Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study


Ian Sample, science correspondent
Friday February 2, 2007
The Guardian

Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.

Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Article continues
Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered.

The UN report was written by international experts and is widely regarded as the most comprehensive review yet of climate change science. It will underpin international negotiations on new emissions targets to succeed the Kyoto agreement, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft last year and invited to comment.

The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration. Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI's board of trustees.

The letters, sent to scientists in Britain, the US and elsewhere, attack the UN's panel as "resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work" and ask for essays that "thoughtfully explore the limitations of climate model outputs".

Climate scientists described the move yesterday as an attempt to cast doubt over the "overwhelming scientific evidence" on global warming. "It's a desperate attempt by an organisation who wants to distort science for their own political aims," said David Viner of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia.

Read more http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html

Which makes the global warming thing that much more believable, doesn't it?

there is good and bad in everything.
the trick is to publicize and reward good and punish bad.

. . . i can't wait for this onslaught.

I'm sure that liberal lobying groups are completely above this influence. I'm sure that GreenPeace has never offered grants to climate scientits.

It's like writing a check to a politician---you do so in the hopes that they will win and further some specific agenda. Exxon has a vested interest in the climate change science being shown wrong, so...

For all the evidence that scientists claim they have on global warming, and that it's "likely" that humans have caused it ...........what do they say caused the last global warming trends that are evident in the polar ice studies? There have been other global trends before humans were even a factor. So..... what caused it back then?

Baron Max

The philosopher Foucault has done some interesting analyses on the relationship between power and truth. Also Max Weber's 'Science as a Vocation', Bruno Latour, Donna Harraway, lots more too.

My reading sees truth as constructed and relative to power; the more power, the more truth to support the position.

Which makes the global warming thing that much more believable, doesn't it?True. The fact the government & oil barons are fudging real science presented to them and manufacturing oil industry science is appalling. What are they so afraid of and where is the outrage?

For all the evidence that scientists claim they have on global warming, and that it's "likely" that humans have caused it ...........what do they say caused the last global warming trends that are evident in the polar ice studies? There have been other global trends before humans were even a factor. So..... what caused it back then?

Baron Maxhttp://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16922234/ We'll have to wait and see what Exxon Climate Scientists say.......

This is hilarious. Those oil companies just won't stop.

It takes decisive, hard-line action to stop them.

Arrest the oil executives. Impose the largest corporate taxes in history on oil companies. Break them up again. Ban Hummers, SUVs, and the like, or restrict licenses further for gas-guzzlers. Impose carbon tax. Impose weight tax. Outlaw lobbyist science. Outlaw PR slap-suits.

These are all actions we must take in America, or else the world will pay.

These are all actions we must take in America, or else the world will pay.

If we take all of those actions that you propose, how long will it take to produce results? ...a reversal of the global warming trend?

Baron Max

how long will it take to produce results if you don't take action?

It's like writing a check to a politician---you do so in the hopes that they will win and further some specific agenda. Exxon has a vested interest in the climate change science being shown wrong, so...True, but then Philip Morris had a vested interest in killing many poeple with cigarettes and did so by buying favorable "research" also.

It is no news that there are whores among climate scientist too.

I got this article slashdotted :D

http://www.slashdot.org . Its the front page news at the moment.

how long will it take to produce results if you don't take action?

Just read an interesting report on my IP homepage ....scientists agreed that even with all of the controls in place, it will take centuries to stop the global warming trends. And that's if the put every method to work to try to stop the pollution, etc.

So ...even if we went back to living in caves, never burned any fires, ate the meat raw and bloody, the global warming would continue. So ...what'd'ya say we just sit back and watch the show in the comfort of our heated/air conditioned homes on big-screen tv? Can't do nothin' about it, may as well enjoy it.

Baron Max

It's just the UN's way of admitting it's cyclical, without saying so.

....scientists agreed that even with all of the controls in place, it will take centuries to stop the global warming trends. And that's if the put every method to work to try to stop the pollution, etc....That is the optimistic view. For the other side, see:
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=1281393&postcount=3
Which BTW has long had a note in it to you.

There is jack shit we can do, so why bother?

Global warming and ice ages are earth cycles that aren't going to change just because we want to them to. We might be able to slow it down very slightly, although it seems very unlikely and pointless because of the changes we'd have to make to everyday life. Oil will run out fairly soon, so I think upping prices and imposing green taxes is getting us used to high oil prices, low availability and ultimately no oil at all. Softening the blow if you will.

Why not let us enjoy it 'til it's gone?

As for places going underwater - that just isn't my fucking problem. If you live on an island that's a couple of feet above sea level, it seems likely you'll get your feet wet now and again. People and governments need to take measures and move these people out of high risk areas, but not to try and reverse the effects of global warming and rising sea levels. They won't do shit, but when these places go underwater we'll be guilt-tripped into believing it's our fault.

I'm so angry at the "why bother" attitude displayed by some people here. It is absolutely disgusting and shameful. Its the EXACT same argument that got us into this mess. ""Why bother" watching how much we waste... we are not going to be alive and on the receiving end"

:( Grr

It's just the UN's way of admitting it's cyclical, without saying so.

I don't understand how the UN is connected to this study's conclusions or how they are saying it is cyclical (considering the report concluded that it was not a natural cycle. Could you explain what you're talking about, please?

Just read an interesting report on my IP homepage ....scientists agreed that even with all of the controls in place, it will take centuries to stop the global warming trends. And that's if the put every method to work to try to stop the pollution, etc.

So ...even if we went back to living in caves, never burned any fires, ate the meat raw and bloody, the global warming would continue. So ...what'd'ya say we just sit back and watch the show in the comfort of our heated/air conditioned homes on big-screen tv? Can't do nothin' about it, may as well enjoy it.

Baron Max

What about the people after we exist, centuries later? Are they worth as much as watching tv on big screen?

No, of course not...

...unless TV starts getting a lot better. Reality TV isn't cutting it ;)

I'm so angry at the "why bother" attitude displayed by some people here. It is absolutely disgusting and shameful. Its the EXACT same argument that got us into this mess. ""Why bother" watching how much we waste... we are not going to be alive and on the receiving end"

:( Grr

See, you've fallen for pop culture's bullshit, hook, line and sinker. The earth (you know, the big round thing we all live on?) naturally goes through cycles. It warms, it gets colder and it does other funky stuff, like change the way it orbits now and again.

Look at the amount of carbon dioxide that occurs natually - Volcanoes pump out hundreds of tons of co2 and sulphur dioxide a day. On eruption, it's thousands or hundreds and thousands of tons.

Just because the Earth has cycles and produces CO2 does NOT mean we cannot screw up those cycles or cause an over-abundance of CO2.

Does scientific consensus = pop culture? Thats a strange equation.

