Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

[Gatortailale]

http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm

 

Guest Column

 

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe

"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists

 

By Tom Harris

Monday, June 12, 2006

 

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

 

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

 

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

 

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

 

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

 

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

 

So we have a smaller fraction.

 

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

 

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

 

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

 

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

 

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

 

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

 

Dr. Wibj

[Guest Larry-T]

Those are just tire old arguments the global warming skeptics have been trotting out for years....

 

Meanwhile, the weather gets more severe as heat energy builds up and the overall global temperature is rising. The global consensus among scientists not employed by energy companies and corporate think-tanks is rock solid. Global warming is real and human activity is an important driver.

[gsedlack]

What is often forgotten is that Scientists need to eat too Now that they have discovered a multi-trillion $ problem, they just need additional research $ to help save the planet. Neither side has enough credibility to make me change my current lifestyle.

[HowardofNOVA]

Its amazing when you take politics and deep pockets out of science with non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts the truth comes out!

Think the ice cap is melting, watch the show DEADLIEST CATCH!

According to the guys making a living working the Arctic:

"The Icecaps are larger now then anytime in over 20yrs!"

[Caribbean Jake]

call it global warming.. or politics or what ever...

eveolution is part of life and the world is as it has been, evolving thru many million years.. and will continue to do so regardless of scientists and politics. It once was the ice age, soon we will call it the heat-age... then millions of years from now ,.. what will it be called?

[Guest Larry-T]

Its amazing when you take politics and deep pockets out of science with non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts the truth comes out!

Think the ice cap is melting, watch the show DEADLIEST CATCH!

According to the guys making a living working the Arctic:

"The Icecaps are larger now then anytime in over 20yrs!"

 

I'd rather look at global measurements taken by scientific organizations than pick and choose among competing entertainments with their own axes to grind.

[HowardofNOVA]

global measurements taken by scientific organizations

 

But Larry IMHO,

Whose taking these measurements and whose using the information for what purpose?

 

They talk about the polar ice cap melting because RECORDS show that the average temperature has risen 1/2 of a degree!

1/2 DEGREE!

Shoot, the last time I checked, temperatures changed today from 70's to 90's in one day!

With average temperatures in winters from 10 to 50 below in Anchorage, let alone Arctic, could be a loooong time before we seriously have SERIOUS problems!

[Guest Larry-T]

Howard,

 

Local changes in WEATHER are not comperable to overal changes in CLIMATE. We're talking about heat, which is the energy that drives weather. A change in one degree WORLDWIDE adds tremendous energy to weather systems, which translates to more severe weather over the course of time. Looking at the overall changes since the last ice age show that we are in an accelerated stage of warming which can be traced to human activities. While this is not the total cause of climate change, it is happening at a time when it reinforces normal cycles and makes them more severe. We are possibly approaching what climatologists call a "tipping point" which may cause large changes in a short time. If we ever get to that point, it will be too late to do anything but try to adapt.

 

 

The energy industry and their stooges have the advantage in the debate because they don't have to show any truth, just sow a feeling of uncertainty. Most of the public hasn't the scientific education to understand the ramification of the situation and are looking for an authority figure to reassure them that "everything will be all right."

 

In short, it's easier to attack the messager than respond to the message.

[BeltwayBandit]

The energy industry and their stooges have the advantage in the debate because they don't have to show any truth, just sow a feeling of uncertainty. Most of the public hasn't the scientific education to understand the ramification of the situation and are looking for an authority figure to reassure them that "everything will be all right."

 

In short, it's easier to attack the messager than respond to the message.

 

So anyone who questions the so called 'consensus' is a stooge? I don't think so. The climate issue is one where the politics of the situation has far outpaced the actual science.

[HowardofNOVA]

looking for an authority figure to reassure them

 

Good thing they got the guy who invented the internet!

