A different point of view?
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Wow, Chris, I'm a geologist and you've nearly got my underoos in a twist on account of the misinformed statements you posted above. First, geologists are contributing more to the database on climate change than any other scientific community. A geologist's perspective on geologic time and paleoenvironments is invaluable to understand climate change mechanisms. Where I live in New England there was a 2-mile-thick ice sheet some 15,000 years ago - a mere instant in geologic time. In that small amount of time sea level has had drastic swings, and these changes will continue to occur billions of years into the future.
You can't swing a dead cat in an academic geology department these days without hitting a bunch of geologists studying continental ice cores, volcanic aerosols, radioisotope chemistry, O16/O18 ratios in calcareous sedimentary regimes, etc. Looking for oil in the ground is so '70s. The big research dollars today are in climate change, and some of the money is coming from people who have agendas, on both sides of the debate.
Secondly, from what I can tell, the bulk of Bob Carter's research is pretty much straight geologic research with a strong emphasis on climate change stuff, as is the norm for academics these days. The money for most of this work is coming from the NSF, not XOM, as you alude. In fact, here's what the front cover of the Ocean Drilling Program says:
Prepared by the
OCEAN DRILLING PROGRAM,
TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY
in cooperation with the
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
and
JOINT OCEANOGRAPHIC INSTITUTIONS, INC.
But your last statement, implying that a geologist who publishes his findings from a drilling program does so as a lackey for big oil, is simply insulting. The fact is that when big oil pays for the drilling, the results generally DON'T get published. If I'm BP, and I just invested $50M in an ocean hole, why the hell would I want to let my competition know what's there (or what's not there)?
Get rid of the tin-foil hat you're wearing.
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Aah Chris, spoken like a true convert! This is becoming an interesting debate, it seems that most involved see things in terms of black and white. One side is right the other side is wrong, no middle ground.
oke: I dare say that most geologists in Australia, if not all have been involved in oil exploration and therefore have had contact with oil companies. That does not make his paper invalid.
I prefer Carter's expertise and academic Bona Fides over for instance, Peter Garret's an ex rock star of dubious talent, who jumped on the Global warming band wagon to help him get a seat in Government.
So elequently stated Mark. You see.....the real agenda, as I have previously posted here on this thread, radical environmentalisim is the new home of SOCIALISIM, just look at the quote from the former Minister of the Environment of Canada, in the article that Pete posted.
Justice and EQUALITY ........ SURE
Save you're "carbon credits" boys
Best regards
Scott
Justice and EQUALITY ........ SURE
Save you're "carbon credits" boys
Best regards
Scott
Last edited:
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
1. Does Carbon Dioxide cause Global warming?
Undoubtedly the greenhouse gases play some part in maintaining surface warmth of the Earth, but there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.
Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise BEFORE carbon dioxide content rises, sometimes centuries earlier. It would thus make just as much sense to suggest that rising temperature causes an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is more likely that both are related to other factors over which man has no control such as cycles within the solar system, sun spots, magnetic reversals or periodic episodes of vulcanism. It is high time that the economists and politicians running the Global Warming industry started reading a bit of geological history.
The uncertainty whether carbon dioxide is a cause, an effect or a companion of global warming is so great that it would be very foolish to embark on extremely costly measures designed to force an artificial reduction of man-caused emissions of carbon dioxide. The costs to the community will be swift and immense – the benefits, if any, will be delayed and diffuse.
There is also significant doubt about temperature records derived by manipulated data derived from analysis of ice cores. Actual atmospheric analyses done during the twentieth century suggest that carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1940’s than in the 1960’s, despite big increases in emissions of carbon dioxide.
:dead:
Undoubtedly the greenhouse gases play some part in maintaining surface warmth of the Earth, but there is no evidence that man-made carbon dioxide is a significant cause of global warming.
Close examination of past records shows that temperature tends to rise BEFORE carbon dioxide content rises, sometimes centuries earlier. It would thus make just as much sense to suggest that rising temperature causes an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. It is more likely that both are related to other factors over which man has no control such as cycles within the solar system, sun spots, magnetic reversals or periodic episodes of vulcanism. It is high time that the economists and politicians running the Global Warming industry started reading a bit of geological history.
The uncertainty whether carbon dioxide is a cause, an effect or a companion of global warming is so great that it would be very foolish to embark on extremely costly measures designed to force an artificial reduction of man-caused emissions of carbon dioxide. The costs to the community will be swift and immense – the benefits, if any, will be delayed and diffuse.
There is also significant doubt about temperature records derived by manipulated data derived from analysis of ice cores. Actual atmospheric analyses done during the twentieth century suggest that carbon dioxide levels were higher in the 1940’s than in the 1960’s, despite big increases in emissions of carbon dioxide.
:dead:
Well said Pete. I forwarded the hour long show to everyone on my email list. A few took the time to watch and were very suprised by the info they found there. To bad the news media will not publish this info with the same fervor they reserve for Al Gore and his new life as the enviromental expert of the universe. Actually from what I have seen, we should conclude that water vapor is a more serious threat than CO2. Alll we can really do is keep stirring the pot and watch it boil!
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Agreed Bud, Carbon is one of the building blocks of life, why are people targetting it? The attached article is long winded but significant if you take the time to read it.
Why Target Carbon?
How curious it is that the massive effort to protect the Earth against catastrophic climate change should be targeted against carbon–the basic building block of life! And specifically against the CO2 that constitutes a mere 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere, about 380 parts per million (ppm).
While the talk is about limiting emissions, the goal is to “stabilize” atmospheric content of CO2 at pre-industrial levels.
