Regulars at this blog know I have started posting a collection of links to interesting opinion pieces, interviews and newly published articles on some Saturdays under the heading ‘Weekend Reading’. This gives me the opportunity to quickly pass on information. But please note, the information is passed on, not endorsed.
I usually read every piece before I post the link. But this last week has been busier than usual and I’ve received more contributions for ‘Weekend Reading’ than usual. So, here’s a collection of links to pieces that I haven’t read, but will hopefully include much food for thought and discussion.
1. Environmentalism versus Constitutionalism
A paper ‘Environmentalism versus Constitutionalism: A Contest without Winners’ is now accessible in PDF at the New Zealand Business Roundtable website:
http://www.nzbr.org.nz/books_and_reports.asp?DocType=BooksandReports
This paper is based on the keynote address to the 2006 Conference of the Law and Economics Association of New Zealand by Professor Suri Ratnapala, Centre for Public, International and Comparative Law, TC Beirne School of Law, University of Queensland.
2. Skeptics in the US & A Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism
Professor Bob Carter from James Cook University, Townsville, has been in the US giving expert testimony to the Senate: http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf
And I was sent a note from another colleague in the US … Senator James Inhofe has offered this download containing the treasure trove of info that is currently on his site, but will probably be erased by the pro-AGW Barbara Boxer who takes over after the first of the year. Here is the link:
http://epw.senate.gov/repwhitepapers/6341044%20Hot%20&%20Cold%20Media.pdf
3. Fifty-one Albatross Dead
Hi Jennifer, You might be interested in this article:
The New Zealand government is considering imposing a temporary ban on surface longline fishing in the Kermadec Islands after a fishing vessel was reported to have killed 51 albatrosses in a single trip…
http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2006/12/swordfish_ban.html
Regards, Ann Novak
4. Andrew Bolt on ‘Mine Your Own Business’
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,20889770-25717,00.html
5. Largest US Corporations to Buy Green Power
Some of America’s largest corporations pledged Monday to support green power, responding to a challenge posed by the Environmental Protection Agency. So-called green power is generated from renewable energy sources like the sun, wind and biomass such as plants or garbage and helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to global warming. The EPA is calling for Fortune 500 companies to double their green power purchases to more than 5 billion kilowatt hours by the end of next year – or enough electricity to run more than 400,000 homes in the U.S. a year.
Read the article here: http://money.cnn.com/2006/12/04/news/companies/green_challenge/index.htm
6. Deepak Lal on Foreign Aid in Africa and Democracy in Asia
Foreign aid’s achieved very little in the past 50 years; it might have done more harm than good. Development economist Deepak Lal says it’s time to ditch aid if we want to help the poor. … you can read or listen to this Michael Duffy interview at the Counterpoint website:
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/counterpoint/stories/2006/1799918.htm
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Amazing that it takes someone like Deepak Lal to discover that you don’t help developing nations by paying money to Friends of the Earth.
Jen would have impressed me more with her science analytical ability if she had posted Realclimate’s guide to debunking Bob and Inhofe !
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/
But you’ve posted it instead Luke – and we’ve all got the opportunity to read it ( I already had) .
Why is Jennifer’s credibility undermined by not linking to evidence which calls into question the subject post?
You don’t do it.
Your links are all one way.
At the end of the day , your and the “debunkers” credibility would be greatly enhanced by simply admitting where the Senator was correct and acknowledging the problems,drawbacks and inconsistencies.
The Hockey Stick WAS faulty.
There IS evidence that CO2 increases follow warming rather than lead it.
It DOES appear that apart from the Western Peninsula , the Antartic isn’t warming.
Cimate HAS fluctuated over time – both before and since humans walked the earth. Indeed , it appears that there is no such thing as a static climate.
Now that DOESN’T mean we have the mother of all conspiracies on our hands with thousands of responsible scientific experts too frightened to take on green Nazis and world government just around the corner etc etc.
That’s clearly a huge stretch.
It just means we’ve got majority expert opinion telling us that the current warming is human induced and a wide range of variation in opinion about what that means for our future and what changes we should make.
If I was diagnosed with cancer and went to ten experts and nine told me that chemo was required immediately , that’s what I’d choose.
I wouldn’t however find it necessary to “prove” the tenth ( who advised me to do nothing) wrong.
I’d want to understand why , I’d be interested in his/her opinion but I wouldn’t regard his/her disagreement as prima facie evidence of stupidity, venality or gullibility.
Experts CAN be wrong – witness Iraq and WMD capability.
This missionary zeal to “prove” dissenters wrong or worse, paid mouthpieces does your cause the worst possible disservice.
The debate really is over – the general public accepts the arguments in favour of AGW and governments are acting.
Maybe not actions you agree with but they are moving.
We can’t afford to shut down differenet views – or to simply airily refer to their presence acknowledged elsewhere to avoid personally dealing with them.
