This sounds interesting. But as long as there's a non-microscopic plausible chance that most of the climate change is man-made, we should act *as if it were* until we get more data.

About damn time. Our side has been too accomodating; time to fight back with some truthiness.

Then, Al can go back to his carnival barking, "step right up ladies and gentlemen, see the melting ice bergs crashing into Manhatten, the 50 foot ocean surge, death, destruction, we got it all!!! . . . that will be $10 in carbon credits, pay the broker at the door, he works for me . . ."!

If you follow the curve of methane concentrations in the article here I have little to no doubt that global warming is a manmade phenomena.

However, if you follow the cyclic curves of global warming and cooling as evidence from ice cores show, we should be 5000 years into a cool-down. Instead, with agriculture the methane curves have been going up instead of down.

http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Ruddiman2003.pdf

Don't know about you, but if Northeastern Canada was currently covered by glaciers, as some models suggest would happen if agriculture hadn't started up about 12,000 years ago, there'd be a lot of folks complaining...

Then again, maybe not. Without agriculture, I doubt seriously we'd be beyond the hunter-gatherer stage, and small bands of hominids don't have much of an ecological footprint.

Global warming has gotten too big an industry and tool to let this go so easily. I wouldn't be surprised if its release gets squelched or minimized.

At a minimum it will be dissected for a flaw (real or imagined) and then the whole movie invalidated based on that.

If you righties feel so strongly about this, why don't you denounce glorious leader Bush? He is one of the leaders of the cause:

This Week (ABC):
The president has acknowledged on a number of occasions that carbon emissions are a significant problem. The, you know, they're a significant cause of climate change. Treasury Secretary Paulson on Global Warming.

Come-on boys and girls!

So, is the BBC going to show this film in all of the primary schools in the kingdom?

To Repeat another comment of mine: Looking back in twenty years this will be one of the biggest hoaxes foisted upon mankind in modern history. Or, more probably, will be buried deep down the memory hole as watched over by those more worthy than us. Who are we to expect scientists to apply healthy doses of skepticism, logical thought, and um scientific method to such a problem when there is all this grant money floating about?

"But as long as there's a non-microscopic plausible chance that most of the climate change is man-made, we should act *as if it were* until we get more data."

Well, there isn't. There's a non-miscroscopic plausible chance that a MICROSCOPIC part of "climate change" is man-made.

Besides, why should we take one tack without sufficient facts as opposed to another? This is absurdly non-scientific. Suppose more facts reveal that in fact, burning more CO2 is the answer?

BarneyG2000: "Bush lies", isn't it what you lefties always say? Why should we believe him now?

Besides, what he has in mind is good irrelevant of the veracity of AGW - greater US energy independence. It's a security issue, you know.

Or "regardless" instead of "irrelevant". :)

"Even the co-founder of Greenpeace, Patrick Moore, is shown, claiming African countries should be encouraged to burn more CO2."

I would like to see this. Moore left Green Peace back in 1986. He has also made these comments recently:

"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions -- or nearly 10 percent of global emissions -- of CO2, the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change."

"The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination." Patrick Moore WaPo Ediitorial 4/06

He repeats the same opinion in an article on 9/06
"More than 600 coal-fired electric plants in the United States produce 36 percent of U.S. emissions (the same as 300 million automobiles)--or 8 percent of global emissions--of carbon dioxide (CO2), the primary greenhouse gas responsible for climate change."
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=4&catid=978

Now he says that we should produce more CO2? Either the documentary is full of Sh*t, or Moore has no credibility.

"..but palaeontologist Professor Ian Clark claims in the documentary that it actually shows the opposite."

So who is this Ian Clark? Does he have any ties to the ENERGY INDUSTRY? Let's take a look:

Clark sits on the "scientific advisory board" of a Canadian group called the "Natural Resource Stewardship Project," (NRSP) a lobby organization that refuses to disclose it's funding sources. The NRSP is led by executive director Tom Harris and Dr. Tim Ball.
Two of the three Directors on the board of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project are senior executives of the High Park Advocacy Group, a Toronto-based lobby firm that specializes in "energy, environment and ethics."

Timothy Egan, is the president of the High Park Advocacy Group, and a registered lobbyist for the Canadian Gas Association and the Canadian Electricity Association. Julio Legos is the High Park Group's Director of Regulatory Affairs, whose biography says, "Julio's practice at HPG is focused on federal and provincial energy and environmental law and policy, particularly as they affect Canadian industry."

The Executive Director of the NRSP, Tom Harris, is also a former High Park consultant, and the NRSP mailing address is in the building where, until recently, High Park maintained its Toronto offices.

But I am sure that Clark is complete non-bias (let the right chime in on how researchers skew their results for more funding).

What, only global warming scientist whore for research funds?