See, you've fallen for pop culture's bullshit, hook, line and sinker. The earth (you know, the big round thing we all live on?) naturally goes through cycles. It warms, it gets colder and it does other funky stuff, like change the way it orbits now and again.

Look at the amount of carbon dioxide that occurs natually - Volcanoes pump out hundreds of tons of co2 and sulphur dioxide a day. On eruption, it's thousands or hundreds and thousands of tons.

No, I have a son, and I am going to do my best to give him every opportunity in life. If we cant stop climate change, we can delay it as long as possible so that if we do not figure out a solution, they can.

I am more interested in life surviving tomorrow than exploiting the world today.

I think bovine farts put out far more methane than all human industrial pollution.

I think bovine farts put out far more methane than all human industrial pollution.

How does methane effect the climate?

I think bovine farts put out far more methane than all human industrial pollution.

Actually, I believe belching is a much bigger culprit. Farting huge quantities of CH4 is just a myth

How does methane effect the climate?

It is a greenhouse gas. Like CO2

From www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,2004230,00.html:

"The AEI is more than just a thinktank, it functions as the Bush administration's intellectual Cosa Nostra. They are White House surrogates in the last throes of their campaign of climate change denial. They lost on the science; they lost on the moral case for action. All they've got left is a suitcase full of cash.

On Monday, another Exxon-funded organisation based in Canada will launch a review in London which casts doubt on the IPCC report. Among its authors are Tad Murty, a former scientist who believes human activity makes no contribution to global warming."

I wonder what this whore got, more than the standard $10,000 plus travel, I bet. I seem to recall his name from when Phillip Moris was paying to prove cigarettes did no harm and relaxed you to reduce risk of heart attacks etc.

True, but then Philip Morris had a vested interest in killing many poeple with cigarettes and did so by buying favorable "research" also.

It is no news that there are whores among climate scientist too.

I am under no illusion that science is an apolitical endeavor---especially research into things like climate change. Research takes money. My point is that you are a whore wether you take money from Exxon or from Greenpeace.

There are scientists who don't buy into the whole global warming hysteria. There are some who completely disbelieve it, and there are some who acknowledge that global warming is occuring but that the current alarmism is misguided and wrong. If a scientist has an opinion contrary to the consensus, is he wrong? (Example: Galileo.) Is that scientist wrong to accept funding from a company like Exxon to preform his research?

It is a greenhouse gas. Like CO2

water vapor is a greenhouse gas too.

Its not too late:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/2023371.stm

No, I have a son, and I am going to do my best to give him every opportunity in life. If we cant stop climate change, we can delay it as long as possible so that if we do not figure out a solution, they can.

You don't really fully understand the issue, do you?

There is virtually nothing, NOTHING, that you can do to even slow down the trend in global warming. In fact, nothing can slow it down ..perhaps for centuries! I don't think that your son will be around when global warming stops!

There is nothing that humans can do at this point to stop or even slow global warming. If you want to help your son, then teach him to adapt to the global changes, not try to fight it (a major losing battle!).

I am more interested in life surviving tomorrow than exploiting the world today.

"Tomorrow" is a helluva long time from now! And like I said above, nothing you or anyone can do now will stop or even slow down global warming. Learn to live with it; learn to adapt to it. Ain't nothin' else left to do - whether humans caused it or not.

Baron Max

Its not too late:.......

Yeah, just how many kangaroos do you think it would take? And while the kangaroos were living and farting out the solution, where would humans live and work? ..LOL!

Baron Max

The irony is not lost on me Baron...the less we tinker about with nature the better it will be...physician heal thyself.

Remember the cane toads...

...at least people are waking up a bit now....like: "Oh dear, if the planet cannot support human life then the TV will stop working..." or some such nonsense.

If change happens its gonna have to be economic - people have to buy from sustainable sources even if it costs more...capitalism will have to play second fiddle to human continuity.

...at least people are waking up a bit now....like: "Oh dear, if the planet cannot support human life then the TV will stop working..." or some such nonsense.

Forgive me for saying so, but that's actually a legitimate concern! I mean, think about it ...if the tv don't work, then neither does lots of other things that depend on electric generation and transmission.

If change happens its gonna have to be economic - people have to buy from sustainable sources even if it costs more...capitalism will have to play second fiddle to human continuity.

No, I think the thing that humans should actually be working on is NOT trying to fight the global warming, but to device methods to live with it. 'Cause it's here to stay ....ain't no one in the know who'll tell you that we can stop it. So ....how do we survive it is the major question now.

How many other such problems in the world have we solved by our own efforts? As humans, we learned to live and work in extremely hostile environments. We complained about the "dust bowl" of the US midwest in the 20's and 30's ...yet that same area is now producing some of the world's best wheat farming. See? We survived and thrived.

Baron Max

...My point is that you are a whore wether you take money from Exxon or from Greenpeace....If they came to you with cash because they think you will serve their objectives, then you will be considered a whore if nothing you find is in opposition to their POV, in an area where some things clearly are. For example, working for greenpeace and concluding global warming is only do the man or for Exon and concluding none is due to man.

The "scientist" I called a whore - did exactly that ("man is contributing nothing"). - Clearly the increase in CO2 and CH4 (all those beef industry cows farting :D etc.) do decrease the rate at which Earth shine IR in their absorption bands leaves Earth.

True scientists can disagree about how large is the fraction of the global warming that man is adding. I tend to think it still a minor part. I also think by their opposition to well done (as in France) nuclear power, Greenpeace is responsible for a large fraction of the global warming due to man.

My main concern is that the fraction that man does add to increase rate of global warming may be sufficient to trigger the decomposition of the methane hydrates. - Then it is possible that Earth will be transformed into a cooler version of Venus. I.e. no liquid oceans on Earth -all H2O on Earth as a very high pressure steam atmosphere, (but no the lead lakes as are found on Venus, because we are too far from the sun for that.)

This risk of a runaway instability is small, IMHO, but real as the amount of methane that can be released is now large* and with man speeding of the natural warming, may come into the atmosphere in a time too short to be removed by low temperature oxidation or dissolved into the oceans.

Thus I think it prudent, in our state of ignorance, to slow the release of CO2 - We may be in the process of making this planet sterile.
-----------------------------------------
*The relative amount of free methane that can be released is also higher than any prior thermal oscillation that Earth has had because most of it is a direct product of living organisms and the methane producing biomass of Earth has never been so large before. I.e. not only can it come out of the hydrates into the atmosphere more quickly, but their may be more of it. Some estimates are that there is more energy in methane in these hydrates than all the petroleum man has ever burnt.

water vapor is a greenhouse gas too.and molecule for molecule a much more effecive one. fortunate with Earth in its current temperature range, it condenses into rain and falls back into the surface again. _this may not always be the case - see last part of my post 37 below starting at: "My main concern..."