That’s my challenge to you Luke the Rational , Luke the Reasonable , Luke the Objective ; demonstrate that there is NO scientific , reputably sourced evidence which is inconsistent with AGW and I’ll become a sophisticated , world weary , patronising ad hom – as seen on plenty of Realclimate type sites – as well.
Could be fun!
Jim – crikey – I’m sorry. Gee you’ve got some really good points there. I’m stumped. I may have to have to reevaluate my entire position.
Correction Jim: “Experts CAN be wrong – witness Iraq and WMD capability”
I clearly recall; the experts were right ( NO WMD in Iraq)and governments were wrong (spent months looking for WMD before they gave up).
Now that DOESN’T mean we have the mother of all conspiracies on our hands…here, there or anywhere?
What about oil Jim?
Well Jim after re-evaluating my position – I’m totally unrepentant.
You may not realise but your points have been discussed before.
(1) Hockey Stick – the politics is certainly broken with both sides not distinguishing themselves. Most people wouldn’t have the foggiest about what’s actually involved in terms of the maths. Indeed If Mann had used the right analysis I wonder what result he may have got? About the same answer. Also interesting to see developments moving with a recent paper in Nature finding evidence of the Little Ice Age being a local thermohaline event. And paleo evidence supporting a southern hemisphere cooling when the Medieval warming was warm. In any case almost impossible to have a sensible discussion on the topic now.
(2) CO2 following the warming. Sigh ! Gee let’s think what might cause and ice age to thaw and a warming to start? Might it be a solar Milankovitch type mechanism that starts the process. Then simulate how the biosphere would respond and what result you’d observe. The CO2 would follow the warming – the CO2 feedback starts once the warming is started. Rog just reminded us on the lower thread the correlation isn’t cause and effects always. Jim – how many times have we been over this issue. If you disagree at least do the contrary argument and say why the feedback theory is wrong.
(3) The Peninsula is warming and Antarctica is not eh? Gee – obviously you must have slept through the entire recent discussions on drought and ozone holes. The observations are about what you’d expect given the meteorology involved. Go re-read those posts – I can’t be bothered repeating it.
(4) The old climate has fluctuated before – of course it has. For good reasons. With the world often in a total different configuration in terms of alignment and position of continents – like rainforest in Antarctica. The small point is we haven’t had 6 billion humans before under an ice sheet or in a much warmer environment either. 6 billion humans in a very fragile geopolitical situation with an interlinked economic system all heavily dependent on stable economic conditions, trade, water, energy. Some of the past climatic changes caused MASSIVE extinctions – they weren’t a picnic. Our current climate seems to be changing quickly. Our current levels of climate variation – drought, floods, cyclones, heatwaves cause enough havoc already without further loading the dice.
(5) Realclimate obviously has a viewpoint in a certain direction – but you’ll also notice they do shoot the odd thing down like the recent “thermohaline has stopped” story and did not claim and AGW effect for a warming Antarctic troposphere. Some stories they actively hose down. There is a need to “get it right”.
(6) As far as uncertainty goes – we could debate the role of feedbacks both positive and negative – how much warming for 2x CO2, effect of clouds, land surface feedbacks, changing albedo, atmospheric aerosols, interdecadal oceanic oscillations. We could also discuss exacerbating feedbacks such as CO2 liberated from melting tundra and permafrost – perhaps a whole extra unaccounted 300ppm. We could also debate the effects of CO2 on changing ocean pH and calcium chemistry and the effects of current changes on the effects of marine ecosystems. But why bother – you guys just mock the literature and the scientists and apart from Paul Biggs we rarely surface above the trivial and an exchange (often humorous and entertaining) of insults. Then one participant will do a glass jaw routine and start shouting “ad hom”.
(7) It does concern me that RC has drifted in recent times from the science expose – position piece style into giving anti-AGW scoundrels the “rounds of the kitchen”. Perhaps necessary but not what many of us would like to see a lot of.
(8) I find Carter and Inhofe now without credibility and rampantly political. It’s simply not worth the science community engaging these guys any more. It’s now theatre and sophistry.
(9) As for Iraq, WMD and Osama etc (add Tampa and AWB) – well we all knew that when it was going down – we’re well aware they lie to us every day – but hey if interest rates are low – who cares. Woo hoo ! Long as your kids aren’t in it and we’re making money they can do what they like eh! But it is tragic to have American mothers lose their children for adventurism and ambition on an unjust cause and having destablised an entire region. Not to mention the mainstream Iraqi population itself. History will judge the episode harshly IMHO.
(10) I don’t think the debate is near over. If it rained tomorrow half the AGW hysteria in Australia would be hosed away IMHO. And when the cost of doing something about CO2 dawns on people – we’ll see. Look what happens now when petrol goes up – it’s the end of the world ! Short term “well meaning” attempts for improvement in California may drive the emissions inter-state or off-shore.
But it is interesting what can be saved by going green and also also making a buck.
