<p>Sorry, I guess I just did not express myself well. I have no idea why or if the consensus scientists have decided to ignore past events. Perhaps someone can explain the basis for the past changes and how scientist know that these forces are no longer as important as the effect of CO2.</p>
<p>Kluge; this is one of many places I get my information. </p>
<p><a href=“U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works”>U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works;
<p>If you care to read it, you might get something out of it. Remember; I never said climate change / global warming WASN’T caused significantly by mankind. I’m just saying that it’s not necessarily true that it IS SIGNIFICANTLY caused by mankind.</p>
<p>Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore… </p>
<p>Even some in the establishment media now appear to be taking notice of the growing number of skeptical scientists. In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bite the dust.” In addition, many scientists who are also progressive environmentalists believe climate fear promotion has “co-opted” the green movement…</p>
<p>This new report details how teams of international scientists are dissenting from the UN IPCC’s view of climate science. In such nations as Germany, Brazil, the Netherlands, Russia, New Zealand and France, nations, scientists banded together in 2007 to oppose climate alarmism. In addition, over 100 prominent international scientists sent an open letter in December 2007 to the UN stating attempts to control climate were “futile.”…</p>
<p>Ok; I know. There is some political conspiracy going on. All of these 400 scientists must have been discredited and they are all disgruntled collegues. Basically, I’m wasting my breath. The main point is; it isn’t 99% of all scientists in the world thinking 1 way. There are many scientists; some highly regarded, who don’t feel the same way. This information deserves to be considered when taking a personal position on such a topic. To not read it because it doesn’t agree with your position and therefor is inconvenient is a cop-out. I’m not saying which side is correct. I’m saying that “YOUR EXPERTS” are NOT automatically more accurate. </p>
<p>I would agree with you if it was 1 critic. But this is a report that is only 2-3 months old and includes 400 scientists. Many who were/are members of the same councils that your proclaimed experts are members of. Now; if there are 40,000 scientists listed on the report to the senate stating mankind is the major significant cause to global warming and climate change, then I guess that is 99% when you take out this 400. If you can admit that there is VALID room on this topic for doubt and rethinking on both sides, then a dialog can continue. If you are so sure that it doesn’t matter what information is released; that it isn’t valid until 99% of all the scientists say so; then there is no discussion here. A discussion requires 2 or more people open enough to consider other’s opinions; the possibility that they themselves could be wrong; and able to use new information to reinforce or change their position.</p>
<p>There are tens of thousands of scientists. Four hundred is a drop in the bucket. </p>
<p>I also noticed many of these so-called scientists are emeritus. I suspect they are old, senile and just not up to date.</p>
<p>If we dig deep enough, I bet we will find that many are employeed by the oil companies. The oil companies have a lot of money and are devious. They are always hidden in the background trying to control scientific and public opinion. </p>
<p>Some of these so-called scientists have names which are difficult to pronounce and work at places none of us have heard of. If we are going to make our decisions based on expert testimony, I think we should give weight to people who have names which are solid and easy to pronounce; like, Al Gore. </p>
<p>Some of these so-called scientists appear to be outside of the mainstream scientific establishment. They have probably been turned down for research grants and publications and have become bitter, as exemplified by the statements from Higgs: “He then explained how the peer-review process has many flaws. “Personal vendettas, ideological conflicts, professional jealousies, methodological disagreements, sheer self-promotion, and a great deal of plain incompetence and irresponsibility are no strangers to the scientific world; indeed, that world is rife with these all-too-human attributes. In no event can peer review ensure that research is correct in its procedures or its conclusions. The history of every science is a chronicle of one mistake after another,” Higgs wrote.” Clearly this guy is not a team player.</p>
<p>Clearly if you want a good consensus, you don’t want to have some sort of vote or opinions from all sorts of kooks. It is much better to trust a small number of true experts and those who have earned leadership positions within the professional societies.</p>
<p>
Except that it’s not “400 prominent scientists” - it’s not even 400 obscure scientists. And for the most part, the ones who were scientists don’t have any expertise in global climatology, except for the ones who are employed by fossil fuel companies or their front organizations. </p>
