Some of those I can understand but, "Also at large are the father and son team of Carlos and Allesandro Giordano, who were arrested in 2003 as the owners of Autodelta USA, a company that was illegally importing and selling Alfa Romeos that did not meet U.S. emission or safety standards. The two men are believed to be hiding out in Italy." is that really so grievous a crime compared to dumping toxic waste?
True, some of those aren't bad, but that's not the main point. One thing is the specter of the EPA having an "eco-fugitive" list. The other is the question of what is the EPA doing policing the environment in the South China Seas? I had no idea our territorial waters extended that far.
The United Nations is huddling in Poznan, Poland, this week to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol, but the real news is that part of the global "consensus" on climate change seems to be unraveling. To wit, the myth of "green jobs."
In Brussels last week, some 11,000 metal workers clogged the EU quarter to protest global-warming policies. They worry that their industry could be harmed and their jobs forced overseas; some of them carried coffins as props. Most of the marching workers were from Germany, where auto makers are also still fuming over new emissions standards. Audi and BMW and other carbon-using industries have argued both for shallower emissions cuts and a longer phase-in period.
Meanwhile, Poland is threatening to veto a new EU climate-change accord unless restrictions on its coal use are eased. And Italy's government complains that new green policies could cost its industry up to €20 billion a year over the next decade. California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger appeared at Poznan by video, asserting that green measures "will also revive our economies."
But not everyone is buying it. As Stefania Prestigiacomo, Italy's environment minister, has noted, "Some people claim environmental measures are a way to relaunch industry, but we have to be realistic. Resources are limited, and they will be even more so because of the economic crisis."
This is certainly a new tune for the Europeans, who have lectured Americans for more than a decade to sign Kyoto because the planet is in peril. Their happy talk of a painless 20% reduction in emissions by 2020 has been mugged by reality. Carbon emission regulations come at a high price in lost jobs and lost competitiveness.
No wonder, then, that the Europeans are delighted over the pledges by the incoming Obama Administration and Democrats in Congress to adopt similar legislation to tax U.S. industries. The EU members may differ on their own limits. But they all agree that the U.S. should "show leadership" by committing to meet the same target they're setting for themselves -- reducing emissions by 20% to 30% below 1990 levels by 2020. Never mind that most European countries aren't close to meeting their Kyoto goals, and in all likelihood will fall short of any new targets. The point is to impose those same burdens on the Yanks.
China and India, two of the globe's biggest carbon emitters, have even called Mr. Obama's goals for combating climate change "inadequate" and have advised the U.S. to speed up its time table for carbon reductions. And why not? They would be first in line to gobble up the jobs and production lines that the U.S. would lose if energy costs rise sharply in America.
We hope the incoming Obama economics team is paying attention to the worker and industry backlash in Europe. Mr. Obama is still embracing the line from Greenpeace and the Environmental Defense Fund that cap and trade can generate five million "green jobs." If you throw enough tax subsidies at something, you're bound to get some new jobs. But if the money for those subsidies comes from higher energy taxes -- and a cap and trade regime would amount to as much $1.2 trillion of new taxes -- millions of jobs in carbon-using industry are also going to be lost.
The Europeans once believed the "green jobs" myth too. Now, as blue-collar workers take to the streets, they have learned that climate-change legislation means green unemployment.
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent.
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent.
If that were true, why aren't there oil wells literally *everywhere*, including places like Yellowstone? Also, as I understand it, there are all sorts of mixed uses on government lands not unlike this.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-12-2008).]
Drilling in any National Refuge is a slippery slope. Sure, maybe the first drilling site is in a barren waste land, but what happens when that one is tapped? Or what if it turns out to be no good, and the oil is over in the nice part? Drilling, Mining and Logging in any kind of preserve sets a bad precedent.
While I can appreciate the slippery slope, keep in mind the sizes involved. They're talking about drilling in 2000 acres of ANWR, which is about the size of South Carolina.
The state air board orders a 15% cut in emissions over the next 12 years, bringing them down to 1990 levels.
Reporting from Sacramento -- California regulators adopted the nation's first comprehensive plan to slash greenhouse gases Thursday and characterized it as a model for President-elect Barack Obama, who has pledged an aggressive national and international effort to combat global warming.
The ambitious blueprint by the world's eighth-largest economy would cut the state's emissions by 15% from today's level over the next 12 years, bringing them down to 1990 levels.
Approved by the state's Air Resources Board in a unanimous vote, the 134-page plan lays out targets for virtually every sector of the economy, including automobiles, refineries, buildings and landfills. It would require a third of California's electricity to come from solar energy, wind farms and other renewable sources -- far more than any state currently requires.
