Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MIT's inconvenient scientist [He doubts global warming propaganda]
The Boston Globe ^ | August 30, 2006 | By Alex Beam, Globe Columnist

Posted on 08/30/2006 6:52:17 AM PDT by aculeus

... I sat in a roomful of journalists 10 years ago while Stanford climatologist Stephen Schneider lectured us on a big problem in our profession: soliciting opposing points of view. In the debate over climate change, Schneider said, there simply was no legitimate opposing view to the scientific consensus that man - made carbon emissions drive global warming. To suggest or report otherwise, he said, was irresponsible.

Indeed. I attended a week's worth of lectures on global warming at the Chautauqua Institution last month. Al Gore delivered the kickoff lecture, and, 10 years later, he reiterated Schneider's directive. There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed, more than once. Again, the same message: If you hear tales of doubt, ignore them. They are simply untrue.

[snip]

Here's the kind of information the ``scientific consensus" types don't want you to read. MIT's Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology Richard Lindzen recently complained about the ``shrill alarmism" of Gore's movie ``An Inconvenient Truth." Lindzen acknowledges that global warming is real, and he acknowledges that increased carbon emissions might be causing the warming -- but they also might not.

``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies, along with such zingers as ``the Arctic was as warm or warmer in 1940," ``the evidence so far suggests that the Greenland ice sheet is actually growing on average," and ``Alpine glaciers have been retreating since the early 19th century, and were advancing for several centuries before that. Since about 1970, many of the glaciers have stopped retreating and some are now advancing again. And, frankly, we don't know why."

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Editorial
KEYWORDS: alarmism; alarmists; climatechange; environment; environmentalists; globalwarming; globalwarmingping; globullwarming; greenhousegas; junkscience; mit; panic; pollution; skyisfalling
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

1 posted on 08/30/2006 6:52:18 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aculeus
>>>>There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed


As Senator and Veep, AL Gore had plenty to say about which side had money. SO in a sense, he's right. He simply bankrupted anyone who had the audacity to dispute "the inconvenient truth."
2 posted on 08/30/2006 6:56:29 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (The investigation was a hoax. Fitz should be brought up on charges.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Global warming is a world-wide academic fraud and scam, it's all about grant money for the 'scientists', and all about redistributing wealth for the 'activists'.

Ignore them and they'll go away eventually. The shriller they get, the easier it is to do that.


3 posted on 08/30/2006 6:57:18 AM PDT by wvobiwan (BOYCOTT NYT, LAT, AP, Reuters, CNN, CBS, ABC, NBC, BBC, WaPo, Haaretz, and ALL leftist rags!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

"The Artic was as warm or warmer in 1940."

I wonder what kind of face Mr. Gore makes when he reads such things?

If we can't predict with 100% accuracy what the weather will be like this Sunday, how in the Hell can we claim to predict what the earth's climate will be like in 50 to 75 years?

Oh well. This stuff makes my head hurt, anyway.


4 posted on 08/30/2006 6:58:23 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I love these threads. They allow me to expound my theory on the root cause of Global Warming ... the demise of the pirate.

Refute this if you can:

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

5 posted on 08/30/2006 7:00:36 AM PDT by tx_eggman (The people who work for me wear the dog collars. It's good to be king. - ccmay)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

And in the Boston Globe, yet...


6 posted on 08/30/2006 7:02:12 AM PDT by r9etb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
``We do not understand the natural internal variability of climate change" is one of Lindzen's many heresies

Image Hosted by ImageShack.us

"PSSSHT! Dat's whack Mister ProFessore."

7 posted on 08/30/2006 7:02:42 AM PDT by WideGlide (That light at the end of the tunnel might be a muzzle flash.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

By Gore, you've nailed it!


8 posted on 08/30/2006 7:06:08 AM PDT by aculeus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
The problem is that this guy isn't a lone voice in the wolderness....in fact, most of the scientists that doubt global warming are in fact climatologists...and most scientists making scare noises about it are not. At Colorado State University, the scientist in charge of hurricane forcasts for North America says plainly that he thinks Global Warming is an outright scientific fraud, Piltdown Man for climatologists.
9 posted on 08/30/2006 7:06:59 AM PDT by DesScorp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wvobiwan
Global warming is a world-wide academic fraud and scam, it's all about grant money for the 'scientists', and all about redistributing wealth for the 'activists'.

