Lieberman-Warner Climate Bill Voted Down by Big Oil
A little data-crunching by the folks at Oil Change International finds that Senators who voted against the Lieberman- Warner Climate Security Act have received on average 3 times more oil money than those who voted for the Bill.
Avg Oil/Gas Money Per VoteYea (48) $54,948
Nay (36) $159,288
Check out Oil Change International's Follow the Money tool - a great resource for tracking the oil lobby's influence over elected representatives.
With such a close vote, do you think Lieberman-Warner would have passed if there was no such thing as an oil lobby in Washington?
TAGS: climat change, global warming, Government Policy, Kevin Grandia, lieberman warner climate security act, oil lobby washington, US
LOL
This is seriously funny.
And you guys call us conspiricy freaks.
LOL
haha
haha
Tin foil hat stuff
The data is basically meaningless for several reasons.
1) These are campaign contributions. Campaigns in the US cost many millions to run.
1) The dollar amount isn't that much. $159,000? Sorry, that's peanuts. You also have to show who else they raised money from.
2) You act surprised that oil companies make campaign contributions. Why is that?
3) Weak correlation = strong causation in this article. The causation is unproven however.
Articles like this play to classic liberal paranoia about how government operates so I expect my reasoned comments to be ignored. Enjoy your conspiracy!
Really
They voted it down because they are not stupid.
Simple as that.
BTW... Did you see the report out last week that pegged the cost of CO2 reduction while maintaining adequate energy supply at ....
Wait for it...
45 Trillion dollars.
That should be easy.
actually, it will be...
While 45 million may sound like a frighteningly large figure, IEA states that the investment required is “an average of some 1.1% of global GDP each year from now until 2050. This expenditure reflects a re-direction of economic activity and employment, and not necessarily a reduction of GDP.”
Significantly less than say...Iraq.
Most of the media only reported the headline though.
Just to divert trolls,
we all KNOW that you meant 45 trillion, Steve
Fern Mackenzie
Good Catch Fern.
Some may have attempted to jump on that.
Anyway
While I agree with Steve that 1.1 % of the global economy will not destroy it, another thought occurs to me.
What real tangable problems could be solved completely with 45 Trillion dollars?
World food shortage?
Malaria?
Aids?
Cancer?
The mind boggles at what could be accomplished.
But alas, it will likely all be spent trying to stop the emission of harmless plant food.
But Gary,
What if we're right?
Fern Mackenzie
Fern
If you are right, I will admit it and become a vocal and active advocate.
As a believer in science I must allow for all possibilities.
Nothing can be ruled out until it is proven wrong.
Nothing should be accepted as fact until it is validated beyond reasonable doubt.
You may be right. I may be wrong.
So far, the evidence I have seen has persuaded me that you are at least mostly wrong.
Enough so that I do not believe we as a society should be committing enormous resources to it.
Convince me.....
What if I am right?
What if Gary's right?
What if we did drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of oil and coal and global warming turned out to be a big socialist conspiracy?
We would have moved off unsustainable, dirty and limited energy supplies to clean unlimited renewables like solar, wind and geothermal.
We would have shifted our energy consumption to where it will inevitabely shift anyways.
Sounds good to me.
Nice Fantasy
And, unfortunately, that's exactly what it is -- a fantasy.
"We would have moved off unsustainable, dirty and limited energy supplies to clean unlimited renewables like solar, wind and geothermal."
Do you seriously think that in any practicle or economic terms any of those sources are "unlimited"? Just how many solar panels and windmills do you think it would take to suplant fossil fuels in any sort of meaningful way? You could cover the entire land surface of the Earth with those things, and it wouldn't hold a candle to fossil fuel energy. Oh, and you'd be using a lot more candles to cope with the electricity shortages. Or maybe you wouldn't, since candles are mostly made from paraffin, which is an sinful hydrocarbon.
Even your fantasy of geothermal energy is farfetched -- and this from the guy who wants us to believe CCS is impossible. How many sources of economical geothermal energy are there? Is everyone going to move to Iceland, or do we just use really long extension cords?
