Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
The Minnesota Daily – February 19, 2007
This article discusses that the University of Minnesota is planning on giving former Vice President Al Gore a honorary doctorate in climatology. I won’t bother to make any comments.
University President Bob Bruininks spilled the beans at the February Board of Regents meeting, saying that “two of our colleges are working with Vice President Gore to provide, we hope, an honorary doctorate.”
“He’s in the news and is a legitimate expert on a pressing issue of global concern, climate change, so this level of interest is understandable,” Wolter said. “However, no plans have been set and it’s unlikely that would occur this spring.”
The Christian Science Monitor – February 20, 2007
This is a very interesting article that continues the thought process that methane is the worst offender in the battle of the greenhouse gases. The article contends that the huge livestock populations produce waste which produces methane in quantities that the environment cannot handle. The solution is to change the diet of a large portion of the population so that we need less livestock and therefore less of their waste.
While this is an interesting proposition, I am not sure that the science is 100% sound and I also am not sure that the cost is worth the benefit. There is no explanation of how to provide the nutrients that are needed by the human population without livestock.READ MORE
AccuWeather.com: Global Warming News – January 9, 2007
This is a very good blog entry that discusses the exaggerations that can happen on both sides of this issue. I especially find outrageous that someone actually wrote that billions will die if we don’t make massive changes to our human output. This blog (nor the article) makes reference to how many people will die by diverting billions or trillions of dollars to new methods of energy use and distribution.
The headline grabbed my attention – stating that “Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012.”
Heck, if that’s the case, I might as well go right down to the GM dealership and buy a Hummer. What difference will that make?
Archdiocese of Sydney – February 18, 2007
This article is more of an open letter from Cardinal Pell, Cardinal Priest of the Title of S. Maria Domenica Mazzarello. It is interesting, not in the discussion of facts (as these are not really mentioned) but in the advice that weather and climate are quite complicated and we really don’t understand it enough to draw conclusions.
We have been subjected to a lot of nonsense about climate disasters as some zealots have been painting extreme scenarios to frighten us.
I am deeply skeptical about man-made catastrophic global warming, but still open to further evidence. I would be surprised if industrial pollution, and carbon emissions, had no ill effect at all. But enough is enough.
NewScientist.com news service – February 17, 2007
This article deals with the removal of carbon dioxide (CO2) by sequestering it underground. It is a fairly brief article without a lot of details on how this could be done, its costs, nor are the side effects adequately explored.
On 10 February, an amendment to international law came into force that allows the greenhouse gas to be buried beneath the sea floor. At the same time, a new study counters one of the main fears over carbon burial – that the gas will simply leak out again, to boost future global warming.
Union of Concerned Scientists – June 28, 2006
This article describes several cases of the earth getting warmer and puts the blame on the human element. While there is little solid proof within this article, one most be curious that this is more than a coincidence.
Astonishingly, every single year since 1992 is in the current list of the 20 warmest years on record.
By matching the observed and modeled patterns, scientists can now positively identify the “human fingerprints” associated with the changes. The fingerprints that humans have left on Earth’s climate are turning up in a diverse range of records and can be seen in the ocean, in the atmosphere, and at the surface.
www.natutech.nl – Welkom bij Natuurwetenschap & Techniek – February 2005
This is a fairly long article by Marcel Crok that has been translated into english. It is full of statistical analysis. It declares that much of the underlining assumptions for the rapid increase in global temperatures is quite flawed from a statistical standpoint. A few points:
They carefully studied the script and found something very unusual. McIntyre:“In a conventional PC calculation in a high-level language, the mean of each series is subtracted from each column prior to the rest of the algorithm. Instead of doing this, Mann’s Fortran program had only subtracted the 1902-1980 mean from each column. This is a highly unusual procedure and had not been mentioned in the Nature article.”
Union of Concerned Scientists – February 16, 2006
This article does a very good job of describing the role that forests play in the carbon cycle. The article describes the US forests and their role and current standing as carbon sinks. It makes a fairly strong argument of using increased forestation to reduce the threat of fossil fuel burning. The article also points out that in many parts of the world there is an effort in place to reduce forest size so that the land may be used for other purposes.READ MORE
Financial Post – April 6, 2006
This is an open letter from 60 scientists (listed in the letter) in Canada calling on its government to walk away from the Kyoto agreement. It makes the argument that the evidence does not lead to the conclusion that the climate models are correct nor that the efforts of Kyoto will adequately affect the climate.
The article also points out that the “unqualified environmental groups” are doing a very good job of creating buzz but that their science and conclusions are not appropriate.
Observational evidence does not support today’s computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future.
NOAA July 1, 2004
This graph shows that the air over land and water has increased in temperature since the late 1800s. This graph does not appear to correct for any variations in data gathering over that time nor does it identify what technique was used to collect the data.
As is evident in the graph, 2001 was second only to 1998 in terms of global temperature, and the trend has been toward increasing temperatures at least since the beginning of the 20th century. Land temperatures have greater anomalies than the ocean, which is to be expected since land heats up and cools down faster than water.