Thus I think it prudent, in our state of ignorance, to slow the release of CO2 - We may be in the process of making this planet sterile.

And those same scientists have agreed that nothing we do now will have any affect on the warming trends for centuries! A "slowing" of anything is like pissing onto a roaring conflagration ...sure it "helps", but is it the thing to do?

What we should do is direct our efforts to overcoming the EFFECTS that global warming will have on our cultures. We cna't stop global warming, just like we can stop hurricanes and tornadoes, but we CAN make preparations for the damage that they might do.

Trying to stop global warming is senseless and a wasted effort ...the damage has already been done. Let's worry about and work towards minimizing it's effects on human existence and culture.

Baron Max

Forgive me for saying so, but that's actually a legitimate concern! I mean, think about it ...if the tv don't work, then neither does lots of other things that depend on electric generation and transmission.

Exactly my point Baron - most people won't wake up to climate change until it starts affecting them locally...

No, I think the thing that humans should actually be working on is NOT trying to fight the global warming, but to device methods to live with it. 'Cause it's here to stay ....ain't no one in the know who'll tell you that we can stop it. So ....how do we survive it is the major question now.

Yes lets utilise and invent technology...but survival is a matter of adaptation...

How many other such problems in the world have we solved by our own efforts? As humans, we learned to live and work in extremely hostile environments. We complained about the "dust bowl" of the US midwest in the 20's and 30's ...yet that same area is now producing some of the world's best wheat farming. See? We survived and thrived.

I'm sure some of the original Saharans thought that way too.

See, you've fallen for pop culture's bullshit, hook, line and sinker.

No.

The earth (you know, the big round thing we all live on?) naturally goes through cycles. It warms, it gets colder and it does other funky stuff, like change the way it orbits now and again.

And we are adding the unnatural element. Many scientists are in agreement that global warming is happening at an unnatural rate, and that we're disrupting the global climate significantly, thanks to our greenhouse gases.

Pay attention.

Look at the amount of carbon dioxide that occurs natually - Volcanoes pump out hundreds of tons of co2 and sulphur dioxide a day. On eruption, it's thousands or hundreds and thousands of tons.

Where do you get these numbers? And have you compared them to what humans pump out?

And those same scientists have agreed that nothing we do now will have any affect on the warming trends for centuries! A "slowing" of anything is like pissing onto a roaring conflagration ...sure it "helps", but is it the thing to do?
What we should do is direct our efforts to overcoming the EFFECTS that global warming will have on our cultures....
Trying to stop global warming is senseless and a wasted effort ...the damage has already been done. Let's worry about and work towards minimizing it's effects on human existence and culture.Baron MaxI think this is probably true, but there is a disasterous chance it is not.

Quoting my prior post:
"My main concern is that the fraction that man does add to increase rate of global warming may be sufficient to trigger the decomposition of the methane hydrates. - Then it is possible that Earth will be transformed into a cooler version of Venus. I.e. no liquid oceans on Earth -all H2O on Earth as a very high pressure steam atmosphere,...This risk of a runaway instability is small, IMHO, but real as the amount of methane that can be released is now large and with man speeding of the natural warming, may come into the atmosphere in a time too short to be removed by low temperature oxidation or dissolved into the oceans. "

If that should happen, then nothing can live on Earth any more that organisms can live inside a very high pressure steam boiler. If the oceans are converted to steam, the pressure at ground level will be approximately 1000 atmospheres and steam temperature ~100 times hotter than steam you know. (Only guessing at these values - but they give the correct idea.)

Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...

Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...I am reminded of a story I like:
Scene:
Huge forest fire near the sea. Pelican sitting on dock post watching small bird repeatly fill beak with water and then dump it over the fire.

Pelican to bird:
"You are being silly. - what you are doing will not put out that fire."

Bird to Pelican:
"You may be right, but I have to try."

"The Tragedy of the Commons" by Garrett Hardin is relevant here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

If scientists are taking cash then they should also be liable to pay compensation...

Do we have the moral authority not to try to do something? Trying might stop disaster. With such enormous odds at stake the answer should be obvious...

Well, since it's highly likely that you can't define "moral authority", nor probably denote who is to be the leader/commander/etc., then your question is completely non-sensical.

Moral authority? What is it? What do you mean? And who do you include?

Moral? What is it? What do you mean? And who do you include?

And what would be the "moral authority" if the efforts to "try something" actually crippled other nations of the world? Welfare? Charity?

But enough of that psycho-babble bullshit ....most of the nations of the western world actually are doing something, even if it's small and seemingly insignificant. We now have the option, for example, to buy hybrid cars. Engines are being made more and more efficient. Bio-diesel fuel is being made and used more and more. And there are other such things that might have the slightest, most insignificant impact on global warming (althought I don't think so!).

I still think it's best if we start seeking ways to live WITH global warming as opposed to fighting it. Turning the world from it's present course is not going to be easy, nor is it going to happen overnight. We'd best look to adapting!

Baron Max

I guess by moral authority I refer to the onus referred to in the Garret Hardin article, Baron. I apologise if you're already familiar with it which I assume you are.

Baron, I'm getting the feeling you don't care much about doing what is best for the Earth. After all, you'll be dead before most of this bad shit actually happens.

It's interesting to see this aspect of your character.

Has anyone actually read the letter that was sent to these scientists? Here it is:
Dear Prof. Schroeder:

The American Enterprise Institute is launching a major project to produce a review and policy critique of the forthcoming Fourth Assessment Report (FAR) of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), due for release in the spring of 2007. We are looking to commission a series of review essays from a broad panel of experts to be published concurrent with the release of the FAR, and we want to invite you to be one of the authors.

The purpose of this project is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC process, especially as it bears on potential policy responses to climate change. As with any large-scale “consensus” process, the IPCC is susceptible to self-selection bias in its personnel, resistant to reasonable criticism and dissent, and prone to summary conclusions that are poorly supported by the analytical work of the complete Working Group reports. An independent review of the FAR will advance public deliberation about the extent of potential future climate change and clarify the basis for various policy strategies. Because advance drafts of the FAR are available for outside review (the report of Working Group I is already out; Working Groups II and III will be released for review shortly), a concurrent review of the FAR is feasible for the first time.

From our earlier discussions of climate modeling (with both yourself and Prof. North), I developed considerable respect for the integrity with which your lab approaches the characterization of climate modeling data. We are hoping to sponsor a paper by you and Prof. North that thoughtfully explores the limitations of climate model outputs as they pertain to the development of climate policy (as opposed to the utility of climate models in more theoretical climate research). In particular, we are looking for an author who can write a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy. If you are interested in the idea, or have thoughts about who else might be interested, please give Ken Green a call at 202-XXX-XXXX at your convenience.