<p>Senator Inhofe (R-Big Oil) put together a list composed largely of guys with no background in climate science, and included people who actually agree with the consensus view, in some cases having minor disagreements over various details. [Inhofes</a> 400 Global Warming Deniers Debunked - 400 Scientists Doubt Climate Change - thedailygreen.com](<a href=“http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101]Inhofes”>http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/inhofe-global-warming-deniers-47011101) Here’s some thoughts from one of your “400 prominent scientists” which I picked at random (honest) - i.e., a local TV weather guy, Chris Allen of WBKO in Bowling Green, Kentucky, “prominent scientist” #10:
I guess if you believe in creationism, it’s certainly not much of a stretch to be a global warming “skeptic”, is it? But is that really the level of “prominent scientists” analysis you want to rely on, Christcorp?</p>
<p>kluge, are you still at it? Using blogs when they are convenient to your argument but deriding their use when they are “an inconvenient truth”?</p>
<p>Here is one of the scientists that your blog identifies as a scientist with no background in climatology (from his Univ of Rochester biography):</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I assume that these are all peer-reviewed papers. Sounds like he knows a bit more about climate than whatever blogger put together your blog.</p>
<p>Here’s his latest paper published in International Journal of Climatology:
<a href=“UAH - News”>UAH - News;
Here’s the abstract:
</p>
<p>and the concusion:
It takes actual measurements to dispute the models used by Al Gore’s cronies in winning the Nobel Prize.</p>
<p>Kluge and some others; you just don’t get it. The point is; I’m not saying that global warming and climate change is DEFINITELY NOT MANKIND’S FAULT. But, because of numerous reports from many different experts around the world, there is room for doubt.</p>
<p>However; your side of the argument is that MANKIND IS DEFINITELY AT FAULT. And you base this on your group of scientists and experts. Holding this position so blindly is worse than many religious zealots who believe blindly because “Their experts and authority figures; e.g. parents, priest, etc… told them so.” </p>
<p>If I can find a single report with 400 prominent people’s opinion as questioning mankind’s influence on global warming / climate change; then I am sure that there are more. And while you may believe that 400 is only a drop in the bucket; that means for 99% of the experts to say that it is mankind’s fault, that there would have to be at the very least, 40,000 scientists and experts dedicated to global warming and climate change. Maybe there are. I personally don’t believe that the claim of 99% of all scientists (with a valid opinion) believe such way.</p>
<p>My position however is that there is room for doubt. Your position is; there is no room for doubt because certain experts say so. Basically; one position is open to exploring all possibilities and willing to attack the problem from many different directions. The other position doesn’t believe there are any other possibilities. Only 1 possibility and therefor only one solution. Sorry; but I DON’T believe what a priest/minister says because he is “The Authority”. I DON’T believe what a politician or government agency says because “They Are The Authority”. I DON’T believe what ANYONE tells me about ANYTHING just because somehow they have been deemed “The Authority”. I take EVERYTHING that the different “AUTHORITIES” put out as information; I analyze it to the best of my ability; and then I form an opinion or position on it. If it’s a topic or such that is way beyond my comprehension, and I don’t understand the different theories and hypothesis’ on the topic, then I DON’T FORM AN OPINION. But if I don’t, that doesn’t mean I will automatically believe what some “Expert/Authority” says is true. I will stay neutral until I can understand better the findings and then form an opinion.</p>
<p>Based on my screen name, most have probably assumed that I have a religious preference. I do. I have preached and discussed many topics. But even when it came to religion, the VERY FIRST THING I TELL ANYONE is “DON’T BELIEVE ONE WORD I SAY JUST BECAUSE I SAID IT”. I tell people to take what I say; add what others have said; read for themselves; think for themselves; and come to an opinion on their own. I believe very much in science, levels of evolution, and many other scientific subjects. But never would I believe and take a position on any topic because of what someone else said. Expert or not. Sorry, but for me, that is way too closed minded. On the topic of global warming / climate change; I most definitely believe that it is happening. No doubt. Based on many things I have read from many different “Experts”, I have doubts whether or not mankind has had a major contribution in these climate effects. Maybe you can have such blind faith. I can’t. I’ve seen what BLIND faith has done in religion and science throughout the last 2000 years. I learn from that and won’t allow that to happen to me. But you are indeed free to have a rigid position on this topic if you like.</p>