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/business2/business2_archive/2006/09/01/8384321/index.htm?postversion=2006101618
Anyway Jim – sounds like you’re advocating higher blog standards of debate. Feel free to nudge me when needed. But also the other inmates as well evenly. Even Pinxi will use a knife and fork if you’d like some decorum. Perhaps avoiding “guess what the greenie commie urban scum have done now” or “millions of deaths on their hands” as an opening may not be conducive to a wholesome further exchange with progression to development of some practical policies and a way forward.
I forgot to add experts like AWB can be dumb
Luke there is a good case, others just come here for a lashing from madam and team
Luke , in essence then my assertions are correct – but you claim they are explainable in terms of AGW theory.
Yes they’ve been discussed here and much more importantly , by world class experts ad nauseam.
I even recall reading some of them in my sleep.
As you noted recently , experts are entitled to their opinions – ALL of their opinions.
But if there isn’t a single credible scientifically based doubt about AGW theory then it’s no longer a theory.
If there is doubt , then we shouldn’t be afraid to hear it.
Iraq is probably instructive in some ways.
1. If tomorrow some natural climatic influence unknnown to date , was revealed to be responsible for recent global warming or if temperature trends took a dive inexplicably , would that make you a liar Luke?
Would it be proof that the majority of the scientific community, the media, most national leaders etc are liars?
2.”we’re well aware they lie to us every day…”
Who’s “they” Luke? Politicians?
All of them?
Lying every day?
Does that seem more than a liitle dismissive of any other possibility including a more complex and less black and white explanantion?
3. No rational person would deny that Iraq is currently a mess , but to dismiss those who supported the war simply as evil liars – baddies – is neither accurate or helpful if we’re to become more effective in recognising our mistakes.
And you’re absolutely right about some on the other side – I roll my eyes aplenty – but I notice that they don’t escape your attention.
I’m certainly not needed!
Gavin – if you’re part of the ” it was all about oil/Halliburton/ the Bush family/Enron ( I forget the rest – my brother can recite it for 20 minutes non-stop but I HAVE slept through that)conspiracy then I suspect there’s not too much to be gained by debate.
Jim – no your assertions are not correct on basic logic and facts – not AGW theory.
I would define lying as wantonly and knowingly not telling the truth or suppressing facts that would illuminate the truth. Putting our young people in harms way needs clearly defined motivations and objectives. It is apparent they were not there and never were – the motivations intially claimed were alway bogus. I further suggest most of us guessed that at day #1. Where we should have been is in Afghanistan en masse and had 9-11 terrorists in chains by now but they’re still “at large”. Nevertheless by our reckless adventurism and bravado we are now here we are in Iraq. So we have to do our best knowing we have stuffed it in the first place. Great motivation for young soldiers. Anyway you don’t kill that number of civilians and say “oh well – what rotten luck”, “we must remember not to do that again”.
Most Australian governments attempt some manipulation of our opinions. We know that. They know that. It’s the game we’re locked in with our politicians, public service, media, and pressure groups every day. Anyway lest us not get heaviliy diverted into sidelines on my despondence with ethical behaviour in contemporary state and federal Australian politics.
Scientists are not lying if they have rigorously evaluated the evidence to the best of their ability with science quality reviews and peer reviews included. If they are then proved wrong by events – well they are simply wrong not liars. Maybe red-faced and ribbed by their mates – but just wrong. There will obviously be some debate in the margins as to what is a “strong line of argument” and what is sophistry and what is blatant lying.
Science ego though does survive on “beating the system”, “doing a Galileo”, or “paradigm busting”. However don’t have youself on – only happens to a very few. Most of us discover nothing that new and when we take on the estbalished system “we lose” on logical grounds or lack of evidence or inconsistent evidence.
So what do want me to say Jim – gee there’s a x% of chance that we don’t know everything (where x is unknown). You’d like decades of climate science and knowledge of atmospheric radiative physics to be put in the bin because you’d be “more comfortable” if we decided to discount all that for an unknown “x” % of an unknown factor or unknown force.
Of course don’t just worry about the downside – if you’d like to worry about “x” factors – why not worry about upside “x” factors where we find the said scientists have actually been wrong – but in the wrong direction and effects are much hotter than we think. If you like “x” go both ways. The IPCC can only tell you what they know (of course maybe they’re evil commie greenie liars who want to ruin our way of life too).
I think doing anything about AGW is nigh on impossible. I don’t think we will. When people find out that some sacrifices to quality of life need to be made they’ll go short term. It will rain again and people will go back to happy hosing the driveway. We’ll brew oil from plentiful coal if we have to.
Increase energy prices or restrict freedom of global movement and see if you stay in office. To be succesful you have to address the problem but not scare the voters.
So given all this, we’re all likely to find out what happens then with our global CO2 experiment. So funding the adaptation science might be a good idea and asking detribe to hurry up with GMO noveau AGW loving crops.
