17 replies to this topic

[*JB*]

New research casts doubt on such claims, however. Some even suggest the world may not be warming much at all.

"The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global change," said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC. The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to collect temperature data over the past 150 years.These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by factors such as urbanization, changes in land use and, in many cases, being moved from site to site. Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three different regions: east Africa, California and Alabama.

"The story is the same for each one," he said. "The popular data sets show a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by local factors affecting the weather stations, such as land development."
whole article

ANOTHER article on same

Edited by *JB*, 15 February 2010 - 08:10 PM.

[colion]

I attended a debate between Christy and MacCracken, Climate Institute, Washington, D.C. last spring which was sposored by environmental engineering at a nearby university. He argues "softly" and forcefully. Made MacCracken look quite weak by exposing the holes in his argument which were subsequently torn into by both faculty and students.

[OEXCHAOS]

I'm pretty hip to a lot of the issues related to the temperature record. Those who are willing to dig deeply into the CRU "letters", especially the code notes will see that there's massive problems with the global record. Domestically, the SurfaceStations project, which is a survey of almost all the temperature recording stations has documented as much as 90% of the stations are non-compliant with NOAA standards. The meaning of that may not be clear. What has happened is that our "climate scientists" have been relying upon data gathered at stations which on their face cannot be relied upon to give accurate temperature readings. More specifically, it has been documented that the vast majority of the stations have a PROGRESSIVE warming bias, due to increased urbanization around them, moving the electronic instrumentation closer to structures, installation of air conditioning units near by the stations, transition from chipped stone and gravel parking to asphalt, and increased pavement, and the old standby, siting "rural" stations at airports with ever rising jet traffic and the heat associated with that plus increasing pavement. The few remaining PROPERLY sited and maintained long-term temperature measurement stations fairly uniformly show little or no significant warming. Folks, this is pathetic and worse, they're trying to hide this fiasco by dropping the long-term rural stations.

[maineman]

A study by the US Union of Concerned Scientists reports that ExxonMobil funded 29 climate change denial groups in 2004 alone. Since 1990, the report says, the company has spent more than $19 million funding groups that promote their views through publications and Web sites that are not peer reviewed by the scientific community. [1]

See exxonsecrets.org for fact-sheets on funding recipients.

During 2002, ExxonMobil donated $5.6 million to public policy organizations which share its agenda, either on climate change denial or general extreme free market advocacy. These included: [2]

• Acton Institute, ($30,000)
• American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research ($200,000)
• Atlas Economic Research Foundation ($50,000)
• Cato Institute ($30,000)
• Center for Strategic and International Studies ($145,000)
• Committee for Economic Development ($75,000)
• Competitive Enterprise Institute ($405,000)
• Foundation for American Communications ($175,000)
• Frontiers of Freedom ($233,000)
• George C. Marshall Foundation (90,000)
• Reason Foundation ($50,000)

In October 2006, two US Senators, Olympia Snowe, (R-Maine), and Jay Rockefeller, (D-W.Va.) wrote to ExxonMobil's chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson, asking that it "end any further financial assistance" to groups "whose public advocacy has contributed to the small but unfortunately effective climate change denial myth." The Senators singled out the Competitive Enterprise Institute and TechCentralStation as such groups. They wrote that "we are convinced that ExxonMobil's long-standing support of a small cadre of global climate change skeptics, and those skeptics' access to and influence on government policymakers, have made it increasingly difficult for the United States to demonstrate the moral clarity it needs across all facets of its diplomacy". [3]


http://www.sourcewat...Funded_Skeptics (source)


mm

[OEXCHAOS]

LOL! A few million versus BILLIONS given to exploit the AGW alarmism!?!?!? This also ignores the money given by Exxon to AGW alarmists! You can source this yourself which would be a good idea. A bit of research from non-advocacy organizations (like Fenton at RealClimate) might give you a better grasp of reality. But if we've got a problem with "Extreme Free Market Advocacy", well, we've got a problem with MORALITY. I will state openly that I am a supporter of the Reason Foundation and so is this company. Free markets are the only moral economic system. Hence the term "FREE". Anything less is anathema to what we stand for here and anathema to those who respect and understand human rights. But the bottom line is that none of the above changes the FACT that there's no reasonable reason to NOT be a skeptic regarding claims of unprecedented warming, let alone caused by man. Doesn't mean that there isn't any, but the credible evidence doesn't quite support it.