This assumes that (1) the level was previously stable; (2) CO2 content was optimal before the Industrial Revolution; (3) man has the ability to change the CO2 concentration significantly; (4) the only or best way to change the level is by reducing or capturing emissions from hydrocarbon fuels.
Of course, it is also assumed that increased atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming–an assertion disproved by definitive evidence (CDP, March 2007) but nonetheless widely believed. In a quiz given at our hospital's grand rounds, 60% responded that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, though it makes up only 3—4% of greenhouse gases by volume.
Historical Data on Emissions of CO2
Global warmers always cite the measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory ((Figure 3, CDP, March 2007), taken since 1958, and proudly proclaimed to “constitute the longest, continuous record of atmospheric CO2 available in the world!” on the plaque noting that the building is named in honor of Charles David Keeling.
The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that direct measurements can be relied on only after 1957. These are compared with indirect measurements–proxy data from Antarctic ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 has “risen from close to 280...(ppm) in 1800, at first slowly and then progressively faster to a value of 367 ppm in 1999, echoing the increasing pace of global agricultural and industrial development.”
The assumption that the “unpolluted background level” of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state before the Industrial Revolution, essentially not varying from 280 ppm, was based largely on critical literature reviews by Callendar (1958) and by Keeling (1986). They examined only 10% of the available literature and from that asserted that only 1% of the data could be considered accurate. They dismissed all data that disagreed with their presupposed average.
Ernst-Georg Beck assembled a 138-year-long record of yearly atmospheric CO2 measurements, extracted from 180 technical papers published between 1812 and 1961 (Energy and Environment 2007;18:259-282). The chemical data were highly accurate and obtained at sites distant from industrial or military contamination. One author, W. Kreutz, not cited by Callendar or Keeling, acquired 64,000 measurements in an 18-month period between 1939 and 1941. His results showed both the seasonal cycle and weather events, and “confirm strikingly the persistence of CO2 levels above 400 ppm over most of a period of 2 years.” Other high-quality data show levels of CO2 as high as 350 ppm at time when ice-core proxies indicate a level of only 290 ppm. Proxies have less detail on natural fluctuations.
The fact that all eight temperature maxima over the 100 years from 1850 to 1950 correspond to CO2 maxima is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not show which is the cause. Beck writes: “My results are equally if not more consistent with temperature being the forcing that controls the level of CO2 in the atmospheric system. In support of this causality, ice-core data consistently shows that over climatic time scales, changes in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by several hundred to more than a thousand years.”
Beck notes that the pre-1950 measuring stations were in suitable locations, not near volcanoes, which emit about 130 million tonnes of CO2 each year. Caleb Poppe, a sixth grader, observed that Mauna Loa is a volcano. The observatory there also measures volcanic emissions, specifically stating that these “are an insignificantly small part of the global carbon cycle and do not play a role in climate change.”
The Carbon Cycle
There are five reservoirs of carbon on earth that are biologically accessible on a short time scale, all of comparable size: the atmosphere (the smallest, containing about 750 gigatons carbon, GtC), land plants, topsoil, the surface layer of the oceans, and proven reserves of hydrocarbon fuels (some 4,000 GtC). Human beings are said to release about 5.5 GtC per year through combustion of fuels and cement production, and 1.1 GtC by other means such as deforestation.
The carbon cycle or circulation between reservoirs is not well understood. In a talk at the Global Climate and Energy Project Symposium at Stanford University, June 13, 2005, Freeman Dyson noted that only half of the CO2 from the combustion of hydrocarbons remains in the atmosphere, and the fate of the rest is unknown.
If atmospheric CO2 is a problem, it is primarily a land-use problem, Dyson states. A 0.01 inch per year increase in topsoil –as by no-till farming or genetically engineered crops with more biomass in the roots–would stabilize the CO2. Incidentally, enhanced CO2 levels increase the root-to-shoot ratio.
It's the Economy, Stupid
During the Nuclear Freeze movement in the 1980s, a spokesman denied that he was talking about unilateral disarmament, remarking that the basis for America's superpower status was not her nuclear arsenal, but her economy. Keeping atmospheric CO2 below 450 ppm by reducing hydrocarbon fuel use would require decarbonizing the economy of the industrialized world (Scientific Alliance Newsletter 5/4/07). With the nuclear power industry crippled, almost 90% of America's energy comes from hydrocarbons (Access to Energy, April 2007).
Is the target America's CO2 emissions? The U.S. adds some fraction of 0.2% to earth's greenhouse effect (.04 × .05, or CO2 fraction of total greenhouse gases × portion of CO2 from man-made sources, which is from 2% to 5%).
Or is the target the United States of America?
Archaeological and Historical Evidence for Climate Change
In the summer of 2003, retreating perennial ice of the Schnidejoch in the Swiss Alps uncovered a 4,700-year-old archer's quiver. Subsequent finds revealed that there had been four periods warmer than today during the past 5,000 years (Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars–a New Theory of Climate Change).
Irish monks found considerable ice in the waters to Iceland in the 6th to 8th centuries, as late as A.D. 865. The Vikings found no ice in Icelandic fjords from that time until 1200 A.D. By A.D. 1342, the sailing route to the Greenland colonies had to be abandoned because of ice (Tim Patterson, Carleton University).
Global warming is predicted to cause both flooding and droughts. The 1930s Dust Bowl dryness will come to the American Southwest, “for good” (Science 2007;316:188-190). As many as 250 million Africans will be at risk of water shortages (Nature 2007;446:706-707). But Dyson writes that 6,000 years ago, the warmest period in the interglacial era, rock paintings in the Sahara showed herds of cows and giraffes.