None of your sources are particularly "clean" either. Do you know where photovoltaic panels are manufactured, and just what goes on in the process? How are you going to produce the materials and machinery to manufacture thousands of windmills without an industrial infrastructure that has no access to economical sources of energy. Last time I checked, most of these things are comprised of plenty of metals and petrochemicals. Or did you imagine photovoltaic cells come from an enchanted forest, made by elves, using nothing more toxic than baby giggles and mineral water?
"We would have shifted our energy consumption to where it will inevitabely shift anyways."
Well, if it's going to happen anyway, as you claim, then why do we need a fantasist employed by a PR company to advocate more government meddling in the economy?
Why are fossil fuels called fossil fuels?
Do you seriously think that in any practicle or economic terms any of those sources are "unlimited"? Just how many solar panels and windmills do you think it would take to suplant fossil fuels in any sort of meaningful way?
Well, the sun's only going to last another 5 billion years, so after that we'll need to look for some other energy source.
So what are fossil fuels anyway? They come from dead plants, don't they? And those plants got their energy from the sun, so when we burn fossil fuels we are, in a very roundabout and inefficient way, using solar energy. Far better surely to cut out the middle men, and by putting the kind of effort we've put into fossil fuels into renewable energy sources we ought to see rapid improvements in efficiency.
And then, on the horizon, we have nuclear fusion - the process that powers the sun, fueled by hydrogen, the most abundant element in the universe. Some encouraging progress is being made in this field so perhaps in 20 or 30 years time we could have the first fusion power stations.
Even if there were no such thing as climate change it would still be time for us to get away from our dependence on fossil fuels. The fact that climate change is happening and our fossil fuel burning is causing it makes this an even more urgent goal.
Roger
I could not agree with you more.
We do need to change to better energy sources.
We Most Certainly Need to develop Neulear Fusion.
Energy is what allows our society to flurish.
I am all for developing sustainable sources.
I am not in favour of being lied to in an attempt to trick me into making such changes.
Let the truth stand on it own.
The end does not justify the means.
The masses are not too stupid to what is best for them.
Clean energy will come all on its own if the Greenies are not allowed to stop it.
Things don't just happen
Clean energy won't just come on its own, we're going to have to fight for it. There are vested interests making huge huge profits out of fossil fuels and they're going to resist any moves that may harm their profits, and in fact this is exactly what is happening, as the above article shows. Do you really think the oil companies are just going to sit back and watch while the world switches over to clean energy? They're playing you for a fool, Gary. Don't fall for it.
Don't think I am the fool
Don't think I am the fool here.
The mind shouldn't boggle
What real tangable problems could be solved completely with 45 Trillion dollars?
World food shortage?
Malaria?
Aids?
Cancer?
The mind boggles at what could be accomplished.
But it's not a lump sum of $45 trillion, it's 1.1% of GDP, and if we stay the course on fossil fuels we all know where that money will go. It will go towards funding wars fighting over the remaining fossil fuel supplies and getting them out of the ground. Drilling under the north pole isn't going to be cheap. And then the oil companies will take their cut.
BTW
Just asking....
Why do you believe so strongly?
Do you honestly understand all of the science?
Are you aware of all of the big picture factors?
Have you researched the history of the movement?
Have you reviewed the data on the last 5 interglacials?
Are you aware that the holocine Opimum's warmist period was 5000 years ago and the global temps have been going down ever since?
and that the greenland ice sheet did not melt at that time or duing the MWP.
are you aware that sea levels rose much more quickly 4 to 5 thousand years ago and are slowing now?
The is so much to this. Have you reviewed all of it?
If so, please indicate how you can still believe in AGW. It must be something I missed.
I am open to hear it.
Gary. Do you have any
Gary.
Do you have any references supporting your claims ? Estimates of sea level change and global temperature from 5 kyr ago that I know of are pretty noisy. I'll be disappointed if you are just picking a couple of convenient points from some graph you came across somewhere.
Dave
Hi Dave
Yes I could find them. But I won't.
Every time I have done that, someone like Frank just conjurs up some fable about them and states that they are not credible or some other nonsence.
I was careful this time to only cite issues that would be very easy to google so that your could verify thme on your own and not just toss them out becaus you don't like my source.
sorry but citing sources on a self professed smear site is counter productive.