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who has been a vigorous advocate of the plan, vowed that it would "unleash the full force of California's innovation and technology for a healthier planet."
Businesses, however, are sharply divided.
Automakers oppose California's pending crackdown on carbon dioxide emissions from cars, a regulation that more than a dozen states have pledged to adopt. Manufacturers want regulators to lower the cost of complying, saying it will lead to billions of dollars in higher electricity costs.
"This plan is an economic train wreck waiting to happen," James Duran of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce told the board, saying that it would cause financial hardship to minority-owned companies.
But Bob Epstein, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, led a coalition of energy, technology and Hollywood executives, including Google Chief Executive Eric Schmidt, in endorsing the plan as a spur to the state's lagging economy.
Investors have poured $2.5 billion into California clean-tech companies in the first nine months of the year, up from $1.8 billion for all of 2007, he said, a level that eclipsed the software industry.
"This plan is a clear signal to investors to invest in California," Epstein said.
Schwarzenegger, a sharp critic of President Bush's opposition to climate legislation, said, "When you look at today's depressed economy, green tech is one of the few bright spots out there."
California's plan will be "a road map for the rest of the nation," he predicted.
After an aborted attempt last spring, Congress is expected to renew its efforts to craft climate legislation next year. Many of the elements in contention are addressed in California's blueprint, including a cap-and-trade program that would allow industries to reduce emissions more cheaply.
In 18 months of public hearings and workshops, hundreds of people testified and more than 43,000 comments were submitted. More than 250,000 copies of the plan have been viewed or downloaded from the air board's website in the last two months.
The state's blueprint will be implemented over the next two years through industry-specific regulations. Republican legislators have called on Schwarzenegger to delay the plan, citing the dire state of California's economy and criticism of the air board's economic models.
Fears were also expressed at Thursday's hearing by city and county officials who said the plan's effort to force land-use changes infringes on local powers. Environmentalists want more ambitious strategies to curb the sprawl that has led to a rapid increase in driving, and thus in greenhouse gases.
Worldwide, emissions of planet-warming gases, which are mainly formed by burning fossil fuels, have been growing far more rapidly than scientists had predicted. California is expected to experience severe damage from climate change by mid-century, including water shortages from a shrinking snowpack, increased wildfires, rising ocean levels and pollution-aggravating heat waves.
Given the state's fast-growing population and sprawling suburban development, its emissions are on track to increase by 30% over 1990 levels by 2020. The new blueprint would slash the state's carbon footprint over the next 12 years by a total of 174 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions -- the equivalent of 4 metric tons for every resident.
Despite the reach of the state's effort, it would barely make a dent in global warming: The state's emissions account for about 1.5% of the world's emissions. Nonetheless, air board Chairwoman Mary Nichols said California's leadership has spurred other states to move ahead. "We are filling a vacuum left by inaction at the federal level," she said.
More than two dozen states have committed to capping emissions since California passed its landmark 2006 global warming law, the trigger for Thursday's action by the Air Resources Board.
California has joined with four Canadian provinces and seven western states to form a regional cap-and-trade program. Under the program, the states would set a total allowable amount of emissions -- as California did in its blueprint. Utilities and other large industries would be required to obtain allowances to cover their emissions. If companies cut emissions more than required, they can sell their extra emission reductions to firms that are not able to meet their targets.
A cap-and-trade system has been adopted in Europe, where it was initially fraught with logistical problems and afforded windfall profits to many industries. California's system, which would apply to industries responsible for 85% of its emissions, is the most controversial aspect of its plan.
Groups representing low-income residents of polluted urban areas testified that allowing industries to trade in emissions would lead to dirtier plants in their neighborhoods. Under California's plan, industries would also be allowed to buy "offsets" -- emission reductions from projects in other states, or possibly foreign nations, to avoid making their own reductions.
However, the board assuaged many environmentalists Thursday when it pledged that it would gradually move toward a system to auction 100% of greenhouse gas permits, rather than give the permits away for free, as was initially the case in Europe.
Bernadette del Chiaro, an energy analyst for Environment California, predicted the auctions could bring in $1 billion at the outset and up to $340 million per year by 2020.
"This is huge," she said. "Revenue from polluters would be used to transit to a green economy."
I swear, we have THE MOST shortsighted environmentalists in this state. I'm all for saving the planet, but you have to measure that kind of ambition against reality.
I wonder where all the industry will move to when Cali taxes and fines them into nothing? Nevada? Oregon? Or more likely in Mexico where the new petroleum plant went.
And here, I thought my power company stock was relatively sheltered from the rest of the stock market cluster-fest. Looks like that's going to go to hell, too.