It's Not Insurance
Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss; it does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison, writes Orson Scott Card, is to protection money. “That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices [that], by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western, anti-industrial religion of ecodeism–or global warming will get you!”
CBO Assesses Cap-and-Trade Schemes
The Apr 25 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on proposed cap-and-trade legislation was a “devastating indictment” of the idea, writes Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). The CO2 allocation scheme would “result in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.” If implemented, the Kyoto protocol would result in the equivalent of the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S., he states, costing up to an estimated $300 billion/year. It would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues, the report acknowledged. And it would have virtually no impact on the climate, Inhofe says (TWTW 5/11/07, see www.sepp.org). Read the report at: www.cbo.gov
Follow the Money
Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller accused ExxonMobil of “giving more than $19 million since the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” along with supporting malaria control, Third World economic development, and other causes. This is less than half the amount that the Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change over the same period. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the U.S., EU, and UN spent since 1993 (some $80 billion altogether) on global warming catastrophe research. U.S. government agencies budgeted $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007 alone (DeWeese Report, March 2007).
Climate Scientists Threatened
“Many climate scientists get frustrated with those who don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, but should having such views be a sackable offense?” asks Michael Hopkin. For example, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski wants to strip state climatologist George Taylor of his title because his views are inconsistent with Oregon's goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. (<A title=blocked::http://www.ddponline.org/ddp-audio.php href="http://www.ddponline.org/ddp-audio.php">Taylor spoke at the 2006 DDP meeting.) Virginia's climatologist, Patrick Michaels, also got a letter from the governor asking him not to use the title any longer (Nature 2007;445:806).
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed from his position as state associate climatologist for stating in emails that the snow pack in the Cascade Mountains is only marginally lower than the long-term average since 1943, and that it has been growing since the late 1970s. This contradicted a statement by Seattle mayor Greg Nickels that “the average snow pack in the Cascades has declined 50 percent since 1950 and will be cut in half again in 30 years if we don't start addressing the problems of global climate change now” (Heartland Institute, Environment News 6/1/07).
Coal Essential for Energy Independence
The most abundant fuel resource in the U.S. is coal. Recoverable reserves were estimated at 267 billion tons in January 2005, a 250-year supply based on current annual production. About 4 trillion tons could eventually be made available. At an initial price of perhaps $45 per barrel, coal can be turned into liquid fuel.
“Liquid fuels from coal are clean, refined products requiring little if any additional refinery processing, are fungible with petroleum products and, therefore, can use the existing fuels distribution and end-use infrastructure,” stated Clarence L. Miller of the U.S. Dept of Energy in Senate testimony.
In World War II, the Luftwaffe depended on aviation fuel made from coal via the Fischer-Tropsch process, especially after the Russians captured Rumanian oilfields. The synthetic oil plants were the highest priority target for Allied bombers.
S.S. Penner will discuss “Liquid Fuels from U.S. Coal Sources” at the DDP meeting this Aug 4-5 in Oakland.
Radical environmentalists complain that coal-based diesel fuels would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases alleged to cause global warming as petroleum does.
Coal mine owner Robert E. Murray is one CEO who doesn't buy global warming hysteria. “Some elitists in our country can't, or won't, tell fact from fiction, can't understand what a draconian climate change program will do [to] the dreams of millons of working Americans.... (Wall St J 5/19-20/07). He is incensed by other energy CEOs' support of cap-and-trade schemes, calling them a “shameless” effort to fatten their bottom lines at the expense of the country.
China is building a new coal-fired plant about every four days, and its CO2 emissions may exceed those of the U.S. by the end of the year (Nature 2007;446:954-955). China is also reportedly moving to commercialization of coal-to-liquid technologies, Miller told the Senate. U.S. petroleum sources could compete. The continental shelf is estimated to contain 420 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil, but 85% of it is off limits. Cuba is planning to drill in waters off Florida that are forbidden to U.S. oil companies (Wall St J 5/8/07).
Why Target Carbon?
How curious it is that the massive effort to protect the Earth against catastrophic climate change should be targeted against carbon–the basic building block of life! And specifically against the CO2 that constitutes a mere 0.038% of Earth's atmosphere, about 380 parts per million (ppm).
While the talk is about limiting emissions, the goal is to “stabilize” atmospheric content of CO2 at pre-industrial levels.
This assumes that (1) the level was previously stable; (2) CO2 content was optimal before the Industrial Revolution; (3) man has the ability to change the CO2 concentration significantly; (4) the only or best way to change the level is by reducing or capturing emissions from hydrocarbon fuels.
Of course, it is also assumed that increased atmospheric CO2 is the cause of global warming–an assertion disproved by definitive evidence (CDP, March 2007) but nonetheless widely believed. In a quiz given at our hospital's grand rounds, 60% responded that CO2 is the most important greenhouse gas, though it makes up only 3—4% of greenhouse gases by volume.
Historical Data on Emissions of CO2
Global warmers always cite the measurements from the Mauna Loa Observatory ((Figure 3, CDP, March 2007), taken since 1958, and proudly proclaimed to “constitute the longest, continuous record of atmospheric CO2 available in the world!” on the plaque noting that the building is named in honor of Charles David Keeling.
The Third Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states that direct measurements can be relied on only after 1957. These are compared with indirect measurements–proxy data from Antarctic ice cores showing that atmospheric CO2 has “risen from close to 280...(ppm) in 1800, at first slowly and then progressively faster to a value of 367 ppm in 1999, echoing the increasing pace of global agricultural and industrial development.”