<p>FF, it took me less than 5 minutes to google a site which had done the work of analyzing the “400 prominent scientists.” I’d never visited that site before; they may be wrong in the “prominent scientist” count, but it looks pretty good from here. I did randomly check one of the “prominent scientists” listed - and found the Bowling Green weather guy - who has, as far as I can tell, no actual science education in climatology at all.</p>
<p>But there are a handful of actual peer reviewed articles - less than 1% of the total published on topic. The thing about publishing an actual article, instead of just spamming the blogosphere, is that people can actually assess the science. Here’s a discussion of Douglass’ work: [url=<a href=“http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/tropical-troposphere-trends/]RealClimate[/url”>RealClimate: Tropical tropospheric trends]RealClimate[/url</a>]
Decide for yourself. </p>
<p>The thing is, Inhofe’s touted “400 prominent scientists” was and is a Big Fat Lie, just like so much of the “skeptics” arsenal. “Al Gore’s cronies” - the 2,000 scientists involved in the IPCC, and the overwhelming majority of scientists who are trained in, and are currently researching climate change, agree on the basic climate change theory. It’s a great thing that there are scientists trying to attack the theory - that’s how science works. But the dearth of actual published work presenting theories in opposition to the consensus is significant. A handful of “actual scientists” does not present a lot of uncertainty among those studying the science.</p>
<p>
The thing is, Christcorp, that there aren’t “400 prominent scientists” expressing doubt about the basic theory of man’s involvement in global warming. And your assumption that there must be even more is also flawed. Guys like Inhofe (and Fred Singer) are out beating the bushes trying to find a live body who will express the opinion they’re pushing. That’s why they’ve dragged in TV weathermen and economists, etc. to pad their list. The consensus among real scientists is far more extensive than the general public (and particularly the segment of the general public which gets their news from right wing sources) is aware. They still might be wrong - that’s the nature of science - but the likelihood that 99% of the thousands (really) of scientists working in this area are wrong is really very small. </p>
<p>There’s room for doubt in everything. But doubting that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow is not a wise choice of skepticism. Doubting that it will rain - certainly more room for skepticism there. The problem is that you’ve invested a lot more skepticism than is warranted into an issue which has been politicized - when the people who have politicized it are very willing to flat out lie to advance their position, as Inhofe’s “400 prominent scientists” lie demonstrates.</p>
<p>Kluge; we are making progress. Remember; I said numerous times that I don’t make an opinion specifically on anything anyone says. My opinion is not based solely on that report. </p>
<p>If I read the reports of all those scientists/experts/authorities in the area of global warming / climate change; which I admit I haven’t read them all; then that is what I base my opinion on. Not the side I WANT to agree with. NOT the side that is more popular or politically correct. Not the side that is the so called majority. From what I HAVE read and studied, I have the opinion that while global warming / climate change in fact does exist, I can not feel comfortable believing that mankind has made a substantial contribution to this. I just don’t buy it. Not when I see and read what the sun does to our planet’s climate; the oceans’ affect on the climate; volcanoes, plants, the rest of nature. Sorry, just don’t buy it.</p>
<p>Now, there is the debate however of; “Isn’t it better to be safe than sorry and pretend we did, and therefor clean up mankind’s contributions. If we are at fault, it will help. If we aren’t, it won’t hurt and it is still healthier for us”? That is actually a very good argument. The only problem with that is the economic, social, and political impact it will have on the world if done too quickly. But overall; yes that is a good theory.</p>
<p>My position; which I’ve raised in other threads; is that we can accomplish the same exact thing; (concerning mankind’s contribution towards global warming / climate change); if instead of trying to clean up the world, we come at it from a technology standpoint. If we would develop new forms of energy like Nuclear, Solar, Wind, and Hydro (Water, not hydrogen); then we can accomplish both issues. Reduction or elimination of fossil fuels while improving the economy and political impacts around the world. Our modern technologies can benefit better by these other forms of energy. At work, we use a lot of wind and solar energy. Not because it’s cheaper or anything, but because there is no commercial power for miles and miles. Solar, Wind, Water, and Nuclear is so much more efficient than fossil fuels. It’s cheaper on the consumer. Better for the environment. Better for the economy. Better politically on a global basis.</p>