Nothing else was just on tv. Just happened that they were showing An Inconvenient Truth with Al again on the Discovery Channel. Knowing what I do now, his BS was even more maddening to watch the second time. What a load of crap and his audience was taking it all, hook ..line...and sinker. Reminded me of Charles Manson.
I swear, we have THE MOST shortsighted environmentalists in this state. I'm all for saving the planet, but you have to measure that kind of ambition against reality.
That's been one of my major points all along. As for "saving the planet", the planet couldn't care less what the temperature is. It's been *much* hotter and colder throughout Earth's history.
As for reality, the people pushing these efforts don't seem interested in reality. It's one reason why I keep calling this a "global warming religion", because it's exactly how they are acting...like religious zealots.
I wonder where all the industry will move to when Cali taxes and fines them into nothing? Nevada? Oregon? Or more likely in Mexico where the new petroleum plant went.
Most likely? Mexico, India, China and southeast Asia.
It's comedic the way they think the job losses will be more than made up with by "green jobs" and tech, or that fighting global warming will actually *help* the economy. What a bunch of wishful bullshit.
Originally posted by fierobear: ...As for reality, the people pushing these efforts don't seem interested in reality. It's one reason why I keep calling this a "global warming religion", because it's exactly how they are acting...like religious zealots.
We are building a religion We are building it bigger We are widening the corridors And adding more lanes
We are building a religion A limited edition We are now accepting callers For the pendant key chains
To resist it is useless It is useless to resist it His cigarette is burning But he never seems to ash
He is grooming his poodle He is living comfort eagle You can meet at his location But you better come with cash
Now his hat is on backwards He can show you his tatoos He is in the music business He is calling you dude!
Now today is tomorrow And tomorrow today And yesterday is weaving in and out
And the filthy white lines That the airplane leaves behind Are drifting right in front Of the waining of the moon
He is handling the money Hes serving the food He knows about your party He is calling you dude!
Now do you believe In the one big sign The doublewide shine On the bootheels of your prime
Doesnt matter if youre skinny Doesnt matter if youre fat You can dress up like a sultan In your onion head hat
We are building a religion We are making a brand Were the only ones to turn to When your castles turn to sand
Take a bite of this apple Mr. corporate events Take a walk through the jungle Of cardboard shanties and tents
Some people drink pepsi Some people drink coke The wacky morning dj Says domocracys a joke
He says now do you believe In the one big song Hes now accepting callers Who would like to sing along
She says, do you believe In the one true edge By fastening your safety belts And stepping towards the ledge
He is handling the money He is serving the food He is now accepting callers He is calling me dude!
Now do you believe In the one big sign The doublewide shine On the bootheels of your prime
Theres no need to ask directions If you ever lose your mind Were behind you Were behind you And let us please remind you We can send a car to find you If you ever lose your way
We are building a religion
We are building it bigger
We are building
A religion
A limited
Edition
We are now accepting callers... For these beautiful... Pendant keychains
Most likely? Mexico, India, China and southeast Asia.
It's comedic the way they think the job losses will be more than made up with by "green jobs" and tech, or that fighting global warming will actually *help* the economy. What a bunch of wishful bullshit.
What is sick about this sh!t is we are getting taxed up the a$$, companies are going over seas because of the "GREEN" regulations, and all the while our economy gets weaker and weaker, while most of the rest of the developing world looks like this. I guess if our little part of the world is clean, no matter what it cost, we can sleep easy knowing we did our part. I took this picture while in China, and the scene is repeated street after street throughout most of the city. And to top it off, Beijing has four times the population as this city.
[This message has been edited by partfiero (edited 12-13-2008).]
(Ryan, the following might explain how TSI might not be sufficient to drive the warm/cool cycles, and the observed effects)
The following is an interesting article about the combination of TSI and PDO, which seem to correlate well with the observed temperature trends over the last century. FYI, TSI refers to Total Solar Irradiance, and PDO is Pacific Decadal Oscillation. It's a long article, but here is the meat:
I can emphasise the importance of this issue for our near future by examining the period 1940 to 2008.
From around 1940 solar input was high during cycles 18 and 19 but then it reduced for a while during solar cycle 20 but (importantly) PDO was negative throughout. That remained the basic scenario until 1975. The background warming from two very active solar cycles 18 and 19 was cancelled out and then when we experienced the weaker cycle 20 combined with the continuing negative PDO we legitimately feared global cooling.
