Global Warming News

[reeves]

there seems to be a great diveristy of information about this issue covering every angle possible, whether anyone agrees , disagrees or is bored with the GW issue, its becoming bigger than Ben Hur..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/09/AR2007080901857.html

Did Global Warming Cause NYC Tornado?

By DAVID B. CARUSO
The Associated Press
Thursday, August 9, 2007; 7:30 PM

NEW YORK -- Flooded subways? A tornado in Brooklyn? It was tempting to blame it all on global warming.

Plenty of public officials were doing just that in the aftermath of a short but violent thunderstorm that paralyzed the nation's largest mass transit network and tore the roofs off limestone townhouses. But in reality, it is not quite that simple, weather and climate experts say.http://www.nationnews.com/editorial/307956886721781.php

Taking note of global warming
Published on: 8/9/07.

IN RECENT TIMES there have been significant variations of weather patterns across the globe and it has spurred serious consideration to a review of global warming. Only recently both Britain and the United States observed very unusual flooding.

Last week, South Asia got its worst monsoon-triggered flooding in decades, with about 28 million people being displaced in India, Nepal, and Bangladesh. There are about 1 900 deaths so far and many homes and farmlands have been submerged.

According to the United Nations (UN) weather agency, many parts of the world have been experiencing record extreme weather conditions, including unusual floods, heatwaves, storms, and cold snaps since the beginning of the year.

Barbados has also been observing a consistently marginal increase in daily temperatures to around 31 degrees Celsius. So much so that many people have been complaining about the heat. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-baker/2007/08/09/confirming-limbaughs-prediction-cbs-ignores-study-casting-doubt-global-

Confirming Limbaugh's Prediction, CBS Ignores Study Casting Doubt on Global Warming
By Brent Baker | August 9, 2007 - 21:06 ET

Two nights after NBC blamed hot summer temperatures on global warming, and on the very day a new scientific report cast doubt on a key assumption behind global warming forecasts, CBS on Thursday evening held global warming culpable for “oppressive August heat” that killed a man in East St. Louis. For an expert assessment, CBS reporter Kelly Cobiella turned only to the Weather Channel climatologist who last year suggested the American Meteorological Society should withhold credentials from any member who dares doubt the man-made global warming mantra: “Dr. Heidi Cullen is a climatologist for the Weather Channel, and sees a definite connection to global warming.” Cullen maintained: “The heat wave that we're seeing now is completely consistent with what we expect in a warmer world because all of our models show us that heat waves will become intense, more frequent, and they'll last longer.”

The CBS Evening News skipped, as Rush Limbuagh predicted the media would, a new study in which, as outlined in a press release, “the widely accepted (albeit unproven) theory that manmade global warming will accelerate itself by creating more heat-trapping clouds is challenged this month in new research from the University of Alabama in Huntsville.” The posting on the university's site summarized the study published in a scientific journal: “Instead of creating more clouds, individual tropical warming cycles that served as proxies for global warming saw a decrease in the coverage of heat-trapping cirrus clouds, says Dr. Roy Spencer, a principal research scientist in UAHuntsville's Earth System Science Center.” http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=46997

Global Warming Coordinated?
Thursday, August 09, 2007 - FreeMarketNews.com

As NewsBusters reported Sunday, Newsweek's current issue featured a cover story blasting anthropogenic global warming skeptics as "deniers," and pointing fingers at companies like ExxonMobil as participating in a coordinated misinformation campaign akin to the tobacco industry misleading citizens about the dangers of cigarette smoking. Shortly after this new issue hit the stands, Al Gore told a forum in Singapore, "the deniers offered a bounty of $10,000 for each article disputing the consensus that people could crank out and get published somewhere." This raises an interesting question: Is this a coordinated attack designed to incite anger in citizens that polls show are not as upset about this issue as the left and their media minions? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?xml=/earth/2007/08/09/eaclim109.xml

Global warming forecast predicts rise in 2014

By Roger Highfield, Science Editor
Last Updated: 7:01pm BST 09/08/2007

Have your say Read comments

Here is the climate forecast for the next decade; although global warming will be held in check for a few years, it will come roaring back to send the mercury rising before 2014.

The overall trend in warming is driven by greenhouse gas emissions
Overall warming trend is driven by greenhouse gas emissions

This is the prediction of the first computer model of the global climate designed to make forecasts over a timescale of around a decade, developed by scientists at the Met Office.

The new model developed at the Met's Hadley Centre in Exeter, and described in the journal Science, predicts that warming will slow during the next few years but then speed up again, and that at least half of the years after 2009 will be warmer than 1998, the warmest year on record.

Over the 10-year period as a whole, climate continues to warm and 2014 is likely to be 0.3 deg C warmer than 2004.http://greenoptions.com/2007/08/08/newsweek_takes_on_global_warming_deniers
http://greenoptions.com/files/110/Newsweek_Cover.jpg

Newsweek Takes On Global Warming "Deniers"
Kelli Best-Oliver's picture
By Kelli Best-Oliver Aug 9, 2007

Imagine my shock when I opened my mailbox to find the latest issue of Newsweek sporting a fire-glowing orb and the headline "Global Warming is a Hoax.*" It's hard to believe (particularly for the GO family) that there are still people who deny that climate change is happening and caused by humans. With the influx of pro-green exposure in the media, many greens saw this past year as the tipping point in awareness and activism on global warming. Yet, "deniers" still exist, and Newsweek's cover story (complete with tongue-in-cheek headline) aims to track the foundations of the denial movement, the major players behind it, and the motivations behind the well-coordinated effort to keep the American public doubting that global warming is real. (That asterisk? It noted "Or so claim well-funded naysayers who still reject the overwhelming evidence of climate change.")http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22218773-5000117,00.html


Global warming critic hot under the collar

Andrew Bolt

August 10, 2007 12:00am

I AGREE completely with global warming alarmist Robyn Williams.

The ABC would indeed be "verging on the irresponsible" to air something "demonstrably wrong".

And so the ABC should get a new host for its Science Show, if Demonstrably Wrong Williams won't correct himself.

Of course, Williams wasn't asking for the sack when he told the ABC to keep the fact-challenged off the air.

He was just telling the ABC to scrap a documentary in which climate experts said global warming wasn't man-made.

But I see Williams now devotes a page of Cosmos to explain why he told a "notorious newspaper columnist" that global warming could make the seas rise 100m by 2100.

Williams is cross that I've since publicised that absurd claim. But facts are facts: Even the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - the temple of global warming activists - predicts the seas will rise at most by 59cm. http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/global-warming-8212-the-new-way-to-turn-relationships-cold/2007/08/10/1186530610628.html

Global warming — the new way to turn relationships cold

Richard Glover
August 11, 2007

'WOMEN feel the cold more than men. It's a biological fact." Jocasta is standing in the middle of the kitchen, first thing in the morning, giving me a glacial stare. She wants to know who turned off the heater before we went to bed.

"Studies have proved" — she spits the words out as if trying to warm up her own lips — "that women feel 3.74 degrees colder than men. It's all to do with protecting our babies in the womb."

Where does Jocasta get these studies? Why do they always have figures exact to the second decimal place? And how come they always seem to involve the womb? I amble over to the heater and switch it on.

Jocasta stands over the thing, rubbing her hands together, her breath coming out in little puffs of vapour. "So," she says, "who, exactly, appointed you as Minister for Energy for this family?"

From my position on the other side of the kitchen bench, I sniff haughtily. "We must all do our bit for global warming. We must all reduce our carbon footprint."

[Dean]

Some of it has to be true, but I think some of it is also being generalised, blown out of proportion, or just not enough science to back up the claims.

What about the effect that the reversing of the earth's magnetic field that seems to be going on these days is having (albeit slowly)? Perhaps this is having some influence on something?

All I can say is bring some of that flood rain to SE QLD! :cool:

[Sebastiaan56]

[quote=reeves;564061]there seems to be a great diveristy of information about this issue covering every angle possible, whether anyone agrees , disagrees or is bored with the GW issue, its becoming bigger than Ben Hur..

I agree Reeves, overload of opinion after years of paucity for all of those not involved in environmental issues. The issue was part of my Environmental Masters, the science stacks up from what Ive read. Contrarian positions are rarely peer reviewed or published in the scientific literature. Incidentally the religious right appear to be the great promoters of contrarian positions from what Ive read. The great doomseday cult called Christianity in action.

At least its getting some air space so future generations have an "I told you so" somewhere in the records.

Sebastiaan

[Big Shed]

I'm old enough to remember the great "New Ice Age" debate in the 70s.

Old enough and cynical enough to take it all with a grain of salt:roll:

[pawnhead]

One thing is certain though. Peak oil is coming soon and unless we can find some new technology, we're going to have to start using a lot less energy.
With current technology, renewables can't possibly cope with the ever increasing demand, and coal is just too dirty.
ATM (unless they can crack fusion) nuclear is the only thing that looks viable, and we're going to have to start driving electric, rechargeable cars. We'll have to be satisfied with a lot less horespower in the not too distant future I'd say.

The energy that has been stored up in fossil fuels over millions of years is being used up now at a staggering rate. If you jumped on a pushbike with a generator attached, pedaling at a constant 1/4 horsepower, you'd be lucky to power your PC and a light bulb.

We take our cars, and all of our appliances for granted, but it won't be so cheap in future.