If you and Prof. North are agreeable to being authors, AEI will offer an honoraria of $10,000. The essay should be in the range of 7,500 to 10,000 words, though it can be longer. The deadline for a complete draft will be December 15, 2007. We intend to hold a series of small conferences and seminars in Washington and elsewhere to coincide with the release of both the FAR and our assessment in the spring or summer of 2007, for which we can provide travel expenses and additional honoraria if you are able to participate.

Please feel free to contact us with questions and thoughts on this invitation.

Cordially,

Steven F. Hayward, Ph.D, Resident Scholar Kenneth Green, Ph.D, Visiting Scholar
Doesn't sound like bribery to me. It sounds like being paid to perform a project. No different from any other corporately funded scientific research. This is much ado about nothing.

So because other research is corporate-funded then its ok to go against all the tenets of science and make the destruction of the planet and its nature permissable...is it?

Should the Chinese and Indians also cut back their fossil-fuel burning by 20%, and how would you force them to do it?

Should the Chinese and Indians also cut back their fossil-fuel burning by 20%, and how would you force them to do it?

nuclear weapons. :p

I think that many scientists fear for their careers if they criticize the global warming theory.

No doubt about it, a Weather Channel honcho wants certificates given to only meteorologists who see human-caused global warming.

Similarly with Darwinism and Uniformitarianism, if you don't trumpet those notions, you have little upside in career advancement and tenure at State U.

I think that many scientists fear for their careers if they criticize the global warming theory.

Ditto marijuana research in the UK - it appears that the professional scientific establishment is subservient to corporate imperialism. The general funding issue alone merits this comment.

So because other research is corporate-funded then its ok to go against all the tenets of science and make the destruction of the planet and its nature permissable...is it?
What the hell are you talking about? No where in the letter does he ask them to do anything but study the issue. This is the same kind of scare mongering we see throughout the anthrogenic global warming movement. It's like a new "red scare" but this time it's a green menace we have to fear.

Really - so the recent evidence from Antarctica is scaremongering?

You don't think communism is/was a threat to the USA? Cuban missile crisis?

Do you live at sea level?

Really - so the recent evidence from Antarctica is scaremongering?

You don't think communism is/was a threat to the USA? Cuban missile crisis?
I'm not disputing that the average global temperature has risen slightly over the past hundred years. I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising

If the increase in temperature does have anything to do with "greenhouse gasses", one must consider the fact that 99% of greenhouse gases are produced by nature (94% if you ignore the most important gas, water vapor)..

And yes, I did consider the godless commies a threat. I just couldn't resist the green menace line.

The best way to solve the climate change crisis is to all get together and pray to God.

He’s causing it.

"I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising"

Source please?

Source please?

And furthermore, madanthony, is it peer-reviewed? And does it conclude that all of what we're observing can be explained by the sun alone? Or at the very least, does it say that's a major cause?

"I do dispute that it can be said that this has anything whatsoever to do with human activity.

Alterations in the activity of the sun are more likely to "blame" for the slight increase in temperature. This is especially obvious when you consider that the temperature on Mars also seems to be rising"

Source please?
Here's one: Sun's Output Increasing in Possible Trend Fueling Global Warming
By Robert Roy Britt
Senior Science Writer
posted: 02:30 pm ET
20 March 2003

In what could be the simplest explanation for one component of global warming, a new study shows the Sun's radiation has increased by .05 percent per decade since the late 1970s.

The increase would only be significant to Earth's climate if it has been going on for a century or more, said study leader Richard Willson, a Columbia University researcher also affiliated with NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Even more convincing is this graph:
http://www.space.com/images/suncycle_temps_0108_02.gif
You notice that the graph of solar activity and temperature are almost exactly the same.

Here's a bunch more:

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?.
C. R. de Freitas (2002)
Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology 50, 297-327
http://bcpg.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/50/2/297
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply.
L. C. Gerhard (2006)
AAPG Bulletin 90, 409-412
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/full/90/3/409

The Sun's Role in Climate Variations.
D. Rind (2002)
Science 296, 673-677
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/296/5568/673

Causes of Climate Change Over the Past 1000 Years.
T. J. Crowley (2000)
Science 289, 270-277
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/289/5477/270

Climatic change in Chile at around 2700 BP and global evidence for solar forcing: a hypothesis.
B. van Geel, C. J. Heusser, H. Renssen, and C. J.E. Schuurmans (2000)
The Holocene 10, 659-664
http://hol.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/10/5/659

Palaeoenvironmental evidence for solar forcing of Holocene climate: linkages to solar science.
F. M. Chambers, M. I. Ogle, and J. J. Blackford (1999)
Progress in Physical Geography 23, 181-204
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/2/181
Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change.
C. A. Perry and K. J. Hsu (2000)
PNAS 97, 12433-12438
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/23/12433

Thanks - will check through this and get back to you...

And does it conclude that all of what we're observing can be explained by the sun alone? Or at the very least, does it say that's a major cause?

The stuff that I've seen says that it's a minor but non-negligible part, ~20% or so. These findings, of course, are swept under the rug by "official" climatologists who favor alarmist predictions and raidcal policies in the stead of workable solutions.

The scarier statistic is that if Britain were to shut off tomorrow---i.e. completely eliminate all emission of carbon, the growth in China over the next two years would make up for the loss. If we have decided that climate change is an issue, then the west should surely lead the way. However, any good that we may do in this hemishpere will be overshadowed by China and India. China and India will refuse to accept any limitations on their carbon emissions, under the auspices that they are still "developing" and the West is "developed".

I think we should take the Futurama solution and move the Earth's orbit out just a bit.

There are still some scientists who are not sold on anthropogenic causes for climate change.

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.

Rest of the article, with some shitty popups...

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

I too have my doubts about mankind creating enough gasses (at least to this point in time) to create an unnatural global warming.

I cant find anyone to explain to me the pattern of warming / cooling that seems to occur on several cycles and link this to mankind. 100K years and 400K years seems to be the accepted pattern.

More recently heres a few links to stories done on warming patterns:

Holocene Warming Info

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_climatic_optimum

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Holocene_Temperature_Variations.png

Middle Ages warmer than today:

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/04/06/1049567563628.html

Heres some people looking at past ocean levels:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000226/bob10.asp

Also, the claims of C02 being a cause of global warming and the reports that there hasnt been as significant of a shift in C02 levels in ice checks going back 100 - 400 to 600 K years ago (depending on whos doing the reporting) doesnt this fly in the face of CO2 being a cause if we had significant warmings as shown in the holocene climatic optimum? If the temps rose then and ice cores dont show an associated CO2 rise, what caused the temps to rise 4 - 8000 years ago?

