Korean Job Discussion Forums

[sundubuman]

Scientists respond to Gore's warnings of climate catastrophe
"The Inconvenient Truth" is indeed inconvenient to alarmists
By Tom Harris
Monday, June 12, 2006

"Scientists have an independent obligation to respect and present the truth as they see it," Al Gore sensibly asserts in his film "An Inconvenient Truth", showing at Cumberland 4 Cinemas in Toronto since Jun 2. With that outlook in mind, what do world climate experts actually think about the science of his movie?

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

But surely Carter is merely part of what most people regard as a tiny cadre of "climate change skeptics" who disagree with the "vast majority of scientists" Gore cites?

No; Carter is one of hundreds of highly qualified non-governmental, non-industry, non-lobby group climate experts who contest the hypothesis that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are causing significant global climate change. "Climate experts" is the operative term here. Why? Because what Gore's "majority of scientists" think is immaterial when only a very small fraction of them actually work in the climate field.

Even among that fraction, many focus their studies on the impacts of climate change; biologists, for example, who study everything from insects to polar bears to poison ivy. "While many are highly skilled researchers, they generally do not have special knowledge about the causes of global climate change," explains former University of Winnipeg climatology professor Dr. Tim Ball. "They usually can tell us only about the effects of changes in the local environment where they conduct their studies."

This is highly valuable knowledge, but doesn't make them climate change cause experts, only climate impact experts.

So we have a smaller fraction.

But it becomes smaller still. Among experts who actually examine the causes of change on a global scale, many concentrate their research on designing and enhancing computer models of hypothetical futures. "These models have been consistently wrong in all their scenarios," asserts Ball. "Since modelers concede computer outputs are not "predictions" but are in fact merely scenarios, they are negligent in letting policy-makers and the public think they are actually making forecasts."

We should listen most to scientists who use real data to try to understand what nature is actually telling us about the causes and extent of global climate change. In this relatively small community, there is no consensus, despite what Gore and others would suggest.

Here is a small sample of the side of the debate we almost never hear:

Appearing before the Commons Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development last year, Carleton University paleoclimatologist Professor Tim Patterson testified, "There is no meaningful correlation between CO2 levels and Earth's temperature over this [geologic] time frame. In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years." Patterson asked the committee, "On the basis of this evidence, how could anyone still believe that the recent relatively small increase in CO2 levels would be the major cause of the past century's modest warming?"

Patterson concluded his testimony by explaining what his research and "hundreds of other studies" reveal: on all time scales, there is very good correlation between Earth's temperature and natural celestial phenomena such changes in the brightness of the Sun.

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, former marine researcher at the Geological Survey of Finland and professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, takes apart Gore's dramatic display of Antarctic glaciers collapsing into the sea. "The breaking glacier wall is a normally occurring phenomenon which is due to the normal advance of a glacier," says Winterhalter. "In Antarctica the temperature is low enough to prohibit melting of the ice front, so if the ice is grounded, it has to break off in beautiful ice cascades. If the water is deep enough icebergs will form."

Dr. Wibj�rn Karl�n, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden, admits, "Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems."

But Karl�n clarifies that the 'mass balance' of Antarctica is positive - more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, Ball explains, there is an increase in the 'calving' of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together, "their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year - not much of an effect," Karl�n concludes.

The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.

Gore tells us in the film, "Starting in 1970, there was a precipitous drop-off in the amount and extent and thickness of the Arctic ice cap." This is misleading, according to Ball: "The survey that Gore cites was a single transect across one part of the Arctic basin in the month of October during the 1960s when we were in the middle of the cooling period. The 1990 runs were done in the warmer month of September, using a wholly different technology."

Karl�n explains that a paper published in 2003 by University of Alaska professor Igor Polyakov shows that, the region of the Arctic where rising temperature is supposedly endangering polar bears showed fluctuations since 1940 but no overall temperature rise. "For several published records it is a decrease for the last 50 years," says Karl�n

Dr. Dick Morgan, former advisor to the World Meteorological Organization and climatology researcher at University of Exeter, U.K. gives the details, "There has been some decrease in ice thickness in the Canadian Arctic over the past 30 years but no melt down. The Canadian Ice Service records show that from 1971-1981 there was average, to above average, ice thickness. From 1981-1982 there was a sharp decrease of 15% but there was a quick recovery to average, to slightly above average, values from 1983-1995. A sharp drop of 30% occurred again 1996-1998 and since then there has been a steady increase to reach near normal conditions since 2001."