Jim: I’ve been thinking about retreating from all this gossip about climate change AGW drought water supply etc. There was this program on ABC about shacks in Tasmania. But there in not too many available up in the highlands Gt. Lake, Brady’s and so on. If you saw the program it showed a glimpse of the wild west and the Great Indian Ocean
Somebody mentioned the foam blown inland from the rollers. My dad saw it in his youth about 2 km inland during a big storm. They abandoned the rocks and their cray pots in a hurry. The salt soon rots your cars as it does on King Island. Cars over there can look like red lace panties after a while. Later Dad and his mate prefabed a few houses for abalone fishermen all along far NW of Tas.
A few years ago I went back there with my dear departed along that bit of controversial road through the wilderness but only after inspecting the hydro and the newly built dams on the Pieman. Oddly enough we nearly lost a hired Mazda in the bulldust left by the logging trucks. All that’s left in my memory today is a photo or two of her with a smile far out on the rocks in a big pile of grey drift wood. In other places, its way up the beach.
Jim: I have spent a lifetime studding coastlines mostly alone, the dunes, the logs, the bogs and the middens. I have often wondered how we got back from the previous one and how we may be up there again. A few cm and the waves could be through the front dune in many places.
Tell me it’s not about oil and coal and give me a time frame that does not involve exposed shacks.
How timely: “Attention Deficit Disorder!”
AN: PA53A-01 INVITED
TI: Science blogging: RealClimate.org and the Global Warming debate
AU: * Schmidt, G A
EM: gschmidt@giss.nasa.gov
AF: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies and Center for Climate System Research, Columbia University, 2880 Broadway, New York, NY 10025 United States
AB: The media and public policy debate suffer from an extreme form of Attention Deficit Disorder. Compared to the daily news cycle, the progress of scientific debate within the peer-reviewed literature is extremely slow. This puts serious scientists who work in relatively politicised fields (global warming, evolution, stem cell research and the like) at a huge disadvantage when it comes to having their voices heard above the noise. Since Dec 2004, RealClimate.org has been operating as a group blog (a web-based journal) run by climate scientists for interested members of the public and the media. The aim has been to provide the context for climate-related news stories that is often missing in the mainstream media and to explain the basics of our field to the often confused, but curious, members of the public. In particular, it has provided rapid reaction to mis-uses and abuses of scientific results by policy advocates across the spectrum. Reactions to the blog have been overwhelmingly (but not uniformly) positive from both professionals in the media, the scientific community and the public. It has been described as the ‘go-to site’ for climate science in the New York Times, and received a Scientific American Science and Technology Web award in 2005. I will discuss what impacts RealClimate may have had and the pluses and minuses of trying to reach the public through this kind of outlet.
UR: http://www.realclimate.org
So guys – love them or hate them. Where would you be without them – totally duped I’d suggest.
We’ll leave the Iraq debate for another place and time Luke – though it appears you’re skipping around the comparison a bit gingerly!
With regards to global warming , I think the stronger the evidence becomes , the more comfortable we should be with dissent and alternatives.
And no – I’ve never suggested that we wait until all is known – because it probably never will be.
The precautionary principle is definitely applicable here as I’m sure you’d agree.
Finally , I’m not as pessimistic about the lack of action re AGW. There is surely a good chance we’ll adopt nuclear power as an adjunct to coal – that will spare the atmosphere millions of tons of CO2.
Despite contrarians saying they’re not getting a fair go – I suggest they’re getting too much of a run for little substance. Until the drought started to really bite the media would run opposing stores 50:50 every second day. Is that reasonable given the evidence? Is this journalism or selling papers with dissent and conspiracy theories?
I’m OK with nuclear – many won’t be for cost reasons and “safety” issues. WOuld Howard get voted out he went for a mandate to implement. Methinks yes.
I think the post Environmentalism vs Constutionalism is important. It s a large document, so I have tried to stay with the most important thread. I quote freely from the document.
This essay is about two threats to society.
1 To the environment that, if unattended will endanger our way of life.
2 To CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT and to the ECONOMY (my emphasis) that arises from ill-advised resonses to the challenges of environmental protection.
The latter, if unaddressed, will not only endanger our way of life, but, in the end, will also defeat our good intentions about the environment.
Prosperous countries tend to display a high degree of personal safety, property rights and contractual certainty under rule of law. Stagnant economies are generally found where these things are not secure and the rule of law is feeble.
The prosperous countries are not necessarily democracies, but they are market economies based on rule of law, property and contract. The advantages of a strong market economy is evident – it creates wealth and moves people from poverty to prosperity.
It is ironic that many governments in industrialised democracies have chosen the path of “command and control” to address environmental issues in ways the threaten the institutional foundations of their market economies.