<p>Now; no matter how much you agree, the problem with this is the “Other” group of ignorant people. They cry and whine and protest the government to not allow Nuclear energy. Well; we already know that the oil companies don’t want it. So; the minute the citizens say they don’t want it; the politicians can vote against such technology and appear to be the all caring hero’s who love the planet. The few times where they get to please ALL THE PEOPLE. Unfortunately, many of the citizens are ignorant and have no idea what they are talking about. If they did, they would realize that many countries; including the ones they LOVE to boast about for all other ways of life like socialized health care and such; e.g. France; is extremely big into using nuclear power plants. The are putting up new ones all the time. As is many places in Europe and around the world. If we could get the common people educated, and they pressured the congress, then they would be forced to go against the big oil companies. But currently, they can play both sides by saying no nuclear energy. </p>
<p>I also live in a part of the country where people actually complain too much (Usually out of staters) about our wind towers. Boo Hoo::: The poor birds that fly into them. They make the view ugly. Again; idiots made of ignorance. It is estimated that almost 50% of the united states could sustain wind power. We’re not talking about tower to tower butt up against each other. But; with an increase in wind turbines come more technology; quantity; and therefor lower costs. It is suggested that a good compromise of wind towers could actually contribute up to 15% of the energy needs. With some areas; if used locally instead of the main power grid of accounting for 60-70% of their energy needs. I.e. Many midwest and Rocky mountain states could provide 2/3rd of their energy needs by wind. This would reduce much of the cost of fossil fuel electric because there wouldn’t be a need to direct of that power to the more self sufficient states. Unfortunately; many of the fossil fuel power plants that feed the grid are also in that part of the country. </p>
<p>Anyway, the same goes with sun and water. People complain about dams being built and it’s affect the ecology. They really need to give it a rest. People use to complain about all the birds who would lose their place to live as more and more cities and towns were built. Well, they have found out over the last 20-30 years that bird; especially owls and such; actually have more and better places to nest now that the buildings are there. There are MORE building than there were trees. And the building don’t die or blow over. And predators don’t affect the birds in building as much.</p>
<p>Anyway; if we would concentrate on these energy issues; ESPECIALLY NUCLEAR; we wouldn’t need to talk about mankind’s contribution. Either there wouldn’t be any more and it fixes our planet; and you say I told you so. OR; there still isn’t any more of mankind’s contribution; it has no affect on the global temperatures; we realize that it’s a natural occurrence; and we learn to adapt to the causes. Either way; this is what we should be concentrating on. NOT TRYING TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE CO2 contributions. Change our energy source and the CO2 mankind is contributing will automatically take care of that. Not trying to use band-aids and trying to get better emissions and more efficient use of fossil fuels.</p>
<p>Name one alternative that will come close to replacing the 4 quads of energy used annually in the US.</p>
<p>Read the recent Scientific American article. If the next generation of solar films is successful, it would require 30,000 square miles of solar collector to offset a portion of our electricity use (which is a small portion of our total energy use). This would also require massive storage facilities. The size of the wind farms which would be required for an equivalent offset is also about as massive. We have pretty well exploited the available water power. Geo is appears to be very limited. “A new technology involving recycling CO2.” Huh? CO2 is a byproduct of combustion and is not a source of energy.</p>
<p>Any more guesses based on wishful thinking?</p>
<p>When people think of nuclear, and it’s danger, they like to remember 3 mile island and Chernobyl’s. Unfortunately, that is a very long time ago. Nuclear power and energy is much more advanced and safer than ever before. If a plant is being shut down now, it’s probably been in existence for 20-30 years. The US navy runs so many ships on nuclear power and the technology is very safe. France, many other European countries, as well as others around the world are using modern nuclear plants and they are very safe. The only people who think nuclear power isn’t safe are people who don’t know anything about nuclear power.</p>
