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

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.

Positive proof of global warming

I guess the science is settled!

I found this image at the hilarious site Politically Incorrect Humor.

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.

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.”

Time for a Climate Change Plan B

Nigel Lawson has done a remarkable job of explaining the basic problem with limiting the use of carbon based fuels in our world today. His argument doesn’t really take a side on the merits of the science but rather on the realities of economics. His opinion recently showed up in the Wall Street Journal and I have taken the liberty to include selected parts here.  I suggest that you click through to read the entire article.

Lord Lawson was U.K. chancellor of the exchequer in the Thatcher government from 1983 to 1989. He is the author of “An Appeal to Reason: A Cool Look at Global Warming” (Overlook Duckworth, paperback 2009), and is chairman of the recently formed Global Warming Policy Foundation (www.thegwpf.org).

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.

A Reason To Be Skeptical

David Harsanyi has an excellent editorial on the ClimateGate fiasco that has been dominating this blog and many others across the blogosphere.  His editorial originally appeared on RealClearPolitics.  He is allowing me to reproduce parts of it here and I encourage you to jump over to the full article to read more.

Who knows? In the long run, global warming skeptics may be wrong, but the importance of healthy skepticism in the face of conventional thinking is, once again, validated.


We found out that respected men discussed the manipulation of science, the blocking of Freedom of Information requests, the exclusion of dissenting scientists from debate, the removal of dissent from the peer-reviewed publications, and the discarding of historical temperature data and e-mail evidence.

Michael Mann to be investigated over CRU emails

It appears that Michael Mann, the Associate Professor of Meteorology from Penn State, will be investigated regarding concerns that were brought up after the release of the East Anglia CRU emails and documents.

When I first saw the release for this investigation, it seemed a bit suspicious. It did not contain any formatting, contact information, or logos.  However, I have confirmed that, as of this writing, the link to the announcement is live on the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences website (see Climate Change issue in the right column).

I am a bit skeptical that this investigation will be fair and complete but at least it is a first step to getting to the bottom of the issue.