These skeptical scientists are clearly in the minority. As Dr. Patterson, a friend of Dr. Ian Clark, at anther Ottawa university says"Sure I could be wrong, but I don't think so" If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere. Global warming sceptics, recall what Dick Cheney warned that if there was "a one percent chance" that a threat was real---WMD from Iraq"we have to treat it as a certainty in terms of our response' ..In this case, its not a one per cent chance, its' about 80 - to 90% chance, that the culprit is human induced global warming, every bit and more dangerous than the threat of WMD from Iraq, which mobilized the Bush administration.

I thought consensus meant everyone agreed? Whoops, not everyone does including some folks at some pretty impressive sounding places, MIT and NASA for starters. Quick wait for it, the Green Left will start throwing mud at these scientists, how dare they express their own considered opinion. This is official dogma, you will parrot the official line. Reminds me when heretics risk death just to disagree with the church as to the fact the Earth was revolving around the Sun not vice versa.

"The 600-plus coal-fired plants emit nearly 2 billion tons of CO2annually -- the equivalent of the exhaust from about 300 million automobiles. In addition, the Clean Air Council reports that coal plants are responsible for 64 percent of sulfur dioxide emissions, 26 percent of nitrous oxides and 33 percent of mercury emissions. These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination." Patrick Moore WaPo Ediitorial 4/06

There is a vast world of difference between being worried about pollutants and being worried about global warming. CO2 is actually beneficial to the environment because it causes increased growth of plant life, sulfur and mercury not so much. Of course I've been a proponent of nuclear power for decades, I live about 30 miles from 3 nuclear plants in fact. Cleaner technologies are always a good thing, the question is should we bend over backwards trying to stave off a cataclysm that the science keeps showing isn't coming.

If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere.

Due to the way in which "greenhouse" gases work, the effect is logarithmic. Every time you add more CO2 to the atmosphere it has a diminished effect because there is only so much radiation for it to catch and it can only catch certain wavelengths. Question for you, do you know what the most pervasive and potent greenhouse gas on the earth is ?

89,
Your statement falls under the "precautionary principle" approach, used by politicians, environmentalist, and health partisans to justify choices that can not be logically or scientifically justified. This type of thinking focuses on the size of the consequences and not on the risk of such a thing happening. Not very logical.

Taltos, if you are going to lift the quote I presented, at least address my question.

Why is that Moore warned of the increase levels of CO2 in April and Sept of 2006, but according to the documentary he is now a proponent of increasing CO2 emission?

Someone is lying here, and considering that I have shown that other persons involved in this "documentary" are funded by the energy industry, I assume it is the producers of the program.

Bring on the warming, I'm tired of the winter. And if Gore wasn't investing money in two different warming companies, he wouldn't spout off about it.

This planet had global warming before mankind was around. Guess what, planet is still here, and now there is people.

It's a cycle this planet goes through, period. Of course you have people on each side saying something different. Why, real simple, it's the money, name being noticed, papers getting published, etc. It's all BS, pure and simple. Like I said, I'm tired of winter, bring some of the warming this way.

Taltos,
Obviously it is water. Current measurements indicate that human activities contribute approximately 3.2 percent of the total greenhouse gas contributions (not counting water). It would be less than 1 percent if water were counted.

Taltos, if you are going to lift the quote I presented, at least address my question.

Why is that Moore warned of the increase levels of CO2 in April and Sept of 2006, but according to the documentary he is now a proponent of increasing CO2 emission?

Someone is lying here, and considering that I have shown that other persons involved in this "documentary" are funded by the energy industry, I assume it is the producers of the program.

1.) Unless I'm missing something he said that Africa could use an increase in CO2 emissions. CO2 emmisions have a positive effect on crop growth and forestation, both things I think Africa could benefit from in some areas.

2.) I don't see any warning in those quotes, merely statistical data about CO2 emissions and a statement that CO2 is the primary greenhosue gas(it's not by the way).

3.) As a thinking human being he is free to change his mind. With science, an experiment that supports your theory means very little, it's the ones that refute your theory that are important. Hence why scientists change their minds quite a bit.

If the 2020 expected solar sunspot cycle that Patterson, and Clark are pinning their slender hopes, to turn global warming around doesn't have any effect, they will be dead wrong, because it will be too late, with the feedback loop, to decrease our C02 emissions, for the future of our bisphere.

Interestingly, the underlying physics of solar driven climate change has been verified in the laboratory on a small scale in a Danish experiment. CERN has just started a multi-phase project that begins with a rerun of the Danish experiment, only CERN will use an accelerator rather than relying on natural cosmic rays. This multinational project will provide scientists with a permanent facility for studying effects of cosmic rays and charged particles in the Earth's atmosphere. In a few years a lot more may be known about the link between clouds the sun's magnetic field and cosmic rays. The National Post has a good explanation of the science for the few that are interested in finding the truth.