[ptc]

It's all about dollar bills !

[SPIRIT]

l have found a expert that said the sky is falling down

:chick:

[reeves]

First Short-Term Global Warming Forecast: Record Heat (http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-10-02.asp)
Environment News Service - USA
In the world's first near-term global warming forecast, British climate scientists say the planet's temperature will plateau for two years and then rise ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/aug2007/2007-08-10-02.asp)
It Takes Deep Pockets to Fight Global Warming (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/business/yourmoney/12proto.html?ref=yourmoney)
New York Times - United States
By MICHAEL FITZGERALD GLOBAL warming is by nature a big-enough problem to create the kind of necessity that could be mother, father and midwife to invention ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/12/business/yourmoney/12proto.html%3Fref%3Dyourmoney)
Blogger Finds Bug in NASA Global Warming Study? (http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/08/10/1530251)
Slashdot - USA
The article's assertion that there's a propaganda machine working on behalf of global warming theorists is outside the bounds of the data, which I think is ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl%3Fsid%3D07/08/10/1530251)
Michael Crichton Praises 'Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to ... (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/michael-crichton-praises-new-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-global)
NewsBusters - USA
Although he believes in anthropogenic global warming, his controversial view is that there are far more serious problems facing the planet that governments ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/michael-crichton-praises-new-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-global)
Cloudy forecast for global warming (http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2007/08/cloudy-forecast.html)
USA Today - USA
"To give an idea of how strong this enhanced cooling mechanism is, if it was operating on global warming, it would reduce estimates of future warming by ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2007/08/cloudy-forecast.html)
Study: Emerald Coast could take on water if global warming trend ... (http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/7536)
The Northwest Florida Daily News - Fort Walton Beach,FL,USA
Northwest Florida could look a lot different in 40 years if global warming predictions come true. If the sea levels rise just three feet -- which some ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.nwfdailynews.com/article/7536)
End global warming, buy a push mower (http://www.mlive.com/columns/grpress/charles_honey/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1186813500303800.xml&coll=6)
MLive.com - MI,USA
Is Global warming a sign of the End Times or humanity's wake-up call? It is a question that nags in this, our summer of perspiring discontent. ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.mlive.com/columns/grpress/charles_honey/index.ssf%3F/base/news-0/1186813500303800.xml%26coll%3D6)
'Global warming can reduce agri-production by 25 pc' (http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/015200708110319.htm)
Hindu - Chennai,India
11 (PTI): Soil erosion and drying of rivers resulting from global warming can reduce agricultural production by nearly 25 per cent, a conservation expert ...

(http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ncl=http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/015200708110319.htm)

[Sebastiaan56]

l have found a expert that said the sky is falling down

Unfortunately it is a bit like that, This is a long term problem that will creep up slowly. The full effects can not be predicted, maybe very little, maybe catastrophic. Interestingly adaptation rather than sustainability was become the catchphrase.

Sebastiaan

[ozwinner]

Old enough and cynical enough to take it all with a grain of salt:roll:

Just as long as you dont get the salt near any ice or else it will melt it.

Al :U

[pawnhead]

It's ironic that billions of years ago, life on Earth was almost destroyed by the 'poisonous' gas oxygen, which stripped the earth of its greenhouse producing methane, and plunged the earth into an ice age. Ice at the equator was a mile thick. :oo:

"Indeed it seems that life on Earth was spared by a very tiny margin."

How Bacteria Nearly Destroyed All Life (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=673)

[silentC]

Interesting viewpoint presented by Nigel Calder on the science show (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/2001959.htm) on the weekend. He reckons that the scientific establishment prevents many opposing viewpoints from being heard because it relies so much on funding from government grants. There is a lot of money in climate science at the moment.

No-one can say for certain that climate change is being caused by humans. No-one can say for certain that we can stop it or have any affect at all. I think there are good reasons for becoming energy efficient, but to think that we can actaully stop any of these things from happening is a bit of a stretch.

People are being sold 'energy efficient' technology on the basis that it will stop global warming. I think that is wrong, manufacturers are just cashing in on it. I heard an ad on the radio this morning that was along the lines of "the world is warming up, no more polar ice; the seas are warming, no more coral reefs - but you can stop it." I don't think there's any evidence that we can and it's bollocks to put it that way.

[Matt88s]

I say as long as we do as the chap upstairs says in that handy little manual he gave us that we really don't need to worry about any of this. :q I also say that if we had been better stewards of the earth that we were given like it says we are to be in the handy dandy manual he gave us, then if we really are responsible for all this mess it would have never came about. :q :q I also say that he has everything all planned out and a demolition date all set up for the earth anyway, so why are we worrying? :q :q :q

We should be focusing on being the best people we can and living life to the best of our ability and helping people around us, so that when that demolition date comes up we won't be scheduled for destruction ourselves to make room for the new beautification project. :)

(that said I'm the first to admit I'm a mess and no example by any means, and if the date is anytime soon I'm going to be squished like a bug :C)

[Sebastiaan56]

People are being sold 'energy efficient' technology on the basis that it will stop global warming. I think that is wrong, manufacturers are just cashing in on it. I heard an ad on the radio this morning that was along the lines of "the world is warming up, no more polar ice; the seas are warming, no more coral reefs - but you can stop it." I don't think there's any evidence that we can and it's bollocks to put it that way.

Spot on C, doesnt mean we dont need to get more efficient, we do, just the misleading nature of the spin at the moment is driving unnecessary panic.

Matt, as I said, the worlds largest Doomesday cult, unfortunately history is full of end of the world predictions and each generation is vain enough to believe that they are the lucky ones. But there is always a tomorrow for someone. I totally agree about the need for ethical living, humanity is its own worst enemy.

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

I say as long as we do as the chap upstairs says in that handy little manual he gave us etc etc etc
You are kidding I hope.

[bitingmidge]

No-one can say for certain that climate change is being caused by humans.
No, but it can be said for certain that the world's resources are finite, and that humans are treating them as though they are infinite.


No-one can say for certain that we can stop it or have any affect at all. I think there are good reasons for becoming energy efficient, but to think that we can actaully stop any of these things from happening is a bit of a stretch.
Agree. But there's more to being "energy efficient" than buying a new energy efficient router, or using 5% alcohol in our racing cars (for crying out loud! :rolleyes: )

Nearly 50% of the population are so energy efficient that they store tonnes of it on their own bodies!


People are being sold 'energy efficient' technology on the basis that it will stop global warming. I think that is wrong, manufacturers are just cashing in on it. I don't think there's any evidence that we can and it's bollocks to put it that way.

Why do we really need any of that stuff? A fridge, a tele and a computer maybe, but how many of them do we need in a year, and why do they have to come wrapped in plastic?

When was the last time you bought something that wasn't in a plastic bag? It all seems a bit OTT to me, this consumerism thing.

But we want to have our cake and eat it (to help us store more body energy I guess!), which is why the opposition are currently running the foot each side of the fence.... cut out greenhouse gasses, but make fuel for cars cheaper. You see that's it. We'll all feel good that factories are making things "cleanly", while burning bucketloads in our cars.

Ban 4WD's they say, but V8 slurpees are fine.

It's a bit like the old definition of the difference between an economic recession and a depression: A recession is when your neighbour loses his job, a depression is when you do.

Well I suspect, whatever the reality, that we are in an environmental depression at the moment, which we may or may not be powerless to stop, but by golly when it turns into a depression, I'd like to think we gave it a shot!

Cheers,

P
:)

[Bleedin Thumb]

You are kidding I hope.

Trust in God and pass the shotgun son.:D

[silentC]

When was the last time you bought something that wasn't in a plastic bag?
The last thing I physically handed over cash for was a beer, and it was wrapped in good old reliable, recyclable glass. In fact I'm sure I've seen that schooner glass before...

So you see, if you don't think you can do anything about global warming, then the answer is to drink more beer. It's made from renewable hops, delivered in reusable kegs, and served in frosty, recycled glasses!

This business of climate change denial is actually quite interesting. Just for the next couple of months at least, I'm going to place myself in that camp. Not because I deny that climate change is happening, but because it is interesting to step back and just for a moment not assume that the current theory on it is the be all and end all.

One of the interesting things that Nigel Caldwell said:

"You've got far more scientists than ever before but the pace of discovery has not increased. Why? Because they're all busy just filling in the details of what they think is the standard story and the youngsters, the people with different ideas have just as big a fight as ever and normally it takes decades ... for science to correct itself."

The easiest way of keeping these people with their radical ideas in their place is to paint them as deniers and sceptics, as if their alternate views make them ignorant of the truth.

[reeves]

hey good comments all, i tend to become skeptical whenever there s lot of $$ to made from something and if the pro GW lobby is right, then only a MASSIVE reduction in human emissions will have any result in reducing GW.
Turjing off afew light bulbs or have 1% of vehicles running on biofuels is unlikey to have any overall effect of the bulk of emissions.

And as 6.7 billion humans breathing out CO2 obviously has to be contrubuting to the problem, which is worse when humans exercise and release up to 16 times more Co2 when engaging in vigorous activity, work, sex, bushwalking etc, maybe just staying home and sitting on the couch is the best way to combat GW..

some more interetsing posts.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/11/michael-crichton-praises-new-skeptical-environmentalists-guide-global

Michael Crichton Praises 'Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming'
By Noel Sheppard | August 11, 2007 - 16:52 ET

Best-selling science fiction author Michael Crichton has penned a glowing review of Bjorn Lomborg's soon to be released book "Cool It: The Skeptical Environmentalist's Guide to Global Warming."