Dear Madanthonywayne, I'm sorry I haven't read the references you provided but I am sure they are valid...that is the problem with a statistics.
Problem is that I can't take the chance on believing statistics when we have so much to lose and I also feel I have the responsibility to my fellow humans and creatures.

Problem is that I can't take the chance on believing statistics when we have so much to lose and I also feel I have the responsibility to my fellow humans and creatures.

This is the normal environmentalist response--that it is better to err on the side of caution. The problem is, here we are talking about literally thousands of trillions of dollars. The Kyoto protocols have cost something like $300 billion and cut the projected temperature in 2050 by 0.003 K. If we want to save 3 K, the naive extrapolation is 3 thousand trillion dollars that the world would spend---we could colonize the moon for this!

This is the normal environmentalist response--that it is better to err on the side of caution.

Or a scientists response.

Or a scientists response.
A scientist would do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action and see that the Kyoto protocals are insane by any reasonable standard. A scientist does not act without evidence. To do so is to turn global warming into a religion.

No - a scientist would look at the evidence and leave the cost/benefit analysis to the accountant that pays his/her wages (in the context of the OP).

An accountant acts regardless of evidence if the buck is there...money is the lifeblood of global warming.

A scientist would do a cost/benefit analysis of any proposed action and see that the Kyoto protocals are insane by any reasonable standard. A scientist does not act without evidence. To do so is to turn global warming into a religion.With consumption already a religion we need a new religion. Do you really think pumping all our energy sources out of the Earth then expelling it ALL into the atmosphere, consistently for a century or more isn't going to have effect? Even if it isn't our cause why not do our best to reduce any impact we do have? I'm more than willing to pay higher prices. Why the irresponsibility from the Right? Because their oil baron gods like things just as they are. We'll see where that gets you.

The Kyoto protocol is flawed because it is not appropriate to reduce fossil fuel emissions in the proper quantity.

What needs to happen is the abolition of fossil fuel. Period. But as everyone knows, that can't happen overnight.

It's hard to believe denialists are still being rampant on these forums.

Totally Facial - and how many of them live at sea level?

Some of the denialist links posted above are obviously a product of Big Oil's junk science. There are, of course, the tobacco denialists too. I've seen them post some pretty convincing "literature" on these forums before. What a disgrace to humankind.

Totally Facial - and how many of them live at sea level?

6.6 billion minus a half dozen divided by 6.6 billion? There are always a handful of people in space. You'll need a population of about 50 to survive into a healthy population again. And we don't even have that many people in space.

Some of the denialist links posted above are obviously a product of Big Oil's junk science.

Obviously there can be no science that is contrary to the prevailing opinion that is not funded by partisan interests.

What needs to happen is the abolition of fossil fuel. Period. But as everyone knows, that can't happen overnight.

Care to run that by China first?

I can say that most, if not all, net environmental groups are pro oil. Oh they won't say so but they censor any debate re big oils responsibilities and push the hoax of greenhouse gases.... everyone is responsible for them.

But only big oil is responsible for the oil layer upon the seas.

Most net science forums are in the chartel.... even this one. Meaningful and detailed discussion is impossible.

The net is thus nobbled.

Even Al Gore (oh hero of global warming) is chuckling to himself... and pocketing millions. (oil man, and equally guilty of coercion and hiding the truth)

Tis the scam of all time, and you the public are asleep, and if the messenger wakes you up... shoot him.

Bush (oil man),,,, LOL, y'all caught in a trap and no way out.
pathetic.

Obviously there can be no science that is contrary to the prevailing opinion that is not funded by partisan interests.



Care to run that by China first?That's right, pass responsibility onto someone else.:rolleyes: Typical 'pro-active' American.

Typical 'pro-active' American.

Guilty as charged. I guess. Read my post a few posts back. (#65)

BenTheMan, you claim to be an actual physicist. What makes you qualified to develop an independent stance from the majority of climate scientists?

What makes you qualified to develop an independent stance from the majority of climate scientists?

I never claimed that I disbelieved the climate scientists. I just pointed out that there were those who took issue with the current concensus. (To tell you the truth, I do believe most of the science, but disagree with the scare tactics that the environmentalists are using to force their agenda on us. Such tactics have never worked in the past, and will never work in the future.)

I also pointed out that China has no interest in cutting its carbon emissions, and will see any attempt to do so as an infringement on their right to develop in the pursuit of world power status. In fact, cutting emissions in the West may lead to ever increasing emissions in China, as western businesses may find the climate for business in China much more favorable. If you disagree with this, then you are just foolish. China doesn't care about the environment, just like they don't care about the fact that the Sudanese are killing their own citizens---they're still willing to give the president of that country millions of dollars to build a new palace, and dump tons of money into the infrastructure via oil imports, all while turning a blind eye to human rights abuses.

And if I DID have an opposing viewpoint, I would be as qualified as anyone who wanted to read the papers to form such an opinion.

Pleae take no offense to these comments, but one could also ask what qualified you to believe the climatologists? Is it just because most of them are running around shouting "global warming"? Is it because that is the politically correct opinion? Is it because you and most of your liberal friends get together in coffee houses on Friday nights and talk about the genius of Al Gore? (Note the sarcasm!)

The UN report says that it's manmade greenhouse which is causing it, but they say that we can't stop it anyway, so actually, they are admitting it's not manmade without out literally having to say so, nice dodge.

The UN report says that it's manmade greenhouse which is causing it, but they say that we can't stop it anyway, so actually, they are admitting it's not manmade without out literally having to say so, nice dodge.

No, they didn't.

The UN report says that it's manmade greenhouse which is causing it, but they say that we can't stop it anyway, so actually, they are admitting it's not manmade without out literally having to say so, nice dodge.

I don't think A implies B.

If cutting back emissions wouldn't help, then it has no bearing.

If cutting back emissions wouldn't help, then it has no bearing.

Are comments of this nature a subconscious drive to validate the eschatology of the 'Judgement Day'?

How many of the scientists who doubt the role of humans in global warming are unconscious eschatologists?

How would this slight global warming affect Judgment Day?

I suggest you check out the media:

e.g. http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp

http://www.cnn.com/interactive/world/europe/0102/global.warming/frameset.exclude.html

Judgment Day is after the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.

Judgment Day is after the thousand year reign of Jesus Christ on Earth.Who told you that?

Perhaps its the longest day? And if global warming continues unabated we will see the longest summer. then the longest winter....then when all the planet is cleansed of the species that is destroying it...spring will blossom again.

....then when all the planet is cleansed of the species that is destroying it...spring will blossom again.

Well, that's a nice thought for the Earth, but unfortunately I'm sure that a few humans will survive .....and start polluting and destroying the planet all over again.