The assumption that the “unpolluted background level” of atmospheric CO2 was in an equilibrium state before the Industrial Revolution, essentially not varying from 280 ppm, was based largely on critical literature reviews by Callendar (1958) and by Keeling (1986). They examined only 10% of the available literature and from that asserted that only 1% of the data could be considered accurate. They dismissed all data that disagreed with their presupposed average.
Ernst-Georg Beck assembled a 138-year-long record of yearly atmospheric CO2 measurements, extracted from 180 technical papers published between 1812 and 1961 (Energy and Environment 2007;18:259-282). The chemical data were highly accurate and obtained at sites distant from industrial or military contamination. One author, W. Kreutz, not cited by Callendar or Keeling, acquired 64,000 measurements in an 18-month period between 1939 and 1941. His results showed both the seasonal cycle and weather events, and “confirm strikingly the persistence of CO2 levels above 400 ppm over most of a period of 2 years.” Other high-quality data show levels of CO2 as high as 350 ppm at time when ice-core proxies indicate a level of only 290 ppm. Proxies have less detail on natural fluctuations.
The fact that all eight temperature maxima over the 100 years from 1850 to 1950 correspond to CO2 maxima is consistent with a cause-effect relationship, but does not show which is the cause. Beck writes: “My results are equally if not more consistent with temperature being the forcing that controls the level of CO2 in the atmospheric system. In support of this causality, ice-core data consistently shows that over climatic time scales, changes in temperature precede their parallel changes in carbon dioxide by several hundred to more than a thousand years.”
Beck notes that the pre-1950 measuring stations were in suitable locations, not near volcanoes, which emit about 130 million tonnes of CO2 each year. Caleb Poppe, a sixth grader, observed that Mauna Loa is a volcano. The observatory there also measures volcanic emissions, specifically stating that these “are an insignificantly small part of the global carbon cycle and do not play a role in climate change.”
The Carbon Cycle
There are five reservoirs of carbon on earth that are biologically accessible on a short time scale, all of comparable size: the atmosphere (the smallest, containing about 750 gigatons carbon, GtC), land plants, topsoil, the surface layer of the oceans, and proven reserves of hydrocarbon fuels (some 4,000 GtC). Human beings are said to release about 5.5 GtC per year through combustion of fuels and cement production, and 1.1 GtC by other means such as deforestation.
The carbon cycle or circulation between reservoirs is not well understood. In a talk at the Global Climate and Energy Project Symposium at Stanford University, June 13, 2005, Freeman Dyson noted that only half of the CO2 from the combustion of hydrocarbons remains in the atmosphere, and the fate of the rest is unknown.
If atmospheric CO2 is a problem, it is primarily a land-use problem, Dyson states. A 0.01 inch per year increase in topsoil –as by no-till farming or genetically engineered crops with more biomass in the roots–would stabilize the CO2. Incidentally, enhanced CO2 levels increase the root-to-shoot ratio.
It's the Economy, Stupid
During the Nuclear Freeze movement in the 1980s, a spokesman denied that he was talking about unilateral disarmament, remarking that the basis for America's superpower status was not her nuclear arsenal, but her economy. Keeping atmospheric CO2 below 450 ppm by reducing hydrocarbon fuel use would require decarbonizing the economy of the industrialized world (Scientific Alliance Newsletter 5/4/07). With the nuclear power industry crippled, almost 90% of America's energy comes from hydrocarbons (Access to Energy, April 2007).
Is the target America's CO2 emissions? The U.S. adds some fraction of 0.2% to earth's greenhouse effect (.04 × .05, or CO2 fraction of total greenhouse gases × portion of CO2 from man-made sources, which is from 2% to 5%).
Or is the target the United States of America?
Archaeological and Historical Evidence for Climate Change
In the summer of 2003, retreating perennial ice of the Schnidejoch in the Swiss Alps uncovered a 4,700-year-old archer's quiver. Subsequent finds revealed that there had been four periods warmer than today during the past 5,000 years (Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, The Chilling Stars–a New Theory of Climate Change).
Irish monks found considerable ice in the waters to Iceland in the 6th to 8th centuries, as late as A.D. 865. The Vikings found no ice in Icelandic fjords from that time until 1200 A.D. By A.D. 1342, the sailing route to the Greenland colonies had to be abandoned because of ice (Tim Patterson, Carleton University).
Global warming is predicted to cause both flooding and droughts. The 1930s Dust Bowl dryness will come to the American Southwest, “for good” (Science 2007;316:188-190). As many as 250 million Africans will be at risk of water shortages (Nature 2007;446:706-707). But Dyson writes that 6,000 years ago, the warmest period in the interglacial era, rock paintings in the Sahara showed herds of cows and giraffes.
It's Not Insurance
Insurance is designed to pay you money after a loss; it does not prevent a loss. The valid comparison, writes Orson Scott Card, is to protection money. “That's what the global-warming protection racket is about: Hey, we can't prove anything is happening, but look how many people we've got to agree with us! You'd better make a whole bunch of sacrifices [that], by coincidence, exactly coincide with the political agenda of the anti-Western, anti-industrial religion of ecodeism–or global warming will get you!”
