Global Warming - A Comedy of Errors

Damn!  You just cannot keep up with this stuff!  The latest is Holandgate! It seems that the IPCC does not know where it is or who lives there!

Well done article, Doc.  You should submit it to a news mag.  For me the answer is simple when you realize that the eco-movement in America is the home of displaced and dis-spirited communists.  They will go to any length to destroy the good ole USA PERIOD.

Well, I'm no expert on global warming or climate change... namely, because I have no relevant credentials (do you?) nor have I ever published any peer-reviewed papers on the topic (have you?)

Therefore, both you and I are relegated to the sidelines, kinda like common folk back in the day when Galileo said the earth wasn't the center of the universe and the church said it was... common folks like us could only sit on the sidelines and pontificate without being able to make an informed decision (all things considered)

What I find incredibly disingenuous about the whole thing is that the voices speaking out against "global warming" or whatever you choose to call it are employing the exact same tactics that big tobacco used back in the day when they were still saying that smoking didn't cause cancer. Rather than focus on the actual science from an unbiased standpoint, the naysayers are dedicated solely to disproving, or at the minimum, sowing doubt and confusion with very little actual science employed on their end. Also, they are treating "global warming science" as if it is a single, unified entity or political party, which it certainly is not. Instead of being a two-sided argument, it is a 17 sided argument but it seems the media pundits at FOX have boiled it down to the ultra simple (and rather ridiculous) pro or con debate. Kinda like the current U.S two-party farce, in which everyone loses!

Do I pay attention to or care about IPCC reports? Not really. However, I do pay attention to reports and scientific studies done in my own country.

Take a look-see here;

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2010/02/05/tech-climate-arctic-ice.html

370 scientists from around the world spent the last two years performing exhaustive studies on the Canadian arctic and have come to the conclusion that the sea ice is melting much faster than the most pessimistic estimates. Now, whether it is due to human activity or a so-called "natural cycle" it will have far reaching and drastic consequences. Also of interest, was the fact that they found a large amount of industrial pollutants and contaminants in the ice, evidence that us pesky humans can have a universal impact on our planet even from thousands of miles away, that there is no "safe area". There are more than 6 billion people alive today, meaning there are 4 times more people than there were at the turn of the century. No matter which way you cut it, that's a lot of mouths and a lot of assholes and to think that we can just go on business as usual without having any impact is foolhardy, even from the perspective of an idiotic non-scientist like myself!

The science that I've seen, from local sources, says we're all in for a world of hurt. Whether or not we're the cause, we should be doing everything we can to try and mitigate a disaster -before it becomes a disaster-

Or, we can sit back, guffaw at the tabloid press and down another cheeseburger. On second thought, it might be fun to sit back and watch the world go to hell in a handbasket. So long as the beer doesn't run out!

Well I'm doing something...paying more to heat my home this winter...because it is colder than last year. I can't wait for more global warming. You'd think the "change" people would welcome it, instead of trying to keep something as dynamic as the earth's climate, frozen (pun intended) in time. Personally, the sooner those liberal do gooders, with their exclusive beach front property, are under water on the west coast the better. I'm sure they'll just buy the new beach front.

Arty -

How many times are you going to set that strawman up & knock him down?

And I'd start paying attention to those IPCC reports whether you feel 'qualified' or not - what they've almost managed to pull off with bogus justification would affect you very directly, and not in a good way.  And they aren't done trying.

Hardly. It seems that if you are sceptical about anything to do with man-made global warming you're firmly in the crazy deniers camp. So for example if you think that the effects might not be as great as made out, or that we might not be as big a contributing factor as made out, etc., you get treated as some idiotic extremist who doesn't think there's any form of global warming because you don't accept the prevailing view. Even the use of the word deniers is condescending, since it suggests you're in denial about something that is obviously true. Maybe fox oversimplifies it too (it wouldn't surprise me if they did!), but they're certainly not the only ones.

Speaking of oversimplification, the warmmongers have been rather quiet here lately.

I'm sure they're just busy.

The Chairman of IPCC Dr Rajender Pachauri is certainly guilty of misleading the whole world by trotting up dates that are figment of feverish imagination. The 2035 melt down date for the Himalayan Glaciers is not sourced from a good scientific journal but from a travel magsazine. It now appears that Dr R K Pachuri has had a vested interest in companies dealing with "green technology" whose stocks kept rising in the days after the sumit.