Baron Max

Darn it - you're always so pragmatic Baron...again my utopian naivism is subjugated.
This was the problem with the Ark as I always point out to the Jehovah Witnesses when they call to make attempts at conversion....if the flood came to cleanse the world of evil then it must have sneaked back into the Ark...unless it spontaneously created itself of course.

Who is building the 'ark' for this flood? What technologies are they using? And are we paying for it?

The 'comedian' Ben Elton raised this issue in his book 'Stark'...in fact quite percipient regarding the OP.

....if the flood came to cleanse the world of evil then it must have sneaked back into the Ark...

It did ....there were humans on board! :D

The 'comedian' Ben Elton raised this issue in his book 'Stark'...in fact quite percipient regarding the OP.

If you can find it, check out a comedy recording by Bill Cosby on Noah and the Great Flood. You'll laugh your butt off. If memory serves me, it was recorded sometime in the early 70's. On the same album is his version of "Custer's Last Stand", which is equally humorous.

Baron Max

The nature of the hydrologic cycle dictates that warmer oceans were the cause of the Ice Age, and warmer by heating from below, not atmospheric, as atmospheric would be cooled back down by the great cloud-cover caused by the warmer ocean water.

C'mon Baron, I'm expecting you to admit to getting this. (Many of the rest do, but won't admit it.)

If you can find it, check out a comedy recording by Bill Cosby on Noah and the Great Flood. You'll laugh your butt off. If memory serves me, it was recorded sometime in the early 70's. On the same album is his version of "Custer's Last Stand", which is equally humorous.

Baron Max

Thanks Baron:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Zyc1315KawQ

I think Cosby's Noah's Ark came out in the early 60's 'cause I was in a skit in about 5th grade were we did his script in the talent show (I'm 54, not 97 or 98).

The keyboard player in our band about two years later was the ringleader for the skit, he was down with Cosby, Hendrix, the Stones, Johny Carson, the Yardbirds, Otis Redding, Wilson Pickett, Sam and Dave, Eric Clapton, the whole bit. Pat Murray is his name, he plays jazz now in Tulsa.

Wow - amazing to play round guys like that...Bob Dylan's memoirs were evocative of that period. I met Spencer Davies once - helluva nice bloke...I didn't know who he was...we were backstage at a small club and some music started, he stood up and shook my hand and said 'My names Spence' and walked onto the stage and sang 'Gimme Some Lovin'.

Gone a bit off saving the planet though haven't we IAC? Do you think this is a subconscious eschatological impulse?

Please restate your question.

If cutting back emissions wouldn't help, then it has no bearing.

Too bad no one except the denialists are saying cutting back our emissions won't help.

Too bad no one except the denialists are saying cutting back our emissions won't help.

I don't know if this is true at all---one only need look at the facts. Cutting our emissions will help, inasmuch as throwing a thimble-full of water on a fire will help in putting it out. It IS important that the West take the lead, but it is only with the understanding that China and India will somehow agree to drastically cut its emissions in the future.

Ben - do you think that you as an individual (or any other individual or group) have the right to contribute to jeopardising a shared resource? Is it ethical as a scientist to be doing this?
I thought the scientists first responsibility was to his fellow humans - not to science itself.

Ben - do you think that you as an individual (or any other individual or group) have the right to contribute to jeopardising a shared resource? Is it ethical as a scientist to be doing this?
I thought the scientists first responsibility was to his fellow humans - not to science itself.
It is the global warming alarmists who are jeopardising our resources by recommending we waste billions on measures that will have no measurable effect.

So we get a bit skint if we're wrong - but if you're wrong...what cost then?

What, sea levels rise a few feet? Big deal. They rose a few feet in the twentieth century, and I don't see that listed anywhere as one of that centurys greatest problems.

Or are you postulating a Day After Tommorow scenario?

No - I live at sea level and so do 50% of the worlds population -what kind of economic cost will the migration of billions of people do to your precious profit and loss?

What, sea levels rise a few feet? Big deal.

Global warming would also disrupt the Earth's delicate climate system, severely.

There's definitely more to worry about than a rise in sea level.

Yes - Athelwulf, this has already been outlined several times in the thread.

Yes - Athelwulf, this has already been outlined several times in the thread.

And yet madanthony doesn't seem to get it. Maybe he doesn't want to?

lol - its funny how one can take a counterpoint passionately on one issue and agree wholeheartedly on others...

lol - its funny how one can take a counterpoint passionately on one issue and agree wholeheartedly on others...

Yeah. As if the causes of a rise in sea level don't also by extension cause a severe disruption in the global climate. People need to see the bigger picture.

Global warming would also disrupt the Earth's delicate climate system, severely.

There's definitely more to worry about than a rise in sea level.
Your proof is nothing but BS computer simulations that can not even predict the present. We're talking about a huge cost. Money spent on what may be an imaginary threat is not available to use on real ones.

I'm all for reasonable measures. For instance, I've replaced every incandescent bulb in my house with a compact flourescent. If the whole country did this, we'd use only about 25% as much power for lighting.

A compact fluorescent has clear advantages over the widely used incandescent light — it uses 75 percent less electricity, lasts 10 times longer, produces 450 pounds fewer greenhouse gases from power plants and saves consumers $30 over the life of each bulb. But it is eight times as expensive as a traditional bulb, gives off a harsher light and has a peculiar appearance.

As a result, the bulbs have languished on store shelves for a quarter century; only 6 percent of households use the bulbs today.

Which is what makes Wal-Mart’s goal so wildly ambitious. If it succeeds in selling 100 million compact fluorescent bulbs a year by 2008, total sales of the bulbs in the United States would increase by 50 percent, saving Americans $3 billion in electricity costs and avoiding the need to build additional power plants for the equivalent of 450,000 new homes. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/business/02bulb.html?ex=1325394000en=7cdfdd70524b7590ei=508 8partner=rssnytemc=rss

I own a two story home with a basement. That's a lot of lights. Have you done even this simple thing? Don't go proposing we cripple our economy and throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work if you haven't.

Global warming would also disrupt the Earth's delicate climate system, severely.

There's definitely more to worry about than a rise in sea level.

What else Athenwulf?

Your proof is nothing but BS computer simulations that can not even predict the present.

I'm remembering this from the top of my head, but I can say that a lot of measurements we took in the past which attempted to determine where we'd be today turned out to be fairly accurate. I don't know which computer simulations you were looking at.

We're talking about a huge cost. Money spent on what may be an imaginary threat is not available to use on real ones.

I understand this reluctance to splurge money. Luckily for you, however, the evidence in favor of this threat, and the evidence which shows we're majorly responsible, is pretty strong. You just have to see it all.

I'm all for reasonable measures. For instance, I've replaced every incandescent bulb in my house with a compact flourescent. If the whole country did this, we'd use only about 25% as much power for lighting.

