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

What I Learned about Climate Change: The Science is not Settled

David Siegel discusses his current views on climate change and how he arrived at those conclusions. It is an excellent read, especially for someone that is open to scientific reasoning on why the science of climate change (or global warming) is simply not settled. In fact, if the science on global warming is settled, it would have to be concluded that man in the form of carbon dioxide production, has some but a slight influence on the climate.

Mr. Siegel claims that this paper supports ten statements. He then says that he will back those statements during the paper. Unfortunately, my reading is ineffective at substantiating his ninth statement. I tend to say that there is some pretty substantial evidence of destruction of reef systems by changes in the acidification of the ocean and there appears to be some linkage between acidification and levels of carbon dioxide.

The Global Warming religion

I havent posted much to this site as the two sides in this debate had become very fanatical and I dont like dealing with fanatics. Since the site is dedicated to looking at both sides of the debate, fanaticism made that impractical. Regardless of the validity of a claim by one side, the other side always condemned it as a lie. Rarely was there scientific discussion as to the validity of the claim or how it was misunderstood but rather a general condemnation. Even the discussion that the other side was unreasonable has become fanatical can you ever envision a reasonable conversation between Hannity and Gore?

Making predictions almost guarantees failure

Experts like to make predictions.  They like to say that by a certain date a certain thing will happen. This is really common by people predicting the market penetration of one technology over another.  Have you noticed that these types of predictions are almost always wrong.  Why do experts make silly predictions when the success rate of such predictions is almost always poor?  It almost seems like these experts believe that everyone else cannot predict the future but they can!

Predicting the weather is really tough.  While you may rely on the prediction of weather for the following day, have you ever heard of a baseball game being cancelled on that prediction?  Would you cancel your family plans for next weekend based on the 7 day outlook?  Of course not. 

Gore lies about lying (or maybe he just lies some more)

I haven’t made a post on this site in quite some time. I had to break my silence though on the recent news coming from former US Vice President Al Gore. First let me quote his statement (this is from Reuters):

“It is not a good policy to have these massive subsidies for (U.S.) first generation ethanol,” said Gore, speaking at a green energy business conference in Athens sponsored by Marfin Popular Bank.

“First generation ethanol I think was a mistake. The energy conversion ratios are at best very small.

“It’s hard once such a program is put in place to deal with the lobbies that keep it going.”

He explained his own support for the original program on his presidential ambitions.

A Green plan that we can all probably support

Most people that read this site know that I get frustrated by the many absurd statements that both sides make regarding the subject of global warming. I am regularly frustrated by the claims and accusations that occur. I would really like to throw this entire conversation back to the scientists and tell them to not make any statements, claims, or predictions until they have good hard science to back it up. I also want them to compare those claims of damage with claims of damage from all other bad things and offset the good things of the status quo.

That said, I think we can all get behind this GREEN claim. I picked this up over at Politically Incorrect Humor. Jump over there to see more.

Obama Bets on Nuclear Power

This is great news. There is no better way to confront the possibility of global warming than more nuclear producing capacity. I understand that there are dangers, problems, and risks with the disposal of the waste, but there is simply no way to create enough electricity with more “green” alternatives.

I found this on Portfolio.com.

President Barack Obama today bet $8.3 billion on nuclear energy by offering loan guarantees for two nuclear reactors in Georgia.

The units, which will be constructed by Georgia Power at its existing Plant Vogtle nuclear power facility, will be the first nuclear energy project to break ground in 30 years.

Bill Nye calls deniers ‘unpatriotic’

Bill Nye ‘The Science Guy’ was on MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow show this past Wednesday, discussing the latest round of snowstorms and if climate change is responsible. Nye told Maddow that the people who are saying that the snowstorms around Washington D.C. disproves climate change are almost ‘unpatriotic’.

Nye also said that he felt from his experience that global warming denial could be attributed to generational factors, like his personal observations that older people have a much harder time grasping how billions of people could affect the thin atmosphere. He felt that younger generations are more accepting of this possibility.

Can no one in the Netherlands read?

I don’t know about you but I am beginning to think that no one even read the report from the IPCC in 2007.  If you live in the Netherlands, how do you just now realize that your country was incorrectly calculated to be over 50% under sea level.

This report is from Breitbart, you can read the full article there.

The Netherlands has asked the UN climate change panel to explain an inaccurate claim in a landmark 2007 report that more than half the country was below sea level, the Dutch government said Friday.

According to the Dutch authorities, only 26 percent of the country is below sea level, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will be asked to account for its figures, environment ministry spokesman Trimo Vallaart told AFP.

UN climate claims ‘based on student essay’

I picked this up at ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Company).  There is a lot of talk about Climategate and Glaciergate but now we find a new instance of the IPCC reports that were not based on peer-reviewed scientific information.

Now that the IPCC has admitted one problem, it is obvious that everyone is going to go through every claim with a fine-tooth comb. For the sake of the IPCC, I hope that there aren’t more problems discovered. If there are, then the entire global warming conversation will take a significant move towards skepticism.  It is interesting that this is almost precisely the problem that Michael Crichton described in his novel on global warming “A State of Fear” and why he spoke out about the issue of bad scientific discover.

UN climate change expert: there could be more errors in report

I am absolutely amazed at the arrogance of Dr. Rajendra Pachauri when he says “It was a collective failure by a number of people. I need to consider what action to take, but that will take several weeks. Its best to think with a cool head, rather than shoot from the hip.” How can you legitimately say that he is running an international agency that is designed to collate the scientific truth when he says this. He needs to own up to a massive mistake that has caused nations around the world to take massive actions to curb industry.

From Times Online:

The Indian head of the UN climate change panel defended his position yesterday even as further errors were identified in the panel’s assessment of Himalayan glaciers.