It is almost impossible to keep up with the latest scandals about the IPCC, CRU, and NCDC.  They are coming at a clip of 1-2 a day!  Mine is just culled from the other sources, not anything original.  I had time, but not that much.

Hmmm....I think with all the links (did you read them?), it would appear to most people that I was just citing revelations that others made (perhaps compiling them in one post for the first time - I do not know that nor do I claim it).  So the question should be, I can read, can you?

I guess you missed my earlier article - Follow the Money! Again,an attack by misdirection (comparing tobacco) instead of addressing FACTS.  The Tobacconists in this case is Phil Jones, Al Gore and Rajendri Pachauri.  Not the ones question the smoke and mirrors they have put up.  That is evident to anyone with any kind of critical thinking, but obscure to the ones that refuse to question and accept the rantings of greedy people at faith value.

It is not the skeptics that are treating it as a single unified entity, but those pushing an agenda that are.  It is not 17 sides, but just 2 sided.  Those looking for good science, and those using bad science to advance an agenda.  Which side are you on?  damn the science and full speed ahead on the agenda?  Or good science to see where it leads? 

And while there is 1 link to a FOX story (out of 20), I used it to show diversity, not reliance on a single source.  Clearly you did not read the links since 95% of them have nothing to do with Fox. 

Ok, you quote a news story of a pro AGW site, and I quote a major science institution - University of Illinois. They are the keepers of the Arctic Ice.  And regardless, if you are trying to prove AGW by the arctic ice, then you are using bad science.  We just had 3 ft of snow in DC.  Does that prove or disprove AGW?  The answer is neither.  The ice cap melting of 2007 was due to a change in trade winds, and the ice healed itself by last summer.  What caused it?  no one has bothered to check that out yet, so I fail to see how your puff piece (by advocates of AGW) does anything but prove my point.  bad science (or in this case just hysteria that has no identified cause).

And your point?  Again, it is not unprecedented, as the warming during the MWP was greater than it was today (or are you one of the bad science people that maintain the vikings farmed permafrost?).  All it shows is that the North Polar ice caps expands and shrinks, but does not tell us why, or the cause?  So we are going to saracfice millions (perhaps billions) of people to an "I don't know"? when it could be natural?

Again, so?  Are you trying to drive home my point?  Did you know they found the evidence of krackatoa in the arctic ice as well?  Are you maintaining that was man's fault as well (ala danny Glover)?  All you are proving is that air moves, not that man has caused warming (the core principal of AGW).  And that when it precipitates, the air gets frozen in water crystals (sometimes called snow) and the trace gasses and particles are in those molecules.  WOW!  Now that is a whole new theory!  Publish it!  Again so what?  If you re-read the article, you will see I am not promoting polution, yet you would have some believe it by your post.  Why?

Oh, things are changing!  I don't think I (or any of the non-moonbat skeptics) claimed otherwise.  But disaster?  I sure did warn about scaremongering like that.  It comes back to the  same thing - if it is not AGW, then what are we doing trying to change it?  Indeed, an institution no less prestigious than Standford University Says it aint all bad!  And if man is not causing it, I have 2 questions:

1. What makes some people so arrogant to think man can do a damn thing about it? - and-

2. Would not doing something that does affect it have a worse impact in the long run?  if it is natural and we are coming out of the LIA, then retarding the warm up would mean we would head into another ice age that could be far worse.  And what, in the esteemed scientists opinion is worse?  A Warming period (ala Vikings colonizing Greenland) or an Ice age (think glaciers covering all of Canada)?

I challenge you to find one link from the tabloid press in my sources.  But it seems you have your only link in that genre!  So I can only conclude you read the words, and never bothered to check the citations or sources.  Why?  I can only surmise you already knew the answer (as did Jones, Mann, Briffa, Trenbeth, Gore and pachauri).  In other words you do not feel a need to find the truth, as it was given to you from on high (the high priests of AGW).

That is your faith, and I will not argue your faith.  But if you want to discuss AGW and the bad science behind the movement, let's discuss more.  If you want to talk polution and solutions to it, let's discuss more.  But don't try to do a chicken little number with AGW as the source of all ills and the source of all solutions.  It aint.

Changing climate is going to have a lot of reprecussions.  Some good, some not good.  But probably none on the order of magnitude that Al Gore wants us to think.  On eof the discussions now is on how much more land area will be arable because of increased rain, and what areas may have longer growing seasons if it is warming.  IN the hysteria that has been generated, these questions have not really been addressed.