CBO Assesses Cap-and-Trade Schemes
The Apr 25 Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report on proposed cap-and-trade legislation was a “devastating indictment” of the idea, writes Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK). The CO2 allocation scheme would “result in a transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich.” If implemented, the Kyoto protocol would result in the equivalent of the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S., he states, costing up to an estimated $300 billion/year. It would tend to increase government spending and decrease revenues, the report acknowledged. And it would have virtually no impact on the climate, Inhofe says (TWTW 5/11/07, see www.sepp.org). Read the report at: www.cbo.gov
Follow the Money
Senators Olympia Snowe and Jay Rockefeller accused ExxonMobil of “giving more than $19 million since the late 1990s” to public policy institutes that promote climate holocaust “denial,” along with supporting malaria control, Third World economic development, and other causes. This is less than half the amount that the Pew Charitable Trusts and allied foundations contributed to the Pew Center on Climate Change over the same period. It amounts to 30 cents for every $1,000 that the U.S., EU, and UN spent since 1993 (some $80 billion altogether) on global warming catastrophe research. U.S. government agencies budgeted $6.5 billion for global warming in 2007 alone (DeWeese Report, March 2007).
Climate Scientists Threatened
“Many climate scientists get frustrated with those who don't believe that human activity is causing global warming, but should having such views be a sackable offense?” asks Michael Hopkin. For example, Oregon Governor Ted Kulongoski wants to strip state climatologist George Taylor of his title because his views are inconsistent with Oregon's goal of cutting greenhouse-gas emissions. (<A title=blocked::http://www.ddponline.org/ddp-audio.php href="http://www.ddponline.org/ddp-audio.php">Taylor spoke at the 2006 DDP meeting.) Virginia's climatologist, Patrick Michaels, also got a letter from the governor asking him not to use the title any longer (Nature 2007;445:806).
University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed from his position as state associate climatologist for stating in emails that the snow pack in the Cascade Mountains is only marginally lower than the long-term average since 1943, and that it has been growing since the late 1970s. This contradicted a statement by Seattle mayor Greg Nickels that “the average snow pack in the Cascades has declined 50 percent since 1950 and will be cut in half again in 30 years if we don't start addressing the problems of global climate change now” (Heartland Institute, Environment News 6/1/07).
Coal Essential for Energy Independence
The most abundant fuel resource in the U.S. is coal. Recoverable reserves were estimated at 267 billion tons in January 2005, a 250-year supply based on current annual production. About 4 trillion tons could eventually be made available. At an initial price of perhaps $45 per barrel, coal can be turned into liquid fuel.
“Liquid fuels from coal are clean, refined products requiring little if any additional refinery processing, are fungible with petroleum products and, therefore, can use the existing fuels distribution and end-use infrastructure,” stated Clarence L. Miller of the U.S. Dept of Energy in Senate testimony.
In World War II, the Luftwaffe depended on aviation fuel made from coal via the Fischer-Tropsch process, especially after the Russians captured Rumanian oilfields. The synthetic oil plants were the highest priority target for Allied bombers.
S.S. Penner will discuss “Liquid Fuels from U.S. Coal Sources” at the DDP meeting this Aug 4-5 in Oakland.
Radical environmentalists complain that coal-based diesel fuels would produce almost twice as much of the greenhouse gases alleged to cause global warming as petroleum does.
Coal mine owner Robert E. Murray is one CEO who doesn't buy global warming hysteria. “Some elitists in our country can't, or won't, tell fact from fiction, can't understand what a draconian climate change program will do [to] the dreams of millons of working Americans.... (Wall St J 5/19-20/07). He is incensed by other energy CEOs' support of cap-and-trade schemes, calling them a “shameless” effort to fatten their bottom lines at the expense of the country.
China is building a new coal-fired plant about every four days, and its CO2 emissions may exceed those of the U.S. by the end of the year (Nature 2007;446:954-955). China is also reportedly moving to commercialization of coal-to-liquid technologies, Miller told the Senate. U.S. petroleum sources could compete. The continental shelf is estimated to contain 420 trillion cubic feet of undiscovered natural gas and 86 billion barrels of oil, but 85% of it is off limits. Cuba is planning to drill in waters off Florida that are forbidden to U.S. oil companies (Wall St J 5/8/07).
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Sent to me today.
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that all government efforts to stop global warming and cut carbon dioxide emissions were anti-life and against the interests of all mankind.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that this generation of foolish politicians are the first in history to complain about the beneficial effects that have always accompanied the periodic but short warm eras that punctuate earth’s history.
“The human story is intimately tied to the grand cycles of climate and the Chicken Littles should study these before squawking.
“Distant climate history is well recorded in rock strata, ice cores, tree rings, ancient shore lines, marine sediments, pollen distribution, fossil occurrences, coral reef growth, distribution of ancient vegetation, stalactite growth rings and carbon isotope ratios. More recent history is abundantly supplemented in clay tablets, cave paintings, rock art, ancient scrolls, inscriptions, historical events and records, monuments and epitaphs, the rise and fall of empires and direct records of temperature, sun spots, river levels, rainfall, droughts, floods, heat waves and bone chilling blizzards.
“Anyone who studies these records will see that eras warmer than today are periodic but short chapters in the earth story. The most recent major ice age ended a mere 11,500 year ago, when the Modern Interglacial commenced. Since then, earth has experienced five warm eras.
“In the first warm era starting about 4300 BC, the Sahara bloomed with plants, forests spread over Northern Europe and Canada and there was sufficient water for irrigation in Arabia. This era ended when blizzards and ice returned for nearly 1,000 years. Another short warm era started about 1450 BC, but was ended by another bout of cold dry weather that caused depopulation in Greece and Turkey and hardship everywhere.
“In the Roman Warm era, starting about 250 BC, the world smiled again and populations grew. But the warmth was cut short by the return of the snows which forced Vikings and Norsemen out of their frozen North to pillage and then colonise warmer southern lands.