For those unfamiliar, Lomborg is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School and former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute. Although he believes in anthropogenic global warming, his controversial view is that there are far more serious problems facing the planet that governments should spend time and money solving.

As a result, his "Skeptical Environmentalist" series of books continually evoke great debate internationally.

With that in mind, the following are snippets of Crichton's review of Lomborg's most recent installment (emphasis added, h/t Glenn Reynolds):

Bjørn Lomborg is the best-informed and most humane advocate for environmental change in the world today. In contrast to other figures that promote a single issue while ignoring others, Lomborg views the globe as a whole, studies all the problems we face, ranks them, and determines how best, and in what order, we should address them.

Lomborg is only interested in real problems, and he has no patience with media fear-mongering; he begins by dispatching the myth of the endangered polar bears, showing that this Disneyesque cartoon has no relevance to the real world where polar bear populations are in fact increasing. Lomborg considers the issue in detail, citing sources from Al Gore to the World Wildlife Fund, then demonstrating that polar bear populations have actually increased five fold since the 1960s.

Lomborg then works his way through the concerns we hear so much about: higher temperatures, heat deaths, species extinctions, the cost of cutting carbon, the technology to do it. Lomborg believes firmly in climate change--despite his critics, he's no denier--but his fact-based approach, grounded in economic analyses, leads him again and again to a different view. He reviews published estimates of the cost of climate change, and the cost of addressing it, and concludes that "we actually end up paying more for a partial solution than the cost of the entire problem. That is a bad deal."

In some of the most disturbing chapters, Lomborg recounts what leading climate figures have said about anyone who questions the orthodoxy, thus demonstrating the illiberal, antidemocratic tone of the current debate. Lomborg himself takes the larger view, explaining in detail why the tone of hysteria is inappropriate to addressing the problems we face.

It is plain to see why Lomborg is such a controversial figure, as he is not afraid to call a spade a spade regardless of who might find such straight talk inconvenient.

Speaking of which, Lomborg is the person soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore chickened out of an interview with in January (emphasis added):

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter.

As such, Lomborg is on a growing list of people that have challenged Gore to debate his junk science.

Of course, the Global Warmingist-in-Chief doesn't accept such challenges.

Why should he?

Or hadn't you heard that the debate is over?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009552


Will Al Gore Melt?
If not, why did he chicken out on an interview?

BY FLEMMING ROSE AND BJORN LOMBORG
Sunday, January 21, 2007 12:01 a.m. EST

Al Gore is traveling around the world telling us how we must fundamentally change our civilization due to the threat of global warming. Last week he was in Denmark to disseminate this message. But if we are to embark on the costliest political project ever, maybe we should make sure it rests on solid ground. It should be based on the best facts, not just the convenient ones. This was the background for the biggest Danish newspaper, Jyllands-Posten, to set up an investigative interview with Mr. Gore. And for this, the paper thought it would be obvious to team up with Bjorn Lomborg, author of "The Skeptical Environmentalist," who has provided one of the clearest counterpoints to Mr. Gore's tune.

The interview had been scheduled for months. The day before the interview Mr. Gore's agent thought Gore-meets-Lomborg would be great. Yet an hour later, he came back to tell us that Bjorn Lomborg should be excluded from the interview because he's been very critical of Mr. Gore's message about global warming and has questioned Mr. Gore's evenhandedness. According to the agent, Mr. Gore only wanted to have questions about his book and documentary, and only asked by a reporter. These conditions were immediately accepted by Jyllands-Posten. Yet an hour later we received an email from the agent saying that the interview was now cancelled. What happened?

http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=673


How Bacteria Nearly Destroyed All Life (http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=673)
Written by Alan Bellows (http://www.damninteresting.com/?page_id=142) on September 8th, 2006 at 12:27 pm
http://www.damninteresting.net/content/cyanobacteria.jpgCyanobacteriaAbout two and one-half billion years ago, life on Earth was still in its infancy. Complex organisms such as plants and animals had not yet appeared, but the planet was teeming with microscopic bacteria which thrived in the temperate and nutrient-rich environment. Greenhouse methane lingered in the atmosphere and trapped the sun's warmth, creating a climate very accommodating to the stew of microbes life that made their home on primitive Earth.
But a billion years of bacterial evolutionary progress was soon stunted by a catastrophic global event. Geologists find no signs of a great meteor impact nor a volcanic eruption, but they have uncovered the unmistakable geologic scars of rapid worldwide climate change. Average temperatures, which were previously comparable to our present climate, plummeted to minus 50 degrees Celsius and brought the planet into its first major ice age. This environmental shift triggered a massive die-off which threatened to extinguish all life on Earth, and paleoclimatologists have good reason to believe that this world-changing event was unwittingly caused by some of the planet's own humble residents: bacteria.

[bitingmidge]

Just for the next couple of months at least, I'm going to place myself in that camp. Not because I deny that climate change is happening, but because it is interesting to step back and just for a moment not assume that the current theory on it is the be all and end all.
Ahh so you've joined the great unwashed!

Interestingly I heard a "once leading" scientist/turned politician today who wasn't at all denying climate change, just strongly suggesting that the evidence presented doesn't pass scientific scrutiny.

Sort of, yes I can see that house is burning, but is it burning down or up? Unless you can give me three corroborated reports of the core temperature of the flames, we won't be able to finalise our scientific opinion.

It was quite curious, and frustrating at the same time, to be able to take from his words, whatever one wanted. Reminded me of that wonderful Leunig cartoon of the father and child watching the sunset live on tele, while out the window behind them the same scene was actually happening.


Cheers,
P (I think I'll be a rabid warrior for the change side for a month!)
:p

[silentC]

My favourite Leunig cartoon is the one that goes:

"What are you looking for?"
"I'm searching for the thing that separates truth from lies. It cuts the wool from our eyes. Slices away doubt. You know, the cutting edge of reason. Have you found it?"
"Did you look in the cupboard under the sink?"

(or words to that effect...)

[silentC]

The interesting thing about it, for me, is that now that we have 'accepted' global warming and acknowledged that it's all our fault, it becomes part of the common vocabulary now.

It's like at dinner parties from now on, if you mention being sceptical about climate change being caused or being preventable by humans, you will be an outcast. No-one will care what you have to say or what your arguments are, it will be as though you just said that gay people have no right to get married, or whales are just fish and they taste good (although I suppose that depends on whose table you're sitting at).

But if you say you've just swapped out all the halogen downlights in your house for glow worms that you feed with the scraps from your organic vegie garden, it's garaunteed to boost you in the kudos stakes. If you're a single bloke, it might even get you somewhere with the ladies, or the men if that's your thing.

[Grunt]

My inclination is to believe that the changing climate is man made.

If you look at the exponential growth in the human population over the last 100 years and the number of ecological disasters that us humans have perpetrated on the earth in that time, it's not too hard to believe we are the cause of global warming. Especially considering the amount of fossil fuels we burn and have burnt in that time.


Introduction of weed species. This has and continues to devastate natural environments. Think Cane Toad.
Marine Pollution and over fishing. See this thread. (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=54350) Coral Reefs Dieing (http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/08/070808082051.htm). Fished Out. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html)
Unsustainable agriculture. Dead Zone Gulf of Mexico (http://www.fishingnj.org/artdedzn.htm) , Loss of Top soil, desertification, increasing salinity.
Water. Draw down on the worlds aquifers, pollution seeping into the aquifers, polluted rivers.
Deforestation and habitat loss. At an astounding rate, the worlds forests are being cut down for wood, for agricultural land.
Air pollution. Have a look at some of the pictures of Beijing, Melbourne and Sydney on a still day.There are countless other examples where man has had large scale environmentally adverse interactions with the planet.

I think global warming is another.

[Gra]

Cool Grunt and Silent on opposing sides of an argument. Where did that beanbag go.

[silentC]

Undoubtedly there are examples of bad things we have done. It does not follow that every bad thing that happens is caused by us.

Undoubtedly there is evidence to suggest that reintroducing carbon into the atmosphere contributes to the greenhouse effect. That this causes global warming and thus brings about climate change is a currently popular theory. It is not the only theory. It is based on scientific observation and is supported by a large number of scientists (perhaps the majority?). That does not make it true. There is a certain probability that they are wrong, just as there is a probability that they are right. Like black holes, evolution, big bang - it is a popular working theory.

If it gets people to reassess their behaviour, then it is a good thing for ''the environment" (that's another phrase that has taken on a life of it's own). Whether it's a good thing for science remains to be seen. I'd hate to think we stopped asking questions and poking holes in theories because it just became too hard to fight the establishment.

[Sebastiaan56]

But if you say you've just swapped out all the halogen downlights in your house for glow worms that you feed with the scraps from your organic vegie garden, it's garaunteed to boost you in the kudos stakes.

OK thats commitment, beats my feeble efforts.

Recommend that the learned assembly listen to the replay of house of reps question time. There is a series of questions by Peter Garret (Pete...) to the PM (Johnny...) that ends in the best punchline, its not often anyone let alone Johnny cops one that good, It'll be podcast here soon, http://webcast.aph.gov.au/livebroadcasting/

Sebastiaan

[Grunt]

Despite Gra wanting to sit on his bean bag and eat some popcorn, I'm not really inclined to have yet another debate on Man Made Climate change for it will give the deniers more air space than deserved. The time to act is now.