[Ne0eN]

Some facts:

 

Hottest global temperature years - 6 of the last 8 years

Global temperature records keeping - last 126 yrs (1880)

Invention of modern temperature scales (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin) - approx 200 yrs ago

Earth's age - 4,600,000,000 yrs

 

I believe, we don't yet have enough data points to justify Global Warming trend.

 

-- Rob

[dzekunoi]

Some facts:

 

Hottest global temperature years - 6 of the last 8 years

Global temperature records keeping - last 126 yrs (1880)

Invention of modern temperature scales (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin) - approx 200 yrs ago

Earth's age - 4,600,000,000 yrs

 

I believe, we don't yet have enough data points to justify Global Warming trend.

 

-- Rob

 

 

Very good point Rob

[BeltwayBandit]

Some facts:

 

Hottest global temperature years - 6 of the last 8 years

Global temperature records keeping - last 126 yrs (1880)

Invention of modern temperature scales (Celsius, Fahrenheit, Kelvin) - approx 200 yrs ago

Earth's age - 4,600,000,000 yrs

 

I believe, we don't yet have enough data points to justify Global Warming trend.

 

-- Rob

 

 

Not to mention in the time frame that we do have records we were emerging from the 'Little Ice Age'. Also one other point, the earth's climate is not stable. There is no 'right' temperature. It oscillates within a range that can support life. We just adapt to the subtle differences.

[EricBrian]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/22...g.ap/index.html

 

Study: Earth 'likely' hottest in 2,000 years

 

Thursday, June 22, 2006; Posted: 2:12 p.m. EDT (18:12 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- It has been 2,000 years and possibly much longer since the Earth has run such a fever.

 

The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia."

 

A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that the Earth is heating up and that "human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming." Their 155-page report said average global surface temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere rose about 1 degree during the 20th century.

 

This is shown in boreholes, retreating glaciers and other evidence found in nature, said Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University who chaired the academy's panel.

 

The report was requested in November by the chairman of the House Science Committee, Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, R-New York, to address naysayers who question whether global warming is a major threat.

 

Last year, when the House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman, Rep. Joe Barton, R-Texas, launched an investigation of three climate scientists, Boehlert said Barton should try to learn from scientists, not intimidate them.

 

Boehlert said Thursday the report shows the value of having scientists advise Congress.

 

"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change," he said.

 

Other new research Thursday showed that global warming produced about half of the extra hurricane-fueled warmth in the North Atlantic in 2005, and natural cycles were a minor factor, according to Kevin Trenberth and Dennis Shea of the National Center for Atmospheric Research, a research lab sponsored by the National Science Foundation and universities. Their study is being published by the American Geophysical Union.

 

The Bush administration has maintained that the threat is not severe enough to warrant new pollution controls that the White House says would have cost 5 million Americans their jobs. (Watch as lawmakers argue saving the planet could ruin our economy-- 2:24)

 

Climate scientists Michael Mann, Raymond Bradley and Malcolm Hughes had concluded the Northern Hemisphere was the warmest it has been in 2,000 years. Their research was known as the "hockey-stick" graphic because it compared the sharp curve of the hockey blade to the recent uptick in temperatures and the stick's long shaft to centuries of previous climate stability.

 

The National Academy scientists concluded that the Mann-Bradley-Hughes research from the late 1990s was "likely" to be true, said John "Mike" Wallace, an atmospheric sciences professor at the University of Washington and a panel member. The conclusions from the '90s research "are very close to being right" and are supported by even more recent data, Wallace said.

 

The panel looked at how other scientists reconstructed the Earth's temperatures going back thousands of years, before there was data from modern scientific instruments.

 

For all but the most recent 150 years, the academy scientists relied on "proxy" evidence from tree rings, corals, glaciers and ice cores, cave deposits, ocean and lake sediments, boreholes and other sources. They also examined indirect records such as paintings of glaciers in the Alps.

 

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the academy said.