We caught the media lying to viewers/listeners/readers about what was happening in the middle-east war.

It's about time to point out how the media is lying and spinning and manipulating the public with this global warming hoax. The media needs to be stopped and does Al Gore and others like him.
10 posted on 08/30/2006 7:07:24 AM PDT by adorno
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

You can do the same thing using Madonna videos.


11 posted on 08/30/2006 7:07:25 AM PDT by EQAndyBuzz (Mediacrat - A leftwing editorialist who pretends to be an objective journalist.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

We were at a resturant for lunch Sunday when my 4 yo daughter yelled out, "Look Ma, a Pirate!" I turned out to find a cross looking gentleman wearing an eyepatch. Oh well, when she is a teenager, then I get to embarass her.


12 posted on 08/30/2006 7:07:49 AM PDT by sportutegrl (A person is a person, no matter how small. (Dr. Seuss))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
When you mention this guy, the global warming extremists all say he gets paid by the petroleum industry.

Never mind that all the global warming extremists get their funding from the NSF, which will not entertain anti-global warming research.

13 posted on 08/30/2006 7:08:10 AM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum (Islam Factoid:After forcing young girls to watch his men execute their fathers, Muhammad raped them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
Just as soon as a climatologist, or any other scientist, can create a computer model that can accurately, reliably, repeatedly predict the average temperature of just my state one month in advance, then they will begin to have some credibility. Until that day, such confident predictions and presumptions about the behavior of the global climate in years and decades to come are monumentally arrogant.

Coupled with all the urgent demands for wide-ranging policy changes based on those predictions, the whole issue is frightening and seriously damages the name of science, IMO.

14 posted on 08/30/2006 7:08:48 AM PDT by TChris (Banning DDT wasn't about birds. It was about power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

Non-Huricane Ernesto meet Global Warming.


15 posted on 08/30/2006 7:16:15 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: aculeus; All

read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" for a sourced, highly credible refutation of global warming alarmism.


16 posted on 08/30/2006 7:19:59 AM PDT by notdownwidems (Shellback, pollywogs! 1980)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wvobiwan
Global warming is a world-wide academic fraud and scam, it's all about grant money for the 'scientists', and all about redistributing wealth for the 'activists'.

And taking down America.

17 posted on 08/30/2006 7:22:46 AM PDT by jpl (Victorious warriors win first, then go to war; defeated warriors go to war first, then seek to win.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Since Pirates of the Caribean 2 was such a big hit, that should give another century or so to act.


18 posted on 08/30/2006 7:23:19 AM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances and it advances relentlessly freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
I wonder what kind of face Mr. Gore makes when he reads such things?

I didn't think wooden indians made faces.

19 posted on 08/30/2006 7:24:27 AM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Also, we seem to have less hurricanes this year, I believe Pirates of the Carribean 2 is the climate driver behind this.


20 posted on 08/30/2006 7:25:07 AM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances and it advances relentlessly freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman
I love these threads. They allow me to expound my theory on the root cause of Global Warming ... the demise of the pirate.

Refute this if you can:

Your theory is close, but the Actual cause of Global warming is the end of slavery.

With thousands of slave ships no longer throwing 200 million of slaves overboard, the ecology of the ocean was altered.

/Major Owens (D-NY)

21 posted on 08/30/2006 7:27:41 AM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman
AAARRRRRRRRRrrrrrrrr!

There's something wrong with you numbers. I count forty Pirates in Pittsburgh ...

22 posted on 08/30/2006 7:33:16 AM PDT by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

LOL!!

There are still at least 1000 pirates. Look at Indonesia or the east coast of Africa.


23 posted on 08/30/2006 7:33:53 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems

I've read it and it is well written. I gave it to a global warming nut and said it was an adventure novel and I never got it back! Censorship!


24 posted on 08/30/2006 7:38:03 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: <1/1,000,000th%

I've heard its a might bit cooler there though as well!


25 posted on 08/30/2006 7:43:48 AM PDT by LachlanMinnesota
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
There is no science on the other side, Gore inveighed<> Does that stick give Algore colonic distress?
26 posted on 08/30/2006 7:46:07 AM PDT by Mike Darancette (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach
If we can't predict with 100% accuracy what the weather will be like this Sunday, how in the Hell can we claim to predict what the earth's climate will be like in 50 to 75 years?