Concerning Gore's beliefs about worldwide warming, Morgan points out that, in addition to the cooling in the NW Atlantic, massive areas of cooling are found in the North and South Pacific Ocean; the whole of the Amazon Valley; the north coast of South America and the Caribbean; the eastern Mediterranean, Black Sea, Caucasus and Red Sea; New Zealand and even the Ganges Valley in India. Morgan explains, "Had the IPCC used the standard parameter for climate change (the 30 year average) and used an equal area projection, instead of the Mercator (which doubled the area of warming in Alaska, Siberia and the Antarctic Ocean) warming and cooling would have been almost in balance."

Gore's point that 200 cities and towns in the American West set all time high temperature records is also misleading according to Dr. Roy Spencer, Principal Research Scientist at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. "It is not unusual for some locations, out of the thousands of cities and towns in the U.S., to set all-time records," he says. "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Carter does not pull his punches about Gore's activism, "The man is an embarrassment to US science and its many fine practitioners, a lot of whom know (but feel unable to state publicly) that his propaganda crusade is mostly based on junk science."

In April sixty of the world's leading experts in the field asked Prime Minister Harper to order a thorough public review of the science of climate change, something that has never happened in Canada. Considering what's at stake - either the end of civilization, if you believe Gore, or a waste of billions of dollars, if you believe his opponents - it seems like a reasonable request.

Tom Harris is mechanical engineer and Ottawa Director of High Park Group, a public affairs and public policy company. He can be reached at [email protected]

[WorldWide]

Big Oil spends millions each year to discredit climate change science because it could theoretically cost them billions to change their ways. Profit is god... Screw the future as long as a few CEO's get their multi-million dollar bonus this year.

[sundubuman]

Did you read the article???

[Rteacher]

Does it state their political affiliations and track where their grant money comes from?

[Octavius Hite]

It's not even worth a reply or a thought. Go spread your voodoo on another banana boat chief.

[EFLtrainer]

Junk science debunked with.... junk science?

There was not one verifiable reference in that article. Not one argument was explained in anything like detail. The note about the high temperatures in American cities, for example. The rebuttal was only that, "The actual data shows that overall, recent temperatures in the U.S. were not unusual."

Gee, that's scientific. So, does that mean the new highs were only one degree, so they are "normal?" Etc.

If you're going to claim to debunk, don't use "junk debunking."

[Sooke]

I'm gonna do a litle sumpin'-sumpin' from JooRipGwaRhhee's playbook here:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our Services

We are proud to offer our clients a wide range of services, including:

* policy and strategic consulting
* project development
* project management
* issues management
* research initiatives and analysis
* economic analytics
* direct lobbying
* event planning
* media relations
* fundraising
http://www.highparkgroup.com/services.htm
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom specializes in strategic communication and media relations and has 28 years experience in science and technology in the energy and environment, aerospace and high-tech sectors. He has worked with PRIVATE COMPANIES AND TRADE ASSOCIATIONS TO SUCCESSFULLY POSITION THESE ENTITIES AND THEIR INTERESTS WITH MEDIA AND BEFORE GOVERNMENT COMMITTEES AND REGULATORY BODIES. Tom holds a Bachelor of Engineering (Mechanical) from CARLETON UNIVERSITY and a Master of Engineering (Mechanical - thermo-fluids) from McMaster University.

http://www.highparkgroup.com/tharris.htm

Uh Oh....

In 2002 he [Harris] was employed by APCO Worldwide, a known organized crime fraud arranger with a stable of "whitecoats" to give science-flavored deceptions uncovered by the Tobacco Racketeer trials of the 1990s. APCO created TASSC, a pure-fraud operation which had many of the same science-liars as an event they hosted in 2002 in Canada. Tom Harris was listed as contact for this event. APCO also organized the fraud operation known as "Friends of Science" at the same time.
http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/show.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the Australian Bob Carter:

Carter is a member of the Institute of Public Affairs [6]
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Institute_of_Public_Affairs
Front Groups --- IPA staff and former staff have been involved in
establishing a number of front groups, including:
* Australian Environment Foundation
* Independent Contractors of Australia
* Owner Drivers Australia
Funding --- The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:
* Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton and Western Mining
Corporation;
* Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: MONSANTO; and
* A range of other companies including communications company
Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
* Tobacco companies - PHILIP MORRIS (Nahan) and BRITISH AMERICAN
TOBACCO [8]
(http://www.smh.com.au/text/articles/2003/08/11/1060588322537.htm)
* Oil and gas companies: Caltex, ESSO AUSTRALIA (a subsidiary of
EXXON) and SHELL [www.ips.org] and WOODSIDE PETROLEUM; and FIFTEEN
MAJOR COMPANIES IN THE ELECTRICITY INDUSTRY; (Nahan 2)
* Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan
3)
* Murray Irrigation Ltd - a major irrigation company contributed
$40,000.[9]

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/ScienceCop/comment.html?entrynum=42&tstamp=200606


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, check out the links to see more.

Doing the ol' check the sources thing is perversely satisfying. I think I'm getting a hard-on!!! Yay JRGH!!!!