Constitutional Government enthrones the rule of law in the sense of the supremacy of known, general and impersonal laws over RULERS AND SUBJECTS ALIKE (my emphasis). Millions of people around the world have died in the establishment of constitutional government. [Witness] the human costs of the seventeenth century constitutional struggles in England, the American Revolution, the American Civil War, the uprisings against fascist and communist rule and present day democracy movements in China, Burma, Zimbabwe, and elsewhere. Constitutional Government is hard to win, but not so hard to lose. It is always under pressure from seen and unseen opponents. …
Given that certain environmental objectives are worth achieving, the question arises as to who should bear the costs involved in their achievement. The common law principle is that those who cause damage to others must pay reparation but, beyond that, if individuals are asked to sacrifice property for the benefit of all society, the cost of that sacrifice must be bourne by society as a whole. This is an important principle that lies at the heart of constitutional government, and the case for environnmental laws that depart from this principle needs to be rigorously tested.
The fundamental principle of the common law and of constitutional government is that no one, whether official or citizen, must violate the person or property of another without the authority of the law.
In some countries, like Australia and the United States, there are constitutional prohibitions against the taking of property without just compensation.
But planning and resource laws, as a general rule, fail to provide compensation for the loss of property value that results from the RESTRICTION OF LAND USE (my emphasis). We are not talking of ‘public nuisance’ restrictions (eg noise, pollution), but restrictions requiring the sacrifice of land use for the pleasure or benefit of the public.
At what point do these restrictions become, in effect, a ‘taking? – where the Government (or public) reaps all the benefit of ‘taking’, without the costs of:
1 Paying for the land, and
2 Paying to maintain it?
This document also outlines how the Precautionary Principle is being used by some activists (and being written into legislation!) justification to ‘Trump’ constitutional safeguards. In effect placing administrations beyond Parliamentary restraints.
It is ironic that many Governments in industrialised democracies have chosen the path of “command and control” to address environmental issues in ways that threaten the institutional foundations of their market economies. Constitutional Government is hard to win, but not so hard to lose.
Lukes comment “we’re well aware they lie to us every day” indicates a predeliction for psychological projection and constitutes a methodological flaw in his reasoning.
The statement is false.
Jen,
This whole pro AGW campaign is becoming so shrill. Why? Is it that they are no longer so sure, after all!
One gets so bored with the Mantra of this new ‘pink/green religion’…..”Global warming is real..and it’s happening now”…”The debate is over”…”The science is settled”….’Deniers should be locked up”.
Really, there is more then a whiff of totalitarianism about their attitude.
The fairy tale”Henny-penny” comes to mind, where Henny-penny and her diciples go about trying to convince everyone that the sky is falling in.
If the AGW campaign is Henny-penny, then Cocky-lockie, Gander-pander and Lukey-wooky would have to be the diciples, and undoubtably the environmental NGO’s would have to be Foxy-loxie!
What’s your temp Sid?
rog makes a statement, then declares it false. Funny guy.
I think Luke’s comment that politicans are lying to us every day is demonstrably false -after all, most politicians are not approached for a comment or viewpoint every day are they?
Re our Pollies: Any clown uses a well rehersed routine and it remains at the forefront of his thinking regardless of the presence of an audience
Jeez – you all must be bored and intellectually bankrupt. Let’s fight about politicians lying for 100 comments. Let me clarify – the Howard government lies every day – the Labor party, Democrats and Greens always tell the truth.
Green is good. Right is bad.
Sid – It’s not shrill – it’s just zero tolerance time for sophistry and b/s attacks. Let’s stop being nice about it ! As for religion and totalitarianism – get a grip. If you read what I wrote above I have suggested that when it comes down to it – you lot either won’t believe it, won’t vote for it, or will turn out governments that try to do anything about it. The press will turn feral anyday now and annoint Andrew Bolt as our saviour. Don’t worry – nothing much will happen except you’ll notice things warm up a little. Open up a coal mine – you won’t have any probs.
From the Antarctic Heritage Trust, 28 Nov 06. ‘An Antarctic hut used by Capt. R F Scot at Cape Evans is being crushed by record and unprecedented levels of snowfall…'(in the Antarctic summer!) and the article goes on to say…( now hold your breath and wait for it!!) …that this has been caused by, (you’ve guessed it!)..”Global Warming”!!! The article waffles on about ‘rising temperatures there’. That’s the waffle…but the fact is that temperatures are falling there. See full article at http://www.heritage-expeditions.com/travel/capeevans/
And how’s this for a good solid whiff of totalitarianism, as reported in Wall Street, Editorial, 5 Dec 06. which reports on how Democrat Senators J Rockerfeller and O Snowe not only want to slay the bad guy, ExxonMobil, but want to close all debate on AGW…”all debate about the issue must stop…” Scary stuff.
Oh do rave and bleat on Sid – what utter utter drivel.
http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009337
Indeed, while the group of outliers funded by ExxonMobil has had some success in the court of public opinion, it has failed miserably in confusing, much less convincing, the legitimate scientific community. Rather, what has emerged and continues to withstand the carefully crafted denial strategy is an insurmountable scientific consensus on both the problem and causation of climate change. Instead of the narrow and inward-looking universe of the deniers, the legitimate scientific community has developed its views on climate change through rigorous peer-reviewed research and writing across all climate-related disciplines and in virtually every country on the globe.