I will post these links for those who have yet to make up their minds.

Newsweek. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20122975/site/newsweek/)
New Scientist
(http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19426041.100-the-7-biggest-myths-about-climate-change.html)The Denial Machine.
(http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/denialmachine/index.html)

[bitingmidge]

But if you say you've just swapped out all the halogen downlights in your house for glow worms that you feed with the scraps from your organic vegie garden,

Been there, done that.

Geckos ate 'em all.

P
:oo:

[reeves]

this ones interesting, some scientists call on Gore to go easy on the alarmism,

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/13/news/gore.php?page=


From some scientists, a call to Gore to temper the alarm

Hollywood has a thing for Al Gore and his three-alarm film on global warming, "An Inconvenient Truth," which won an Academy Award for best documentary. So do many environmentalists, who praise him as a visionary, and many scientists, who laud him for raising public awareness of climate change.

But part of his scientific audience is uneasy. In talks, articles and blog entries that have appeared since his film and accompanying book came out last year, these scientists argue that some of Gore's central points are exaggerated or erroneous. They are alarmed, some say, at what they call his alarmism.

"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," Don Easterbrook, an emeritus professor of geology at Western Washington University, told hundreds of experts at the annual meeting of the Geological Society of America. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."

Gore, in an e-mail exchange about the critics, said his work made "the most important and salient points" about climate change, if not "some nuances and distinctions" scientists might want. "The degree of scientific consensus on global warming has never been stronger," he said, adding, "I am trying to communicate the essence of it in the lay language that I understand."

Although Gore is not a scientist, he does rely heavily on the authority of science in "An Inconvenient Truth," which is why scientists are sensitive to its details and claims. Criticisms of Gore have come not only from conservative groups and prominent skeptics of catastrophic warming, but also from rank-and-file scientists like Easterbook, who told his peers that he had no political ax to grind. A few see natural variation as more central to global warming than heat-trapping gases. Many appear to occupy a middle ground in the climate debate, seeing human activity as a serious threat but challenging what they call the extremism of both skeptics and zealots.

Typically, the concern is not over the existence of climate change, or the idea that the human production of heat-trapping gases is partly or largely to blame for the globe's recent warming. The question is whether Gore has gone beyond the scientific evidence.

"An Inconvenient Truth," directed by Davis Guggenheim, was released last May and took in more than $46 million, making it one of the top-grossing documentaries ever. The companion book by Gore quickly became a best-seller, reaching No. 1 on The New York Times' list.

Gore depicted a future in which temperatures soar, ice sheets melt, seas rise, hurricanes batter the coasts and people die en masse. "Unless we act boldly," he wrote, "our world will undergo a string of terrible catastrophes."

[sawdustmike]

Why bother! Unless the Chinese, Indians, Yanks, Europeans et al get on board we are just P#ssing in the wind. We (Aussies) can all reject electricity, automobiles and anything else that generates excess gas and the world would not know it. I personally cannot for the life of me, imagine that any of the above are going to change their ways. In the end, the Earth will just do a big hiccup and mammalian life will be wiped out which will then let the cockroaches and nature regain their rightful place, albeit over several million years.

Happy woodworking (sustainably of course).

[Matt88s]

You are kidding I hope.

You are kidding as well I hope? :q

[silentC]

I'm not really inclined to have yet another debate on Man Made Climate change for it will give the deniers more air space than deserved.
This is my point. You can't divide people into deniers and supporters. Yes, there are people who deny that climate change is a man-made phenomenon, there are people who deny that climate change is occurring at all. I think these people are in the minority. There are also people who are adamant that climate change is man made and that we can stop or reverse it by minimising our 'carbon footprint'.

I've decided not to be in either of these camps. I don't think it's possible to know whether or not the symptoms are man-made. I don't think it's possible to know that they're not. If I have to say what theory I favour, it's that climate change is part of a natural process but that we are compounding it by the way we conduct our lives. I don't have a lot of faith that we will be able to stop what is happening. I'm not even sure we can slow it down, but it's definitely worth doing something to clean up our act. I think that if the 'scare mongering' makes people think about what they are doing and helps popularise efficient use of energy, then it's probably doing more good than harm.

However I think that the majority of people don't give enough of a damn to actually change their habits. Maybe the path we are taking with this climate change 'industry' is the right one because it's forcing governments to legislate.

What I am objecting to is the shouting down of alternate theories because they contradict the popular concensus. As a lady said last night on the ABC, science is not about concensus. There are many, many examples of the concensus being proved wrong. Science is about observation and constantly asking questions. The climate change bandwagon is picking up steam and if you don't climb aboard, you will be left behind. I think it would be very bad if we all decided, OK that's all we need to know about it, so let's build everything else we do from now on that assumption.

[silentC]

You are kidding as well I hope?
No, I'm sorry but I am not.


We should be focusing on being the best people we can and living life to the best of our ability and helping people around us, so that when that demolition date comes up we won't be scheduled for destruction ourselves to make room for the new beautification project.
This belief frankly worries me quite deeply, because I know a lot of people hold it, including some people who are in power. Leaving aside the religious aspects, because we don't want to get into that here, the fundamental message from that is to put your hands over your eyes and do nothing.

[Sebastiaan56]

However I think that the majority of people don't give enough of a damn to actually change their habits. Maybe the path we are taking with this climate change 'industry' is the right one because it's forcing governments to legislate.

Unfortunately this is the only way sufficient change is going to happen. The horizon is to far away for most people to grasp, one election cycle is too far.


What I am objecting to is the shouting down of alternate theories because they contradict the popular concensus. As a lady said last night on the ABC, science is not about concensus. There are many, many examples of the concensus being proved wrong. Science is about observation and constantly asking questions.Fair enuff, but after 30 odd years of detailed observation the science is reasonably coherent. What is being applied is called the "Precautionary Principle".


This belief frankly worries me quite deeply, because I know a lot of people hold it, including some people who are in power. Leaving aside the religious aspects, because we don't want to get into that here, the fundamental message from that is to put your hands over your eyes and do nothing.I think the idea that some cosmic daddy is going to punish the naughty kids and give the good kids lollies is pure pap. What we need is adults who can take reponsibility for themselves, their actions and ultimately the future of their species. Anything else is a fantasy driven cop out. Even if there were a god he/she made humans stewards, not infants,

Sebastiaan

[silentC]

after 30 odd years of detailed observation the science is reasonably coherent
And yet there are quite a few well-respected scientists and other observers who offer alternative theories. 30 years isn't really a very long time when you are examining cycles that can take thousands of years. I don't know much of the science at all and I'm not even going to try to debate on that level. I hear some of the dissent though and feel that it shouldn't be dismissed as 'denial'. It's a label that gets bandied about too much and carries connotations of blind ignorance. Stories like this one (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/aliens-in-the-house-from-the-planet-propaganda/2007/08/13/1186857427057.html) are the concern. I don't really care much if people want to make politicians look silly but there is going to be a tendency for people who present alternate theories to be written off as nutters - and no doubt the report referred to was produced by someone with a scientific interest in the subject. Probably much like the people who first proposed that the earth orbits the sun - not saying that the alternate theories have similar weight in fact just a comment on the way they are treated.

[Sebastiaan56]

And yet there are quite a few well-respected scientists and other observers who offer alternative theories. 30 years isn't really a very long time when you are examining cycles that can take thousands of years. I don't know much of the science at all and I'm not even going to try to debate on that level. I hear some of the dissent though and feel that it shouldn't be dismissed as 'denial'. It's a label that gets bandied about too much and carries connotations of blind ignorance. Stories like this one (http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/aliens-in-the-house-from-the-planet-propaganda/2007/08/13/1186857427057.html) are the concern. I don't really care much if people want to make politicians look silly but there is going to be a tendency for people who present alternate theories to be written off as nutters - and no doubt the report referred to was produced by someone with a scientific interest in the subject. Probably much like the people who first proposed that the earth orbits the sun - not saying that the alternate theories have similar weight in fact just a comment on the way they are treated.

That exchange was the one I referred to yesterday, finally a belly laugh from the pimple on the hill.

I agree on the personal attack point, populism at work, mob rule. Humanity at its worst, let go invade somewhere.....

I agree 30 years vs several hundred million is a short snapshot, the warming is happening, fact. The cause, well... the circumstantial evidence... But the Ozone layer depletion work and the international response also lends credence to atmospheric science, no I am definitely an atmospheric scientist. I get my information from the same places as everyone else.

So how do we respond if the preferred cause becomes even less controllable? eg wobble in the orbit? hmmmm...


Sebastiaan

[silentC]

So how do we respond if the preferred cause becomes even less controllable? eg wobble in the orbit?
Then we defer to Matt88s' advice as there's nothing we can do!

[Sebastiaan56]

Then we defer to Matt88s' advice as there's nothing we can do!

oh dear, lets not go there.....

Sebastiaan

[woodbe]

And yet there are quite a few well-respected scientists and other observers who offer alternative theories. 30 years isn't really a very long time when you are examining cycles that can take thousands of years

Yes, it is a short time, and yes there are dissenting views. No problem with that at all.