It's a different kind of prediction. This recent article at RealClimate addressed the exact question you asked.

Short and simple arguments for why climate can be predicted

Some of the comments are from one of my favorite FReeper climate change skeptics -- because he has a good grasp of the issue. Note that there are a LOT of comments.

27 posted on 08/30/2006 7:53:32 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DesScorp
At Colorado State University, the scientist in charge of hurricane forcasts for North America says plainly that he thinks Global Warming is an outright scientific fraud, Piltdown Man for climatologists.

Dr. Gray's arguments against global warming aren't very good (Lindzen's are more realistic).

Gray and Muddy Thinking on Global Warming

28 posted on 08/30/2006 7:55:22 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Clearly only more pirates can save us.


29 posted on 08/30/2006 7:56:05 AM PDT by BadAndy ("Loud mouth internet Rambo")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: adorno
It's about time to point out how the media is lying and spinning and manipulating the public with this global warming hoax.

The media frequently provides an exaggerated and inaccurate view of this issue emphasizing the worst-case "scary" scenarios, but it's not a hoax.

30 posted on 08/30/2006 7:56:23 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aculeus
I took a college-level climatology class between the time when we were entering the next ice age and global warming. One of the first things the professor said in the first class is that there is no such thing as a normal climate and it's all about averages. And as anyone who has looked at paleoclimatology can tell you, the Earth has ranged from ice nearly to the equator to no ice caps at all (the norm, actually) and the planet managed to survive and bounce back.
31 posted on 08/30/2006 7:57:09 AM PDT by Question_Assumptions
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LachlanMinnesota
I think we should think hard about how to penalize media lies and fraud. Frankly, I care less about Janet Jackson's boob than I do about having to sort out misinformation and disinformation everyday. They hide behind a 1 st amendment shield and really hurt and damage people all of the time, as Rush keeps pointing out. How about some consumer protection, for a change?
32 posted on 08/30/2006 7:57:24 AM PDT by ClaireSolt (.All generalizations are false, including this one.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
When you mention this guy, the global warming extremists all say he gets paid by the petroleum industry.

Actually, Lindzen doesn't get this criticism (other skeptics do). Lindzen is a tenured and accomplished atmospheric scientist and doesn't appear to have much trouble getting research grant funding. He writes the occasional op-ed on spec, but not as often as other skeptics.

33 posted on 08/30/2006 7:57:54 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: wvobiwan
I don't think can afford to ignore them any more than we could ignore the Nazis in the 1930s. They are seeking control of perceptions for whatever reason(s) through intimidation and smears. Regardless of the value of their arguments, their tactics should be exposed and resisted for what they are... intimidation of free speech and debate!
34 posted on 08/30/2006 8:04:52 AM PDT by coldoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: TChris
Just as soon as a climatologist, or any other scientist, can create a computer model that can accurately, reliably, repeatedly predict the average temperature of just my state one month in advance, then they will begin to have some credibility.

TChris, that's still essentially a weather prediction, not a climate prediction. Take a look at the link I posted in #27. Given a liberal margin-of-error, I could easily predict the average temperature for any state one month in advance; I just look at what the average temperature IS for that state and that month. (That, in essence, is climate. Climate = average weather.)

If you want to try something interesting, go to CLIMVIS and plot temperatures for any given month using airport weather data. Try plotting data for April in a mid-latitude state, like Pennsylvania or Kentucky, over a lot of years. Comparing the graphs will show that there is usually a fairly strong transition from cold to warm in April, but the timing of this transition is considerably different year-to-year. March would work too; remember the "in like a lamb, out like a lion" (or vice versa) adage? The average temperature for a transitional month is going to be based on a combination of the cold part of the month and the warm part of the month. So while there's going to be considerable variability -- due to weather -- the average temperature is still going to be about (tossing out a number not based on anything) 52 degrees.

If you want to know the average annual temperature of a given area, find a cave in the area. The constant temperature of the cave is the average temperature of the area. This is also why borehole temperature logs, properly analyzed, can provide information about recent past climate-based temperature trends.

35 posted on 08/30/2006 8:08:27 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems

mega-dittoes!


36 posted on 08/30/2006 8:08:28 AM PDT by LiteKeeper (Beware the secularization of America; the Islamization of Eurabia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
I wonder if we have fewer hurricanes than usual this year, will the same people say it is proof of Global Cooling? So far we seem to be lagging behind last year's rate of generating storms... into "K" at this time last year and just got to "E" this year.
37 posted on 08/30/2006 8:10:17 AM PDT by coldoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: notdownwidems
read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear" for a sourced, highly credible refutation of global warming alarmism.

