Dedicated to the balanced discussion of global warming
carbon offset / trading greenhouse kyoto climate model Inconvenient Truth bio fuel ipcc Glacier

Uniting to fight warming U.N. chief enlists governor’s help in stemming climate change

San Francisco Chronicle – July 28, 2007

Some say that UN Sec.-Gen. Ban Ki-moon is trying to create a new world order and drag down the US economic dominance by actively talking about global warming and its impact on the world. I don’t think that he is that nefarious and simply think that he is discussing a very important issue. He should keep this up! While he is at it, I do wish he would discuss other important issues that should be on the mind of every citizen of the world (see my posts here: Africa: Live Earth Vs. Africa and VIEW: Live earth, deaf to reality).

Academic challenges global warming theory

ABC Western Queensland – July 6, 2007

Much of the science of this article has been discussed other places on my site but I think the most significant statements are when it comes to carbon credit trading.

I don’t think that carbon trading makes sense and I am also not sure that it even works. Most carbon trading programs are tied to growing plants but, inevitably, those new plants will die and the process of decay releases much of that CO2 back to the atmosphere. So unless the carbon trading system takes into account the full carbon lifecycle, the system is not effective.

Statistics needed

National Post – November 28, 2006

Notable quote:

Dr. Edward Wegman: “I am baffled by the claim that the incorrect method doesn’t matter because the answer is correct anyway. Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science.” With bad science, only true believers can assert that they nevertheless obtained the right answer.

I have repeatedly called for better math and computational methodologies to understand our current climate change predicament. My statement comes from the belief that if we don’t understand where we are and how we got here, how in the world can we make appropriate changes that can bring meaningful changes?

Species Explosion

I have no idea if this is good news or bad. I only find it interesting that life continues to evolve even as the world changes. If you are an optimist you will say that this means that the dire predictions by many are false. If you are a negativist you will point out that this is terrible that potentially man is causing an unnatural evolution.

I tend to be a centrist and try to find the middle for all things. So in this case, I think it is wonderful that the animal and plant kingdoms will find a way to thrive even if man is potentially killing other types of life off. According to the theory of evolution, life has always been evolving to accentuate the ability to survive – this is simply one more point on the curve. I also find it sad that some species will cease to exist due to this change but acknowledge that extinction is part of the cycle of evolution.

What global warming, Australian skeptic asks

Financial Post – July 17, 2007

Bob Carter of James Cook University is probably one of the most outspoken critics of the theories of global warming within academia. His thoughts on the subject bear interest simply because he is not a politician and he is not intimately tied to companies that would benefit from no changes in energy policy.

He was recently written about in the article cited and I cannot do justice to all of his comments without violating copyright laws and copy the entire article here. I will mention a few but you will need to go to the source to get a full taste of all of his complaints.

Tempest In A Teapot

Investors Business Daily – July 25, 2007

Significant quote:

A private firm’s downgrade of its hurricane forecast raises an obvious question: If scientists can’t get near-future projections in a limited area right, how can they predict the climate decades from now?

I have been suggesting for quite some time that the first step in a global war on climate change begin in a fairly modest way. Instead of implementing extremely tough sanctions against energy use, we need to invest a relatively small amount of money to better understand our environment.

Are we falling for the great green con?

the Daily Mall – July 23, 2007

For those that read my site regularly, you will know that while I am uncertain as to the cause of climate change, I am fairly certain that carbon offset credits are a bad idea.

The basic premise on carbon offsets is to pay money to have something done that is a positive for the environment compensate for something that is bad for the environment. The problem with this is that it is difficult to do a complete accounting for all of the bad and all of the good to come up with the carbon amount to be calculated. As a simple instance, when factoring the amount of CO2 from a gallon of gasoline, do you also factor in the amount of CO2 that was spent to get the fuel to your local gas station?  What about the CO2 that was created at the refinery? Do you get to spend less or more if the fuel was pumped from the ground in Texas, the North Sea, or Saudi Arabia?

From Wales, a box to make biofuel from car fumes

Reuters – July 19, 2007

If this works out, it is very cool. This is a double whammy – capture emissions and grow algae for the production of bio-diesel.  While the process of making bio-diesel can be quite expensive, from an energy perspective, if we can rapidly increase the growing of the raw materials then it could make a big difference.

I tend to be a little skeptical on this since it seems like there is a “revolutionary” process announced every 3-4 months.  Many of these processes make great headlines but then die away quickly as the real analysis sets in.

Africa: Live Earth Vs. Africa – July 11, 2007

I will admit it, I am cynical of Live Earth. Even though I write on global warming daily in this site, I feel there are far more important things that can and should be done to ease human suffering than trying to change our climate trends. The human suffering in parts of the world is pretty extreme and, while global warming will make this worse, there are other things that can be done TODAY to ease much of that suffering.

While I am still in internal debate about the cause of any climate change, I have no doubt that we can save thousands, if not millions, of lives very quickly if we would give simple things like malaria more attention.

The sun is not to blame for global warming – July 15, 2007

There is a lot of discussion lately about the sun – is it causing global warming or not. This article tries to point out that the sun is not to blame. It is a very convincing argument and I suggest the everyone read my comments below and then click through to the original article (link below).

The arguments about climate change have been raging for years. Some say that the warming is a natural occurrence, some blame humanity  and then others simply say ?what warming?? One idea now at least can be put to rest ? the sun is not to blame.

Mike Lockwood, from Oxford?s Rutherford-Appleton Laboratory and Claus Fr