I own a two story home with a basement. That's a lot of lights.

This is good. And this certainly does help. So on behalf of the Earth, I thank you. :)

Have you done even this simple thing?

And if I have, or am now about to?

Don't go proposing we cripple our economy and throw hundreds of thousands of people out of work if you haven't.

It's interesting you should mention these. I've read in a Harper's Index from late last year that the ratio of the cost of ratifying and complying with the Kyoto Treaty against the cost of the Iraq War thus far was 1:1. Also, I don't see how any unemployment would result from compliance that wouldn't be evened out by new jobs that would also result from compliance. But to be honest, I haven't given this point much thought, as I consider it a very small price to pay, given the circumstances.

Ben - do you think that you as an individual (or any other individual or group) have the right to contribute to jeopardising a shared resource? Is it ethical as a scientist to be doing this?

I just want to be clear that I haven't stated my position or my beliefs anywhere here. I have simply shown that any cuts the West may make in terms of carbon emissions will be overshadowed by China and Inidia's emissions in the coming decades. This is a fact, and is not open to debate. Unless China and India accept their roles in climate change, then the best we can hope for is to push back the predictions of the IPCC. Again, this is not open to debate---it is a fact.

I will not answer ethical questions here because there are no ethical matters to be discussed. If one wants to debate the virtues of development vs. conservation vis a vis China and India's race for world power status, then perhaps we should start a new thread.

I thought the scientists first responsibility was to his fellow humans - not to science itself.

This is perhaps outside the scope of this discussion, but this depends on the scientist, and the fellow humans. There are certainly climate scientists who feel that the consensus is over-stated, and that many who are claiming to be experts are not. This is perhaps a shrinking minority (I don't know figures), but it would be difficult to argue that these scientists do not have the public's interest at heart when doing this research. In their opinions, whether or not you agree with that opinion, they are ensuring that the public is not duped into something that will demand most of the Earth's economic resources for the coming century.

This is a response from the president of the company offering the grants to scientists, directed towards the original article in The Guardian.

Anyone who has been keeping up with this thread should probably read this.

AEI President Responds to “Cash for Climate Science” Accusation


The response is from the President of AEI.
************************************************** **********

February 2, 2007

Note for AEI Scholars, Fellows, and Staff

Many of us have received telephone calls and emails prompted by a shoddy article on the front page of today’s Guardian, the British newspaper, headlined
“Scientists offered cash to dispute climate study” (posted at http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html#article_continue).

The article uses several garden-variety journalistic tricks to create the impression of a story where none exists. Thus, AEI is described as a “lobby group” (we are a research group that does no lobbying and takes no institutional positions on policy issues); ExxonMobil’s donations to AEI are either bulked up by adding donations over many years, or simply made up (the firm’s annual AEI support is generous and valued but is a fraction of the amount reported—no corporation accounts for more than 1 percent of our annual budget); and AEI is characterized as the Bush administration’s “intellectual Cosa Nostra” and “White House surrogates” (AEI scholars criticize or praise Bush administration policies—every day, on the merits). All of this could have been gleaned from a brief visit to the AEI website.

But the article’s specific charge (announced in the headline) is a very serious one. Although most of you will appreciate the truth on your own, I thought it would be useful to provide a few details.

First, AEI has published a large volume of books and papers on climate change issues over the past decade and has held numerous conferences on the subject. A wide range of views on the scientific and policy issues have been presented in these publications and conferences. All of them are posted on our website. It would be easy to find policy arguments in our publications and conferences that people at ExxonMobil (or other corporations that support AEI) disagree with—as well as those they agree with and, I hope, some they hadn’t thought of until we presented them. Our latest book on the subject, Lee Lane’s Strategic Options for Bush Administration Climate Policy, advocates a carbon tax, which I’m pretty sure ExxonMobil opposes (the book also dares to criticize some of the Bush administration’s climate-change policies!).

Second, attempting to disentangle science from politics on the question of climate change causation, and to fashion policies that take account of the uncertainties concerning causation, are longstanding AEI interests. Several recent issues of our “Environmental Policy Outlook” address these issues, as does Ken Green’s “Q & A” article in the November-December issue of The American. The new research project that Ken and Steve Hayward have been organizing is a continuation of these interests. I am attaching the two letters that Steve and Ken have sent out to climate change scientists and policy experts (the first one emphasizing the scientific and climate-modeling issues addressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; the second, more recent one covering broader policy issues as well)—and invite you to read them and compare them with the characterization in the Guardian article. The first letter, sent last summer to Professor Steve Schroeder of Texas A&M (and also to his colleague Gerald North), is the one quoted by the Guardian. Ken and Steve canvassed scholars with a range of views on the scientific and policy issues, with an eye to the intrinsic quality and interest of their work rather than to whether partisans might characterize them as climate change “skeptics” or “advocates.” They certainly did not avoid those with a favorable view of the IPCC reports—such as Professor Schroeder himself.

Third, what the Guardian essentially characterizes as a bribe is the conventional practice of AEI—and Brookings, Harvard, and the University of Manchester—to pay individuals at other research institutions for commissioned work, and to cover their travel expenses when they come to the sponsoring institution to present their papers. The levels of authors’ honoraria vary from case to case, but a $10,000 fee for a research project involving the review of a large amount of dense scientific material, and the synthesis of that material into an original, footnoted and rigorous article is hardly exorbitant or unusual; many academics would call it modest.

We should all be aware that political attacks such as the Guardian‘s are more than sloppy or sensation-seeking journalism: they are efforts to throttle debate, and therefore aim at the heart of AEI’s purposes and methods. The successive IPCC climate change reports contain a wealth of valuable information, but there has been a longstanding effort to characterize them as representing more of a “scientific consensus” than they probably are, and to gloss over uncertainties and disagreements within the IPCC documents themselves. Consensus plays an important role in science and scientific progress, but so does disputation—reasoned argument is essential to good science, and competition of ideas is essential to scientific progress. AEI is strongly opposed to the politicization of science, just as it is to the politicization of economics and other disciplines. On climate change as on other issues, we try to sort out the areas of genuine consensus from the areas of reasonable debate and uncertainty. Ken and Steve’s letter to Professor Schroeder was clear about this: “we are looking for . . . a well-supported but accessible discussion of which elements of climate modeling have demonstrated predictive value that might make them policy-relevant and which elements of climate modeling have less levels of predictive utility, and hence, less utility in developing climate policy.”

The effort to anathematize opposing views is the standard recourse of the ideologue; one of AEI’s highest purposes, here as in many other contentious areas, is to ensure that such efforts do not succeed.


Chris DeMuth

(signed)

Mmm...I wonder how Foucault would analyse this?