Why?
I do not "believe in AGW" as an act of faith, as one would believe in God, without any evidence to support it. I "believe" that there is sufficient evidence to support a very high probability that AGW is real. I find it highly plausible that human beings in sufficient numbers & behaving badly (destroying forests, burning fossil fuels, transforming habitats . . .) can have a profound influence on the environment, including upsetting the fine balance of elements in our atmosphere. I have also been a keen observer of weather & climate since I was a child 50 years ago, and have had a growing sense of unease even before AGW became a common subject. A "gut feeling" is not very empirical, I know, but there you are.
The relevance of the Holocene Optimum, the MWP and interglacial periods to this issue is that they provide historical data, but it's data free from the influence of human action. There weren't 6.8 billion people around burning fossil fuels 5,000 years ago.
I have done a ton of reading, Gary. Not in the mainstream media, but in the scientific papers & books. I've read the critiques and looked at what the skeptical scientists are saying as well. Bottom line: the physical and chemical properties of CO2 make it behave in a predictable way in combination with other gases and light. You can't just pretend that it's not going to behave like CO2. When all other variables are considered, the CO2 we're churning into the atmosphere is the only one that explains what is happening -- not what the modellers predict, or what happened 5,000 years ago, but what is actually happening now. There's an excellent piece on this over at Real Climate: http://tinyurl.com/673tta
The systems that generate our weather are chaotic and complex, but the chemistry of CO2 and other GHGs is pretty straightforward. I find the theory to be as simple and elegant as Evolution. Once you grasp the basic concept, everything falls gracefully into place and makes perfect sense. Having said that, I wish it weren't true, because humanity is facing a huge challenge.
Fern Mackenzie
Fern Mackenzie: Climate Scientist
"I have also been a keen observer of weather & climate since I was a child 50 years ago, and have had a growing sense of unease even before AGW became a common subject. A "gut feeling" is not very empirical, I know, but there you are."
Uh-huh. So we're supposed to flush away $45 trillion based on your amateur weather observations and your gut feeling or your sense of unease?
No sale.
Hi Fern
Good reply.
I don't agree, but I can usderstand your position better now.
Just a few points about my comments.
The only point to citing historic cycles is to illistrate that today's climate trends are not unusual in any way.
The current cycle is following the same patterns that they always have.
Secondly, the properties of CO2 as a GHG are will known and well documented.
The one factor that is also well known and well documented but seldom considered is:
The sensitivity of the climate to CO2 declines logorithmically with the concentration.
Put simply, CO2 has done just about all it can. Doubling it from 380 ppm will have very little effect.
That is an easily verified inconvienient truth.
Just for fun, do the math on CO2's infleuence and consider just a few factors that the IPCC ignored.
Soot - Estimated recently to be worth 30% or more of the warming.
PDO - AMO etc shifts. Estimated to be worth 20 % or more of the warming.
Solar - recent studies show far more infleuence that previously thought 20% or more.
UHI - A constant source of error in the temp record. A Watts can show that it could be worth 20% or more.
And that is jsut the ones I can think of right now.
Even if you cut all the numbers, it still leaves a pretty small percent for CO2.
Anyway, I can't see how it is so easy to just accept the very narrow view that CO2 is so powerful.
Way too many other factors not being considered.
Okay,
today's climate trends are not unusual in any way.
Except the RATE at which it's happening.
Put simply, CO2 has done just about all it can. Doubling it from 380 ppm will have very little effect.
It doesn't have to be much - only a couple of degrees in average mean temp - to have a huge and sustained impact. The longer we continue to churn it out unabated, the longer the levels will stay high and continue to have an effect.
consider just a few factors that the IPCC ignored.
It always amazes me that people make the claim that the research used by the IPCC failed to consider such obvious variables. What makes you think this? Because each paper did not specifically itemize everything that had been ruled out elsewhere, that must mean they ignored it? That would get pretty tedious, and a certain amount of basic background in the state of the science has to be assumed when scientists write for other scientists. I suspect a careful perusal of the reference sources would reveal they are quite aware of these factors.
