Perhaps the most important question that needs to be asked is why do so many scientists support the notion of manmade global warming, to the point that some are falsifying the data? Most likely it is because their funding is contingent upon promoting that viewpoint.
The 15th UN climate change conference began in Copenhagen last Monday, continuing through the end of this week. It is estimated that 15,000 participants from 192 countries are attending. The conference is the result of two years of international talks, and is intended to produce a binding treaty to cut global carbon emissions. The 1997 international Kyoto Protocol currently in place requiring substantial reductions in carbon emissions expires in 2012. The Copenhagen treaty is supposed to be more stringent than Kyoto, establishing a ceiling for global warming. The 124 countries that signed the Kyoto Protocol and complied with it have agreed that ceiling should be an increase of no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) by 2050. A cap and trade agreement is also in the plans.
Due to the contentious debate over global warming and the heavy price participating economically advanced countries will be forced to pay, insiders predict the conference will only result in general guidelines and principals, not a binding treaty. A binding treaty will likely be tabled for another try next year. "Climate-gate," the leak of emails from climate scientists revealing they had hidden evidence contradicting manmade global warming, no doubt played a substantial role derailing the possibility of a firm treaty. The emails implicated several scientists who helped draft the UN's 2007 global warming report, which has been frequently cited as "unequivocal" evidence of a global warming crisis. This report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2007 Fourth Assessment Report, is what prompted political efforts leading up to the Copenhagen conference.
The leaked emails revealed that scientists hid temperature data, withheld it from public records requests, manipulated data, and deleted emails to cover their fraudulent efforts. They prevented dissenting views from being published in peer-reviewed journals, and used computer models to inflate warming trends. When a scientific journal published a study skeptical of manmade global warming, one scientist suggested retribution by boycotting the journal.The chairman of the IPCC and one of the conference leaders, Nobel lauriate Rajendra Pachari, refused to acknowledge the significance of the leaked emails, saying they would have “absolutely no impact” on the conference agenda.
Evidence that manmade greenhouse gases cause global warming is lacking. Although the world's production of greenhouse gases has been increasing, temperatures are decreasing. Temperatures have not risen over the past 10 years as predicted, in fact they began cooling at a rate of 7.3 degrees F, according to data from the U.S. National Climate Data Center. During 2008-2009, the Antarctic region had the lowest level of snow melting in 30 years. 97% of the Antarctic has been cooling since the mid-1960’s.
William Gray, an emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University, who is dubbed the "World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert" by the Washington Post, says there has yet to be an "honest and broad" scientific debate on the influence of CO2 on global temperature. According to Gray, who believes that global warming is the biggest hoax ever perpetuated on the American people, the decrease in CO2 being proposed at Copenhagen "would cause very large increases in our energy costs, a lowering of our standard of living, and do nothing of significance to improve our climate." Gray says the 1 degree F increase in the earth's temperature over the past century is due to multi-century changes in the earth's deep ocean circulation. The temperature increase is cyclical; the earth is coming out of a Little Ice Age, and entering a warmer stage similar to the Medieval period.
The full absurdity of the global warming hype can be found in a 2006 UN report which claimed that herds of cattle pose the greatest threat to the climate, forests and wildlife, primarily due to their burping and farting, which emit methane gas. This conclusion can only be reached by accepting the premise that the earth can turn on itself and destroy itself this way. There are no manmade carbon emissions involved here. The only way to "resolve" this "problem" is to produce less cattle for food – thus achieving the two far left wing agendas of reducing the population and eating less meat.
The Kyoto Protocol was generally ignored by the U.S., China, India and Japan. The Senate refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol in 1997 because it contained no binding demands on developing nations to cut their emissions. Considering the U.S. emits 20% of all green house gases, more than any other country except China, which will not agree to any severe cuts, the U.S. stands to lose the most from a Copenhagen treaty. Agreeing to drastically cut greenhouse emissions will effect profound changes to energy, transport, and manufacturing sectors. Energy costs will increase. It will cost money and jobs. The U.S. will become less competitive economically, since many countries will opt out of complying. More U.S. jobs will relocate overseas, especially to India and China which have indicated they will not comply with any new treaty. The U.S. and other economically richer countries are offering to reduce emissions by 8-12%. But the IPCC wants reductions of 25-40%. Although the Obama administration does not appear to accept the stringent requirements being proposed at Copenhagen, it has warned Congress that if a cap and trade bill is not passed, the EPA will force through its own regulations that will be even more draconian.