It is a strawman to maintain that since they wrote it, we cannot understand it.  Clearly when science gets to the point of making itself a mysticism instead of a science, then it is not good science but bad science.  I do not have to know how to calculate the R-squared values of a statistical regression to understand if the stated claim is good or not.

Exactly!  I think most of the media does over simplify things.  It is the nature of hteir job.  But then you can use that as a starting point to dig deeper if you want a deeper understanding.  And yes, if the East Anglia emails taught us anything, it is that the pro AGW group are afraid of debate and discussion and attempt to supress it at every juncture.  Why?  if they were so right, they would want to bring it into the light of day instead of hiding it under rocks and false labeling.

Warmists.  And yes, they are in major CYA mode.

When you start throwing billions of dollars around (the amount being given to the science by governments), it does tend to bring out graft and greed.  Pachauri got caught up in gold fever.

I agree Doc, and I kind of know what drives you to point out the info (to counter the dis-information, which IMO is just to make a buck off of the people). I'm a firm believer that the planet will do what it's been doing, and should be left to it (that's is short of an asteroid striking it, I'm not a sadist). Perhaps this is natures way of shaking off it's little bugs (us), just as a wet dog shakes off water. I just wish that the folks that are shouting "the sky is falling" would put that energy into something they DO have control over. I'm not suggesting climate patterns shouldn't be studied, it's good info to know. I just have a problem with someones hand in my pocket, taxing me for something I'm going to use anyway, just to line their own pockets. When better alternatives become available they will be adapted, that's how things work, always have. The government invents nothing, so why do many put so much of their faith in government? The guy that invents sustainable cold fusion will be the worlds hero, even then something better will follow. I see this problem as part of the "instant gratification" generation, they want it now (Verruca Salt style)

You have the patience of a saint trying to point out the flaws to the "government will fix it with cash" folks. Rock on!

I guess if I follow Arty's mentallity, if my mechanic says I need a new transmission on a 2009 vehicle, since I am no expert why question him? If the guy from Geek Squad tells me I need a new hard drive on my computer because I can't access the Internet, I am no PC expert so then maybe I should get one? Why do we even vote? It's not like the average American has any political experience, at least from Arty's point of view. If you don't know anything about something, just do what the expects say to do. Yea right.

Yes, but that is an external influence!  And not caused by man. That is just the universe's way of bitch slapping Gaia.

One of the facts that is often overlooked is that man is not adding or subtracting anything from the planet.  We are just redistributing it.  And while that can (and has) unbalanced eco systems in the short term and small extent, the earth has done a lot worse (volcanos, earthquakes, hurricans, etc.) and lived to talk about it.

Arty is not all wrong, but like many, he is using the climate crises to advance a totally different agenda (and at that at least he shows some honesty).  While we are not going to destroy the planet, we can make things nasty if we dont give a damn.  But let's be honest about it.  The air in Shanghai sucks!  But that is not caused by a paper mill in Upstate NY.

There is also controversy surrounding that practise (patenting discoveries) because essentially, Tax money funds research. For example, imagine a university develops a new pharmaceutical compound and patents it and a huge pharmaceutical company pays the fee and turns the whole thing into a new amazing drug - it is sort of unfair? criminal that the huge drug companies make so much profit from it because the taxpayers have to potentially pay alot of money to buy medicine that they paid to develop in the first place. Of course the pharma industry argues that it is very expensive to turn a patented pharmaceutical compound into a marketable drug because it requires alot of research and trials and bla bla bla and so the high price is justified. I think I remember reading about FDA corruption in this context as well.. This doesn't have to do anything with global warming,  but it's interesting nontheless.

Your snowmageddon on the eastcoast is supposedly caused by El Nino  - or so US climatologists theorize (I read that on a german newspage). When climate conditions change it can have pretty severe effects like a colder and longer winter - in Germany as well.

No, the drug company had to pay for the patent.  Now, if the university is stupid (very unlikely) and sold it for a song, then yes, that is the University's error.  But the obverse of that is a company pays a lot for a patent and makes nothing.  That happens as well.  Would that be criminal?  Clearly if one is, the other has to be as well.

El nino brings moisture.  It still has to be cold enough to snow.  And that goes to the issue of the alarmism of AGW.  Clearly the climate is changing.  But then it has for the last 4.7 billion years, and for all but a tiny (.005%) fraction of that time, man was not around.  And even a tinier fraction (.000005%) has man been using fossil fuels.