Just for fun, do the math
I doubt very much that you or I have the scientific background necessary to crunch the numbers, Gary, anymore than we could analyse the mathematical subtleties of a symphony. You can't simply tally a bunch of percentages, even supposing that one accepts your numbers -- which I don't (not without sources other than ClimateAudit, that is).
Solar - recent studies show far more infleuence that previously thought 20% or more
Again, where are you getting this? Everything I have seen on solar variability lately has indicated that is not the main driver.
BTW, I appreciate that you are treating this discussion seriously and not resorting to the kind of gleeful mudslinging that passes for cleverness among the trolls around here.
Fern Mackenzie
Hi Fern
Thank you too for discussing and not just name calling.
Most of my over the top posts are ( this is a secret so don't tell) are just a response to the over the top ad hominem crap.
Anyway.
1. when I said "little effect" I was refering to fractions of a degree.
So far GW has given us .7 degrees.
A further doubling will yield a fraction of that.
2. If all the other factors reduce the AGW effect by only 20% (unlikely I know) the additional warming will be less than half of that. .3 or less.
3. The IPCC clearly admits to not including several important factors in the GCMs. No secret there.
4. Wait a bit fo te Solar story. There is a very detailed study going on now that will speak to this effect.
I will link it as soon as I see results.
In the mean time, have a look at the corrolations between historical temps and solar activity. It is pretty hard to ignor the pattern. On the other hand, the correlation between CO2 and temps is fairly loose and not always in the right direction.
5. Ian posts a comment about the definition of logorithmic etc. Dont' pay attention, just look up the topic. My explaination may not have been exactly accurate but the science is solid and not too difficult to understand.
I am off on my trip in the morning so will be sporatic in posting.
Hope we can continue to trade opinions.
I really do want to understand and obviously I really want to be right. But if the truth says otherwise I will accept it.
cheers.
Okay
Fair enough.
Fern Mackenzie
You don't understand this, do you?
Gary said: "Put simply, CO2 has done just about all it can. Doubling it from 380 ppm will have very little effect.
That is an easily verified inconvienient truth".
Have you read about CO2 sensitivity? It means that for every doubling of CO2 concentration there will be a certain increase in temperature (that is what logarithmic means). Thus if CO2 is doubled from 380 to 760 ppm it will have the same effect as doubling from 280 to 560 ppm, about 3.3 degrees C from the most recent IPCC report.
This may seem to be a "very little effect" to you but I can assure you that it is not.
Ian Forrester
Hi Ian
First:
"Logarithmic scales are either defined for ratios of the underlying quantity, or one has to agree to measure the quantity in fixed units. Deviating from these units means that the logarithmic measure will change by an additive constant. The base of the logarithm also has to be specified, unless the scale's value is considered to be a dimensional quantity expressed in generic (indefinite-base) logarithmic units."
The most common use of the term refers to a base ten scale where each order of magnatude is 10 times the previous.
On such a scale it would take 10 times the CO2 to add another unit of temp.
IE: if 100 ppm (380-280) caused .7 degrees of warming, then 1000 ppm additional would add another .7 degrees.
Doubling 380 would add just over one third of an order of magnatude (380/1000) of concentration or just over one third of .7 Degrees.
Thus, on this scale 760 ppm would add .21 degrees.
This is a crude example but illistrates the idea of the reduced sensitivity of cliamte to CO2.
This information can be found easily. As I told Dave, I prefer not to post a link but rather let you pick your own source since any source I suggest will be dismissed out of hand as being from a skeptic and therefore a lie.
The real importance of this of course is to illistrate that CO2 tipping points are not possible that CO2 is no longer much of a threat to anything.
As usual... Don't take my word for anything, find out for yourself.
Fern - Steve
This is very interesting backgound info;
http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/07/some-planetary-perspective/
Excerpt:
The sun has a total luminosity output of 386 YottaWatts
(386,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 watts, some background here and here)
The total luminous energy output received by earth from the sun is 174 PETAWATTS (174,000,000,000,000,000) watts.
A 0.1% increase in luminosity dumps an extra 174 trillion watts (174,000,000,000,000) watts into our planetary energy balance.
Data source for graph: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt
Note: In the graph above, the low flatline from 1645-1715 is the Maunder Minimum, a period of virtually no sunspots, where the historical reports from the northern hemisphere tell a story of dramatic climate change: harsh winters, cools summers, crop failures, famine and disease.