Perhaps the most important question that needs to be asked is why do so many scientists support the notion of manmade global warming, to the point that some are falsifying the data? Most likely it is because their funding is contingent upon promoting that viewpoint. Scientists work off of government grants, which are politically driven. It is conceivable that most climate related grants are only available for research that supports the concept of manmade global warming.
It is disturbing that politics is driving scientific research, instead of the other way around. Science is being relegated to little use other than a political tool to be manipulated to justify policy. Sarah Palin summed it up best, "Policy should be based on sound science, not politics." Until politics can be removed from science, global warming alarmists will continue to scare people into believing their propaganda.
There are already significant signs that global warming alarmism is failing. It is now being referred to as the vague "climate change." Global warming alarmists are hoping to save their movement the way environmentalists saved their movement in the 1990's. When the public figured out what environmentalism was about, the movement lost support. So they replaced the term "environmentalism" with "green." Global warming alarmists will have a much more difficult time with this maneuver, because their logic requires the opposite of combating global warming in order to combat global cooling. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail this week at Copenhagen, averting what Rep. James Sensenbrenner refers to as "scientific fascism."
I hope people read this and start screaming. Science is an awsome tool. Let’s use some logic before destroying the economy which drives our whole world, which is getting cooler last I checked outside.
Q: How much has the earth warmed [or cooled, as the case may be]?
A: As much as the party says.
“Most likely it is because their funding is contingent upon promoting that viewpoint” – Exactly! The African leaders and their delegates to Copenhagen have presented their demands to First World nations and men who can murder, rape and oppress their people aren’t known for couching their demands in subtle terms – they demand a percent of industrial nation GDP which works out to hundreds of billions of dollars in exchange for carbon credits. Although, one might ask, how many luxury yachts crewed by blonde European and American babes does a dictator really need, so these non-negotiable demands can probably be negotiated down to a few billion dollars, give or take a billion.
For China, the response takes a different tone, with the Chinese explaining they have 250 million citizens who lack indoor plumbing or adequate clean water supplies available to their homes. In other words, “we are putting our focus on improving the lot of our people even if this doesn’t address environmental concerns”. The facts bear out these assertions with many new Chinese millionaires, GM enjoying record sales of Buicks within mainland China and gambling casinos Las Vegas style opening nearer to the Chinese mainland. If budding Chinese business tycoons can afford low-end luxury cars, it appears Chinese communism works much like 19th century American capitalism when it comes to improving the nation’s economy. And they’re developing their own Carnegies and Rockefellers who indirectly bring better lives to the common man through what Harvard economists would call “robber baron” capitalism.
That only leaves Americans and Europeans who will readily give up their wealth in exchange for long-term, uncertain results. But scientists need a subtle argument to convince the voters, they can’t very well say: “Look, we want money, massive funding for research grants so we don’t have to constantly wonder where our next funding dollar will come from. We want our names on those lucrative patents which will provide the basis for technology used to fight global warming. We want well compensated positions on “official” committees, panels, regulatory bodies and a little personal fame with maybe a guest appearance on Oprah”. Americans have been beautifully prepared for this swindle by the Bernie Madoffs in white lab coats. We’re guilty about our wealth, we want to give something back. Our ancestors worked hard to give us this fabulous wealth as a collective legacy, but we’re told that in doing so they raped the environment – shame on us.
And like some Asian cultures whose citizens profess themselves as practicing both Christianity and Buddhism, Americans as individuals are growing comfortable with dual religions. We’re technically Christians, Jews or Muslims, but we also believe in the power and mystery of science. For our scientists, it’s hard to resist the opportunity to collect their monetary tithes from the gullible in exchange for technological rewards, real or imaginary, which one can enjoy during this earthly existence.