Or not.

Michael Crichton's State of Confusion

Michael Crichton's State of Confusion II: Return of the Science

38 posted on 08/30/2006 8:10:50 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

ping


39 posted on 08/30/2006 8:12:03 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RexBeach

I agree with the GW skeptics. The world has been warming since the last ice age but not because of anything man has done.

However, I do disagree with your prediction statement. It's impossible to know the which card will turn up next in Black Jack or what the next roll of the dice will be in Craps, but casinos make billion of dollars knowing what the long term results will be.


40 posted on 08/30/2006 8:15:11 AM PDT by preacher (A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Question_Assumptions
...as anyone who has looked at paleoclimatology can tell you, the Earth has ranged from ice nearly to the equator to no ice caps at all (the norm, actually) and the planet managed to survive and bounce back.

I have always found it odd that the earth is mostly too cool for the life that inhabits it. Yes, plants and animals exist that have adaptations for every climatic condition available on earth, but I'm talking about a larger view.

As you consider different climates, you'll note that as the average temperature increases, the biodiversity, the number of individual organisms, and the total biomass all go up. A desert is not an exception to this rule; in a desert the limiting factor is not temperature, but water. In fact, there is no place on earth where, given sufficent water, the number, diversity, and sheer mass of plants and animals is limited by a too-hot climate.

Would this not seem to indicate that life on earth either evolved or was made (not getting into that argument) for a warmer earth than we have now?

41 posted on 08/30/2006 8:17:21 AM PDT by Oberon (What does it take to make government shrink?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

Thanks for the link. I'll read it sometime today.


42 posted on 08/30/2006 8:22:13 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: preacher

It's also impossible to know what the stock market will do over the next several days; but it does not follow that the market will be higher in 10 or 20 years from now.


43 posted on 08/30/2006 8:24:25 AM PDT by RexBeach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: tx_eggman

Okay... that was funny. Bring on the pirates!


44 posted on 08/30/2006 8:46:40 AM PDT by djl_sa
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cogitator; TChris
TChris, that's still essentially a weather prediction, not a climate prediction. Take a look at the link I posted in #27. Given a liberal margin-of-error, I could easily predict the average temperature for any state one month in advance; I just look at what the average temperature IS for that state and that month. (That, in essence, is climate. Climate = average weather.)

First off, I agree that weather and climate are different, but the article (which I did read) misses the point about global warming.

Yes, repeatable trends, like the difference in temperatures between winter and summer, are predictable at least as an average. But the global warming advocates are 'predicting' a change to the previously repeatable situation.

And yes, one can 'predict' based on an assessment of the trends, but that does not make the predictions accurate.

Here are two issues that need to be addressed:

1) What is the uncertainty associated with the prediction? How does that uncertainty compare to the effect being predicted? If our scientifically justifiable accuracy is no better than the effect being predicted (+/- 5 degrees of uncertainty on a prediction of +3 degrees) then we hardly have a basis for embarking on policies that guarantee near-term economic disruption.

2) What is the demonstrated validity of the models used to make the prediction? Even if we have analyzed our uncertainty and feel there is a real trend, we still may not be making accurate predictions. There is a simple test for this, and all current global-warming predictions fail. Apply the model to the conditions of 1900, and predict the conditions of 2000, using the sampled proxy evidence and assumptions for the future that the models employ. Not a single one of them correctly predicts the year 2000. An example of this is that a few years ago the same sorts of models (less sophisticated in a computer complexity sense, but still based on the same underlying assumptions) predicted an ice age by now.

Bottom line: Using a demonstrably repetitive cycle, like the winter-summer temperature variation, to justify an open-loop extrapolation of a change to that very cycle is hardly convincing. It does show that there is a difference between climate and weather, but it tells us little about whether climatologists have any basis for alarm over global warming.
45 posted on 08/30/2006 9:10:22 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: aculeus

Note to the Goron and Libroids in general:

The METS climate model, one of the world's most advanced climate model programs, came up with the following:

In the summer, Ireland and the Central Sahara have about the same rainfall.

Schneider is wrong. Linzden rightly warns of the inadequacies of the models, the modellers who made them, and the presstitutes who use them to push their agenda.