From the abstract referenced above: “Estimated increases since 1675 are 0.7%, 0.2% and 0.07% in broad ultraviolet, visible/near infrared and infrared spectral bands, with a total irradiance increase of 0.2%. “
So its not just 0.1 %, it is 0.2% which translates to a 348 TeraWatts global irradiance increase.
Now lets put 348 trillion watts into perspective:
As I said earlier, you just don't understand
Gary, why are you talking about log to the base 10?
The equation relating CO2 concentrations and temperature increase is based on the natural log system (ln, not log).
You really should read some honest papers before making your ridiculous statements and trying to prove people wrong. It just makes you even more stupid than we originally thought.
Ian Forrester
Give this one a try in
Give this one a try in regards to the Chevalier..notice how Steve M agrees with " Most" of Raymond Pierrehumbert criticisms.
Notice the no name calling.
www.climateaudit.org/?p=2522
"I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down" - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998
To hit the questions one at
To hit the questions one at a time (as the second most succesful strategy behind denying the Scientific Method, deniers/Nazis use is to shift to a different point while not even acknowledging the question, the same ignoring behaviour S.Harper has used to turn our House of Commons into a fucking joke), my understanding of the history of the *movement* is that chemistry around the 1870s demonstrated CO2 functioned as a one way mirror: the Greenhouse Effect. There have been various manmade data records over the years...the Pioneer spacecraft demonstrated some interesting atmospheric activities on Mars. I think it wasn't until J.Carter asked himself the question, could manmade CO2 emission pose a national security threat, that a US government scientific panel answered: yes. But maybe L.Johnston also considered this risk too, I'm not sure.
Then IPCC 1991 science reached the point where we were sure we knew enough about Earth science to know Global Warming was worth fully costing into the economy. Then IPCC science got really good in 2001. And really really good in 2006 (or 2007, I get mixed up as I downloaded their paper out of order). Is this about right? What is the Nazi (true, some neocons could claim the Nazis acted intentionally in initiating the Holocaust, and the Neocons are only unleashing AGW as a side effect to greed, but an African Holocaust is potentially *preventable*, assuming the good guys can find the right strategy to end the greed) position of the AGW "movement"?
Probably you will mention Al Gore. I'm not aware of any scientific discoveries he made, but will mention Nazi marketing leaders if desired. I don't think marketing is relevant because Canadians and Americans claim addressing AGW is important to them, but clearly don't allow this to influence their voting or consumer behaviours much.
here a few more articles to
here a few more articles to read.
1895 - Prospects of another Glacial Period (PDF) (The New York Times)
1912 - Sees Glacia Era Coming; Prof. Schmidt Warns Us of an Encroaching Ice Age (The New York Times)
1970 - Colder Winters Held Dawn of New Ice Age (The Washington Post)
1971 - U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming (The Washington Post)
1974 - Another Ice Age? (Time Magazine)
1975 - Climate Changes Called Ominous (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - Climate Change: Chilling Possibilities (Science News)
1975 - In the Grip of a New Ice Age? (International Wildlife)
1975 - Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead (PDF) (The New York Times)
1975 - The Cooling World (Newsweek)
1976 - The Cooling: Has the Next Ice Age Already Begun? (Book)
1976 - Worrisome CIA Report; Even U.S. Farms May be Hit by Cooling Trend (U.S. News & World Report)
1977 - The Weather Conspiracy: The Coming of the New Ice Age (Book)
1994 - Tree Ring Studies Suggest Trend of Global Cooling Since 4800 BC (Los Angeles Times)
2003 - The Big Chill (BBC)
2006 - There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 9, 2006)
2006 - Earth in for another "ice age" in mid-century - scientist (Russian News and Information Agency, February 6, 2006)
2006 - Russian Scientist Issues Global Cooling Warning (Russian News and Information Agency, August 25, 2006)
2006 - Short-Term Ocean Cooling Suggests Global Warming 'Speed Bump' (Science Daily, September 21, 2006)
2006 - The Coldest Year In The Last Five Years (The Reference Frame, December 16, 2006)
2007 - The Coming Global Cooling? (World Climate Report, March 16, 2007)
