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

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?

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.

Less feedback forcing than previously guessed at

Most of the long-term climate models show feedback from an increase of carbon dioxide that ultimately creates more carbon dioxide. The theory is that as CO2 increases, the temperature increases. As the temperature increases, it forces more CO2 to be released from CO2 sinks or it causes less CO2 to be absorbed. This extra CO2 causes a dramatic increase in temperature – which releases more CO2. Many of the models that predicted the end of world had this increase in CO2 and temperature. It really wasn’t the CO2 from man that was the problem, it was the tipping point that was reached by man’s CO2.

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.

A Glacier Meltdown – The Himalayas and climate science.

An excellent opinion in the Wall Street Journal. It is absolutely amazing that there are so few media companies that try to get the story straight.

Last November, U.N. climate chief Rajendra Pachauri delivered a blistering rebuke to India’s environment minister for casting doubt on the notion that global warming was causing the rapid melting of Himalayan glaciers.

“We have a very clear idea of what is happening,” the chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) told the Guardian newspaper. “I don’t know why the minister is supporting this unsubstantiated research. It is an extremely arrogant statement.”

IPCC and the Trick

Steve McIntyre of Climate Audit(one of the MMs of the Climategate emails) recently published an analysis and history of the “trick” that was accomplished and discussed in the “stolen” emails from the CRU of East Anglia.  I encourage you to jump over to Steve’s article to read the full analysis but I would like to include a few paragraphs here in the hope that you will want more information that Steve supplies.

Much recent attention has been paid to the email about the trick and the effort to hide the decline. Climate scientists have complained that this email has been taken out of context. In this case, Im not sure that its in their interests that this email be placed in context because the context leads right back to a meeting of IPCC authors in Tanzania, raising serious questions about the role of IPCC itself in hiding the decline in the Briffa reconstruction.

Lord Turnbull’s comments

I thought that Lord Turnbull’s speach in front of the House of Lords on December 8, 2009 was very well done. It does an excellent job of praising many in the community for their efforts in addition to appropriately questioning the correct next action. As this is a public forum paid for by British taxpayers, I feel that I can include his complete comments here.

I especially like the realism in his comments about the exporting of carbon usage to China (or other less developed countries) and then blaming those countries for their dramatic increase. This is an issue that is often overlooked in the discussion of curtailing carbon output in any individual country.

Does the problem of ClimateGate bode ill for science as a discipline?

Does the problem of ClimateGate bode ill for science as a discipline? This commentary from the Wall Street Journal thinks it might.

With science, the public accepts the reliability of the scientific method. We accept that results are checked and double-checked. We accept that there is repeated analysis and inspection on the problems and that if someone disagrees, there is a mature and reasonable discussion of the issues.

Obviously, the East Anglia CRU emails show that the discussion is not very open. It shows that some people are willing to go out of their way to discredit others. It also shows a general unwillingness to publicly display the technique used to arrive at a conclusion. This all goes against the scientific methodology.

Is this Dilbert on ClimateGate?

Is Scott Adams’ Dilbert making fun of the current ClimateGate controversy?

In ClimateGate, really smart researchers on the climate took a bunch of data and made some conclusions. They didn’t think their pointy-haired constituents that paid their salaries deserved to have all of the data – instead they gave us a thimble of the data. Of course, in their case they didn’t tell us to wear the thimble like a hat – they just said that we should trust them since they are scientists and know what is good for us. In fact that big pile of paper that Dilbert is carrying doesn’t exist from Paul Jones and his friends – they threw the pile of paper away and just left the thimble!

Rex Murphy on ClimateGate

While Rex doesn’t deliver a joke nearly as well as Jon Stewart, his analysis on the current scandal surrounding the emails that were “released” from CRU at East Anglia is very well delivered.  I don’t have a transcript of his commentary to share but in the video below you will hear him speak of the lack of professionalism that is shown in these emails. That lack of professionalism does not include the informal banter of colleagues (which is totally appropriate) but rather the general sense that there is a withholding of evidence and truth from the process.

If you are not familiar with the work of Mr. Murphy, I suggest you jump over to his written commentaries that appear on the Globe and Mail.