 

Overall, the panel agreed that the warming in the last few decades of the 20th century was unprecedented over the last 1,000 years, though relatively warm conditions persisted around the year 1000, followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

 

The scientists said they had less confidence in the evidence of temperatures before 1600. But they considered it reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.

 

Between 1 A.D. and 1850, volcanic eruptions and solar fluctuations were the main causes of changes in greenhouse gas levels. But those temperature changes "were much less pronounced than the warming due to greenhouse gas" levels by pollution since the mid-19th century, it said.

 

The National Academy of Sciences is a private organization chartered by Congress to advise the government of scientific matters.

[Gatortailale]

What is often forgotten is that Scientists need to eat too Now that they have discovered a multi-trillion $ problem, they just need additional research $ to help save the planet. Neither side has enough credibility to make me change my current lifestyle.

 

 

Even after looking at new article, I still think George is correct, these scientits report based on $ they can get for funding research. If they say no problem, nobody will fund them.

 

Earth does not rotate around the sun on a railroad type track. It wobbles, some years closer, some farther from the sun. I never see any scientists address this issue. Wounder if computers account for that at all.

 

It's like all political hot-button issues, who can you trust . . . why are they saying it . . . For once, I would like to be told the true facts.

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/27/science/...5&partner=MYWAY

The plans and proposed studies are part of a controversial field known as geoengineering, which means rearranging the earth's environment on a large scale to suit human needs and promote habitability. Dr. Cicerone, an atmospheric chemist, will detail his arguments in favor of geoengineering studies in the August issue of the journal Climatic Change.

[EricBrian]

Even after looking at new article, I still think George is correct, these scientits report based on $ they can get for funding research. If they say no problem, nobody will fund them.

 

Earth does not rotate around the sun on a railroad type track. It wobbles, some years closer, some farther from the sun. I never see any scientists address this issue. Wounder if computers account for that at all.

 

It's like all political hot-button issues, who can you trust . . . why are they saying it . . . For once, I would like to be told the true facts.

 

Absolutely... why should we error on the side of caution? We most likely won't be arround to witness anything catastrophic. Future generations? Ah, who cares?

[BeltwayBandit]

Even after looking at new article, I still think George is correct, these scientits report based on $ they can get for funding research. If they say no problem, nobody will fund them.

 

Earth does not rotate around the sun on a railroad type track. It wobbles, some years closer, some farther from the sun. I never see any scientists address this issue. Wounder if computers account for that at all.

 

It's like all political hot-button issues, who can you trust . . . why are they saying it . . . For once, I would like to be told the true facts.

 

Here are the "facts" as I understand them. Climate is a hodgepodge of literally thousands of variables. Each variable has different impact and influence upon the overal "climate". Also, the amount of impact a particular variable has on the climate can change when another variable is altered. Thus the variables are inexorably interwtined through the various feedback loops. Currently the debate and discussion is focusing on only one of those variables.

 

Absolutely... why should we error on the side of caution? We most likely won't be arround to witness anything catastrophic. Future generations? Ah, who cares?

 

 

But, how can you say that your precautionary measures won't be more damaging in the long term than doing nothing? Without being able to quantify the relative risks of both scenarios, how can we make intelligent decisions?

[Guest Larry-T]

Basically, the people who want to wait for absolute certainty before doing anything will have to see the East Coast and all of the Florida Pennisula under water before they will admit there's a problem. Those who say that there is a high likelihood of there being a problem, and propose any solutions that (horrors) cost MONEY will always be put down and denigrated until it's too late, and then they'll be castigated for not convincing the powers that be when they "had the chance."

 

We didn't get serious about water pollution until the cuyahoga river burned in the 1960's. Now we have an entire generation of corporatists who want to gut the clean water act because "the problem is solved."

 

All the conservation and environmental legislation of the 1970's is under attack by people who see everything in terms of money. That's the problem we have today.

 

End of rant.