[Nowhere Man]

[sundubuman]

okay members of the flat earth society. I see you see absolutely no political machinations behind the whole global warming brouhaha huh?

Let's see, government sponsored studies that have already led a wichhunt against those who are skeptical about global weather change, arguing for a globally mandated scheme to control carbon emmissions, to be administered by the government of course, which will, in effect, hand government massive amounts of control over the economy.

Sounds like a no brainer for the socialist/anti-capitalist camp.

Problem is, it is bunk.

[sundubuman]

some clear thinking back in 2000, notice Al Gore......


Global warming hype heats up

By Henry Lamb
web posted June 5, 2000

Get ready for another barrage of global warming hype. The U.N. will be meeting again in Bonn, Germany in June to prepare for the final push to impose the Kyoto Protocol at a meeting scheduled for November at the Hague.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will present its "Third Assessment Report" which is expected to supply all the fuel necessary to fire up the world to implement the Protocol which will require a 30 per cent reduction of fossil fuel energy use in the United States, and will effectively give the U.N. authority to regulate energy use in 34 developed countries.

A summary of the IPCC's Second Assessment Report, issued in 1996, said that the scientific evidence "suggests" a discernable influence of human activity on climate change. The summary of the Third Assessment Report is expected to remove the word "suggests" and say outright that there is a discernable human influence on global climate.

Two very important points: (1) none of the Assessment Reports, which are prepared by scientists, has ever produced evidence of human influence on global climate. These statements appear only in the report summaries which are prepared by policy makers. (2) Nowhere do the reports or the summaries suggest the extent or the consequences of the alleged "human influence."

Propaganda mills produce the speculation about the extent and consequences of human-induced global warming. Wild tales about the polar caps melting, seas rising, hurricanes intensifying, biodiversity diminishing - are all speculative scenarios developed by those whose income is produced by the global warming industry. A major part of the global warming industry is funding for NGOs (non-government organizations) to "elevate awareness." This is a politically correct description of propaganda. Millions of dollars are awarded every year to organizations such as the Climate Action Network to churn out propaganda by the car-load.

The White House, and the U.N. are quick to say that "the science is settled." The truth is that the scientific community cannot agree on whether the global temperature is warming or cooling in the last half of the 20th century. Surface stations say it is rising while the satellites say it is cooling. The scientific community cannot agree on whether rising levels of atmospheric carbon will be detrimental or beneficial to the earth, or whether the level of atmospheric carbon makes any difference at all to global climate.

Both the global mean temperature and the level of atmospheric carbon have been much higher, and much lower at various times in history than at the present time. Past fluctuations of temperature and concentrations of atmospheric carbon occurred without the possibility of human influence. Why, then, is human activity, specifically, the use of fossil fuels, the object of such a draconian policy as the Kyoto Protocol?

One thing that the scientific community seems to be in general agreement about is that the Kyoto Protocol, if fully implemented, will not make an appreciable difference in the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The reduction of carbon emissions in the 34 developed countries will be more than offset by increases in the emissions from the 150 developing nations that are not affected by the Protocol. Why bother?

The entire exercise has less to do with protecting the environment or reducing global warming than it has to do with redistributing wealth.

If developed nations are regulated by the U.N., while developing nations are not, then industry has a powerful incentive to move from developed countries to countries such as China, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, where there are no restrictions on energy use.

Nevertheless, the global warming industry is gearing up for the final push toward full implementation of the Protocol by 2002. When the protocol was adopted in 1997, it was hopelessly incomplete. For example, it did not address how the Protocol was to be enforced; it did not even discuss penalties for non-compliance. It provided no guidelines for uniform measurement of progress toward compliance. In other words, it was a document that set targets, without any details for implementation. Since 1997, the Parties to the treaty have been negotiating these questions and are supposed to have them all agreed by the November meeting at the Hague.

Legitimate questions raised by legitimate scientists are ignored by the policy-making global warming industry. Al Gore claims that only a "handful" of "contrarian" scientists disagree with the "broad consensus" that has been reached by the scientific community. The opposite is true. Only a small handful of scientists believe that catastrophic warming will occur as the result of human use of fossil fuel, and they have yet to produce scientific evidence to support this belief.

The global-warming propaganda mills claim that 2000 scientists whose work is cited in the IPCC report represents the "consensus" expressed in the policy-makers' seven-page summary of the IPCC report. Many of those same scientists disagree sharply with the summary, and have signed public declarations of disagreement - which are equally ignored by the likes of Al Gore and the global warming industry's propaganda mills.