From 1975 to about 2000 PDO was positive and we experienced powerful solar cycles 21, 22 and the peak of 23 (which although less intense than the other two had a double peak). That combination produced the level of global warming that led to such concern from the IPCC and the modellers. It is important to note that taken together solar cycles 18, 19, 21, 22 and the double peak of cycle 23 produced the most intense period of solar activity since the Maunder minimum and that period of weak solar activity produced frigid conditions which, if repeated now, would be disastrous for our much more highly populated world. One only has to look at China’s reports of last winter’s ‘climate crisis’ to see that certain areas of China were rendered uninhabitable for a time.
In my personal opinion it was criminal for the IPCC and the modellers to ignore all that on the basis of some nebulous concept termed Total Solar Irradiance.
On the basis of the information in the public domain about solar cycles and the positive PDO it should have been blatantly obvious that the world would warm up without the need to speculate on a contribution from CO2 or anything else. But, no, they left the solar component out of the models and saw no significance in a positive PDO.
That brings me to the present scenario that I find rather worrying.
As Mr. Rawls points out we now have a less active sun combined with the start of a negative PDO.
Thus:
1) Active sun in cycles 18 and 19 then a less active sun in cycle 20 plus a negative PDO = cancelling out of expected warming followed by cooling when the sun gets less active in cycle 20 (!940 to 1975).
2) Active sun during cycles 21, 22 and the double peak of 23 plus positive PDO = significant warming. (1975 to 1998)
3) Slightly quieter sun during extended tail end of cycle 23 plus positive PDO = stable temperatures. (1998 to 2007).
4) Quiet sun as cycle 23 fizzles out and cycle 24 is deferred plus a negative PDO = Rather chilly in my opinion. (2007 to 20 ?)
Could it be that the IPCC and the modellers have been completely wrong footed and are now recommending exactly the opposite policy decisions to those that the world really needs?
I should emphasise the problems ahead of us if the solar driver theory is correct.
It would mean that the current cooling process will consolidate and continue for decades. I would prefer to be wrong because crops will fail, growing areas reduce, summers shorten and the environments suitable for plant and animal life will shrink towards the equator again after the past few decades of northward and southward expansion.
The past few decades that led to such painful heart searching will, in retrospect, look like very pleasant times.
=====================
I'll be looking more into this in the coming days.
[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 12-14-2008).]
Follow-up to the TSI and PDO correlation with temperature. I'm not sure if I've posted this before, but it would bear repeating. I won't reproduce all the graphs and so forth here, it's best to just read the link. But I'll put the conclusion info.
Clearly the US annual temperatures over the last century have correlated far better with cycles in the sun and oceans than carbon dioxide. The correlation with carbon dioxide seems to have vanished or even reversed in the last decade.
Given the recent cooling of the Pacific and Atlantic and rapid decline in solar activity, we might anticipate given these correlations, temperatures to accelerate downwards shortly.
While this isn’t a “smoking gun” it is as close as anything I’ve seen. Time will give us the qualified answer as we have expectations of a lower Solar Cycle 24 and changes in the Pacific now happening.
WASHINGTON – President-elect Barack Obama on Monday named an environmental and energy team that he said signaled his determination to tackle global warming quickly and develop alternative forms of energy. He vowed to "move beyond our oil addiction and create a new hybrid economy."
Obama selected Nobel-prize winning physicist Steven Chu as energy secretary and Carol Browner, a confidante of former Vice President Al Gore, to lead a White House council on energy and climate. Browner headed the Environmental Protection Agency in the Clinton administration.
Chu, 60, is director of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in Berkeley, Calif., and is a leading advocate of reducing greenhouse gases by developing new energy sources.
The selection of Chu, a Chinese American who shared a Nobel Prize for physics in 1997, received widespread praise on Capitol Hill. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada said he looked forward to "confirming Dr. Chu as quickly as possible."
"His appointment should send a signal to all that my administration will value science. We will make decisions based on the facts, and we understand that facts demand bold action," Obama said at a news conference in Chicago.
Too bad the facts are against human-caused warming
Obama also announced his choice of Lisa Jackson, former head of New Jersey's environmental agency, as EPA administrator and Nancy Sutley, a deputy Los Angeles mayor, as chair of the White House Council on Environment Quality.
Obama made clear he plans take energy policy in a sharply different direction from President George W. Bush, promising aggressive moves to address global warming and pump money and support into research into alternative energy sources such as wind, solar and biofuels.
"America must develop new forms of energy and new ways of using it," he said.
Obama said the dangers of being too heavily dependent on foreign oil "are eclipsed only by the long-term threat of climate change which unless we act will lead to drought and famine abroad, devastating weather patterns and terrible storms on our shores, and disappearance of our coastline at home."
All of the above are FALSE
He rejected the notion that economic development and environmental protection cannot go hand in hand.