Where most scientists dispassionate review of the facts has moved past acknowledgement to mitigation strategies, ExxonMobil’s contribution the overall politicization of science has merely bolstered the views of U.S. government officials satisfied to do nothing. Rather than investing in the development of technologies that might see us through this crisis–and which may rival the computer as a wellspring of near-term economic growth around the world–ExxonMobil and its partners in denial have manufactured controversy, sown doubt, and impeded progress with strategies all-too reminiscent of those used by the tobacco industry for so many years. The net result of this unfortunate campaign has been a diminution of this nation’s ability to act internationally, and not only in environmental matters.
In light of the adverse impacts still resulting from your corporations activities, we must request that ExxonMobil end any further financial assistance or other support to groups or individuals whose public advocacy has contributed to the small, but unfortunately effective, climate change denial myth. Further, we believe ExxonMobil should take additional steps to improve the public debate, and consequently the reputation of the United States. We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it. Second, ExxonMobil should repudiate its climate change denial campaign and make public its funding history. Finally, we believe that there would be a benefit to the United States if one of the world’s largest carbon emitters headquartered here devoted at least some of the money it has invested in climate change denial pseudo-science to global remediation efforts. We believe this would be especially important in the developing world, where the disastrous effects of global climate change are likely to have their most immediate and calamitous impacts.
Each of us is committed to seeing the United States officially reengage and demonstrate leadership on the issue of global climate change. We are ready to work with you and any other past corporate sponsor of the denial campaign on proactive strategies to promote energy efficiency, to expand the use of clean, alternative, and renewable fuels, to accelerate innovation to responsibly extend the useful life of our fossil fuel reserves, and to foster greater understanding of the necessity of action on a truly global scale before it is too late.
Totalitarianism ? Bolsh. It’s a straight talking no nonsense appeal for industry responsibility and about time too.
Zero tolerance for these guys. We’re talking about giving some verbal stick to shameless paid for opinion shills and tobacco industry lovers – about time – do you support the CEI do you Sid?
As for Antarctica and/or one-offs Sid – if you haven’t got that one by now – live in ignorance. It’s only been discussed a dozen times.
“..This is amazing stuff. On the one hand, the Senators say that everyone agrees on the facts and consequences of climate change. But at the same time they are so afraid of debate that they want Exxon to stop financing a doughty band of dissenters who can barely get their name in the paper. We respect the folks at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, but we didn’t know until reading the Rockefeller-Snowe letter that they ran U.S. climate policy and led the mainstream media around by the nose, too. Congratulations.
Let’s compare the balance of forces: on one side, CEI; on the other, the Pew Charitable Trusts, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense, the U.N. and EU, Hollywood, Al Gore, and every politically correct journalist in the country. We’ll grant that’s a fair intellectual fight. But if the Senators are so afraid that a handful of policy wonks at a single small think-tank are in danger of winning this debate, they must not have much confidence in the merits of their own case.
…..Imagine if this letter had been sent by someone in the Bush Administration trying to enforce the opposite conclusion? The left would be howling about “censorship.” That’s exactly what did happen earlier this year after James Hansen, the NASA scientist and global warming evangelist, complained that a lowly 24-year-old press aide had tried to limit his media access. The entire episode was preposterous because Mr. Hansen is one of the most publicized scientists in the world, but the press aide was nonetheless sacked…”
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009338
“we respect the folks at the CEI” – yup – sums it up.
Yes Rog, this IS amazing stuff. Luke must be a brave boy to even post it. Shades of the curricular from a Vietnamese re-education camp. And how they go on about peer revision. Unlike the peer refereeing process in Medical Science, which is of an excellent standard, that in climate science has been quite appalling. ‘You scratch my back, and I’ll scratch yours’ A closed shop! The arch example was Dr. Mann of ‘Hockey Stick’ fame reviewing his own work. But it is getting better, much to the discomfort of the ‘AGW Club’.
So, Luke, the Scott’s Hut event is a one-off. If so, it joins a burgeoning number of one off’s. How many more do you guys need before you can see the truth?
So Sid – post the recent temperature trend for Antarctica – or perhaps you haven’t a clue what you’re talking about.
If there is a burgeoning number of one-off’s – give us the numbers. Don’t be shy. If you have a trend you might become famous. Or perhaps you just like to remember it that way.
As for medical – that must explain thalidomide and many other quandries. Hockey Stick – what’s wrong with it – perhaps more the process of right wing extremist kangaroo courts gingering up the normal process of science review. Hopefully the era of politically correct science is now over.
So which climate journals would you say have problems Sid – or did you get your information from reputable sources like the CEI or Wall St Journal. Also known as Shonk Central. Mate I don’t you would pass peer review yourself somehow.
Any coast dwellers here?
