is your school ready to focus on the problem of global warming? If so, you are in luck because on January 31st you can be part of Focus the Nation, a national teach-in on global warming solutions for America - creating a dialogue at over a 1000 colleges, universities, high schools, middle schools, places of worship, civic organizations and businesses. When your school joins Focus the Nation, you will have the opportunity to participate in a free, interactive webcast airing the evening of January 30th, featuring top scientists, sustainability experts and green jobs pioneers. The goal is to have 10,000 screenings and a determination TO STOP GLOBAL WARMING...”
I am associated with several Universities who are members of UCAR, and I am disappointed that this organization has diverged from its core mission to now engage in political advocacy. This new direction by UCAR raises valid concerns as to whether their support of scientific research and outreach taints the objectivity which must be the foundation of scientific research. I also was not aware that non-profit organizations, whose primary support is from federal contracts and grants, could engage in political advocacy. Read more here.
By Hans Schreuder, ilovemycarbondioxide.com, Ipswich, UK
Happy New Year to all and I would appreciate it if you would allow me to further illustrate a better interpretation of the facts on the issue of man-made global warming, with links to the latest articles by the very best brains in related sciences and despite so many leading international academies proclaiming that the “science is settled” and “the debate is over”. It won’t be the first time in our recent history that leading scientific institutions have been proven woefully wrong on the issues of their day and man-made global warming is likely to be another one. Only by continuous debate and reading, with an open mind, the latest peer-reviewed articles by scientists in pertinent fields of expertise can we reach conclusions that approximate the truth. We collectively do not yet know anywhere near enough on the many aspects of our existence to know the truth about a wide range of complex matters, our climate and climate change amongst them. To make far-reaching decisions based on so little understanding is to run the risk of causing untold suffering and long-term damage for no worthwhile gain.
Instead of global warming, and based on actual observations that are fully verifiable by all, our life-giving Sun is telling us that we should prepare for a period of increasingly cold winters, already signaled by the early arrival of substantial snow in most European mountain ranges, Arctic ice reforming at an unprecedented rate and three recent ice and snow storms across wide areas of the US, killing over 50 people and causing major havoc for hundreds of thousands (all by mid-December) - you can ignore me, but you can’t ignore Nature itself. Temperatures across the world are not increasing as they should according to the fundamental theory behind global warming the greenhouse effect. Something else is happening and it is vital that we find out what or else we may spend billions of Dollars needlessly.
If the Government scientific advisers in your country deny what I have written here, than challenge them to a debate. Actual verifiable proof that 110 ppmv of additional carbon dioxide influences the climate or could even be responsible for the alarmist consequences is absolutely and totally non-existent. Any proof that has been paraded as such is purely circumstantial and prognoses of disasters are based solely on climate models that can not even predict the weather for next week with more than a 50% chance of being accurate. John Brignell PhD: “The only experimentally proven effect of increased carbon dioxide in the air is an increase in the growth rate of plants, and, in particular, crops. The “science” the IPCC keeps citing as “unequivocal” is a lie, a base and evil lie. It exists only in the flawed and duplicitous computer models that could never and will never begin to capture the infinite complexity of the earth’s atmosphere.” Read full letter here.