The premise of AGW has a severe flaw as well.  The basic premise is that Co2 pumped into the atmosphere will cause a runaway heating effect.  But first, observed history shows that not to be the case.  And second, it ignores the negative feedback of other factors that far outweigh the CO2 factor (such as cloud cover).  While man can have a minimal effect on climate (that has to be quantified based on good science which we have not seen yet), that effect is not necessarily bad.  A slightly warmer climate (which is possible) would mean longer growing season which would mean more food especially for the areas that are starving.

When you weed out the hysteria of Al Gore and the IPCC, what you find is a good hypothesis that has not been tested, nor the ramifications fully explored.  instead you find some greedy people trying to crreate mass hysteria only to enrich themselves.

Universities are rarely run by stupid people, and they make millions of profit from licensing their patents. I think that was one intention of the act - to make the research results available quickly and to allow people who do the research to profit from it as well. It has been legistlature since 1980 after all. And your argument is what I read back then as well, especially regarding the pharmaceutical companies. Sometimes they pump millions into research and nothing comes off it, but the profit of a successful new drug are astronomically high. All in all, I think the Bayh-Dole act is a great thing.

Yep - imagine when all the ice melts in the arctic it would makes the ocean floor accessible. Didn't russia claim a mountain range under water as belonging to their continental shelf and raised a russian flag underwater there? And the northwest passage would become navigable. I always have to think of Franklin's expedition when I think about that - what a tragedy. And the fishermen in greenland are happy too because less ice means more fish for them. I also heard that the ocean would probably not rise that much because the displacement of the ice would not be considerably more when it melts - the volume stays roughly the same. I am not a physicist though but it kind of makes sense.

You are correct...if you believe governments have their own money. In the US that would be the taxpayers money. For every government funded university cold fusion project there are 10 mating cycles of the earthworm type projects. In many cases they don't even fund a specific project just hand the university (whose outrageous tuitions are apparently not enough) cash.  Private industry is much more efficient and focused IMO. I'll say it again, government invents nothing. Of course your free to tell me how government improved your life as I sit under the glow of my privately developed light bulb.

Yea, kind of the ironic thing about that is that Russia (and Canada and the Scandanavian countries) think thre is oil in them thar hills!  So russia staked an early claim.  I don't think much will come of it because of horizontal drilling (i.e. they can get to the oil regardless of the ice), but if someone finds oil under Antarctica - watch out!

Actually the melting of the North pole would not raise sea levels at all due to the fact that the ice already displaces an equal amount of water.  The concern is the glaciers and ice caps on Greenland and Antarctica.  Of course the melting of the Glaciers and Ice sheet of Greenland 1000 years ago did not appear to destroy the world.

Government is notoriously innefficient in almost all of its endeavors due to the simple fact that it is OPM and no accountablity.  It is rare when a government is actually "ousted" due to such activities (I am not talking dem for rep, but despot for despot).  But what many fail to realize is that just because they are inefficient, does not mean that they never create anything.  As Vic Palmero says, even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in awhile.

You never know what mating earthworms could do for you in the future, Nitro..

Because universities can make insane amounts of money with patents (and many do), there is enough incentive to do research in areas that could yield results that can be patented and sold for a lot of money. The universities and the private industry profit from each other in this. Private Industry gets government funding for research as well under the BD Act, you know, not just universities.

At least you still have normal lightbulbs. The EU, in its internal wisdeom, has banned regular lightbulbs. They are being phased out over the next 2 years and then only energysaving halogen or other bulbs are allowed. The development and reasonable production of said lightbulbs with equal light/lux quality isn't really up to speed though, and you can't even throw those energy saving lightbulbs away in normal trash because they fall into the category of hazardeous material. Thank you, EU.

i am sending a copy of this article to all my friends. Good job Dr Guy

Actually it depends upon where you live.  California has already followed the European path.  West Virginia is still use coal oil lamps.

Thank you.  I am honored by your comment.

LOL!!! Perhaps, but I'll take my chances. I would like my government to provide just a few things, defense, foreign affairs, heck even social security and Medicare (since I'm not unsympathetic or uncaring). A few other small things perhaps. I'm willing for individuals and private corporations to pick up the slack on what people need and the government can keep it's hands out of my pocket, since it rarely has a clue.

We're not far behind you!!!