What is significant is the change in scientific opinion over the last 5-10 years. It's not that long ago that the climate change scientific disbelievers were in the majority...

woodbe.

[silentC]

There is an argument that goes along the lines of "scientists have no job without funding - funding is scarce - popular projects attract more funding" etc.. :)

[bitingmidge]

I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:

P
:D

[Sebastiaan56]

I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:


Thanks for that Noah, do you take AMEX?

Sebastiaan

[Grunt]

There's not a lot of room in Midge's ark, so he's only taking one of each species.

[Bleedin Thumb]

There's not a lot of room in Midge's ark, so he's only taking one of each species.


That will make for a very short lived monoculture.... or some interesting cross breeding.:oo:

BTW Midge you don't have to worry about the freeboard just remember to let out the anchor rope a bit.

[reeves]

this on is a bit of a classic, proof that some of Al Gores 'facts' in his movie are quite wrong and proof that NASA has been fudging figures on the GW issue for some time...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/


NASA weather error sparks global warming debate

1998 no longer hottest year in US

By Austin Modine in Mountain View (http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2007/08/14/nasa_weather_error/) <small class="MoreByAuthor">→ More by this author (http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Austin%20Modine)</small>
<small>Published Tuesday 14th August 2007 20:28 GMT</small>
Find your perfect job - click here from thousands of tech vacancies (http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;39093442;13533154;c?http://www.jobsite.co.uk/) Conservative blogs were alight last week when they turned up an error in NASA's methods for recording US temperatures. As a result, it has been concluded that 1934, not 1998, was America's hottest year on record.
The problem was caught when blogger, Stephen McIntyre (http://www.climateaudit.org/) of <cite>Climate Audit</cite>, crunched the numbers from NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies for himself. McIntyre found that apparently an error was affecting the data for the years 2000 through 2006.
<script type="text/javascript"> document.write('\x3Cscript src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;'+RegExCats+GetVCs()+'pid='+RegId+';'+RegKW+'maid='+maid+';test='+test+';pf='+RegPF+';dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=' + rand + '?" type="text/javascript">\x3C\/script>'); </script><script src="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/adj/reg.science.4159/space;vc=sci.space;pid=68786;kw=weather;kw=nasa;kw=error;kw=global;kw=warming;maid=;test=;pf=0;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=98562781748558260?" type="text/javascript"></script><iframe src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/iview/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903?click=http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3f" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" topmargin="0" leftmargin="0" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" height="250" scrolling="no" width="300"> &lt;a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903"/&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;noscript&gt;&lt;a href="http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/click%3Bh=v8/35af/3/0/%2a/o%3B124311318%3B0-0%3B0%3B13500686%3B4252-336/280%3B22034810/22052700/1%3B%3B%7Esscs%3D%3fhttp://clk.atdmt.com/AUM/go/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" target="_blank"&gt;&lt;img border="0" src="http://view.atdmt.com/AUM/view/rspnvait0060000021aum/direct/01/2355903" /&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/noscript&gt;</iframe> <noscript> http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/ad/reg.science.4159/space;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=71Gid9Rk6jcAAEmo4vsAAAG5? (http://ad.uk.doubleclick.net/jump/reg.science.4159/space;dcove=d;sz=336x280;tile=3;ord=71Gid9Rk6jcAAEmo4vsAAAG5?) </noscript>
Or more accurately, after 1999, the data wasn't being fractionally adjusted to compensate for the time of day or location from where the data was being gathered. McIntyre emailed his discovery to NASA's Goddard Institute, which prompted the data review.
The data correction reduced the mean US temperature by about 0.15 ºC for the years 2000 through 2006, for an average of 0.66 ºC. The news was a delight to global warming naysayers — such as the conservative blogger Noel Sheppard (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/13/how-important-nasa-s-change-historical-climate-data-last-week) at <cite>NewsBusters</cite> —who claimed it refutes a key tenet of the global warming "myth" advanced by Al Gore that nine of the ten warmest years in history have occurred since 1995. They also claim the lack of coverage on the mistake indicates a liberal media cover-up.
The new top 10 hottest years in the US are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
Global warming skeptics point out that now four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.

[Sebastiaan56]

They also claim the lack of coverage on the mistake indicates a liberal media cover-up.
The new top 10 hottest years in the US are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939.
Global warming skeptics point out that now four of the country's 10 warmest years were in the 1930s.

During the Depression, figures, as if things werent tough enough.... Good post Reeves,

Sebastiaan

[Sebastiaan56]

Its also worth reading what the IPCC have published on the subject. This paper isnt terribly heavy going but lays out the science clearly,

http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_TS.pdf

Sebastiaan

[reeves]

Sebastian i have collected the various IPCC reports and read through them, some are pretty heavy going. I became interested in their process of 'consensus' and found a fair bit of comment from scientists on the panel about that, some of whom had resigned from the IPCC process citing political interference.. check this post from Dr Landsea, a former member of the IPCC panel http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/science_policy_general/000318chris_landsea_leaves.html
Dear colleagues, After some prolonged deliberation, I have decided to withdraw from participating in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized. In addition, when I have raised my concerns to the IPCC leadership, their response was simply to dismiss my concerns. With this open letter to the community, I wish to explain the basis for my decision and bring awareness to what I view as a problem in the IPCC process. The IPCC is a group of climate researchers from around the world that every few years summarize how climate is changing and how it may be altered in the future due to manmade global warming. I had served both as an author for the Observations chapter and a Reviewer for the 2nd Assessment Report in 1995 and the 3rd Assessment Report in 2001, primarily on the topic of tropical cyclones (hurricanes and typhoons). My work on hurricanes, and tropical cyclones more generally, has been widely cited by the IPCC. For the upcoming AR4, I was asked several weeks ago by the Observations chapter Lead Author - Dr. Kevin Trenberth - to provide the writeup for Atlantic hurricanes. As I had in the past, I agreed to assist the IPCC in what I thought was to be an important, and politically-neutral determination of what is happening with our climate. I have also collected vast amounts of web links and data and read through Flannerys Weathermakers book and seen Al Gores Movie as well the GW Swindle movie. On other forums I have setup a skepticsm thread to collate various GW sketic issue

http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=45483#p45483

as well responding to various media on the issue

http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=58770#p58770

at the moment i am just reserving my own judgment on the GW issue and trolling thorugh the dozens of goodle news feeds that fall into my mailbox everyday. Sure is an interesting issue...

heres another quote from a member of the IPCC panel..

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3111/


Kellow, who before heading up government studies in Tasmania was Professor of Social Sciences in the Australian School of Environmental Studies at Griffith University, is less than impressed. ‘They really do emphasise the bad news. They’re looking for bad news in all of this. This will be a warmer and wetter world according to the models. But if you look at this report, which is still to be finalised, it would seem that no rain will fall in any form that’s at all useful. You’ll have droughts, torrential rain, storms.’

Even though he has participated in the IPCC process (he was a referee for Chapter 19 in the IPCC’s report, which covers ‘Key Vulnerabilities and Risk Assessment’), Kellow is exasperated by the way in which critical responses to chapters are dealt with. He has noted elsewhere the criticisms he made to the IPCC about the way in which negative effects are overstated and the ability to adapt is understated. Yet he says: ‘I’m not holding my breath for this criticism to be taken on board, which underscores a fault in the whole peer review process for the IPCC: there is no chance of a chapter [of the IPCC report] ever being rejected for publication, no matter how flawed it might be.’

For Kellow, the IPCC process is hopelessly politicised. ‘The scientists are in there but it is, after all, called the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The scientists are there at the nomination of governments. Governments fund the exercise and sign-off on it ultimately’, he tells me. Kellow sees more mileage in the Asia-Pacific Partnership or AP6 (Australia, China, India, Japan, South Korea and the United States), which takes the approach of developing new technologies rather than adopting the Kyoto approach of emissions reductions.

So it seems that IPCC scientists who are critical of the 'consensus' process or who dont agree with the stance taken in the report are ignored or ostracised.

The final report is not put together by scientists but by clerks, editors and information officers..as pointe don in the GW Swindle movie, as an arm of the UN, the IPCC is a political organisation with political aims...