Fourteen of the world's leading climate scientists assembled in Washington over the Memorial Day weekend to evaluate the latest draft of the Third Assessment Report. Their conclusion: there is less agreement now among climate scientists than there was when the Second Assessment Report was issued in 1996. Recent studies have produced new questions that need to be answered before public policy is imposed by international treaty. More than 19 000 scientists are on record expressing the view that there is not sufficient evidence of human influence on global climate to justify any corrective public policy. The global warming industry is trying to fix an alleged problem that the scientific community has not yet been able to define, despite more than $15 billion spent in the last decade trying to find evidence to support the claim.

A great solution to the global warming problem was proposed by Ross McKitrick, an economist from the University of Guelph in Canada. He suggests that a $1 billion trust fund be established immediately. No one is predicting any damage from global warming for at least 50 years.

By that time, the trust fund will have grown to about$870 billion, according to his calculations, which should be sufficient to pay any claims by anyone who can prove damage caused by global warming. His proposal was quickly rejected by the global warming industry, because it would be too difficult to prove damage. If the alleged catastrophic global warming is not expected to produce "provable" damage, how catastrophic can it be? After all, a thousand years ago, the global mean temperature was substantially higher than some of the projections for the year 2100. Science calls this period the "Medieval Climate Optimum."

The global warming industry, fueled primarily by tax dollars, has set its sights on getting the Kyoto Protocol implemented by 2002. Neither facts, reason, common sense, nor the Pope, will alter their course or deter their determination. If the world is to be spared the needless oppression of yet another effort to redistribute the world's wealth, it will have to come from American voters who have had enough of the extremist policies that gobble dollars and produces only a thirst for more. If the voters decide to retain the current administration, then the Kyoto Protocol will succeed. If the voters decide to clean house, next November, then the Hague meeting will be a waste of time and still more of our tax dollars.

[sundubuman]

Onteresting to note that Dr. Morgan indicated that New Zealans has seen a cooling trend.Several Australian cities have recently posted all time record cold, including Perth.

If Gore is allowed to use record high temps in his propoganda film, I think it only fair that I post the following, from the last two weeks. My record all time cold temps posted below are more current than Gore's, which is surprising considering the "truth" of global warming. You'd think record cold temps would be a thing of the past

# Record cold in Australia - 18 Jun 06 - The city of Perth recorded its coldest night on
record Friday night, as temperatures dropped below zero.

The average daily low in June in Perth is 10.1C (50.2F), and the average high is
18.3C (64.9F). Not since records began has the mercury dropped below zero during
any month of the year. But it dipped to minus 0.6C (30.9F) Friday night, giving Perth
its first official freeze.

A record low was also recorded at Jandakot of minus three degrees.

The cold snap also saw several records broken in towns in the southwest. Collie reported
minus 5.8 degrees, its all time lowest minimum. In Bridgetown, the temperature fell to
minus five degrees which is also a record low.
(Thanks to A.C. Frost in Australia for this info.)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news/18062006news.shtml


# Record cold in Australia - 16 Jun 06 - Records toppled in many parts of Australia
yesterday. NE VIC, Benalla, Rutherglen and Wangaratta all registered their coldest
temperatures on record for any month. Rutherglen's -7.5 knocked 0.9 off the previous
all-time record.

Just over the border in NSW, Corowa's -5.0 was also its coldest temperature in 34 years,
while at minus 3.0, Parkes recorded its coldest June reading in half a century

In SA, Elliston dropped to -0.8, its first sub-zero June temperature in 45 years, while
Kingscote's -2.0 set a new all-time low.

Six areas in the SE quarter of WA set new records, including Eyre, Forrest and Carnegie.

[Nowhere Man]

Cool.

So that High Park Group burble was just burble then, right?

[Octavius Hite]

Sundubuman, global warming doesn't literally mean "warming". We do not know what will happen everywhere and different locations will experience different effects from the phenomon known as "global warming". Some places will start getting very hot (Europe last summer) others will get colder (New Zealand) some will undergo desertification (China, continental Asia) others will experience wild storms (Gulf of Mexico). Global Warming refers to the general trend but since the Earth is a SYSTEM one change causes different effects in different places due to geography, climate, geology, development, etc. I know you right-wingers don't believe in science (or commonsense for that matter) but give your head a shake and don't think in such narrow terms, we are talking about a planet wide issue.

[laogaiguk]

Situation 1: Global warming is completely wrong and we do nothing about it = no problem

Situation 2: Global warming is completely wrong and we do everything we can about it = no big problems, though we wasted resources on nothing. Though in the grand scheme of human history it won't matter.

Situation 3: Global warming is real and we do nothing = BAD

Situation 4: Global warming is real and we do everything we can about it = Save our way of life for the future (the Earth will get by even if Global warming is right, but humans will have to really adapt and possibly go extinct if things change too much, hence the destruction of our current way of life).

[Sooke]

"Global Warming" is a bit of a misnomer. In school, we used the term "Global Climate Change."