2007 - Canadian Professor: Prepare for Global Cooling (NewsMax, June 21, 2007)
2007 - Is 'global cooling' the real threat? (The Washington Times, June 24, 2007)
2007 - Year of Global Cooling (The Washington Times, December 19, 2007)
2007 - Get Ready for Global Cooling (NewsMax, December 19, 2007)
2008 - A cold spell soon to replace global warming (Russian News and Information Agency, January 3, 2008)
2008 - Br-r-r! Where did global warming go? (The Boston Globe, January 6, 2008)
2008 - First snow for 100 years falls on Baghdad (AFP, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Saudi Arabia covered with snow in coldest winter for 20 years (Russian News and Information Agency, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Up to 61 killed by heavy snow in Afghanistan (Russian News and Information Agency, January 11, 2008)
2008 - Russian scientist says Earth could soon face new Ice Age (Russian News and Information Agency, January 22, 2008)
2008 - Canadian Scientists Fear Global Cooling (NewsBusters, February 8, 2008)
2008 - Solar Activity Diminishes; Researchers Predict Another Ice Age (DailyTech, February 9, 2008)
2008 - Welcome to the 'Icebox' of America: Minnesota town hits a record low (International Herald Tribune, February 11, 2008)
2008 - 4 sources say "globally cooler" in the past 12 months (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, February 19, 2008)
2008 - Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age (National Post, Canada, February 25, 2008)
2008 - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling (DailyTech, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Global warming sceptics buoyed by record cold (The Daily Telegraph, UK, February 26, 2008)
2008 - Coolest Winter Since 2001 For U.S., Globe, According To NOAA Data (Science Daily, March 15, 2008)
2008 - The Oceans Have Stopped Warming! (Canada Free Press, March 26, 2008)
2008 - Global temperatures 'to decrease' (BBC, April 4, 2008)
2008 - No Global Warming Since 1998 As Planet Cools Off (Prison Planet, April 4, 2008)
2008 - Global warming? Scotland sees its best snow in a decade (The Times, UK, April 19, 2008)
2008 - The Antarctic deep sea gets colder (Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine Research, April 21, 2008)
2008 - Sorry to ruin the fun, but an ice age cometh (The Australian, April 23, 2008)
2008 - Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict (The Daily Telegraph, UK, April 30, 2008)
2008 - May Day storm brings snow to Colorado mountains (USA Today, May 1, 2008)
2008 - U.S. Has 36th Coolest Spring on Record (NOAA, June 6, 2008)
2008 - Global Temperature Also Cooler in May (Anthony Watts, Meteorologist, June 6, 2008)
"I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down" - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998
Stop getting your science from newspapers
Stop getting your science from newspapers. It's so tired that it's not even funny anymore.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
But Frank as we all know all
But Frank as we all know all others sources are paid by EXXON!
Besides I could have posted the GW articles and that would have taken 10 pages and it will not even be close to all of them.
"I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down" - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998
Stop. Getting. Your. Science. From. Newspapers.
Do you seriously don't understand what "stop getting your science from newspapers" means?
There's this thing in the world called the "scientific journal".
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
More like these?
More like these?
Peer-Review Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming:
"No credible peer-reviewed scientist in the world disagrees any longer that the globe is warming and that humans are causing it." - Laurie David, Producer 'An Inconvenient Truth'
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, Volume 12, Number 3, 2007)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Noah E. Robinson, Willie Soon
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
(Climate Research, Vol. 13, Pg. 149–164, October 26 1999)
- Arthur B. Robinson, Zachary W. Robinson, Willie Soon, Sallie L. Baliunas
Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere really dangerous?
(Bulletin of Canadian Petroleum Geology,v. 50, no. 2, p. 297-327, June 2002)
- C. R. de Freitas
Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?
(Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 94, pp. 8335-8342, August 1997)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Can we believe in high climate sensitivity?