[maineman]

I agree completely that the science is difficult at best. Like the evidence for smoking and lung cancer. That, hard to believe, was very difficult to prove given the knowledge of science at the time and the epidemiology of simply living on a planet exposed to numerous toxins as well as genetics, etc. Lots of deniers there for a long time. Still lots of deniers there. That said, there were plenty of people who reasoned at the time that lung cancer or not, it was a nasty habit, people became addicted, coughed a lot, and lots of people seemed to die young. To me, it has nothing to do with an agenda. I guess I'm a "free thinker" here. My thinking goes like this: Lots of people on the planet. Limited resources. Carbon based lifestyle (oil addiction e.g) is unsustainable and probably dangerous, let alone wasteful. Politically its horrible being dependent on despots like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. for our oil addiction. Steps to decrease pollution and waste are simply smart policy. Whether it turns out, after years of extremely difficult science that the world's climate was affected by man or not is moot. In the meantime, let's hope, we can look back and tell our heirs that we did our best to provide green energy, good air and clean water. mm

[colion]

From my point of view the issue is one of priorities. If we are going to be baked to a crisp and major cities flooded within a relatively short time then we better get busy and do something to deal with that situation. If, however, that is not the case then we should address issues such as the end of fossil fuels which all agree will happen at some point in the future although when is debatable. These very different scenarios suggest different solutions and rates of execution, resulting most probably in different economic impacts. So, knowing which road we are on is key, although that may or may not result in an effective national strategy or political action. It is, however, a prerequisite to intelligent political action which is a rare and wondrous thing.

[OEXCHAOS]

I agree completely that the science is difficult at best. Like the evidence for smoking and lung cancer. That, hard to believe, was very difficult to prove given the knowledge of science at the time and the epidemiology of simply living on a planet exposed to numerous toxins as well as genetics, etc. Lots of deniers there for a long time. Still lots of deniers there. That said, there were plenty of people who reasoned at the time that lung cancer or not, it was a nasty habit, people became addicted, coughed a lot, and lots of people seemed to die young.

To me, it has nothing to do with an agenda. I guess I'm a "free thinker" here. My thinking goes like this:
Lots of people on the planet.
Limited resources.
Carbon based lifestyle (oil addiction e.g) is unsustainable and probably dangerous, let alone wasteful.
Politically its horrible being dependent on despots like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, etc. for our oil addiction.

Steps to decrease pollution and waste are simply smart policy. Whether it turns out, after years of extremely difficult science that the world's climate was affected by man or not is moot. In the meantime, let's hope, we can look back and tell our heirs that we did our best to provide green energy, good air and clean water.

mm

I note that you couldn't help but slip in the denier slur, oblique though it may be. Right now, the science is pretty clear that there's no sound evidence that there's even a problem, let alone one caused by CO2. Certainly, the warming that stopped in 1998 isn't unique, as has been demonstrated in lots of peer reviewed research. The link between CO2 and warming is less than tenuous.

So, the analogy is poor. CO2 might be more analogous to, well, CO2 rather than cigarettes. In enough concentration, CO2 will kill you, but the evidence does not support that in normal context it's going to do you harm. The same with current and reasonably projected atmospheric levels (with a caveat that we should watch and study this further, just in case).

None of this means that we shouldn't encourage increased efficiencies with regard to fossil fuels. We absolutely should. We should be transitioning to nuclear right now. We should all be evaluating our fuel and energy usage.

What we should NOT do is squander even a fraction of a percent of ongoing growth based upon the evidence that we have now. The cost of this compounded loss of growth over the coming decades will be an inability to address REAL LIFE AND DEATH ISSUES. The economics are pretty clear. Take the craziest projections from the IPCC. Using aggressive and draconian controls on CO2, you wouldn't have much effect, save reducing folks abilities to remediate against the effects of climate change. More people--the worlds poorest---would likely die due to this reduced global wealth and the inability to devote resources to offsetting a warmer world with higher sea levels. I mean, it's not like we haven't done this before. See the Netherlands or Boston, for that matter. It's just a matter of money--so long as we HAVE it.