Ahhh yes, "with the feedback loop". It seems the computer models insert the nefarious feedback loop. As I understand it, the runaway warming depends upon a feedback loop that is assumed to kick in and drive a paltry half degree or a little better into a two, three or even four degree rise. Warmer air can hold more water vapor and the greenhouse effect from water vapor dwarfs the effect from CO2. Theoretically the little bump from CO2 gets amplified by the real greenhouse gas, H2O. I'll buy that logic, but there is a problem. The models generally don't know how to model the effects of the increased water vapor. Does it produce more clouds, and at what level? Increased water vapor also increases the air's transport ability for convecting heat away from the surface. How is this modeled?

Computer models that predict the future have what kind of track record? We are to adjust our entire way of life, limiting progress and opportunities for DECADES to come based upon some fancy computer climate models? I give the models an 80-90% probability of being WRONG.

Why is it that, almost invariably, AGW is promoted by those left of center? Has a scientific curiosity been hijacked as a Trojan horse to punish capitalists/globalists? Since Socialism/Marxism has consistently proven itself to perform poorly, have they been looking for alternate means to impose the agenda? It seems so.

"Lift" a quote barney?

Does that mean like... steal? Borrow? Like you own the copyright on it?

Grand Mama used to have a sayin', "you're off your rocker."

This may be the appropriate place for it.

And, to the "what's the harm if there is a tiny chance" folks. Do some research on the DDT ban. One book based on absolutely nothing says that DDT is killing eagles. Every study done says that it's nonsense. 1500 scientists testify that there is no connection between DDT and thinning of eggshells. The envrionmentlists lobby for a ban purely as a ploy to gain political power. The ban goes through and as a result millions of dead africans.

2.) I don't see any warning in those quotes, merely statistical data about CO2 emissions and a statement that CO2 is the primary greenhosue gas(it's not by the way). Taltos

"..These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "warning" is.

The models generally don't know how to model the effects of the increased water vapor. Does it produce more clouds, and at what level? Increased water vapor also increases the air's transport ability for convecting heat away from the surface. How is this modeled?

RicardoVerde, I have consistently asked a related question of the scaremongers. In fact each time I've asked it at GW seminars the question is either ignored by evading or those questioned lie out of their ass.

So, just for sport, I'll ask Barney.

If, as the Goracle claims via his movie, the polar caps will melt to such an extent ocean level will rise 10-20 feet and the overall surface area increases (as it must as it covers more of earth's landmass) why, A. "computer models" are never programed to allow for that increased surface area, and B. wouldn't increased surface area be followed by more cooling of the atmosphere due to evaporation of ocean water into the atmosphere thus mitigating any if not all warming?

"..These pollutants are eroding the health of our environment, producing acid rain, smog, respiratory illness and mercury contamination."

I guess it all depends on the meaning of "warning" is.

Well seeing as acidity from CO2 is so weak that it often doesn't even qualify as acid rain, I think he was refering to the sulfur which does in fact create some pretty nasty acid rain.

Barney you do understand thew nuance difference between particulates in the atmosphere and the gases that compose the atmosphere dont you?

Gmax, you may be asking for too much.

Barney,
So your logic is that if the research is funded by the energy industry, then it must not be true. That's the type of "logic" behind the current global warming scaremongering...

Neither you nor the IPCC scientists nor anyone else for that matter have proven that small changes in a trace gas (CO2) can cause global warming. We have lots of models (I have been doing air quality & climatological modeling for almost 20 years) and theories, but no proven chemical or physical processes that show that increased CO2 causes global warming...

Sunset, Relativity and evolution are theories. Why don't you build an Earth and run controlled experiments to prove global warming is real or imagined?

Yes, Marc, there is a whole lotta stuff that ain't included in the models or is assumed to remain the same. Then again the variables that exacerbate the AGW generally seem to increase.

I don't mean to cast suspicion on all those people out there doing good science and wanting to get their ideas out to the public in general. I don't think it's in our best long term interest to keep burning fossil fuels (especially petroleum). There are better ways to do some of the things we are doing and I wish we could get going on them. What I hate is when Chicken Littles squak to the point where my tax dollars and my government, who have much more important work, get side tracked. Now Chicken Little has a supercomputer.

Consensus, now there's something to go on. In Galileo's time the scientific consensus was that the sun orbited the earth. Prior to that the earth was flat. Physicists were in general agreement in the 1890's that we had learned virtually all there was to know about physics, eugenics in the early 20th century, global cooling in the 1970's, CFC's elimination would end the ozone hole (its bigger now). A lot of careful thought and study went into those ideas even though they were later either disproved or shown to be limited in their understanding thereof.

Now he says that we should produce more CO2? Either the documentary is full of Sh*t, or Moore has no credibility.

Posted by: BarneyG2000 at March 4, 2007 05:38 PM

I agree with Barney. Moore has no credibility. Michael Moore, that is.