Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
WSJ.com – March 9, 2007
This is an interesting article that technically is not about global warming. Since most proponents of global warming proclaim that we need to increase our use of alternative energy sources (something I personally agree with but for geo-political reasons – not environmental) this article is fitting for this site. The article discusses the business of importing ethanol into the US since there is a fairly hefty tariff on such imports to protect US farmers.
His company, EthylChem Ltd., is just one of a rush of new Caribbean enterprises trying to serve the suddenly booming U.S. ethanol market.
SI.com – March 6, 2007
I first read this article in the print version of the magazine Sports Illustrated (one of the few paper versions of something that I will still read). This article takes the premise that global warming is already present, it is affecting the way that we currently play sports, and will dramatically affect the way we play sports in the future (near and far). There is very little scientific analysis in this article – it simply assumes that global warming is real. It also makes some fairly stark statements about how global warming is already affecting us (I am not sure that these statements are scientifically sound). When a publication like Sports Illustrated has a front page article about global warming, you know that this is a topic that will stick around for many more months (years?).READ MORE
Canada Free Press – February 5, 2007
This is a must read article for everyone interested in this subject. I am hesitant to copy any part of this article into my post since I know that many people only read my excerpts and don’t click through to the source. Please read my quotes below but then click on the link to the actual article. It is written by a climatologist that states that the global warming panic is over-blown and we need to sit back and relax.
I usually post twice a day. In the interest of keeping this post at the top for longer, I will have no further posts today.
Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn’t exist.
RealClimate – February 16, 2007
This is a moderately technical blog entry discussing an article in Climatic Change. It is not too in depth though and the average interested reader should be able to understand it. The premise of the article is a hypothesis that there needs to be more than just changes in the Earth’s orbit to trigger the entry into or out of an ice age.
Martinson & Pitman III’s hypothesis states that the fresh water input works in concert with the Milankovitch cycle and the albedo feedback. They conclude that ‘major’ terminations can only follow from glacial build-up of sufficient magnitude to isolate the Arctic, inhibiting the inflow of fresh water to the point that salinity buildup in the surface layer from slow but continuous growth of sea-ice, causes overturn of the Arctic (through the effect on the atmospheric circulation and the ocean currents). The vertical overturning brings warmer water up from below, setting conditions that are more favorable for ice melting.
Gristmill – March 5, 2007
This is a political commentary on conservatives and conservation. The author makes the correlation that conservatism is the same as preventing global warming. The author also claims that conservatives that do not support the current theories of climate change are in violation of many of their basic principles. This is probably not true. Most conservatives are, by nature, cautious about change that is not proven and therefore their behavior could be perfectly logical.
…but the best-known conservatives continue to doubt the science of global warming, attack those who would act to reduce emissions, and deride those concerned by the threat to the planet.
I think that the work here is quite interesting and it only further draws to question if we know enough to make any real suggestions. In my opinion, there is simply too much that we do not understand about our climate to form the opinion of the IPCC. They would have been better to recommend major investments in data gathering and climate modeling technology rather than scare the world’s public by proclaiming a cause and effect.
When one converts the units, this means that the Earth’s climate system should be accumulating Joules at a rate of 2.61*10**22 Joules per year [0.98*10**22 Joules to 3.91*10*22 Joules per year] in 2005…..The data, however, show quite a different accumulation of Joules in recent years, and in 2005 in particular.
Letter to Physics Today – March 2007
This is a must read letter to the editor. It really calls into question one of the major beliefs of those who state that global warming will cause cataclysmic damage to our way of life. Basically, many people believe that if the major ocean currents change dramatically, that we will have major changes to our local weather in parts of the world. While this belief has some legitimacy, there does not seem to be a preponderance of evidence that such a change is imminent.READ MORE
Newsweek – March 12, 2007 issue
An interesting discussion on the concept of trading emissions between governments and companies so that the world can make its goals of reducing CO2 emissions. This is a great read if you believe that humans can change the climate by reducing CO2 output.
Al Gore: A responsible approach to solving this crisis would be to authorize the trading
of emissions … globally.
the value of carbon credits in circulation, now about $28 billion, will climb to $40 billion by 2010
The notion that emissions trading is going to make a significant dent in global warming is deeply flawed
…allowing polluters in the developed world to shift the burden of making cuts onto factories in the developing world
Canada Free Press – March 3, 2007
This is an interesting article that is a little difficult to read in its original form. I hesitate to do this, but I feel compelled to insert the entire article here in this forum. I want to stress that I do not own the copyright to the following information – the copyright belongs to the original site and author as they have advertised on their site. I will only do this in rare situations where readability is more of an issue.
Senator Inhofe has made available his CPAC speech notes and PowerPoint presentation to the public. The science section notes below are only a sampling of the new developments since January 2007 refuting the media engineered ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming.]SENATOR JAMES INHOFE (R-Okla.)
Ranking Member Environment & Public Works Committee
MARCH 3, 2007 POWERPOINT SPEECH
TO CPAC IN WASHINGTON, DC
AccuWeather.com – March 3, 2007
Not sure if I agree with the premise of this statement. There is no scientific evidence of this statement made by the UN Secretary-General. This is pure politics.
In an address Thursday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said global warming presents as great a threat to the world as war. He then urged the United States to lead the fight against global warming.
…the danger posed by war to all of humanity and to our planet is at least matched by the climate crisis and global warming.
In coming decades, changes in our environment and the resulting
upheavals from droughts to inundated coastal areas to loss of arable
land are likely to become a major driver of war and conflict