And, get this, what if we're dead wrong? What if, AS SOME LEGITIMATE SCIENTISTS FEAR, we're not in for global warming but another little ice age.

If we don't have the resources for that, many, MANY more will die. Less growth means more deaths in almost all reasonable scenarios. That's the price tag. And cutting down CO2 doesn't justify more loss of human life.

Meanwhile, there are people dying NOW from simple things that perhaps another 1% of economic growth would make go away. Things like lack of fresh water. Malaria. Infection. etc. etc.

[maineman]

Whoa there with the "denial slur" accusation. No such thing mentioned, nothing intended. The hidden subtext you perceive is your paranoia. I was simply saying that there were folks who even in the face of mounting evidence continued to deny the negative effect of smoking. Further I only used cigarettes as an expample that popped into my head. I was not trying to draw any correlations about CO2 (or carbon monoxide, the primary ingredient in cigarettes). For what its worth I"ve not seen Al Gore's movie. But I am an avid reader as you know. I read tons of literature all the time and do not filter what I read. WSJ, NYT, Forbes, National Review, Science, and the list goes on. Left, right, whatever, as long as its well written. I'm not bragging, its just who I am. What I find odd is that the middle ground approach I mentioned above seems, for me, to be a good place to be. I completely do not understand the passion of those who adamantly "deny" climate change. The climate change or "anti global warming" alarmists seem a bit wacky to me. I understand a tree hugger. Usually some teenage or college kid who is passing through that phase of life's development where, armed with a tiny bit of information that sparks an interest becomes all consumed with an issue. I think we've all been teenagers who felt we KNEW more than anyone else. I was a teenager once. I remember. I'm also the father of 4 of them. I see it happen. Its the adults on the extreme other side of the issue I am completely perplexed by. So when I see outsized responses to complex science and Al Gore bashing, because of who I am, I hope you'll forgive me if/when I post a little mocking fun. Life is better when someone can hold a mirror up to your face from time to time.... mm

[OEXCHAOS]

Whoa there with the "denial slur" accusation. No such thing mentioned, nothing intended. The hidden subtext you perceive is your paranoia. I was simply saying that there were folks who even in the face of mounting evidence continued to deny the negative effect of smoking. Further I only used cigarettes as an expample that popped into my head. I was not trying to draw any correlations about CO2 (or carbon monoxide, the primary ingredient in cigarettes).

For what its worth I"ve not seen Al Gore's movie. But I am an avid reader as you know. I read tons of literature all the time and do not filter what I read. WSJ, NYT, Forbes, National Review, Science, and the list goes on. Left, right, whatever, as long as its well written. I'm not bragging, its just who I am.

What I find odd is that the middle ground approach I mentioned above seems, for me, to be a good place to be. I completely do not understand the passion of those who adamantly "deny" climate change. The climate change or "anti global warming" alarmists seem a bit wacky to me. I understand a tree hugger. Usually some teenage or college kid who is passing through that phase of life's development where, armed with a tiny bit of information that sparks an interest becomes all consumed with an issue. I think we've all been teenagers who felt we KNEW more than anyone else. I was a teenager once. I remember. I'm also the father of 4 of them. I see it happen.

Its the adults on the extreme other side of the issue I am completely perplexed by. So when I see outsized responses to complex science and Al Gore bashing, because of who I am, I hope you'll forgive me if/when I post a little mocking fun. Life is better when someone can hold a mirror up to your face from time to time....

mm

Interesting that you call me paranoid. Do you know how many times I have been called a "denier" for voicing well supported skepticism?

BTW, Al Gore should be bashed. He has willfully and demonstrably mislead people, as have a coterie of "climate scientists" for significant personal pecuniary gain. It's reprehensible on so many levels. Remember, HE is the one who made the "outsized claim" "The science is settled".

I'll add this, I JUST got an email from Al's little propaganda arm. In it I, and those like me, are called "deniers". As in "Holocaust deniers". Frankly, I'm more annoyed at the insult that does the memory of real victims of the Holocaust than I am at the uncivil well-poisoning.