(arXiv:physics/0612094v1, Dec 11 2006)
- J. D. Annan, J. C. Hargreaves
Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics
(AAPG Bulletin, Vol. 88, no9, pp. 1211-1220, 2004)
- Lee C. Gerhard
- Climate change: Conflict of observational science, theory, and politics: Reply
(AAPG Bulletin, v. 90, no. 3, p. 409-412, March 2006)
- Lee C. Gerhard
Climate change in the Arctic and its empirical diagnostics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 5, pp. 469-482, September 1999)
- V.V. Adamenko, K.Y. Kondratyev, C.A. Varotsos
Climate Change Re-examined
(Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 723–749, 2007)
- Joel M. Kauffman
CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic’s view of potential climate change
(Climate Research, Vol. 10: 69–82, 1998)
- Sherwood B. Idso
Crystal balls, virtual realities and 'storylines'
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 343-349, July 2001)
- R.S. Courtney
Dangerous global warming remains unproven
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 1, pp. 167-169, January 2007)
- R.M. Carter
Does CO2 really drive global warming?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 351-355, July 2001)
- R.H. Essenhigh
Does human activity widen the tropics?
(arXiv:0803.1959v1, Mar 13 2008)
- Katya Georgieva, Boian Kirov
Earth's rising atmospheric CO2 concentration: Impacts on the biosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 12, Number 4, pp. 287-310, July 2001)
- C.D. Idso
Evidence for "publication Bias" Concerning Global Warming in Science and Nature
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 287-301, March 2008)
- Patrick J. Michaels
Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics
(Physics, arXiv:0707.1161)
- Gerhard Gerlich, Ralf D. Tscheuschner
Global Warming
(Progress in Physical Geography, 27, 448-455, 2003)
- W. Soon, S. L. Baliunas
Global Warming: The Social Construction of A Quasi-Reality?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 6, pp. 805-813, November 2007)
- Dennis Ambler
Global warming and the mining of oceanic methane hydrate
(Topics in Catalysis, Volume 32, Numbers 3-4, pp. 95-99, March 2005)
- Chung-Chieng Lai, David Dietrich, Malcolm Bowman
Global Warming: Forecasts by Scientists Versus Scientific Forecasts
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 997-1021, December 2007)
- Keston C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong
Global Warming: Myth or Reality? The Actual Evolution of the Weather Dynamics
(Energy & Environment, Volume 14, Numbers 2-3, pp. 297-322, May 2003)
- M. Leroux
Global Warming: the Sacrificial Temptation
(arXiv:0803.1239v1, Mar 10 2008)
- Serge Galam
Global warming: What does the data tell us?
(arXiv:physics/0210095v1, Oct 23 2002)
- E. X. Alban, B. Hoeneisen
Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
(Eos, Transactions American Geophysical Union, Volume 80, Issue 16, p. 183-183, April 20, 1999)
- S. Fred Singer
Industrial CO2 emissions as a proxy for anthropogenic influence on lower tropospheric temperature trends
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 31, L05204, 2004)
- A. T. J. de Laat, A. N. Maurellis
Implications of the Secondary Role of Carbon Dioxide and Methane Forcing in Climate Change: Past, Present, and Future
(Physical Geography, Volume 28, Number 2, pp. 97-125(29), March 2007)
- Soon, Willie
Is a Richer-but-warmer World Better than Poorer-but-cooler Worlds?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1023-1048, December 2007)
- Indur M. Goklany
Methodology and Results of Calculating Central California Surface Temperature Trends: Evidence of Human-Induced Climate Change?
(Journal of Climate, Volume: 19 Issue: 4, February 2006)
- Christy, J.R., W.B. Norris, K. Redmond, K. Gallo
Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties
(Climate Research, Vol. 18: 259–275, 2001)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Risbey (2002)
(Climate Research, Vol. 22: 187–188, 2002)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
- Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties. Reply to Karoly et al.
(Climate Research, Vol. 24: 93–94, 2003)
- Willie Soon, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood B. Idso, Kirill Ya. Kondratyev, Eric S. Posmentier
On global forces of nature driving the Earth's climate. Are humans involved?