“Then we had the Medieval Warm Period, starting about 800 AD, a time of great achievement and prosperity. Farmers moved back into Scotland and Norway, Greenland was colonised and corn was grown. Vineyards produced wine near Manchester, in East Prussia and Norway. Even Tasmania warmed up. Trade and industry flourished and people had surpluses for culture and education. Cambridge, Oxford and Bologna Universities were founded and cathedrals and temples were built at Westminster Abbey, Notre Dame, Canterbury, Cologne, Florence, Castile and Angkor Wat.
“But Jack Frost returned with the Little Ice Age starting about 1300 AD. Famine, food riots and disease again stalked Europe. Glaciers advanced, ice caps expanded, droughts and blizzards became more common and gales wracked Europe (and destroyed the Spanish Armada). Frosts killed orchards, North Sea cod moved south, food prices soared and farms were abandoned. In Scotland and Norway the capitals moved south and villages were abandoned. The Greenland colony perished. During the frigid years of the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1820 AD) Napoleon’s Grand Army perished in a bitter Russian winter.
“Then in 1860, with no help from men burning coal or oil, earth started to warm again. This continued until 1942. A cooling spell from 1942 to 1976 had the Alarmists worried that the ice was about to return, but warming resumed from 1976 to 1998. Temperatures have been cooling slightly since then, despite the boom in burning of coal and oil.
“Even a casual glance at climate and human history will show that the warm eras like today are far more beneficial for all life than the cold dry eras.
“People prefer warm climates. They do not flock to Alaska, Archangel or Antarctica for winter – they head for Bermuda, the Black Sea or Bali. All over the world, the human race is migrating towards the sun belts – Florida, the Riviera, and Capricornia – very few volunteer to live in Siberia or Patagonia. President Putin voiced what many Russians must think – “a bit of warmth would be welcome here”.
“Moreover, a bit of warmth would vastly increase the land suitable for growing food and fibres. On the other hand, a slight cooling would take much of the farmlands of Canada, Northern Eurasia and New Zealand out of production, and parts of Tasmania and Victoria may have to convert from producing wheat and dairy products to farming caribou or reindeer.
“Warm eras also provide more rainfall because of the additional evaporation from oceans, lakes, snow and ice, followed by additional precipitation via rain and snow.
“When warmth and moisture are combined with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the beneficial effects on plant life are multiplied. A doubling of the CO2 content of the air would have insignificant effect on global warming but would have marvellous effects on plant (and then animal) life:
“The whole animal kingdom, including mankind, relies totally on plants to survive. Without grasses and cereals on land and plankton in the sea, most of mankind would starve.
“All plants need moisture, warmth, and carbon dioxide to grow and flourish. Why then are we having hysterics because the earth is currently blessed with more than average of these three magic life sustainers?
“Even the dumbest sheep in Australia knows that being warm, watered and well fed is better than being cold, thirsty and starving.”
“Maybe we should give sheep a vote?”
Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23
Rosewood Qld
0754 640 533
[email protected]
Disclosure of Interest:
Viv Forbes earns income from three carbon emitting industries, coal, cattle and sheep. He hates frosts, droughts and starving stock. He also uses cement, steel and electricity, buys diesel for his tractor, petrol for his car and gas for his barby. He uses trains and occasionally boards an aeroplane. He eats carbon based foods, pays taxes and uses government services funded by taxes on the carbon industries. All of these industries and services will be harmed by carbon taxes, emissions trading or carbon sequestration. He is also a scientist, investment analyst, computer modeller and political analyst. Like the great majority of Australians, he has a big vested interest in the outcome of this historic debate.
Selected References:
Moore, Thomas Gale, 1995: “Global Warming – a Boon to Humans and Other Animals”, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Idso, Sherwood, and Idso, Craig, 2007: “Carbon Dioxide & Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion”. http://www.co2science.org/
S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 S. Eads St, #712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
Tel: 703/920-2744http ://www.sepp.org
<[email protected]>
Read about what is really causing warming
Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years(Natural climate cycles as seen in the geological record)
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. AveryUpdated and improved from 2007 edition
Rowman & Littlefield (2008) 278pp. $19.95 plus $5 S&H
On New York Times Best-seller list
“Warm, Watered and Well Fed is Better”
The Carbon Sense Coalition today claimed that all government efforts to stop global warming and cut carbon dioxide emissions were anti-life and against the interests of all mankind.
The Chairman of “Carbon Sense”, Mr Viv Forbes, said that this generation of foolish politicians are the first in history to complain about the beneficial effects that have always accompanied the periodic but short warm eras that punctuate earth’s history.
“The human story is intimately tied to the grand cycles of climate and the Chicken Littles should study these before squawking.
“Distant climate history is well recorded in rock strata, ice cores, tree rings, ancient shore lines, marine sediments, pollen distribution, fossil occurrences, coral reef growth, distribution of ancient vegetation, stalactite growth rings and carbon isotope ratios. More recent history is abundantly supplemented in clay tablets, cave paintings, rock art, ancient scrolls, inscriptions, historical events and records, monuments and epitaphs, the rise and fall of empires and direct records of temperature, sun spots, river levels, rainfall, droughts, floods, heat waves and bone chilling blizzards.
“Anyone who studies these records will see that eras warmer than today are periodic but short chapters in the earth story. The most recent major ice age ended a mere 11,500 year ago, when the Modern Interglacial commenced. Since then, earth has experienced five warm eras.
“In the first warm era starting about 4300 BC, the Sahara bloomed with plants, forests spread over Northern Europe and Canada and there was sufficient water for irrigation in Arabia. This era ended when blizzards and ice returned for nearly 1,000 years. Another short warm era started about 1450 BC, but was ended by another bout of cold dry weather that caused depopulation in Greece and Turkey and hardship everywhere.
“In the Roman Warm era, starting about 250 BC, the world smiled again and populations grew. But the warmth was cut short by the return of the snows which forced Vikings and Norsemen out of their frozen North to pillage and then colonise warmer southern lands.
“Then we had the Medieval Warm Period, starting about 800 AD, a time of great achievement and prosperity. Farmers moved back into Scotland and Norway, Greenland was colonised and corn was grown. Vineyards produced wine near Manchester, in East Prussia and Norway. Even Tasmania warmed up. Trade and industry flourished and people had surpluses for culture and education. Cambridge, Oxford and Bologna Universities were founded and cathedrals and temples were built at Westminster Abbey, Notre Dame, Canterbury, Cologne, Florence, Castile and Angkor Wat.
“But Jack Frost returned with the Little Ice Age starting about 1300 AD. Famine, food riots and disease again stalked Europe. Glaciers advanced, ice caps expanded, droughts and blizzards became more common and gales wracked Europe (and destroyed the Spanish Armada). Frosts killed orchards, North Sea cod moved south, food prices soared and farms were abandoned. In Scotland and Norway the capitals moved south and villages were abandoned. The Greenland colony perished. During the frigid years of the Dalton Minimum (1790 – 1820 AD) Napoleon’s Grand Army perished in a bitter Russian winter.
“Then in 1860, with no help from men burning coal or oil, earth started to warm again. This continued until 1942. A cooling spell from 1942 to 1976 had the Alarmists worried that the ice was about to return, but warming resumed from 1976 to 1998. Temperatures have been cooling slightly since then, despite the boom in burning of coal and oil.
“Even a casual glance at climate and human history will show that the warm eras like today are far more beneficial for all life than the cold dry eras.
“People prefer warm climates. They do not flock to Alaska, Archangel or Antarctica for winter – they head for Bermuda, the Black Sea or Bali. All over the world, the human race is migrating towards the sun belts – Florida, the Riviera, and Capricornia – very few volunteer to live in Siberia or Patagonia. President Putin voiced what many Russians must think – “a bit of warmth would be welcome here”.
“Moreover, a bit of warmth would vastly increase the land suitable for growing food and fibres. On the other hand, a slight cooling would take much of the farmlands of Canada, Northern Eurasia and New Zealand out of production, and parts of Tasmania and Victoria may have to convert from producing wheat and dairy products to farming caribou or reindeer.
“Warm eras also provide more rainfall because of the additional evaporation from oceans, lakes, snow and ice, followed by additional precipitation via rain and snow.
“When warmth and moisture are combined with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the beneficial effects on plant life are multiplied. A doubling of the CO2 content of the air would have insignificant effect on global warming but would have marvellous effects on plant (and then animal) life:
- Growth rate of herbaceous plants would increase 30% Growth rate of forest plants would increase 50% All plants would be more tolerant of drought and heat
- Food production would need less land and less artificial fertiliser
“The whole animal kingdom, including mankind, relies totally on plants to survive. Without grasses and cereals on land and plankton in the sea, most of mankind would starve.
“All plants need moisture, warmth, and carbon dioxide to grow and flourish. Why then are we having hysterics because the earth is currently blessed with more than average of these three magic life sustainers?
“Even the dumbest sheep in Australia knows that being warm, watered and well fed is better than being cold, thirsty and starving.”
“Maybe we should give sheep a vote?”
Viv Forbes
Chairman
The Carbon Sense Coalition
MS 23
Rosewood Qld
0754 640 533
[email protected]
Disclosure of Interest:
Viv Forbes earns income from three carbon emitting industries, coal, cattle and sheep. He hates frosts, droughts and starving stock. He also uses cement, steel and electricity, buys diesel for his tractor, petrol for his car and gas for his barby. He uses trains and occasionally boards an aeroplane. He eats carbon based foods, pays taxes and uses government services funded by taxes on the carbon industries. All of these industries and services will be harmed by carbon taxes, emissions trading or carbon sequestration. He is also a scientist, investment analyst, computer modeller and political analyst. Like the great majority of Australians, he has a big vested interest in the outcome of this historic debate.
Selected References:
Moore, Thomas Gale, 1995: “Global Warming – a Boon to Humans and Other Animals”, Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
Idso, Sherwood, and Idso, Craig, 2007: “Carbon Dioxide & Global Change: Separating Scientific Fact from Personal Opinion”. http://www.co2science.org/
S. Fred Singer, President
Science & Environmental Policy Project
1600 S. Eads St, #712-S
Arlington, VA 22202-2907
Tel: 703/920-2744http ://www.sepp.org
<[email protected]>
Read about what is really causing warming
Unstoppable Global Warming : Every 1500 Years(Natural climate cycles as seen in the geological record)
by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. AveryUpdated and improved from 2007 edition
Rowman & Littlefield (2008) 278pp. $19.95 plus $5 S&H
On New York Times Best-seller list
Last edited:
The problem here Pete is that there is so much information/mis-information - so many vested interests in one outcome or another - that it is very difficult for the average Joe to understand where the truth lies.
There is a massive industry that has arisen to support this "Green" push and the marketing campagn for it is essentially "so what if you have to pay more for something, you're saving the environment!"
For the general poluation, all this means is that things are getting more expensive, whether it is "dirty" oil or "green" energy - it is hurting our back pockets now and making other people richer.
In history, there are always periods of hardship after periods of relative prosperity, either economic recessions or wars or whatever the case may be but it is always the poor that seem to physically suffer the most. At these times the rich get to consolidate their power base by holding the governments of the day to ransom. Great change is also affected at these times. There is no doubt that what is being proposed will greatly change our lives.
A couple of points that seem to muddy the water:
No 1: Being more environmentally friendly (meaning having less impact on physical nature) can actually be good: like recylcing paper means cutting less trees down, riding a push bike to work instead of driving means good exercise whilst not spending money on fuel/maintenance etc, turn the tap off when you brush your teeth or collecting rain water in tanks means you are wasting less water and getting a cheaper water bill at the same time => These are all good for the consumer and the environment, makes us feel good too. Problem is that the Global Warming crew use this to drive other agendas that most people may not be aware of and inevitably any savings we may make end up going in someone else's pocket.
No 2: Oil companies and people/Governments that control oil revenue have controlled the worlds economy for over 100 years and are continuing to get fat on the backs of the common man. Wars have raged for it and lives lost for it. Oil smells when it is burnt and there have been many deaths by cancer as a result of living in polluted cities and breathing noxious fumes. Fuels like natural gas or LP gas that are by products of the drilling of petroleum or landfill is sold to us at an exorbitant rate with (Australian)prices indexed to a country that has a very small population - which charges tens of thousands for car registrations (Singapore) has no bearing on what goes on in our country but still uses this as a means of getting away with ripping the public of legally. If alternate fuel is to threaten the oil industry then why do fuel prices continue to soar all over the world? Supply vs demand? Competition?These perceived natural enemies - Clean Green and dirty Oil - are both seemingly pushing the Western world toward a downturn in the standard of living.
These 2 points show that there is something going on - not saying conspiracy theory - but something doesn't make sense (to me at least) Are the oil companies beneficiaries of the new green push? Is this an opportunity to fleece the world during a fundamental economic change and still maintain control? We are being told option 1 will cost more and option 2 will cost more and that we are out of options.....
Please explain?
There is a massive industry that has arisen to support this "Green" push and the marketing campagn for it is essentially "so what if you have to pay more for something, you're saving the environment!"
For the general poluation, all this means is that things are getting more expensive, whether it is "dirty" oil or "green" energy - it is hurting our back pockets now and making other people richer.
In history, there are always periods of hardship after periods of relative prosperity, either economic recessions or wars or whatever the case may be but it is always the poor that seem to physically suffer the most. At these times the rich get to consolidate their power base by holding the governments of the day to ransom. Great change is also affected at these times. There is no doubt that what is being proposed will greatly change our lives.
A couple of points that seem to muddy the water:
No 1: Being more environmentally friendly (meaning having less impact on physical nature) can actually be good: like recylcing paper means cutting less trees down, riding a push bike to work instead of driving means good exercise whilst not spending money on fuel/maintenance etc, turn the tap off when you brush your teeth or collecting rain water in tanks means you are wasting less water and getting a cheaper water bill at the same time => These are all good for the consumer and the environment, makes us feel good too. Problem is that the Global Warming crew use this to drive other agendas that most people may not be aware of and inevitably any savings we may make end up going in someone else's pocket.
No 2: Oil companies and people/Governments that control oil revenue have controlled the worlds economy for over 100 years and are continuing to get fat on the backs of the common man. Wars have raged for it and lives lost for it. Oil smells when it is burnt and there have been many deaths by cancer as a result of living in polluted cities and breathing noxious fumes. Fuels like natural gas or LP gas that are by products of the drilling of petroleum or landfill is sold to us at an exorbitant rate with (Australian)prices indexed to a country that has a very small population - which charges tens of thousands for car registrations (Singapore) has no bearing on what goes on in our country but still uses this as a means of getting away with ripping the public of legally. If alternate fuel is to threaten the oil industry then why do fuel prices continue to soar all over the world? Supply vs demand? Competition?These perceived natural enemies - Clean Green and dirty Oil - are both seemingly pushing the Western world toward a downturn in the standard of living.
These 2 points show that there is something going on - not saying conspiracy theory - but something doesn't make sense (to me at least) Are the oil companies beneficiaries of the new green push? Is this an opportunity to fleece the world during a fundamental economic change and still maintain control? We are being told option 1 will cost more and option 2 will cost more and that we are out of options.....
Please explain?
It's interesting that each side of this debate puts forward "objective" data and facts supporting their position which, if true, are completely incompatible. The debate is complicated by the fact that there are a large number of variables that affect the environment and human's limited ability to conclusively prove cause and effect in this debate seems quite limited.
I prefer to keep it simple and use my own eyes for starters. Take a look at some of the common and well known glaciers in both the northern and southern hemisperes with a timeline of today, 10 years ago, 25 years ago and 50 years ago - if you spend even two seconds studying the change you'll note a dramatic occurrence - half of them are now gone! And, the ice that is being revealed in the melting and retraction process is ice that is tens of thousands of years old (and older). So to say this change is just the latest normal short term cyclical process seems like a crazy statement.
If you don't think holes in the ozone and obvious cronic smog is affecting the planet (in a bad way) then perhaps you should just momentarily remove your lips from the crack pipe and take a little walk around...
I prefer to keep it simple and use my own eyes for starters. Take a look at some of the common and well known glaciers in both the northern and southern hemisperes with a timeline of today, 10 years ago, 25 years ago and 50 years ago - if you spend even two seconds studying the change you'll note a dramatic occurrence - half of them are now gone! And, the ice that is being revealed in the melting and retraction process is ice that is tens of thousands of years old (and older). So to say this change is just the latest normal short term cyclical process seems like a crazy statement.
If you don't think holes in the ozone and obvious cronic smog is affecting the planet (in a bad way) then perhaps you should just momentarily remove your lips from the crack pipe and take a little walk around...