I have a 2nd hand pair of full length waders for sale. No further need since there is little water left inland. Used only once while checking for old fences below the boat ramp. Sorry; can’t guarantee their performance in saltwater or rising seas.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
Here it is – pleanty of maybe’s/perhap’s/possibly’s etc.
But the trend is for cooling.
It’s the opposite of what’s happening in the arctic.
It may mean nothing in terms of AGW or it may be significant.
Let’s just acknowledge that it’s an inconsistency given that AGW theory ( as is my understanding ) is that the poles will be affected first.
Clear evidence that the whole AGW argument is bunkum?
Definitely not.
Thanks Jim – a succinct summary of where we have been on the Antarctica issue. You could easily interpret it as what you might expect if you work back from the observed meteorology. A note of caution – that pattern doesn’t have to go on forever.
Have just come in from a hard days work and looked at this blog again.Oh for the time to sit in front of the screen all day, developing square eyes! Guess all the bloggers have now fled to Jen’s new postings, but a few comments on above.
Luke, not only the Antarctic, but record lows and big freezes in many areas of the world. Would take pages to quote a small percentage ,but here are a few examples, (in no particular order.)
12/6/06 Heaviest snow in NZ in 50 yrs. Various websites, I’m not going to quote them all, being computer literate, you can find them. If not I’ll supply them.
30/8/05 All NZ’s 50 recorded glaciers again advancing.
25/5/06 Record cold in Australia.
16/6/06 Many all time record low temps. across Australia.
18/6/06 Ditto. Perth never recorded such low temps.
16/6/06 More heavy snow and all time lows in NZ with buildings collapsing under heavy snow, etc etc.
12/2/06 Heaviest snow in New York city since 1869, with many record lows across the NE.
Last northern winter, hundreds of reports across Europe of all time record lows, huge snow falls , thousands dying in collapsing buildings, and from freezing to death. Ditto Japan, ditto China, ditto Asia, and ditto North America . Glaciers advancing in NH too. And on and on. All one has to do is turn away from virtual reality climate models and look at recorded facts.
Hockey Stick, ‘what’s wrong with it’ It’s a fraud mate, that’s what’s wrong with it.
Medicine, it was thalidomide and such that tightened up the review process there, just as the Hockey Stick and similar scams are tightening up the climate science review process. As I said before, to the discomfort of the AGW Club.
No Sid – you should know better than that. I’m still here waiting.
What’s wrong with the Hockey Stick Sid – tell us, or are you just parroting what CEI tells you.
No comment on Jim’s post above and why it’s happening.
How many glaciers in the NH are advancing Sid? How many out of how many?
And yes you should post your sources listed if you’re interested in scholarly debate.
List them and save us the trouble of chasing them down.
We’re not discussing “virtual reality climate models” here – we’re discussing observations. I can see therefore you know very little about what you’re criticising.
So tell us Sid – do you have a cooling trend to publish?
If you post more than two http://'s though Jen’s software will block so workaround is to post the web addresses without the http:// bit.
Sid – actually I think you’re full of it and about as reputable as CEI.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retreat_of_glaciers_since_1850
http://www.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2005-08-30-1
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=157
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=129
Science: March 3, 2005
Extracting a Climate Signal from 169 Glacier Records
Johannes Hans Oerlemans 1*
1 Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research, Utrecht University, Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, Netherlands.
A temperature history for different parts of the world has been constructed from 169 glacier length records. Using a first-order theory of glacier dynamics, changes in glacier length were related to changes in temperature. The derived temperature histories are fully independent of proxy and instrumental data used in earlier reconstructions. Moderate global warming started in the middle of the 19th century. The reconstructed warming in the first half of the 20th century is 0.5 K. This warming was remarkably coherent over the globe. The warming signals from glaciers at low and high elevations appear to be very similar.
Looks like Sid has decamped. I just remembered his glacial sources too – iceagenow !! yech..
://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
(if you can find your way round and plug in Sydney and all other long Aust stations , you will clearly see that BoM’s claim that 2005 was hottest year ever is just not true)
.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/18062006news.shtml
.australianweathernews.com/news/2006/060614.shtml
.smh.com.au/news/world/gales-snow-tornado-chaotic-weather-in-nz/2006/0 6/12/1149964463334.html
.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/16062006news.shtml
.nzherald.co.nz/section/7/story.cfm?c_id-7&objectid-10363304
.niwascience.co.nz/pubs/mr/archive/2005-08-30-1
.breitbart.com/news/2006/02/12/D8FNSF7G0.html
.steamboatpilot.com/section/archive/story/35258
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave
and ditto ad/in. I was going to give the excell Earth Orb site which Jim posted.
Sid – for heavens sake – the Bureau have a long established set of reference stations – Sydney would be the LAST station you’d use for global warming detection. There is a whole protocol around this. This is one thing they are very confident about and would LOVE you to pick a fight with on it. (I’ll watch!) Jeez at least pick your targets ! Actually ring up David Jones the head of the section and give him a few pointers if you’re sure of your facts !
http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/listing.shtml
will ponder the other links in next 24 hours
Havn’t decamped yet , so the above sites , but a miniscule few for you to tear apart.