It's interesting you should mention these. I've read in a Harper's Index from late last year that the ratio of the cost of ratifying and complying with the Kyoto Treaty against the cost of the Iraq War thus far was 1:1. Also, I don't see how any unemployment would result from compliance that wouldn't be evened out by new jobs that would also result from compliance. But to be honest, I haven't given this point much thought, as I consider it a very small price to pay, given the circumstances.
Here's the problem with your logic. The money spent on Kyoto compliance would have been spent on something productive. The jobs created will take the place of other jobs. Furthermore, the increased energy costs caused by Kyoto would push many businesses into bankrupsy and throw hundreds of thousands out of work. Here's the evidence.
New research published today (7th November 2005) by the International Council for Capital Formation (ICCF) reveals the broad and significant economic repercussions of adopting Kyoto for the UK, Germany, Italy and Spain - and specifically its impact for each nation on energy prices, economic growth (in terms of GDP) and jobs.

The series of in-depth studies analysed the economic and energy implications of meeting emissions reductions defined under the Kyoto Protocol through an emissions trading regime. An assumption was made that the EU emissions trading scheme will be broadened to cover all sectors, including households and transportation. The studies show a significant rise in energy costs for consumers and businesses.

The research revealed that if the four countries meet their Kyoto emission reduction targets in 2010 they face:

- Increasing energy bills: An average increase in electricity prices of 26% and an average increase of 41% of natural gas prices by 2010 (across UK, Germany, Spain and Italy - see full table in notes to editors)

- Significant job losses: Job losses of at least 200,000 in each of Italy, Germany, UK and Spain to meet Kyoto targets by 2010 - rising to as many as 611,000 in Spain in 2010

- Damage to economy: A significant reduction in GDP below base case levels by 2010: 0.8% for Germany (18.5 billion Euros), 3.1% for Spain (26 billion Euros), 2.1% for Italy (27 billion Euros) and 1.1% for the UK (22 billion Euros). http://www.prnewswire.co.uk/cgi/news/release?id=157608
The Kyoto agreement--if fully complied with--would likely reduce the gross domestic product of the United States by 2.3 percent per year. However, according to a climate model of the National Center for Atmospheric Research recently featured in Science, the Kyoto emission-control commitments would reduce mean planetary warming by a mere 0.19 degree Celsius over the next 50 years. If the costs of preventing additional warming were to remain constant, the Kyoto Protocol would cost a remarkable 12 percent of GDP per degree of warming prevented annually over a 50-year period.

The Kyoto Protocol will have no discernible effect on global climate--in fact, it is doubtful that the current network of surface thermometers could distinguish a change on the order of .19 degree from normal year-to-year variations. The Kyoto Protocol will result in no demonstrable climate change but easily demonstrable economic damage. http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-307es.html

International Council for Capital Formation
LOL, what an ironic name.

I'm in favor of global climate change. While literally millions of species may go extinct, the price of a post-apocolyptic future with roving nomad gangs fighting for scant(ily clad) resources is totally worth it.

How I long to fight in the Thunderdome.

No you don't. You like sitting there on your arse fantasising about it, or maybe simulating it on your Playstation.

OK then, it's real. And your opponent is... Charles Bronson. No, not him:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/646857.stm

In his latest siege, Bronson tied up prison teacher Phil Danielson with a rope and towed him round the jail for 44 hours.

Armed with two knives, he twice tried to harm himself during the siege. He hit himself over the head with a bottle and tore a washing machine filled with water from its socket in an attempt to electrocute himself.
Strategy?

No you don't. You like sitting there on your arse fantasising about it, or maybe simulating it on your Playstation.

OK then, it's real. And your opponent is... Charles Bronson. No, not him:

Strategy?

Shoot him.

How I long to fight in the superdome.

Thunderdome.
The Superdome was the place where all the refugees sat in feces-encrusted squalor during Katrina.
No need for a futuristic doomsday to fight there.


"I like this world! I be a god here!"

Id rather fight in the superdome.

Thunderdome.
The Superdome was the place where all the refugees sat in feces-encrusted squalor during Katrina.
No need for a futuristic doomsday to fight there.


"I like this world! I be a god here!"

Odd.
I recall typing Thunderdome.

Fixed now, thanks.

Sorry to interupt our Mad Max flashback, but back to the topic for a moment, here's a statement from one of the men accused of bribery:
Steve Hayward writes:
Some of you beyond the Beltway may have seen stories that have been given big play here and abroad over the last week alleging that I have attempted to bribe scientists to undermine a UN report. These ludicrous charges originated in a British tabloid [London Guardian] report, which were reckless and lazy even by tabloid reporting standards. But they were picked up credulously by the U.S. media and of course by politicians who now threaten me darkly with the prospect of show trial hearings.

The full background, including the relevant internal documents and the reply of my ultimate boss to a very silly letter from four very silly senators, in posted on AEI's website here (http://www.aei.org/publications/pubID.25586,filter.all/pub_detail.asp ).

More to the point, my colleague Ken Green and I respond fully in The Weekly Standard,

Peter Schramm of No Left Turns has posted a podcast with Steve here, explaining how this is "much ado about nothing." http://powerlineblog.com/archives/016749.php

It seems that anyone who has any objection to the notion that climate change might be anything other than manmade is immediately tarred and feathered. This is not how science operates.

Of course, no bias exists for proving global warming. :rolleyes:

The UCS describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists that initially came together in 1969. It integrates "independent scientific research" with "citizen action" for the purpose of developing and implementing "changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices."

But critics say it is an openly political group.

According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."

David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom - agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."

University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."

The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.

Private foundations cumulatively spend tens of millions of dollars annually on climate change projects, according to information made available through the foundations' websites.
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200701/NAT20070123a.html

Dr Oreskes's study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government's chief scientific adviser.
advertisement

However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.

They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.
...

Dr Peiser submitted his findings to Science in January, and was asked to edit his paper for publication - but has now been told that his results have been rejected on the grounds that the points he make had been "widely dispersed on the internet".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml


It's a political football and has been for the last 30 years or so, you should be expecting this.

~Raithere

Raithere---you should be called Tim.

It seems that anyone who has any objection to the notion that climate change might be anything other than manmade is immediately tarred and feathered. This is not how science operates.

Umm, where have you been for the past four centuries?
This is precisely how science operates.
Err, well, scientists.

Huh?

Huh?

Is there any way we could convice you to cull yourself?

How much are you willing to pay?

I bet sciforums could raise a thousand dollars for you to cut your balls off.

Not nearly enough.

If my input is as absurd as you make it out to be, then why does it distress you so much?

If my input is as absurd as you make it out to be, then why does it distress you so much?

Because some people are gullible enough to believe those who deny obvious facts, for the stupidest reasons. And in some cases, such as this, that can cause real damage.

What "real damage?" (This oughta be good.)