[reeves]

This a beauty

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/18/california-s-global-warming-watchdog-owns-oil-coal-utility-stocks

California’s Global Warming Watchdog Owns Oil, Coal and Utility Stocks

<!-- start main content -->
(http://newsbusters.org/user/26)
<small>By Noel Sheppard (http://newsbusters.org/bios/noel-sheppard.html) | August 18, 2007 - 18:26 ET </small>

Here's a headline you'd never expect to see:

Global Warming Watchdog Invests in Oil, Coal, Utilities Think I'm kidding? Well, check the link (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/WARMING.TMP). Making the issue that much more delicious, it was the leading front-page story in Saturday's San Francisco Chronicle (emphasis added throughout):

The new chair of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell, as well as a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, according to economic interest statements she filed this week.
She also owns stock in the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., along with utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her attorney husband, John Daum, who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Aug. 14 with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
Hehehehe. I'm verklempt. Talk amongst yourselves.



http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/08/18/WARMING.TMP


Global warming watchdog invests in oil, coal, utilities

Investments will be put in a blind trust, chairwoman of Air Resources Board says


Matthew Yi, Chronicle Sacramento Bureau (myi@sfchronicle.com)
Saturday, August 18, 2007
<script language="javascript"><!-- OAS_RICH('x90'); //--></script>


<!--/.toolset-->
<!--/.articletools--> <script type="text/javascript" language="javascript"> sfgate_get_fprefs(); </script>(08-18) 04:00 PDT Sacramento -- The new chair of the California Air Resources Board owns stocks in several oil, coal and utility firms, some of which are likely to be affected by rules the agency implements as part of the state's groundbreaking law to fight global warming, The Chronicle has learned.
Mary Nichols' stock holdings include shares in oil giants Chevron Corp., BP and Royal Dutch Shell, as well as a stake in a Bermuda tanker company that transports crude oil, according to economic interest statements she filed this week.
She also owns stock in the world's largest coal company, Peabody Energy Corp., along with utilities including Edison International, whose subsidiary, Southern California Edison, serves most of the Southern California electricity market.
In total, she and her attorney husband, John Daum, who represents Exxon in the ongoing Exxon Valdez oil-spill case, have a financial stake in 13 energy-related firms in a diversified stock portfolio that contains 84 companies, according to statements she filed on Aug. 14 with the state Fair Political Practices Commission.
The air board is expected to consider wide-ranging regulations that will affect what kind of fuel motorists pump into their vehicles and help dictate what sources of energy utility companies can use to generate electricity.
Nichols told The Chronicle this week that she realized there would be a conflict of interest when she filled out the economic disclosure form shortly after Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger announced her appointment on July 3. But rather than divest in those companies, she said she plans to place her investments in a blind trust and plans to have that in place before the next air board meeting, which is set for Sept. 27.
"I think it's a wise policy for regulators to divest themselves from holdings in companies that they regulate," said Sierra Club lobbyist Bill Magavern. "It's important to avoid any conflict of interest, and it's important to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest."
However, in late July, Nichols presided over two days of board meetings, one of which resulted in the adoption of regulations to limit emissions on off-road diesel vehicles such as construction equipment.
She said she didn't believe her stock holdings in oil companies were in conflict with her action because the regulations affect construction equipment owners and not fuel companies.
However, air board spokesman Leo Kay said Friday that the agency's general counsel office is "considering that issue as we speak." The general counsel was unaware of Nichols' stock ownership until a Chronicle reporter called Thursday afternoon to ask about her potential conflict of interest.
This is not the first time Nichols has disclosed extensive stock holdings while working in government. She owned shares in Chevron, Valero Energy Corp., Enron Corp. and other energy firms when she served as Resources Agency secretary under then-Gov. Gray Davis and sat on the California Coastal Commission as a Davis appointee before his recall in 2003.
Nichols said there was no reason to set up a blind trust at that time because she believed there was no conflict as secretary of the resources agency since her job was to advise the governor rather than make policy or regulatory decisions. On the Coastal Commission, it was easy to recuse herself from matters because the commission's actions usually affected individual companies, she said.
"But at the Air Resources Board, we rarely pass a rule that affects just one company," she said. "And with the new responsibility of implementing AB32, we will likely develop regulations that likely will affect every single sector."
That's why she believes setting up a blind trust is the prudent option at this time, Nichols said. Blind trusts have been a method of choice for handling personal investments for some public officials, including Schwarzenegger.
Five of the stock ownerships she disclosed in her recent statements, including the Chevron stock, are worth between $100,001 and $1 million each, and 78 of them are each worth between $10,001 and $100,000, according to the disclosure filing. The fair market value and nature of investment for a banking firm was not included in her statement.
"This is family money, and it's a joint decision (between my husband and me), and the decision is to invest it for the best long-term yield for us and our family," Nichols said.
Some state Capitol observers were surprised that Nichols, who is highly regarded in the environmental community as a longtime environmental lawyer who served on the air board three decades ago under then-Gov. Jerry Brown, would own shares in oil and coal firms.
"My perception is that she is a living legend in the environmental community, and I would have bet that she would have a greener portfolio," said Barbara O'Connor, director of Sacramento State University's Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media.
John Pitney, Jr., political science professor at Claremont McKenna College, said while not every public official's personal finances should be raised as an issue, higher profile positions do matter at least in public perception and a chairmanship on the state air board is one of them.
The air board's responsibility to implement AB32 has elevated the agency's status, and it came under scrutiny earlier this summer when Schwarzenegger fired then-chairman Robert Sawyer after he tried to enact more pollution-saving measures than the three approved by the governor's staff.
Sawyer's firing was followed by the resignation of the air board's executive director, placing the agency in further turmoil and causing Democratic lawmakers and environmental groups to question the governor's commitment to fight global warming. Within a week, Schwarzenegger announced Nichols as Sawyer's replacement, drawing praise from those same critics.
Her appointment requires confirmation by the state Senate, which has a year to make that decision.
Andrew LaMar, a spokesman for state Senate President Pro Tem Don Perata, D-Oakland, who chairs the rules committee, said the committee "will take a look at her holdings in vetting her appointment as the chair of the Air Resources Board."
While he said it is encouraging that Nichols is considering creating a blind trust, LaMar said the "public has a right to know what the financial interests are for officials who are representing them."

<!--/articlecontent --> This article appeared on page A - 1 of the San Francisco Chronicle

[reeves]

Looks like good ol NASA is copping some serious flak for being so wrong in it's climate measurements.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/08/global_warming_bureaucrat_hans.html


When a freelance investigator finds serious flaws in the work of prominent scientists receiving hundreds of millions of dollars for taxpayer-funded research, there is a great cause for concern. Undoubtedly, this incident will trigger an avalanche of investigators taking a closer look at the work of these researchers. Just as Ward Churchill's inflammatory remarks put his work under a microscope, Hansen and NASA should expect the same in the days ahead. There is a conspicuous lack of transparency in his methodology and data. He will come under pressure to release everything so that other reaearchers can have at it.

Probably not good news for pro CC/GW supporters as it indicates that a lot of the data their views are based on may be innaccurate but definatlely good news for those labelled as skeptics who have always felt and copped a lot of flak for holding the view that the 'consensus' may wrong and that there is more to be learnt about the issue.

It means there just might be more openess and transparency in future in terms of who can analyse what data is collected by mainstream organisations such as NASA.

[kiwigeo]

I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:

P
:D

You could try pulling up the anchor :D

[weisyboy]

we could just breed that bacteria (Cyanobacteria) that caused the last ice age. I am doing my share with the old plates and tea cups in the shed they seam to be growing green furry stuff.

as far as im consernd man made global warmig is just a big load of crap.

the tempriture is rising yes but the enviroment goes in cycles you just watch pretty soon they will be telling us that there is global cooling.

what i cant understand is how can global worming cause more droughts AND more floods it has to be one or the other you cant have both.

[Ashore]

I was thinking with rising sea levels and stuff, my boat only has 18" of free board. If the sea level rises any more than that, I'm a goner! :oo: :oo: :oo:

P
:D
But only at high tide, low tide should be ok :doh:

[pawnhead]

Looks like good ol NASA is copping some serious flak for being so wrong in it's climate measurements.I wouldn't exactly say that they are 'so wrong'. It could be a conspiracy, or it could be an honest mistake. Regardless of this, apart from the fact that it changes the 'record year' (but only just), it has very little impact on the statistics as a whole. To put it in perspective, it changes this (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/08/gissusold.png) to this (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/08/gissusnew.png) and I can't tell the difference.
There's also the fact that the US only comprises 2&#37; of the Earths surface, so the change that this error makes to global statistics is illustrated here (http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2007/08/befaft.jpg).

Of course finding a statistical error is something for the skeptics to crow about, regardless of how inconsequential it may be. OMG It's a conspiracy! :oo:

Sources:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/08/global_warming_totally_disprov.php
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/08/12/before-and-after/

And here (http://www.bom.gov.au/web01/ncc/www/cli_chg/timeseries/tmean/0112/aus/latest.gif) is a graph for Australia from BOM.

[Colin Howkins]

The impact we humans make is infintessimal. I'd like all the GW aficanados to answer this. up to about the 11 century Greenland supported extensive agricultural cropping. The north of England had grape vines - why because it was warmer then. Now who was driving the cars and the powerhouses back then??

The world has continually gone through warm & cool periods. The earth's orbit about the sunis not as fixed as people thing, It moves out by a couple fo thousand kilometers - it gets colder, it moves in gets warmer. The polititians can legislate till there balck in the face and they wont' stop that

Colin Howkins
Graceville Qld:o

[Sebastiaan56]

It means there just might be more openess and transparency in future in terms of who can analyse what data is collected by mainstream organisations such as NASA.


Hi Reeves,

I wish, but I doubt it, spin and lies will continue, sifting through the data to produce information is the key. I seriously doubt that all the data will be published, we will see

[reeves]

theres more interesting and well researched material from Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University.

http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/Carter/AIE%20Melbourne%203.rtf (http://www.aie.org.au/melb/material/Carter/AIE&#37;20Melbourne%203.rtf)


Ten facts about Climate Change they don't want you to know


1. Climate has always changed, and always will. The assumption that prior to the industrial revolution the Earth had a "stable" climate is simply wrong. The only sensible thing to do about climate change is to prepare for it.

2. Accurate temperature measurements made from weather balloons and satellites since the late 1950s show no significant atmospheric warming or cooling since then. In contrast, averaged ground-based thermometers record a warming of about 0.40 C over the same time period. Many scientists believe that the thermometer record is biased by the Urban Heat Island effect.