During some time in the real world away from blogs, we enjoyed dinner with friends which was rather hilarious when someone produced a report by Andrew Bolt on the ‘Big Switch Off’, which he proceeded to read with a poker face while everyone half- killed themdelves laughing.. “Fry, green believer. Suffer for your faith.” Thought, Luke couldn’t be there, blog junkie that he is. Couldn’t last 10 mins without the tube, let alone 48 hours.
Yes the Hockey Stick; “We’ve got to get rid of the MWP” thats what the emails flying around the AGW Club, at the time that Dr. Mann was getting to work , said. Only prob. was that one of the emails got out of the Club, and the beans were spilt.
Yep Luke, biggest scientific scam since ‘Piltdown Man’; probably bigger. It even slipped through that excellent ‘climate science peer revision process ‘(you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours). Opps, Dr Mann actually reviewed his own work for the IPCC, and in the twinkling of the eye, the MWP, and the LIA were wiped out of existance, and, …replaced with the Hockey Stick! So be careful, if you continue to be a Denier, you may be forced to recant, or be locked up!
Well, I am going to decamp now, as I’ve been told that little Luke must have the last say….However when time permits, will be back at Jen’s blog.
OK Sid – looking at the list – you are showing me there have been some record breaking cold events in the last few years. So what ? Do you think that extremes of weather are suddenly suspended because of increased atmospheric CO2. This belies your complete lack of understanding of climate and weather.
See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=175
This incredibly boring and tedious review on record breaking events goes over this in some detail. What you need to make an argument is a statistical argument that record breaking cold events are increasing over time.
Also greenhouse warming is just getting going – wait till you get to double pre-industrial CO2 !
The global trend long term now is for overall warming – year to year variation and the occurrence of extreme events warmer and colder doesn’t mean that much – it’s the trend that is the issue.
I will agree the press pay more attention to extreme heat than cold – but recently ABC did post record high temperatures in western Queensland and frosts in Tasmania too ! What would your web list look like if you claimed all the record breaking high temperature stories too. You’d have another list.
Again I reiterate – it’s the long term trend – if you don’t get that point we’re not at first base.
I encourage you to keep making a database of extreme events – but do hot and cold !!
Well Sid if you’re going to be gutless and decamp fine.
Andrew Bolt is funny but so lacking in credibility on AGW it’s laughable. The big goose actually went with a story that the IPCC had changed it’s position. HE WAS 100% WRONG – WHAT A DICKHEAD !! This guys checks no facts at all. He just runs anything that the denialist nitwits come up with. If you’re going with him – you’re very ill advised to see it as anything but comedy. Don’t confuse paid attack dog satire with substance.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2006/12/telegraph_wrong_about_ipcc_rep.php#more
Sid – Mann got ticked off for his stats analysis – use the correct analysis and get the same answer. Drat. So result stands. Second – LIA and MWP are increasing seen to be local events – perhaps a thermohaline move.
Nature 444, 601-604 (30 November 2006) | doi:10.1038/nature05277; Received 14 March 2006; Accepted 19 September 2006
Gulf Stream density structure and transport during the past millennium
David C. Lund1,4, Jean Lynch-Stieglitz2 and William B. Curry3
Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution Joint Program in Oceanography, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA
School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332, USA
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543, USA
Present address: Division of Geological and Planetary Sciences, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, California 91125, USA.
Correspondence to: David C. Lund1,4 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to D.C.L. (Email: dlund@gps.caltech.edu).
Top of pageThe Gulf Stream transports approximately 31 Sv (1 Sv = 106 m3 s-1) of water1, 2 and 1.3 1015 W of heat3 into the North Atlantic ocean. The possibility of abrupt changes in Gulf Stream heat transport is one of the key uncertainties in predictions of climate change for the coming centuries. Given the limited length of the instrumental record, our knowledge of Gulf Stream behaviour on long timescales must rely heavily on information from geologic archives. Here we use foraminifera from a suite of high-resolution sediment cores in the Florida Straits to show that the cross-current density gradient and vertical current shear of the Gulf Stream were systematically lower during the Little Ice Age (ad 1200 to 1850). We also estimate that Little Ice Age volume transport was ten per cent weaker than today’s. The timing of reduced flow is consistent with temperature minima in several palaeoclimate records4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, implying that diminished oceanic heat transport may have contributed to Little Ice Age cooling in the North Atlantic. The interval of low flow also coincides with anomalously high Gulf Stream surface salinity10, suggesting a tight linkage between the Atlantic Ocean circulation and hydrologic cycle during the past millennium.
So Sid I can’t help it if you’re getting old and set in your ways and you can’t keep up. Indeed I have to nudge myself that you regard such sites as iceagenow as authoritative. Sid – you’re clueless !