<p>Nuclear power is safe and affordable. A typical plant would be good for about 20 years. With the capability of a recharge that would last about another 10 years. It too ISN’T an endless supply, but the technology to use it, control it, and dispose of it are safe. It would be the perfect energy source for the next 30 years; at which time maybe other technologies can be developed which are more economical and ever more efficient. It takes about 5 years to put a reactor on line. But just like not having built an oil refinery in years because of the special interest groups who don’t realize that is why our prices are this high; these are the same people who have stopped nuclear plants. We could have been totally off of fossil fuels by now if they would have allowed more nuclear. producing that much electricity would have been cleaner for the environment and lead to more technology in all electric modes of transportation.</p>
<p>More people will die driving to work at windmill plants than have died in nuclear accidents in the US. And we can make them better and even safer today.</p>
<p>This is a catch-22. As mentioned earlier, the politicians have something they can play both sides and win. It is rare, but this is one of those times. The bunny huggers, green peace, etc… all claim that nuclear is unsafe and we shouldn’t build them. The oil companies obviously want to sell fossil fuels. They don’t want nuclear built. So, the politicians say no to nuclear and please both sides. And, when the sides want more of their agenda, the politicians can say that they need to be reasonable and cooperate. “After all, we stopped building refineries and nuclear power for you. You can’t expect everything.”</p>
<p>Yes, angelica, there is always the small potential for a nuclear accident - just like there is always the small potential for a dam to shatter, and all kinds of stuff like that. All kinds of different phenomena like that, that are extremely rare. We shouldn’t be operating in this atmosphere of inflated fear about the highly unlikely outcome of a nuclear accident; it ignores all the benefits and potentially has costs of its own.</p>
<p>There is no currently known means of supplying all of our energy demands which is risk-free and pollution-free. That requires choosing among various different options, none of which is perfect. The one energy source which is both risk-free and pollution free is solar, but it cannot replace all of the energy needs of the country. (Not that that’s an argument against installing it as widely as practicable as soon as possible, so as to maximum that source of power.) Windmills kill birds. Dams silt up and interrupt fisheries. Nuclear has both current risk and the still-unsolved problem of disposal of the used fuel rods which are extremely dangerous for thousands of years. Geothermal has waste water issues. Coal and natural gas have local pollution and greenhouse gas generation. Etc. </p>
<p>Those who disparage the integrity, sanity, judgment, etc. of people who weigh and balance those risks differently demonstrate more about themselves than about the problem, in my opinion. I suspect that if the actual costs were calculated into the expense of each source of energy - including the future consequences, such as global warming, the cost of eternal fuel rod storage, etc. - the decisions we make about our sources of energy might look very different.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>[Los</a> Alamos National Laboratory (LANL): Synthetic Fuel Concept to Steal CO2 From Air](<a href=“http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554]Los”>http://www.lanl.gov/news/index.php/fuseaction/home.story/story_id/12554)</p>
<p>The “Green Freedom” proposal is a means of taking CO2 and converting it into fuel, which is then burned, releasing the CO2 back into the air. It is carbon-neutral, but it’s not a “fuel” source - it actually requires a lot of energy to convert the CO2 into fuel, so it can be burned, releasing the energy put into it in the conversion process - and they propose getting the power from a nuclear power plant! It’s very similar to all of the “hydrogen power” ideas - which aren’t actually a new “fuel” source, but a new way of converting other fuel sources into a portable form of fuel - essentially a battery. You still have to get some energy from somewhere to power the cycle.</p>
<p>Still no free lunches on the energy horizon.</p>
<p>The places you talk about were producing nuclear arms–not nuclear power plants in a much different time and place. There are many places we could safely store the waste for the necessary time. Petty fear politics has made it a problem.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>But it seems that we’re not hearing quite as much anti-nuke rhetoric as we used to from the greenies now that CO2 global warming is in vogue. I think they realize that ultimately choices need to be made and there is indeed no free lunch. While alternative technologies are great, they don’t presently pass the math test in either capacity or cost. Someday technology may make the equation viable but it’s just not there today. And if someone decided to cover the desert state park, mountains, or coastline near here with solar panels and windmills, I’ll be one of the environmentalists out there protesting. It’s bad enough that they plan to bring in geothermal energy from the desert east of here (and cheaper power from Mexico) by running huge power towers and lines across the state parks and mountains. It’s a swap of one environmental impact for another.</p>