3. Despite the expenditure of more than US$40 billion dollars on climate research since 1990, no unambiguous anthropogenic (human) signal has been identified in the global temperature pattern.

4. Without the greenhouse effect, the average surface temperature on Earth would be -180 C rather than the equable +150 C that has nurtured the development of life.

Carbon dioxide is a minor greenhouse gas, responsible for ~3.6% of the total greenhouse effect, of which only a miniscule 0.12% can be attributed to human activity. (Water, at ~95% of the effect, is by far the most important component in the atmosphere; what was that about hydrogen-powered cars?)

5. On both annual (1 year) and geological (up to 100,000 year) time scales, changes in temperature PRECEDE changes in CO2. Carbon dioxide therefore cannot be the primary forcing agent for temperature increase (though increasing CO2 does cause a mild positive temperature feedback).

6. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has been the main scaremonger for the global warming lobby, leading to the Kyoto Protocol. Fatally, the IPCC is a political, not scientific, body.

Hendrik Tennekes, recently retired as Director of Research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute, says that "the IPCC review process is fatally flawed" and that "the IPCC wilfully ignores the paradigm shift created by the foremost meteorologist of the twentieth century, Edward Lorenz".

7. The Kyoto Protocol will cost up to 100 trillion dollars, will have a devastating effect on the economies of those countries that have signed it, but will deliver no significant cooling (less than .020 C by 2050).

The Russian Academy of Sciences says that Kyoto has no scientific basis; Andre Illarianov, senior advisor to Russian president Putin, calls Kyoto-ism "one of the most agressive, intrusive, destructive ideologies since the collapse of communism and fascism". If Kyoto is a "first step", it is in the wrong direction.

8. Climate change is a non-linear (chaotic) process, some parts of which are only dimly or not at all understood. No deterministic computer model will ever be able to make an accurate prediction of climate 100 years into the future.

9. Not surprisingly, therefore, experts in computer modelling agree also that no current (or likely near-future) climate model will be able to make accurate predictions of regional climate change. Australian State Premiers please take note.

10. The biggest untruth about human global warming is the assertion that nearly all scientists agree that it is occurring, and at a dangerous rate.

The reality is that almost every aspect of climate science is the subject of vigorous debate. And thousands of qualified scientists worldwide have signed declarations which (i) query the evidence for human-caused warming and (ii) support a rational scientific (not emotional) approach to its study.

Reference Material

Books

Boehmer-Christiansen, S. & Kellow, A. 2002 International Environmental Policy. Interests and the Failure of the Kyoto Protocol. Edward Elgar, 214 pp. (ISBN 1 84064818 X).
Burroughs, W. (ed.) 2003 Climate into the 21st Century. World Meteorological Organis. & Cambridge Univ. Press, 240 pp.
Crichton, M. 2004 State of Fear. HarperCollins, New York (ISBN 0-06-621413-0)
Essex, C. & McKitrick, R. 2002 Taken by Storm. The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming. Key Porter paperback (ISBN 1 55263 212 1, available from Amazon CANADA).
Gerhard, L.C. et al. 2001 Geological Perspectives of Global Climate Change. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, Studies in Geology #47 (ISBN 0 89181 053 6, available from AAPG website).
Gray, V. 2002 The Greenhouse Delusion A Critique of "Climate Change 2001". Multi-Science Publish. (ISBN 0 906522 14 5 • pp. 95 • &#163;11.50)
Houghton, J.T. et al. 2001 Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, Working Group 3, Third Assessment Report, Cambridge University Press, 881 pp.
Kininmonth, W. 2004 Climate Change: A Natural Hazard. Multi-Science Publish. (ISBN 0 906522 26 9 • pp. viii + 208 • &#163;39)
Labohm, H., Rozendaal, S & Thoenes, D. 2004 Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma. Multi-Science Publishing, 192 pp. (ISBN 0 906522 25 0)
McMichael,, P. J. 2004 Meltdown. The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media Cato Institute, 208 pp. (ISBN: 1-930865-59-7; order at http://www.catostore.org/index.asp)
Ruddiman, W.F. 2001 Earth's Climate, Past & Future. Freeman & Company, New York, 465 pp.

Recommended websites

www.john-daly.com/http://www.john-daly.com (http://www.john-daly.com/http://www.john-daly.com) (considered contrarian viewpoints)
www.co2science.org (http://www.co2science.org) (analysis and comment on climate-related issues)
academic.emporia.edu/aberjame/ice/lec19/holocene.htm#med_opt (climate over the last 10,000 years)
www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/nl2000_1.pdf (http://www.pages.unibe.ch/products/newsletters/nl2000_1.pdf) (PAGES - past global climate changes)
www.warwickhughes.com (http://www.warwickhughes.com) (considered contrarian viewpoints)
www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm (http://www.warwickhughes.com/hoyt/climate-change.htm) (Doug Hoyt’s critical analysis)
www.co2andclimate.org/climate (http://www.co2andclimate.org/climate) (analysis and comment on climate-related issues)
www.lavoisier.com.au (http://www.lavoisier.com.au) (discussion and links on greenhouse)
www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/trc.html (http://www.uoguelph.ca/%7Ermckitri/research/trc.html) (critical analysis of the famous hockey-stick graph)
www.scientific-alliance.org/events_items/past_events/19jandebate.htm (http://www.scientific-alliance.org/events_items/past_events/19jandebate.htm) (environmental analyses)
ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/212_fall2003.web.dir/Beth_Caissie/Milankovitch.htm (summary of Milankovitch theory)
www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20030320a.shtml (http://www.bom.gov.au/announcements/media_releases/ho/20030320a.shtml) (John Zillman World Climate address)
www.bom.gov.au (http://www.bom.gov.au) (Australian Bureau of Meteorology site; much high quality climate data)
www.numberwatch.co.uk (http://www.numberwatch.co.uk) (John Brignell on the unsound use of public statistics)
mclean.ch/climate/global_warming.htm (John McLean critical summary and links on global warming)
www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf (http://www.cspg.org/deFreitas_climate.pdf) (Chris de Freitas on CO2)
wwics.si.edu/index.cfm?fuseaction=wq.essay&essay_id=33083 (essay by Jack Hollander)
http://www.climateaudit.org (critical analysis of climate matters, but be aware that this is a "sceptics" site).
http://www.realclimate.org (good discussion and information, but be aware that this is a pro-GW site)
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/Carter2004_CLIMATEBROCHURE.pdf (views on climate change by 6 Australians)http://www.aie.org.au/pubs/Climate.doc
(http://www.aie.org.au/pubs/Climate.doc)


wouldn't exactly say that they are 'so wrong'. It could be a conspiracy, or it could be an honest mistake. Regardless of this, apart from the fact that it changes the 'record year' (but only just), it has very little impact on the statistics as a whole. To put it in perspective, it changes this (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/08/gissusold.png) to this (http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/upload/2007/08/gissusnew.png) and I can't tell the difference.

good points Pawnhead, NASA is certainly downplaying the level of error as irrelevant and the skeptics camp has latched on onto it. It does raise questions though about the integrity of their process and the implied integrity of people who have used those figures to promote GW alarmism such as Al Gore.

It may well have been an honest mistake from NASA, but then so was not looking at the heatproof tiles more closley on the belly of the last space shuttle that exploded upon re-entry ;-)

[Studley 2436]

There's not a lot of room in Midge's ark, so he's only taking one of each species.

One asian chick one african chick one swede chick.............................

Studley

[ptc]

Reeves
thanks for the info.

[pawnhead]

It may well have been an honest mistake from NASA, but then so was not looking at the heatproof tiles more closley on the belly of the last space shuttle that exploded upon re-entry ;-)I don't think that you're suggesting that that was some sort of conspiracy, so I'd have to agree with you in that a minor inconsequential error has taken on catastrophic proportions when placed in the hands of the skeptics. :wink:

[kiwigeo]

The world has continually gone through warm & cool periods. The earth's orbit about the sunis not as fixed as people thing, It moves out by a couple fo thousand kilometers - it gets colder, it moves in gets warmer. The polititians can legislate till there balck in the face and they wont' stop that



Fluctuations in climate due to variations in the track of the earth around the sun and variations in the planets axis of rotation (you left that one out) are easy to seperate from climatic fluctuations due to other factors. You can measure the orientation of the earths axis of rotation and you can measure the current position of the planet in relation to the sun.

When you talk about climate change you should always state over what time scale youre talking. Climate change is like tracking the stock market. If you only tracked the ASX over a 17 day period up to mid last week youd say were heading for a major recession. If you pan out and look at the stock market over the last 20 years you see a totally different picture....you see an overal rising trend but within that trend you see smaller scale dips and rises. Its the same with tracking climate change over time. Over time weve had multiple periods of glacials and intervening interglacial periods. The last ice age ended circa 10,000 years ago. Within each glacial or interglacial however there have been smaller scale fluctuations such as Europe's periods of cooler climate over the periods 1150-1460 and 1560-1850.

Cheers Martin (Geologist)

[reeves]

In what is possibly a good example of the greenhouse gas solution carbon 'offestting' gone too far, moose populations are being used an example of a contributor to global warming. Apparently one moose in a year will release the same amount of of greenhouse gases as a road trip around australia in an average sized car.