(Environmental Geology, Volume 50, Number 6, August 2006)
- L. F. Khilyuk and G. V. Chilingar
On a possibility of estimating the feedback sign of the Earth climate system
(Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences: Engineering. Vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 260-268. Sept. 2007)
- Olavi Kamer
Phanerozoic Climatic Zones and Paleogeography with a Consideration of Atmospheric CO2 Levels
(Paleontological Journal, 2: 3-11, 2003)
- A. J. Boucot, Chen Xu, C. R. Scotese
Quantifying the influence of anthropogenic surface processes and inhomogeneities on gridded global climate data
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 112, D24S09, 2007)
- Ross R. McKitrick, Patrick J. Michaels
Quantitative implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide climate forcing in the past glacial-interglacial cycles for the likely future climatic impacts of anthropogenic greenhouse-gas forcings
(arXiv:0707.1276, July 2007)
- Soon, Willie
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
Some Coolness Concerning Global Warming
(Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, Volume 71, Issue 3, pp. 288–299, March 1990)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Some examples of negative feedback in the Earth climate system
(Central European Journal of Physics, Volume 3, Number 2, June 2005)
- Olavi Kärner
Statistical analysis does not support a human influence on climate
(Energy & Environment, Volume 13, Number 3, pp. 329-331, July 2002)
- S. Fred Singer
Taking GreenHouse Warming Seriously
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 937-950, December 2007)
- Richard S. Lindzen
Temperature trends in the lower atmosphere
(Energy & Environment, Volume 17, Number 5, pp. 707-714, September 2006)
- Vincent Gray
Temporal Variability in Local Air Temperature Series Shows Negative Feedback
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Numbers 7-8, pp. 1059-1072, December 2007)
- Olavi Kärner
The Carbon dioxide thermometer and the cause of global warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 1-18, January 1999)
- N. Calder
The Cause of Global Warming
(Energy & Environment, Volume 11, Number 6, pp. 613-629, November 1, 2000)
- Vincent Gray
"I decided I just had to call because you've printed a picture of the Earth upside down" - Al Gore, Washington Times, 1998
Half not peer-reviewed
Half of those aren't peer-reviewed at all -- they're either from E&E or they're unpublished technical reports.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Milloy's Failed Papercut
Gary's hilarious. Whatever the topic of the blog entry is, he always insists we should talk about something else!
Anyway...
The good news about this is that Milloy's Papercut (http://tinyurl.com/3ldppp)(*) isn't working -- the USCAP companies have stuck to the bill despite Milloy's attempts to sow discord, and the bill actually got to a point where it could be voted down.
The bad news is, Clinton, Obama, and McCain didn't vote either way, and they received even more money from Big Oil on average.
- - -
(*) I'm open to suggestions for better names
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
It's About Survival
The climate bill failed because it is an election year and these people want to be re-elected. Passing legislation in a election year that would drive energy prices even higher than they are and kill jobs is political suicide and the US legislators know it. If there is one thing that trumps all else for politicians, it is electoral survival.
Ill-informed voters scared by warmist hysterics may tell pollsters we need to do something about global warming but, as Europeans are making clear, they do not want to pay for it.
Truth at last from the inactivists
Thanks for telling us that your opposition to "warmist hysterics" isn't based on science, but on politics.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce
Huh?
My opposition to the warmist theology is based entirely on science. If the public was better informed by the media about the uncertain state of climate science, people would realize there is nothing we can do about climate change. The truth is that this is not the settled science Desmoggers pretend it is.
Observable data tells us that the earth warmed a bit in the 1980s and 1990s and has been cooling a bit since. This continues a pattern of warming and cooling that has existed as long as we have been recording temperatures.
The case for human-caused global warming and all its predicted dire consequences comes entirely from fudged climate models. There aren't computers big enough to crunch all the input data (even if we knew what it was) required to accurately model earth's chaotic and non-linear climate. So modellers leave stuff out or make assumptions about what should be included. What they produce is pure horsefeathers and always will be. We will never be able to accurately model and therefore predict climate. We can only observe it and adapt to whatever it tosses our way.
Carbon taxes, cap and trade, and all the other legislative nonsense built on the assumption that we can dial the earth's thermostat up or down is a waste of time and resources.
Dowell, you're shifting your
Dowell, you're shifting your argument.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://frankbi.wordpress.com/ International Journal of Inactivism
"Al `Fat Al' Gore [is fat]" -- Harold Pierce