46 posted on 08/30/2006 9:28:47 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon Liberty, it is essential to examine principles, - -)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: UNGN

" == With thousands of slave ships no longer throwing 200 million of slaves overboard, the ecology of the ocean was altered. == "

Ahh, but the millions of sharks that still constantly patrol the slave ship routes looking for a free meal have certainly changed the ocean currents! (/sarc)


47 posted on 08/30/2006 10:10:59 AM PDT by MainFrame65
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: MainFrame65
Ahh, but the millions of sharks that still constantly patrol the slave ship routes looking for a free meal have certainly changed the ocean currents! (/sarc)

That is what is known to climate scientists as a "double whammy"

48 posted on 08/30/2006 10:14:24 AM PDT by UNGN (I've been here since '98 but had nothing to say until now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: Gorjus; TChris
There is a simple test for this, and all current global-warming predictions fail. Apply the model to the conditions of 1900, and predict the conditions of 2000, using the sampled proxy evidence and assumptions for the future that the models employ. Not a single one of them correctly predicts the year 2000.

I would be interested in your comments on this:

Junkscience is... junk (please ignore the provocative title)

The article links to this:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/450.htm#fig127

49 posted on 08/30/2006 10:17:54 AM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: cogitator
Interesting data, and it addresses one but not both of the points.

Taking the scatter in the various models as a measure of their collective accuracy (an assumption, not a fact, but a place to start), you can see that the consistency among the models leads to an estimate of about half a degree in uncertainty. The actual data show a man-made impact slightly outside that range, which is at least some support for the significance of man-made effects. However, consistency among the models is no guarantee that any of them are accurate.

In addition, that doesn't really address the second point, which I couldn't extract from the data. Were any of those simulations set up at a single point in time, based on conditions observed at that point and extrapolations from that data using assumptions similar to those being used today, then allowed to run for a century?

I get the impression that the methodology was the opposite. On a much shorter timeline - like year by year - it looks like they took a look at all observed data and fed it into the model to get an impact assessment for the various observatios for that year. Thus impacts like Mt. Pinatubo are explained. Of course, a prediction started in 1900 would not (likely) have predicted a Mt. Pinatubo event.

This is better than nothing at attempting to validate the models. It shows (or doesn't, as applicable) that the temperature variations follow observed variations in key predictive variables such as solar and volcanic activity. If we knew now what those variations would be from now until 2100, we'd have some confidence that the models could provide a correlation between that future volcanic activity and future temperature, for example.

But we don't know how those factors will vary in the future.

I'm all for research, if it's honest, scientific inquiry without agenda. But the burden of proof should be squarely on those who advocate massive economic harm to the US particularly and without corresponding impact to our competitors (i.e. Kyoto Protocol), or who advocate massive centralization of power into the hands of unelected bureaucrats (i.e. Kyoto Protocol). These data do not provide that proof.

One interesting note: A single volcanic eruption (Mt. Pinatubo) is reported to have had twice the effect of all man-made warming combined for that corresponding year. Perhaps the solution to global warming is to detonate a few nuclear devices in not-quite-active volcanos. One or two of those a year and the man-made effects are more than cancelled out. That 'solution' is offered at least partially in jest (the science might work, but I know the politics would not) but the key issue is that we haven't really considered how to address the issue in a positive way. The 'limits to growth' philosophy just rolls over and dies, accepting that for all future generations, the standard of living will be less then ours. We should be looking at data like this for solutions that increase the overall wealth of society, not eliminate it.

I'd like to see, for example, an analysis of what hydrogen as a fuel, or nuclear power does to these data. Both can reduce the amount of carbon entering the atmosphere, but they increase water vapor (which is a worse greenhouse gas) though not on a pound-for-pound basis. Are those good or bad ideas for power, as a net effect? That's a matter for data, not the opinion of mankind-is-bad-and-manmade-carbon-will-kill-us-all zealots.

Interesting article, and thanks for pointing it out. When I get home this evening, I'll post you another note with a link to a paper identifying some compensatory atmospheric effects that tend to reduce global warming (and may have been the reason the predicted ice age didn't show up). Compensatory factors may be buried in the simulations reference in your article, but I couldn't see any explicit recognition of them.
50 posted on 08/30/2006 11:23:07 AM PDT by Gorjus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-89 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson