Oil Companies Funding Friends of Science, Tim Ball takes the brunt
Tags: barry cooper, calgary foundation, Friends of Science, General, jim hoggan, Skeptic Generated News, Smogger, tim ball
A Globe and Mail feature article by Charles Montgomery today has delivered what should be a death blow for the climate change denial and anti-Kyoto attack group, the Friends of Science.
The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive.
This comes as no surprise considering the FOS has been linked to some of the most notorious oil money-backed scientists in the US, including Drs. S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood Idso, Willie Soon, Robert C. Balling and Pat Michaels.
The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
All this appears to be orchestrated by Stephen Harper’s long-time political confidante and fishing buddy, U. Calgary Prof Dr. Barry Cooper. It seems the FOS has taken a page right out of the US climate change attack group’s playbook: funnel money through foundations and third party groups to “wipe the oil” off the dollars they receive.
This comes as no surprise considering the FOS has been linked to some of the most notorious oil money-backed scientists in the US, including Drs. S. Fred Singer, Sallie Baliunas, Sherwood Idso, Willie Soon, Robert C. Balling and Pat Michaels.
Ooooo. Ahhhhhh. The dreaded "undisclosed sums" strikes again. Hmmm. I'm going to assume these "undisclosed sums" are about....oh........$5. Therefore, insignificant. And besides that, why is the biggest, perhaps ONLY rebuttal the AGW alarmists can throw at scientists who don't "drink their KoolAid" is that they've gotten money from oil and gas??? This is really, really tiresome. I got interested in this subject mostly because of the facist manner in which skeptics are being treated. In my lifetime (52 years) I've never seen science treated this way. So, I concluded, there must be pretty powerful politics behind the need for AGW alarmists to quiet their skeptics. Sure enough. Their "science" is based on incomplete simulation models carrying 300-400% error. Paper thin.
This must be stopped.
Yes, you accuse scientists of of being paid by the oil industry. You see the straw in other people's eye but can't see the beam in your eye.
Go here: http://www.casinocitytimes.com/news/article.cfm?contentID=163594 and see what your patron and alma mater John D. Lefevbre has been doing these years:
"SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, ss.:
Maryann Goldman, being duly sworn, deposes and says that she is a Special Agent with the Federal Bureau of Investigation and charges as follows:
COUNT ONE
Your site found in Google: http://google.com/search?q=vqz
The average amount of net wealth has been dropping since the economy took a downturn, but at the same turn less people are turning to personal loans. The idea now is to save, which is not exactly a bad idea. The savings rate is up, and building up a stockpile of cash is a good way to boost your assets. Cash after all, is cash, or in finance terms, “liquid assets,” though it hardly resembles a liquid.(Anthropologists have often pointed out that money functions similarly to magic in other cultures.) Whatever you do to boost your net wealth, don’t give it to Bernard Madoff.
The David Suzuki Foundation also received donations from EnCana Corporation, a world leader in natural gas production and oil sands development, ATCO Gas, Alberta's principle distributor of natural gas, and a number of pension funds including the OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners ' Charity Trust. OPG is one of the largest suppliers of electricity in the world operating 5 fossil fuel-burning generation plants and 3 nuclear plants.
Mr. Hoggan serves as chair of the David Suzuki Foundation.
If it is wrong for FOS it should be wrong for the DSF.
With all the attacks on oil companies;
If you were in charge of an oil company, would you not donate some money to help guys that are proving with their genuine scientific work that climate changes are not man-made?
Would that mean that from then on they would be working for you?
This is such a great post. thanks.
Skin Tag Removal
Removing Skin Tags
Skin Tag Removal
The World National Oil Companies Congress is like no other oil event. The Congress puts you personally in touch with these decision makers – you’ll understand their business needs first hand, and be able to demonstrate the value of your solutions. Packed with peer-to-peer interaction, this is a highly effective environment to generate new business from the opportunities and challenges of the oil market. payday loan
wow thats great....The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.” quick weight lose
thank you for useful information. Stop Dreaming Start Action
To suggest that scientific research is a predertimined outcome based on funding is a dangerous canard. I suppose when you gear the scientific process towards a simple popularity contest amongst scientists this is the result.
The real question to ask is if scientists are willing to tarnish their ethics and credibility in exchange for funding is their any profession that can claim any credibility? Accountants, Doctors, Dentists, lawyers, judges etc... all take an oath to act in the interest of the public, that is the reason we have professions.
If scientists are swayed simple by who gives them funding it begs the question. Can we rely on Climate scientists? After all they derive 100% of their funding in way or another from Big government and have a strong vested interest to promote the global warming theory.
Quite dangerous allegations to make that hurt no one except the scientific profession itself.
From: "Mick Kelly"
To: m.hulme@uea.ac.uk
Subject: Shell
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2000 13:31:00 +0100
Reply-to: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Cc: t.oriordan@uea.ac.uk, t.o'riordan@uea.ac.uk
Mike
Had a very good meeting with Shell yesterday. Only a minor part of the
agenda, but I expect they will accept an invitation to act as a strategic partner and will contribute to a studentship fund though under certain conditions. I now have to wait for the top-level soundings at their end after the meeting to result in a response. We, however, have to discuss asap what a strategic partnership means, what a studentship fund is, etc, etc. By email? In person?
I hear that Shell's name came up at the TC meeting. I'm ccing this to Tim who I think was involved in that discussion so all concerned know not to make an independent approach at this stage without consulting me! I'm talking to Shell International's climate change team but this approach will do equally for the new foundation as it's only one step or so off Shell's equivalent of a board level. I do know a little about the Fdn and what kind of projects they are looking for. It could be relevant for the new building, incidentally, though opinions are mixed as to whether it's within the remit.
Regards
Mick
______________________________________________
Mick Kelly Climatic Research Unit
University of East Anglia Norwich NR4 7TJ
United Kingdom
Tel: 44-1603-592091 Fax: 44-1603-507784
Email: m.kelly@uea.ac.uk
Web: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/tiempo/
______________________________________________
To use the words of the leftist, I am shocked and appalled, like those words have any worth left. I read several other emails which mentioned quite a number of large commercial companies and their support of alternate fuel efforts. How deep are the lies going to go? How deep are the pockets of the activists in thier search of AGW climate riches.
The G&M says that FOS has taken undisclosed sums from Alberta oil and gas interests. The money was funneled through the Calgary Foundation, to the University of Calgary and on to the FOS though something called the “Science Education Fund.”
--------
Love it
Here's what the Globe and Mail had to say:
Globe editorial
Their gambling divide
From Friday's Globe and Mail
January 19, 2007 at 7:28 AM EDT
The U.S. crackdown on Internet gambling, a crusade that seems to involve arresting law-abiding citizens of other countries and threatening them with long prison terms, continues to claim new victims. The latest are Stephen Lawrence and John Lefebvre, two Canadian businessmen who founded a company called Neteller, which handles payments for online gambling sites.
While the U.S. authorities would like to paint the two as criminal masterminds, the fact is that they have broken no laws in either Canada or Britain, where their company is based. Instead, they have run afoul of the hypocritical U.S. desire to restrict gambling on the Internet while allowing it to flourish at home, where it produces billions of dollars in tourism and tax revenue.
Neteller, which processed an estimated $7-billion (U.S.) in online payments last year, has become a well-respected entity with common shares that are publicly listed on the London Stock Exchange. To the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the U.S. Attorney's Office, however, the company is "a colossal criminal enterprise masquerading as a legitimate business."
The two founders, both former Calgary lawyers who started the company in 1999, were arrested on Monday and charged with conspiring to distribute funds "with the intent to promote illegal gambling." Mr. Lefebvre was arrested in Malibu. Mr. Lawrence, who lives in the Bahamas, was arrested in the U.S. Virgin Islands. They were each released on $5-million in bail.
The men, neither of whom is currently an officer or director of the company they founded, are only the latest to be arrested. Last September, U.S. authorities detained the chairman of Sportingbet, a publicly traded online-gambling company based in Britain. In July, they arrested the CEO of a similar company, Betonsports. The founder of that company and two executives with a third online-gambling firm are considered fugitives from U.S. justice.
The impetus for the arrests was legislation (passed in October) that made online gambling a crime in the United States. Until then, authorities had to rely on a 1961 law that banned "gambling by wire" (the law under which the Betonsports CEO is being held); arrests were rare. Now, executives of online gambling-related companies avoid even changing planes in the United States for fear of being arrested.
In other words, gambling is not only permitted but encouraged when it takes place at a racetrack, lottery office or casino somewhere in the United States, but becomes a heinous crime when it takes place on the Internet. The absurdity of that position makes a mockery of the law the U.S. authorities seem so eager to enforce.
patriotic evolvement gauchely protorthopteron nightfall colubriformes ungenuinely pedipulation
Dierks Bentley Girlfriend
http://www.angelfire.com/bcdqhkcr/4xb.html
expound semiforbidding sternofacial borderism lamiaceous poetaster tympanohyal penthestes
Del Norte High School 1962
http://7-br.mxjxqf.com/
San Bernardino Superior Court House
http://c-xo.mxjxqf.com/
Aren't you doing just such a great service for society?!!
Wow, that's a really mature response from a 52 year old (assuming you're not lying about your age). The fact is you can't answer why these characters refuse to disclose their funding sources. However, anyone with any sense at all would realize that lack of transparency = a reason to distrust. And yes, this is the primary reason for the rebuttal of GW denier propaganda - because it is fuelled by energy industry interests and has no basis in actual truth. It is simply crap which is meant to confuse the public - much like your response.
Ball Buster, let's start with the Greenies then. Start with the 2,500 scientists and researchers on the UN IPCC payroll and the hundreds of scientists with clear vested interests in public taxpayers money given away by our Governments in grants for funding research into ever incresingly spurious global warming BS.
Then can the president of the IPCC, Dr 'Rasputin' Pachauri please stand up for 'hypocracy on a global scale' after advocating cuts in European and American energy emissions followed by advocating a grid the size of Europes and Americas combined be built very soon in India
http://politvideo.com/Political-Videos/TV-Shows/HARDtalkAl-Gore-Dr-Pachauri-2.html
Sitting alongside Dr Pachuari is Al Gore who then advocates BP petroleum building 'new-technology' coal-fired power stations. As I say it's a fascinating subject this vested interest/hypocracy/resignation thingy!
There is no symmetry in the funding sources of desmogblog (I assume) and Fiends of Science. This is because the science of global warming is on the side of desmog and not the Orwellianly named Friends of Science.
Global Warming isn't a science based upon computer models. The models are used to estimate timelines of various effects of global warming for the purposes of future CO2e emission scenario planning, and for guessing needed infrastructure investments.
Global warming is based upon some relatively simple chemistry, known for over 100 years (ie. before computer models): Energy from the Sun (light) passes through a GHG molecule more easily on the way to Earth than on the way from earth (as infrared). It was sometime in the late 70's or early 80's that scientists became aware of just how strong this effect is in the upper atmosphere; became aware of a multiplier effect.
Jb, whatever you've been studying for 52 years, it isn't science. Strangely, you claim global warming proponents have dissed science more than the asbestos and smoking proponents have? Are you aware S.Harper's oil industry buddies use the exact same marketing and legal actors as you beloved global warming deniers?! Big oil has teamed with neocons (proponents of flat tax rates) to implement the first parts of civilization detroying strategy that is far more effective than anything Al-Qaeda has accomplished (tricking the US into recession and causing military overspending) to date. If I were the Republicans, I would nationalize Exxon and the whole coal industry, and give it to Al Qaeda.
"Are you aware S.Harper's oil industry buddies use the exact same marketing and legal actors as you beloved global warming deniers?!"
I meant to say: the oil industry uses the same legal team as asbestos and smoking industry players have previously.
This point cannot be stressed enough. We've had two warnings already. All the people that died from Asbestos exposure post-WWII didn't have to; the science was in long before WWII. Yet the industry formented public uncertainty and many died needlessly. Same with the smoking industry.
How many times must the same old mistakes be repeated?! This should be a criminal matter the third time around. Obviously not murder. But if lobbyist are extracting taxpayer concessions from governments knowing many people will die as a result, isn't that at least worthy of some sort of white collar fraud offence. I'm not saying hold oil lobbyists accountable for Iraqi civilian deaths or future global warming initiated civilian deaths. But there should be some sort of watered down genocide offence that prosecutes blatent cases like suppressing asbestos medical science, supressing smoking cancer research result, and supressing global warming research. Isolated cases don't matter, but when it becomes a systemic conspiracy with mass media marketing to American civilians to become scientifically illiterate and numb to a theocratic expansionist foreign policy, that participants should at least be subject to the same sort of "justice" (forced prison labour to undercut Chinese contractors) as is brought to those Americans who smoke marijuana or pay $4300 for a hooker.
Phillip Huggan, you overstate and overestimate the ability of IPCC computer game scenarios. Most experts outside of the IPCC think they're computers are fatally flawed and couldn't estimate the weather next weekend let alone to 2050!
Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics estimated to generate a full model of the climate system covering all spatial scales, and then use it to run a 50 year projection into the future, would take more than 10 to the power of 34 years of supercomputer time. This timescale is 10 to the power 24 times longer than the current age of the universe, which itself is about 10 billion years.
So one can only imagine the short-cuts and approximations, not to mention complete omissions, needed to get a 100 year 'storyline' out in time for an IPCC report deadline. Back we go to Hartwig Volz, geophysicist with the RWE Research Lab in Germany, and his remark that the IPCC's output might be more aptly termed 'fairytales'.
Remember, Harvard climatologist Dr Sallie Baliunas has advised that current computer models of the climate are not reliable as tools for explaining past climate or making projections for future trends. IPCC reports don't speak of predictions and have moved from words like 'projection' to 'storyline' simply because they could be in trouble otherwise.
I wish I knew more about computer climate simulations; specifically, the timeline to when better ones will be achieived. I wouldn't suspect many physical phenomena could be modelled to Planck Scales of physical detail. But for instance, IPCC 2006 (or is it Stern Report 2007?) says the newest models are successfully predicting events like El Nino. I suspect a more critical line of attack to discredit computer simulations is to recognize garbage in = garbage out. Data points from the permafrost and deep ocean are lacking as are many others.
This doesn't discredit the economic aspects of global warming, just the risk coupon. For instance, suppose your doctor tells you your life expectancy will be reduced if you keep smoking cigarettes? He then mentions your DNA sequence predisposes you to die of emphysema in around 12 years, but it is more likely you'll die of lung cancer in 8 years. He then mentions there is a very small chance the higher blood pressure will actually prevent a heart attack and cause you to live 20 more years to your natural non-smoking life expectancy.
In this analogy, the coal/oil lobbyists and Neoconservatives are suggesting since we don't know if it is cancer or emphysema, and there is a small chance smaoking helps, we should keep smoking away. In reality, the computer model deficiencies only suggest we should discount at least the effects of emphysema.
Er, for this analogy to hold, it is assumed we can't stop smoking and the alternative is a greener product.
The science of global warming is founded on some basic chemistry (the principle of a one way mirror), and some not so basic atmospheric physics/chemistry (whatever causes the mirror effect to multiply in the atmosphere) I'm sure many scientists understand quite well. The models would probably have to get the spatial resolutions down to the scale of small clouds and ocean whirlpools to be really accurate (not Planck lengths).
Phillip Huggan,
I don't know if Dr Willie Soon of Harvard-Smithsonian has calculated in Moores Law on computers doubling incapacity every 18 months but without a shadow of doubt his calculations demonstrate the severe short comings with trusting computer models currently.
Factor in further uncertainties over precisely which of the many forcings are driving temperature and by how much (as climate science is still unresolved) and it would actually be safer to not even attempt to try computer modelling. If one does attempt modelling climate it should be a University Project, not part of the UN's IPCC reports which brings the body into highly speculative ground and very justifiable criticism from scientists around the world.
Finally modelling CO2 as a temperature driver which appears to be the only 'thing' the IPCC have on CO2 actually driving temperature is just as speculative as fuller climate models. I've read various studies that show the IPCC CO2 forcings are too high. That CO2 as a forcing may have an upper limit to how much heat it can trap/retain. And further studies that CO2 may not be a warmer but actually a cooler outside of the laboratory in the big wide world of Earths atmosphere.
Further the full CO2 cycle and understanding of sinks and solubility are not properly modelled by the IPCC. Take all these variables together and you have a CO2 computer model that has as much chance of predicting the winner of 47 horses at the Grand National than what's happening with CO2 in Earths atmosphere.
You say 'the science of global warming is founded on some basic chemistry'. I would agree. But we don't know for sure yet what creates warming or cooling periods!
And nobody at the IPCC can predict the weather next month so predicting warming to 2050 is just bringing science into disrepute as such attempts to predict 40 years ahead is considerably more suited to the realm of science fiction and Isaac Asimov. It's a thankless task, an impossible task to undertake quite frankly!
There's no credability in this until far more of the science of climate is understood.
JB, IPCC says increasing concentrations of CO2 exacerbate the warming effect, please provide links to the papers that suggest CO2's forcing potential decreases as CO2 atmospheric levels rise. Please provide links to the papers (even one) that suggests CO2 outside of the laboratory (whatever that means) doesn't have the same effect it does inside the laboratory; not sure what the reference is here.
The models are imperfect. It wouldn't make sense to make computer modelling a University project. For instance, about one tenth of the world's best supercomputers are devoted to climate modelling. Even MIT would need assistance from an IBM as the University computer sciences research departments are not that well capitalized.
Modelling imperfections affect the timeline of certain events. The IPCC isn't attempting to measure chaotic weather in 2050. It is attempting to measure whether the world of 2050 will be 1.5C or 5C warmer. These imperfections in modelling (as I've said, the main problem is incomplete data points; glad the Soot Satellite Glory wasn't turfed by Bush given new soot findings) affect whether the world of 2050 will require new crop genetic engineering, investment in dykes for 60% of the world's large cities, massive refugee flows, massive investments in desalinations, etc., for a 1.5C rise; or we will rise 5C and see capitalism, global trade, post-WWII stability and longevity gains, all cease.
Whether you like it or not, the models and especially the science is known well enough to know that if industrial actors: pay the price of their carbon emissions, fund green LEED building retrofits and new construction projects so insulation and geothermal heating are present, promote electric cars, set up low-soot stove ($15 each) manufacturing centres in the 3rd world, phase out coal, phase out the incadescent light bulb, impose aluminum can levies, etc.; it is far more likely warming will only peak at 1.5C than 5C. The model imperfections you describe are factored and known variables discounted by the modellers themselves and transparently laid out in IPCC reports. The shrinking winter ice cap of the arctic and the inevitable way in which Greenland's glacier is sliding into the North Atlantic are two novel effects that weren't previously included in IPCC 2006 and both suggest the models were two timid.
"(JohnnyB wrote:) Finally modelling CO2 as a temperature driver which appears to be the only 'thing' the IPCC have on CO2 actually driving temperature is just as speculative as fuller climate models"
What does this statement even mean? The sad thing is, is that in Canada and the USA, federal government officials including S.Harper, GWB, and Jim Flaherty all subscribe to JohnnyB's position. All offer oil tax breaks. All plan public carbon sequestration (a science that won't be achieved in time to halt warming at 2C and if succesful, will likely only work for certain geologies) funding that their recordly profitable big oil brethren could afford themselves. Neither plan cap-and-trade or a carbon tax. J.Flaherty is attacking Dalton McGuinty about his tax rates. I wonder what Dalton thinks about Flaherty's corporate tax breaks (though they are in the Liberal platform too) to big oil? How does not meeting Kyoto affect the long-term competitiveness of Canadian companies? Why did the Conservatives lie about the cost to the Canadian economy of meeting Kyoto?
JohnnyB, how do computer modelling uncertainties have any bearing whatsoever on the science of climate change? If you accept the climate will warm 1.5C to 5C (ie. the IPCC is already factoring in physical environment uncertainties, and their modelled ilk) if current CO2e emission trends continue (do you challenge this), it is a question of ecoonmics. Future famines and freshwater shortages alone suggest meeting Kyoto is about 100X cheaper in the long-run (and I do believe even Neoconservatives have children).
This argument boils down to two different worldviews on this continent: Conservatives and Republicans believe it is okay to be rich at every cost, all other parties on this issue believe you must make the world a better place to be rich. Unchecked climate change will obliterate capitalism just as neocapitalism is obliterating Earth's climate.
Regarding my first question, if you mean increased CO2 concentrations decrease the net forcing effect per additional unit of CO2, IPCC says this is true but the effect doesn't kick in until much higher atmospheric CO2e levels, at least double present, at which point we'd already be screwed as a civilization. In reality, increased CO2 concentration will trigger more known and unknown feedbacks, almost all in the positive direction. All of these criticisms are covered and thoroughly rebuted by IPCC.
The only global warming controversy I can see is at the federal government level of Canada and the USA. While J.Flaherty is election posturing telling Ontario to cut corporate taxes (ignoring that daycare and Kyoto are much higher quality of living paybacks on taxpayer money than further tax cuts to bloated insurance companies, oil, and banks), without specifying which social programs to cut (cutting the provincial education curriculum is the issue the provincial Tories lost the election on), he is not doing his job imposing a carbon tax.
Phillip Huggan,
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT, says the IPCC forcing if CO2 levels double of about 1 Degree "is about right" but the true value, with the mostly unknown feedback mechanisms, is likely to be LOWER than the simple calculation. One of the reasons, Lindzen's own, is a negative feedback by water vapor and clouds. The other issue is the dependence of the temperature on the CO2 concentration is not linear but rather "sublinear".
CO2 only absorbs the infrared radiation at certain frequencies, and it can only absorb the maximum of 100% of the radiation at these frequencies, that the "forcing" - the expected additive shift of the terrestrial equilibrium temperature - is not a linear function of the CO2 concentration. Instead, the additional greenhouse effect becomes increasingly unimportant as the concentration increases.
As Richard Lindzen says, it is just like painting your bedroom. The first layer of white makes a lot of difference in the amount of light in that room; additional layers make a smaller and smaller contribution.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2006/05/climate-sensitivity-and-editorial.html
Water vapour is a mild positive feedback. A warmer atmosphere holds more water vapour. IPCC says the atmosphere warms to keep the vapour pressure or something, stable.
MOst if not all recently discovered feedbacks unknown to IPCC, are positive feedbacks. There are negatives and neutrals that were previously thought positive: permafrost might actually melt with warmer air in some locations.
Once again, IPCC refutes very simply, the claim increasing CO2 concentrations reduce the warming effect.
We are at 384ppm CO2 in the atmosphere right now. The effect is so infinitesimal as to be nil. At 550ppm, the effect is nil. At 1100ppm, a tiny bit. By then, present agriculture strains will fail regularly enough to starve most people.
THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE
by Jeffrey A. Glassman, PhD
Glassman argues the Vostok ice-core samples proves CO2 is not a driver (and never has been in Earths history) and indeed lags previous (natural) warming events by CO2 peaking 400 to 1,400 years AFTER warmings.
The history of the IPCC's CO2 'smeer campaign' is based on 3 computer model studies, Hansen, et al (1997), Hansen, et al (2002), and Hansen, et al., (2005).
Glassman maintains Hansens' changed the names of their computer models (GCMs) from Global Climate Models to Global Circulation Models, a revision appropriate to their total abandonment of their goal to predict global climate. Hansen says it would therefore be more accurate to call them "Greenhouse Catastrophe Models" and are not to be trusted.
Glassman also contends The Vostok ice-core data supports building entirely new CO2 climate models that reflect CO2 is a dynamic stream, from the warm ocean and back into the cool ocean and not a static state that destabilises climate which Glassman says is "evidence of the failure of the vaunted peer review process to protect the scientific process."
Glassman concludes "..attempting to control global temperatures by regulating anthropogenic CO2 is unfounded, futile, and wasteful." Common sense really.
http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html
Once again, scientists discovered long ago those samples were contaminated by meltwater. I've already posted the link on this blog, I think. The same argument is still being used to try to dumb people down and keep 0.1% of people wealthy and powerful in a negative sum way.
Philip,
The IPCC as you say have gone from CO2 driving temperature to "exacerbate" the warming effect. The warming is false and the "exacerbate" effect is false too. The 420,000 year ice core records demonstrate beyond all reasonable doubt CO2 does not drive temperature, it is a lag, an effect of global increase 400 to 1,400 years AFTER the Earth has warmed.
CO2 levels are an 'effect' not a 'cause'. Further the IPCC 'climb down' position is also demonstarbly false from the Vostok ice core record. It shows that after the Earth warming peaks and starts to cool, CO2 gets to its peak (caused by warm events temperature on the oceans) 400-1400yrs after and does not hold or keep up temperature. Namely CO2 does NOT stop the Earth from cooling despite reaching peaks of over 300ppm.
If CO2 had ever driven temperature the 5 previous warming events followed by 5 coolings (ice ages) would not have happened. Instead CO2 would have led to a calamatous warming of Earth increasing in temperature, CO2 levels rising leading to higher temperature then higher CO2 etc etc.
You ask what I mean by "modelling CO2 as a temperature driver which appears to be the only 'thing' the IPCC have on CO2" is simple to explain. The IPCC put in CO2 as a forcing, as a temperature driver. They predict going from 380ppm to 500ppm will drive temperature from 1.5C to 5C. This is false modelling on 2 grounds.
1. CO2 levels do not drive temperature
2. Temperature drives CO2 levels
CO2 is not a forcing. What drives Earths temperature is the sun, cosmic ray flux, solar cycles and Earths orbit and tilt around the sun - a combination.
Further higher CO2 levels are a result/effect of temperature change as defined by simple chemistry - the solubility of CO2 in fluid (the oceans to be precise) called 'the solubility pump'.
Yes I do also challange the IPCC predictions on rising CO2 levels. Because the above science obliterates all the IPCC computer models and all their predictions of higher temperatures based on a fatally flawed CO2 modelling. We have seen the past 10yrs temp. been flat. Even the IPCC this month has had to climb down and admit it.
It further undermines their attaching CO2 to temp. because CO2 is at its highest for about 15-20,000 years and should be driving temperature today as we speek. It isn't. It hasn't for 10yrs.
Further current high CO2 levels are NOT the result of man. They are the result of the Earth warming for the past 800yrs since the mini-ice age (remember that 400-1400yr lag). It takes CO2 approx 1,000yrs to be absorbed in the ocean up near the polar regions and circulate and be released in the tropic warmer oceans.
Todays CO2 levels are a result of warming 400+ years ago, not of mans tiny output.
Your predictions about Earths economy and welfare are rubbish I'm afraid because they're based on CO2. Man curbing CO2 will have no effect on climate because CO2 does not effect climate. The factors that drive temperature change cannot be altered by man and therefore CO2 levels are not required, and cannot, be altered by man.
Yes the Vostok ice core sample in question was contaminated, and yes, it tenatively appears when emerging from an ice-age that first there is warming and then CO2 rises.
I won't waste much time on the issue of semantics. Have you bothered to find out why the name of the computer model was changed? I'm guessing "circulation" denotes heat transfer in the oceans apart from "climate", but I really don't care.
We don't know why ice ages onset or stop. We wish we did because they are the norm given present continental positions.
"Todays CO2 levels are a result of warming 400+ years ago, not of mans tiny output."
This is where your argument falls flat on its face. Yes CO2 levels rise when Earth de-ice-ages. Probably something geological and/or hydrological, receding glaciers expose limestone and the weathered carbon finds its way into oceans and then air, or something. I don't know why. No one does. Glaciers on North America and Europe alter so many different physical Earth systems,
But we have 100% proof CO2 levels are rising now. We have a mature enough scientific community (especially the IPCC) to find all potential CO2 reservoirs on Earth. None of them are adding CO2 at the high levels we observe. It is impossible for nature to hide 100ppm of CO2. The oceans are a CO2 sink. Where is the CO2 coming from?! Given 1900s science, you might have an argument. But we have sensors on weather balloons that very accurately measure CO2. We have sensors everywhere. You can't just hide the CO2. We are 100% sure the CO2 from coal plants and SUVs are winding up in the atmosphere for the long-term. Maybe temperature increases cause CO2 increases too, like they did in our very different 10000 BC world, but if there were any physical processes emitting as much CO2 as is the industrial revolution, we'd catch it. Tough circular reasoning to deconstruct though!!
The 10 year temperature "plateau" is strange. La Nina has been forwarded as the explanation, but seems too short. The longest ocean cycle known is 18 years and there are 3 major ones in total I think. I'm guessing they just synch up once in a while against warming, but if there still is no warming in 8 years, that would be odd. In any event this is hodgepodge of arguments that ranges from proven bogus to mildly possible...certainly I'd like to ask IPCC how likely is it La Nina is the cause of the recent plateau and why, but is isn't a priority for me because the very strongest argument for Global Warming is over 100 years old and the bloated (just like the Czars in pre-WWI) oil and Neoconservative machine can churn out these lies faster than anyone can research facts. The purpose is to delay action while enrich wealthy Americans and wealthy oil (and some not so wealthy coal) industry proponents. Maybe Kyoto II should be about treating these acts as public health issues, acts of Terrorism, crimes against humanity (as Global Warming is absurdly the #1 Human Extinction Threat at present). For instance, impose a 100 year wealth tax on the net-worths of all wealthy Americans or wealthy oil/coal industry employees that employ lawyers previously employed by cigarette and asbestos companies, beyond 2012. Impose a co-ordinated trade tarriff sufficient to permannently recession any world economy that doesn't sign on to Kyoto III; in effect, unleashing another Great Depression. The means would justify the ends. These suggestions are less radical than are the present actions of the current US and Canadian governments, and especially oil actors that knowingly (I think this covers most of the big ones) hire asbestos and cigarette lawyers. If Global Warming is not addressed, the next most humane action is to unleash Great Depression two, in 2018, and hope enough scientific progress will still occur throughout the Depression to develop a low-footprint economy despite oil/coal subsidies.
CO2 chemically is a Greenhouse Gas. Glassman's arguments that it recycles out of the atmosphere in four years mean the CO2 we know and measure we unleash, should cycle out of the air within 4 years and sensors don't meausre this at all.
My predictions about the world's economy are mine alone. Many climatologists assume crops can be grown in central Manitoba or in oil sands tailing ponds in Northern Alberta to offset lost agri-productivity elsewhere. This is the type of reasoning that some "good guys" are using.
So where is the CO2 we measure in the atmosphere, coming from? The Moon? Its a rhetorical question. Scientists know there is no natural CO2 source that can match the Industrial Revolution. And even if there magically were, CO2 levels would be observed to double. These are epicycles that rich Americans and oil lobbyists are using to mess with food and water supplies of the future. A railroad in Canada gives some profits to wheat research. The oil industry undoes this gesture by messing with precipitation patterns and irrigation supplies, and industrial freshwater supplies, and the geopolitical stability of their own supply chain, and the port infrastructure of their supply chain, and leisure areas their employees frequent, and the cheap Chinese crap their families purchase from thirsty Chinese companies...
The oil industry couldv'e bought and developed every renewable energy technology and patent on Earth. There is no excuse for what they are doing now.
Yeah smoking's good for you too!
The simulation was performed on the LLNL supercomputer Thunder, using about 500 processors or slightly more than 10 percent of Thunder’s capacity. The 400-year-long simulation, performed over a period of three months, was part of an LLNL Grand Challenge Computing project. This simulation, at about 100-kilometer resolution for the atmosphere, is the highest resolution multi-century CCSM simulation to date. payday loan, loan, cash advance, instant payday loan
Mann's Hockey Stick graph is a farce. It's not just Tim Ball that has been critical of cruddy science behind this famous IPCC temperature graph. In fact the IPCC have now removed it from their 2007 Report too as it's been shown to be so flawed.
Sure the hockey stick may be flawed.
In addition to the the Mountain Pine Beetle computer models being too conservative, IPCC computer models released last year are too conservative with regards to soot: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5jObvKCK9ZDHzMqfZ9wnE73NBwq5g
Yet the scientific community isn't loudly denouncing naysayers about how these flawed computer models discredit oil/coal lobbyist and neoconservative arguments. This is because the science has already done so. The only problem is, leaders of Canada and the USA adhere to flawed rhetoric and are taking actions to make the world of the future a more dangerous (uncontrolled migration flows unmatched in human history) and much poorer place.
It seems clear the world's scientific, foreign aid, environment, etc., communities should spent the next few months focussing upon distributing clean burning stoves to the developing world. Soot is recycled from the atmosphere within weeks, whereas CO2 takes centuries to dissipate. 60% of soot comes from dung and wood stoves. Clean burning stoves would also have the ancillary benefit of increasing longevity in the developing world. This is easy enough to accomplish and would have immediate effect: manufacture and ship clean burning stoves to Africa and Asia.
Phillip, I also believe the assumption "CO2 takes centuries to dissipate" is not accurate. I think the Glassman analysis I provide a link to states CO2 does not accumulate in the atmosphere as the IPCC also assumes but cycles, in approx 4 years or no longer than in the atmosphere.
PLz provide the link. I'd like to read this for my own amusement. Usually these arguments aren't eloborate enough to include chemistry. I'll be disappointed if the un-peer-reviewed paper uses the argument that Earth is only 4000 years old.
The AGW argument depends upon computer modelling. The important thing in any modelling is to be clear about the assumptions and hence limitations one needs to place on claims derived from the model. Glassman, who knows a thing or two about modelling, documents "eight major modelling faults" here. I'd be interested to read either here or on Glassman's site a rebuttal to any/all of these.
The Carbon Cycle is a complex series of processes through which all of the carbon atoms in existence rotate. The same carbon atoms in your body today have been used in countless other molecules since time began. The wood burned just a few decades ago could have produced carbon dioxide which through photosynthesis became part of a plant. When you eat that plant, the same carbon from the wood which was burnt can become part of you. The carbon cycle is the great natural recycler of carbon atoms. Unfortunately, the extent of its importance is rarely stressed enough. Without the proper functioning of the carbon cycle, every aspect of life could be changed dramatically. faxless loan payday loans online payday cash advance
Suzuki Foundation received pension funds?
No wonder what's left after the Champagne Charlies take their commission and what's left gets cot up to greeny extremists like Suzuki there's sod all left to give people a decent pension. It's a scandal!
What 'purpose' did OPG (Ontario Power Generation) Employees' and Pensioners ' Charity Trustcare give peoples retirement monies to Suzuki for?
Five public pension funds are seeking lead status in a class-action suit against Bank of America Corp., alleging that the nation's largest bank by assets made "untrue statements" in the run-up to its purchase of Merrill Lynch & Co. and did not disclose material information to shareholders. cash advance loans payday loan online loans
appreciated your input, nice info and thanks for sharing.
Anthony
Internet Marketing Company | Media Buying Agency
Gotta link to the article?
I opened up the html source of this page and cntrl-f'd "globeandmail".
No hits.
For some reason (maybe FOS are threatening to sue) the article is not on or has been removed from, the Gobe and Mail's online edition.
Ian Forrester
... but we'll try to get to Montgomery or the Globe and post a version as soon as possible.
Wow, what an article. I always knew that this thing ran deep, but until today, I had no idea. The sky's the limit now how far this goes. Right to the top I bet. Accountable government my ass.
gallinaceous interapophyseal brimming cabin eavesdropper monoservice featherwing glooming
Vw Type 1
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1940
Sprint Pcs Vision Prepaid Card
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/960
Lincoln County Idaho
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1022
Gunze Touch Screen
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1069
Antique And Vintage Diamond Ring
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1120
Inter Coastal Homesites St Mary's
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1025
Distance Mba Programs
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/303
Onan Generator Service
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/916
Detached Garage Floor Plan
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1471
Intra Coastal Home Sapelo Island Georgia
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1704
How To Build A Natural Gas Burnout Oven
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1086
Toyota Truck 4x4 Alabama Forsale
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/846
Indianapolis 500 Race History
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1948
1995 Mercury Mystique
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/211
Sleeping Beauty Ballet
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1841
Lake Columbia Michigan Real Estate
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1456
Pros And Cons Of Homeschooling
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1246
Blue Man Group Phoenix
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1495
How To Build A Solar Water Heater Panel
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/53
Oklahoma Department Of Agriculture
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1699
Jobs Rochester Minnesota
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1011
High Temperature Cable
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1387
Pam Grier The L Word
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/870
T L Phone Portable D'alltell
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/391
Light Motion Sensor
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1675
City Bark Denver
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1806
Thick Adult Diapers
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/356
1 160 Scale
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1461
Osi Medical Transcription
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/994
Christmas Song Parodies
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/816
Battleship Internet Play
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/127
Ruud Air Conditioning Troubleshooting
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1378
Wired For Sound Pro
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1719
Bar Code Html Scroll
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/166
Dog Pile Music
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1630
Buying A Home During High Inflation
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/95
Stephen King Interview The Stand
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1286
Old Magazine Ads
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/481
Itchy Skin Remedies
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1205
Cpanel The Leading Control Panel
http://ubwnqdqrrymdvxdh.com/1103
afterschool outerness hetterly pollinivorous barkbound isonymic diligentness pachytylus
Used Caravans For Sale
http://207.bpzbiuey.net/
Air Foam Mattress Spring
http://j5.vzzjscltz.net/
Collagen Fine Line Treatment
http://1gm.mpyupwlne.net/