[Aquariareview]

The concept of global warming came from a science group working for The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. They used a computer model that tells us that Global warming is attributable to human activities" The increased amounts of carbon dioxide (CO2) and other greenhouse gases (GHGs) are the primary causes of the human-induced component of warming. They are released by the burning of fossil fuels, land clearing and agriculture, etc.

 

The Earth's average near-surface atmospheric temperature rose 1.1

[GaryL]

I can't wait for the Penn and Teller's "Bull%#&" episode on this. if they did one, i missed it :(

 

i also cant wait to see the politician say "I FIXED GLOBAL WARMING!!" and im sure one of em will say it no matter what party they are apart of.

 

from what i learned in earth science, doesn't everthing in nature balance out? molecules, vacuum, and so on.

 

i also read an article that some experiments can be manufactured to support what one thinks.

 

i am a skeptic on most all things, and agree that science is a process of coming up with 3 ideas and disproving 2. not saying that the idea left is right its just a better answer than the other two.

 

just my opinion i could be wrong.

[Charlie97L]

debate aside, i think anything that pushes non-pollutant tecnology and ecological conservation is a good thing. i don't think we have enough info or understand the factors enough to make a true call on what's going on with the planet, and, yes, it is a political hot button, but if the end result is money towards developing more eco-friendly technology, that's a good thing, regardless of the means.

 

i mean, the hole in the ozone is going away... wheter that had anything to do with us in the first place, i dunno. but we did reduce the hairspray pollution. end result = less pollution = better.

[Aquariareview]

Fueled by misconceptions, misinformation, and even showmanship, the environmental debate rages in the media and in places like this forum (as it should). One side likes to quote Rush Limbaugh, who paints Vice President Al Gore and friends as "tree huggers"; the other charges "rape of the Earth."

 

As a person who is a long time scuba diver, reef hobbyist, to the right (politically) and more importantly as a Christian who feels a responsibility to be a steward to Gods creation, I have a few thoughts.

 

Even though I believe most of the eco-movement is politically motivated, I agree with them on one main point. We should not injure the planet. However all of modern life does that. So we have a conflict. Do we move to the mountains and live off of wild berries, do we give up our cars, our air conditioning or our deodorant. All of these things do damage to the planet. Modern houses, cars, air travel, clean clothes, medicine and even the soap we use to prevent disease causes damage to the earth. Most of the eco-danger reports I have read, took out a few trees for their publication. What are we to do???

 

First, we weed thru the issues to get rid of the junk science and get to the things we know to be true

 

We can manage the process's of our life. We turn the air-conditioning just a few degrees warmer. We put on a sweater in the winter instead of turning up the heat. We think of the small things that can help. We put our kids in the little league that is closest to the house. We try to plan our daily travel to save a few miles. Next We spend more to buy better products that last longer or are more efficient (I live in an RV that gets 14 MPG and I probably use less gas in a year than I did when I owned two cars).

 

What else can we do?

 

Public Action

Reef Hobbyist have recently begun to be more aware of their need to be politically active. We need to extend that activity to policies that influence our care of creation. It is important to shape the way our governments and economies work. We need to bring the full meaning of Planetary stewardship into the public arena. Here are three principles for wider involvement.

 

 

[EricBrian]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/science/06/27...e.ap/index.html

 

Climate experts: Gore's movie gets the science right

 

Tuesday, June 27, 2006; Posted: 3:44 p.m. EDT (19:44 GMT)

 

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The nation's top climate scientists are giving "An Inconvenient Truth," Al Gore's documentary on global warming, five stars for accuracy.

 

The former vice president's movie -- replete with the prospect of a flooded New York City, an inundated Florida, more and nastier hurricanes, worsening droughts, retreating glaciers and disappearing ice sheets -- mostly got the science right, said all 19 climate scientists who had seen the movie or read the book and answered questions from The Associated Press.

 

The AP contacted more than 100 top climate researchers by e-mail and phone for their opinion. Among those contacted were vocal skeptics of climate change theory. Most scientists had not seen the movie, which is in limited release, or read the book.

 

But those who have seen it had the same general impression: Gore conveyed the science correctly; the world is getting hotter and it is a manmade catastrophe-in-the-making caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

 

"Excellent," said William Schlesinger, dean of the Nicholas School of Environment and Earth Sciences at Duke University. "He got all the important material and got it right."

 

Robert Corell, chairman of the worldwide Arctic Climate Impact Assessment group of scientists, read the book and saw Gore give the slideshow presentation that is woven throughout the documentary.

 

"I sat there and I'm amazed at how thorough and accurate," Corell said. "After the presentation I said, 'Al, I'm absolutely blown away. There's a lot of details you could get wrong.' ... I could find no error."

 

Gore, in an interview with the AP, said he wasn't surprised "because I took a lot of care to try to make sure the science was right."

 

The tiny errors scientists found weren't a big deal, "far, far fewer and less significant than the shortcoming in speeches by the typical politician explaining an issue," said Michael MacCracken, who used to be in charge of the nation's global warming effects program and is now chief scientist at the Climate Institute in Washington.

 

One concern was about the connection between hurricanes and global warming. That is a subject of a heated debate in the science community. Gore cited five recent scientific studies to support his view.

 

"I thought the use of imagery from Hurricane Katrina was inappropriate and unnecessary in this regard, as there are plenty of disturbing impacts associated with global warming for which there is much greater scientific consensus," said Brian Soden, a University of Miami professor of meteorology and oceanography.

 

Some scientists said Gore confused his ice sheets when he said the effect of the Clean Air Act is noticeable in the Antarctic ice core; it is the Greenland ice core. Others thought Gore oversimplified the causal-link between the key greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and rising temperatures.

 

While some nonscientists could be depressed by the dire disaster-laden warmer world scenario that Gore laid out, one top researcher thought it was too optimistic. Tom Wigley, senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, thought the former vice president sugarcoated the problem by saying that with already-available technologies and changes in habit -- such as changing light bulbs -- the world could help slow or stop global warming.

 

While more than 1 million people have seen the movie since it opened in May, that does not include Washington's top science decision makers. President Bush said he won't see it. The heads of the Environmental Protection Agency and NASA haven't seen it, and the president's science adviser said the movie is on his to-see list.

 

"They are quite literally afraid to know the truth," Gore said. "Because if you accept the truth of what the scientific community is saying, it gives you a moral imperative to start to rein in the 70 million tons of global warming pollution that human civilization is putting into the atmosphere every day."

 

As far as the movie's entertainment value, Scripps Institution geosciences professor Jeff Severinghaus summed it up: "My wife fell asleep. Of course, I was on the edge of my chair."

[Gatortailale]

More articles on it:

 

http://www.epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=257909

 

Majority Press Release

Contact: MARC MORANO (marc_morano@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-5762, MATT DEMPSEY (matthew_dempsey@epw.senate.gov) 202-224-9797

 

AP INCORRECTLY CLAIMS SCIENTISTS PRAISE GORE

[Gatortailale]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/06/26/0...8.a9erm3mw.html

 

 

Bush: Climate change is 'serious problem'

Jun 26 2:50 PM US/Eastern

Email this story

 

US President George W. Bush said it was time to move past a debate over whether human activity is a significant factor behind global warming and into a discussion of possible remedies.

 

"I have said consistently that global warming is a serious problem. There's a debate over whether it's manmade or naturally caused," Bush told reporters.

 

 

 

"We ought to get beyond that debate and start implementing the technologies necessary to enable us to achieve a couple of big objectives: One, be good stewards of the environment; two, become less dependent on foreign sources of oil, for economic reasons as for national security reasons," he said.

 

Bush cited "clean-coal technology," efforts to develop automobiles powered by hydrogen or ethanol, and his push for the United States to develop significant new nuclear energy capabilities.

 

"The truth of the matter is, if this country wants to get rid of its greenhouse gases, we've got to have the nuclear power industry be vibrant and viable," he said.