The solution, help save the planet, shoot a moose today!

http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,819135,00.jpg

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22296732-26040,00.html


Moose emissions put wind up Norwegians

Roger Boyes, Berlin | August 24, 2007

THEY are dubbed the "Kings of the Forest" and are regarded by Norwegians as their national symbol.

Now, though, scientists have calculated that because of their increased burping and farting, the placid moose is an eco-killer.

During a single year, according to the latest research, a full-grown moose expels -- from both ends of its body -- the methane equivalent of 2100kg of carbon dioxide emissions.

That is as destructive for the atmosphere as the emissions released by 13,000km of car travel.

"To put it into perspective, the return flight from Oslo to Santiago in Chile leaves a carbon footprint of 880 kilos," said biologist Reidar Andersen.

"Shoot a moose and you have saved the equivalent of two long-haul flights."

The findings, from the technical university in Trondheim, place Scandinavians in a dilemma. Many are dedicated winter tourists to Asian destinations such as Bali and Thailand.

Is shooting moose about to become a fashionable way of easing their troubled environmental consciences?

Researchers in Scotland and Wales have been examining how the feeding of dairy cows could be changed to cut back their gaseous belching. No such work has been possible, however, on Norway's 120,000 wild moose.

Already, though, climate change has so altered their eating habits that they are involved in an environmentally vicious circle of increasing gas emissions. It began when snows started to recede in Norway.

"Moose normally eat branches in the winter, a not particularly nutritious diet," said Erling Solberg of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research. "But since snow has become so much rarer, they have access to wild blueberries."

The result has been fatter moose that are more likely to break wind.

Moreover, better-fed, the moose have started to reproduce more quickly and the herds are swelling.

Last winter, there were reports of moose straying into towns in search of yet more food -- eating Christmas decorations and smashing shop windows to reach displayed vegetables.

Norwegians are pleading for higher hunt quotas to keep the moose numbers down and their emissions under control.

The hunting season begins on September 25 and the authorities have allowed a kill quota of 35,000.

"Think of it this way: remove a moose from the world and you have saved the equivalent of 36 flights between Oslo and Trondheim," said Professor Andersen, who hunts moose and researches their gas output.

The Kyoto protocol counts a tonne of expelled methane equivalent to 21 tonnes of CO2. The World Resources Institute estimates that 14per cent of global greenhouse emissions are down to methane, a third of which is produced by cows and dung.

The Times
http://www.nowpublic.com/moose-methane-bothers-norwegians

Environment News
Moose Methane Bothers Norwegians

In spite of the fact that the moose is Norway's national symbol, Norwegians want to kill more of them to keep gas emissions under control. Scientists there claim that climate changes have led to the increased burping and farting of increasing numbers of moose, with one full-grown moose expelling (from both ends) the methane equivalent of 2,100 kg. of carbon dioxide emissions. They say that a return flight from Oslo to Santiago, Chile, leaves a carbon footprint of 880 kilos. Shooting one moose saves the equivalent of two long-haul flights.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching

The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.

Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
DPA

Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas. Cows pose the same problem (more...).

Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article1949645.ece


Burping moose bad for the environment
Amidst all the talk about carbon dioxide emissions and global warming comes news that Norway's national mascot may be contributing to the destruction of the environment, through burping and other bodily functions.


The country's so-called "King of the Forest" hasn't been widely viewed as having any really nasty personal habits, surely none that could be considered an environmental threat.

But now some researchers linked to Norway's technical university (NTNU) in Trondheim contend that moose are responsible for tons of gas emissions a year through their frequent burping and, well, farting.

"Shoot a moose and save yourself a climate quota," joked moose researcher (and moose hunter) Reidar Andersen at NTNU to newspaper VG on Tuesday. He's published a book on the life of a moose.

And he's only half joking. The research web site www.forskning.no has calculated that the annual gas emissions from a moose are equal to those from an individual's 36 flights between Oslo and Trondheim.

A grown moose will burp and pass so much methane gas in the course of a year that it amounts to 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide emissions.

Newspaper VG reported that a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit the same.

Bacteria in a moose's stomach create the methane gas, which in turn breaks down the plant fibers the moose has eaten. Excess gas is (ahem) farted out, and methane gas is considered more destructive than carbon gas. Cows are also a source of such gas emissions, while pigs and chickens are more environmentally considerate.

VG reported that 120,000 moose wander around in Norwegian forests. This year's looming moose hunt (elgjakt), which begins September 25, will eliminate an estimated 35,000 of them.
so if your a moose, u better run !

does anyone wonder if humans actually produce more GG's than moose ?

[echnidna]

So obviously the Norwegians need Moosetraps :D

[Sebastiaan56]

Emissions from Cattle have been a CSIRO project for a number of years, some people get all the good jobs.....

[kiwigeo]

Note where it says that climate change has forced a change in the Mooses diet which in turn leads to greater CO2 output from the animals gut. In the same article you have the moose as a contributer to climate change and then in the same article you have the Moose as a victim of climate change. This is cr*p journalism and its diverting attention away from the real issue which is the effect that _humans_ have on the climate of this planet.

If humans suddenly disappeared from the planet then I doubt the Moose would have any impact on the world's climate at all. Human activity (including domesticated animals) contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere than every wild animal on the planet.

[kiwigeo]

For those of you who watched Martin Durkin's documentary "The Great Global Warming Swindle" have a read of the comments on this website and note in particular Durkin's response to errors in his documentary that he himself has acknowledged but has refused to amend.

http://www.climateofdenial.net/?q=node/3

[woodbe]

In what is possibly a good

TLDNR

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tldnr

People don't read long posts on the internets unless they are very, very interested in the topic.

Rather than just quoting acres of the internet, how about we save a few electrons on behalf of the planet...

woodbe.

[kiwigeo]

Alot of people seem to be able to afford the time to read the label on a beer bottle or spend an hour studying the form at Randwick.

I guess it boils down to what you think is important in your life.

Im a scientist so I guess I find the issue of climate change more interesting than most. Science has always had a problem conveying itself to the layman...its the white coat syndrome. Most scientists can talk their science to a fellow scientist till the cows come home but stick the same scientist in front of a layman and ask him to explain his science then few scientists can accomplish the task.

[reeves]

Note where it says that climate change has forced a change in the Mooses diet which in turn leads to greater CO2 output from the animals gut. In the same article you have the moose as a contributer to climate change and then in the same article you have the Moose as a victim of climate change. This is cr*p journalism and its diverting attention away from the real issue which is the effect that _humans_ have on the climate of this planet.

If humans suddenly disappeared from the planet then I doubt the Moose would have any impact on the world's climate at all. Human activity (including domesticated animals) contributes far more CO2 to the atmosphere than every wild animal on the planet.

Yes it is, but thats an example of what the GW issue has become. It's turned into a witchhunt where any scapegaot is a good one and the fundemental practices of modern human society are often ignored in the alarmist zealor thats been promoted far and wide on the issue.

I think the journalism in that article is fine, its points out whats happening, the mooses diet changes and the moose pumps out more gas than it did before, no fault of the moose. I posted 4 articles on the same issue to give some diversity to it in terms of examining news on GW.

I wonder if humans who live on a diet of freshly cooked moose will fart more ?

I wonder if you suggested hunting down a few billion humans to ease the strain on resources 'causing' GW, would you be very popular...


People don't read long posts on the internets unless they are very, very interested in the topic.

Rather than just quoting acres of the internet, how about we save a few electrons on behalf of the planet...


hahhah , i'll make em 4 times as long if want, i just posted the actual article sin the page to save people loading new pages to read em..besides its all moot really, or moose as the phrase would have it..

[pawnhead]

There's a lot more cows than moose around, and according to this article (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/07/04/do0403.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2004/07/04/ixop.html) "The methane produced by a single cow is equivalent to 2,622 kilos of carbon dioxide."

We need to take advantage of Cow Power (http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/03/032502t_cowpower.jhtml) and turn their dung into electricity. :2tsup:

[echnidna]

Apparently Roos don't produce methane.

Researchers have identified an enzyme in a roo's gut that may be usable in cows to prevent methane production

[woodbe]

Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in climate change, and I read a lot about it, but the internet discussion of the issue is generally polarised, and when people start posting big tracts of text onto internet forums, they're usually showing lots of stuff that supports their own opinion, and surprisingly, there is a lot more where that came from. Sends me to sleep...

And I don't read beer bottle labels or Randwick Form guides kiwego :)

woodbe.

[reeves]

, they're usually showing lots of stuff that supports their own opinion, and surprisingly, there is a lot more where that came from.


ahh yes its definatley my opinion that whole issue has gone way beyond the science and reached increasing levels of absurdity, hypocrisy and ignorance, hence the Moose post...i dont have any problem with people posting wads of text, the internet is not exactly short of it..

i get the google news feeds daily and post to a few other forums on the issue and it never ceases to amaze me the diverse angles to which this issue has grown to encompass, i have also read several books and watched most of the docos i could

heres some more posts with gargantuan wads of text, have a good snooze...;-)

http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=2433
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=3473
http://www.johnbutlertrio.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=61285#p61285

[Sebastiaan56]

Alot of people seem to be able to afford the time to read the label on a beer bottle or spend an hour studying the form at Randwick.

not for a while now, do horses product methane? I know I do,