But what about the other side of the equation? Are you saying that the mega-millionaires that run the oil, gas and coal industries have no motive to deny AGW? Seems to me they have much more motive (ie, many more dollars) to lie and deny than some underfunded scientists at a University.
I actually found this article relatively refreshing, in that it didn’t consist entirely of straw man and ad hominum attacks, at it attempted to pull together some links that, at least on first look, appear to support the thesis. Much better than you average denialist crap.
But I have a few questions: you say that agreeing to cut greenhouse emissions will cost money and jobs but your evidence for this is simply someone from AEI asserting this is so. What if this were not so? Our addiction to fossil fuels costs money and lives – we massively subsidize the price of gasoline and we fund decade long wars to assert influence over the political map of oil extraction. What if we were to decide to move toward clean and renewable energy – wind, geo-thermal and solar energy – and clean energy consumption (electric cars). Would this not create jobs? Once the upgrade investment were paid off, would not all subsequent energy be essentially free? How is all this a bad thing for a country that desperately needs both jobs and less reliance on foreign energy – irrespective of what the weather outside is?
Chasm:
“What if this were not so?”
If wishes were wheels, even the poor could ride. Your ideas were explored in the ’70s, and we found out that when a competitive way is found to eliminate oil, the OPEC states lower the price of oil below the point where renewable energy is not competitive.
As far as subsidies go, the cost of producing alternative energy sources was so expensive that it required subsidies in the form of tax credits, and even then their cost-effectiveness was doubtful. It is still true. There is a member of my homeowners association who wants to install a wind turbine on his roof, and I looked at the manufacturer’s website, and according to it, the model he wants requires a 20 mph wind blowing 24/7 for ten years before he breaks even and begins to save money, and that doesn’t include maintenance nor the lost interest of his initial investment of $15,000. This is the reality of alternative energy.
Also, you need to do an analysis to determine if the jobless can be trained in a reasonable amount of time to do jobs in the energy industry you are contemplating.
Perhaps the mega-millionaires would lose a lot of money, but there is a difference between losing part of your income and losing all of it, as in the case of the penniless professor.
Fair enough, for the 70′s. But OPEC can’t really do the same thing now, can they? They need the money and know that they won’t be able to sell oil forever.
Also, we subsidize everything already, from the cost of gasoline to heating oil to the building and upgrade of power utilities.
And I’ve done the math on solar – it’s true, it’s not cost effective without subsidies. Putting solar panels on my roof would cost 7cents per kilowatt over 20 years with current tax credits, and about 12cents without. A year ago, when I first figured this, I was paying $.06/kw – today I’m paying a little over $.07. What are the odds that in about 6 years, it’ll hit $.12/kw?
Plus which, none of our energy costs truly reflect the true price we pay. It’s why a carbon pricing plan is the most efficient way to go… charge people for the carbon they emit, and suddenly solar and wind are pretty darn cheap!
Also: “requires a 20 mph wind blowing 24/7 for ten years before he breaks even and begins to save money, and that doesn’t include maintenance nor the lost interest of his initial investment of $15,000.”
No, all of the money he’s not paying the electric company IS the interest on his initial investment, presuming he can pass the cost of the equipment to the next homeowner.
In my own analysis, if I were to spend $25,000 putting 6 solar panels on my roof, it would save me about $1400 a year in energy costs. This is better than a 5% return on investment (ROI), which isn’t great, but better than CD’s! Solar panels and free electricity become a selling point for my condo in the future, and could easily recoup the 25K at time of sale.
Re: “In my own analysis, if I were to spend $25,000 putting 6 solar panels on my roof, it would save me about $1400 a year in energy costs. This is better than a 5% return on investment (ROI), which isn’t great, but better than CD’s! Solar panels and free electricity become a selling point for my condo in the future, and could easily recoup the 25K at time of sale.”
You don’t mention any subsidy so I presume your analysis doesn’t include one. In any event, if what you say is true, then I think you should do it.