"We can spark the dynamism of our economy through a long-term investment in renewable energy that will give life to new businesses and industries with good jobs that pay well and can't be outsourced," he said.
Obama has said he wants to spent $15 billion a year to boost alternative energy and energy conservation to make public buildings more efficient, modernize the electricity grid, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions while protecting and preserving natural resources.
Chu's selection was viewed as a clear signal that science would weight heavily in the Obama administration. Chu is a widely respected scientist who has been a vocal advocate for aggressive action to deal with climate change. At the Berkeley lab, he has pushed research into the use of plants and energy from the sun as fuel.
Aggressive action against a problem that doesn't exist. Great.
In brief remarks, Chu said: "What the world does in the coming decade will have enormous consequences that will last for centuries. It's imperative that we begin without further delay."
Yes! Don't delay! Act NOW, even though the science is BOGUS!!!
He said Obama had "set the tone and pace for moving our country forward with optimism and calm determination. I hope to emulate his example."
Obama said Browner would "coordinate energy and climate policy" from the White House and "will be indispensable in implementing an ambitious and complex energy policy."
Browner's role has been described as "energy czar" but it's unclear how much power she will have. The selection of Chu, a scientist and not a political figure, suggests that Browner's political roles in crafting energy and environmental legislation would be considerable. Both Jackson, the new EPA chief, and Sutley worked for Browner at the EPA in the 1990s.
Browner, 53, a protege of Gore, served for eight years, longer than anyone else, as EPA administrator during the Clinton administration. No stranger to hard-nose politics, she frequently clashed with conservative Republicans in Congress over environmental regulations.
Carole Browner, a "protege of Al Gore". Great, I guess this means more lies will be shoved down our throats as "Inconvenient Truths"?
IN one of his first public policy statements as America's president-elect, Barack Obama focused on climate change, and clearly stated both his priorities and the facts on which these priorities rest. Unfortunately, both are weak, or even wrong.
Obama's policy outline was presented via video to California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's Governors' Global Warming Summit, and has again been shown in Poznan, Poland, to leaders assembled to flesh out a global warming road map. According to Obama, "few challenges facing America and the world are more urgent than combating climate change".
Such a statement is now commonplace for most political leaders across the world, even though it neglects to address the question of how much we can do to help America and the world through climate policies v other policies.
Consider, for example, hurricanes in America. Clearly, a policy of reducing CO2 emissions would have had zero consequence on Katrina's devastating effect on New Orleans, where such a disaster was long expected. Over the next half-century, even large reductions in CO2 emissions would have only a negligible effect.
Instead, direct policies to address New Orleans' vulnerabilities could have avoided the huge and unnecessary cost in human misery and economic loss. These should have included stricter building codes, smarter evacuation policies and better preservation of wetlands (which could have reduced the ferociousness of the hurricane). Most importantly, a greater focus on upkeep and restoration of the levees could have spared the city entirely. Perhaps these types of preventative actions should be Obama's priority.
Likewise, consider world hunger. Pleas for action on climate change reflect fears that global warming may undermine agricultural production, especially in the developing world. But global agricultural/economic models indicate that even under the most pessimistic assumptions, global warming would reduce agricultural production by just 1.4p er cent by the end of the century. Because agricultural output will more than double during this period, climate change would at worst cause global food production to double not in 2080 but in 2081.
Moreover, implementing the Kyoto Protocol at a cost of $180 billion annually would keep two million people from going hungry only by the end of the century. Yet by spending just $10 billion annually, the UN estimates that we could help 229 million hungry people today. Every time spending on climate policies saves one person from hunger in 100 years, the same amount could have saved 5000 people now. Arguably, this should be among Obama's top priorities.
Obama went on to say why he wants to prioritise global warming policies: "The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We've seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season."
Yes, global warming is happening, and mankind is partly responsible, but these statements are - however eloquent - seriously wrong or misleading.
Sea levels are rising, but they have been rising at least since the early 1800s. In the era of satellite measurements, the rise has not accelerated (actually we've seen a sea-level fall during the past two years). The UN expects about a 30cm sea-level rise during this century, about what we saw during the past 150 years.
In that period, many coastlines increased, most obviously The Netherlands, because rich countries can easily protect and even expand their territory. But even for oft-cited Bangladesh, scientists just this year showed that the country grows by 20sq km each year, because river sedimentation wins out over rising sea levels.
Obama's claim about record droughts similarly fails even on a cursory level: the US has in all academic estimates been getting wetter through the past the century (with the 1930s dust bowl setting the drought high point). This is even true globally during the past half-century, as one of the most recent scientific studies of actual soil moisture shows: "There is an overall small wetting trend in global soil moisture."
Furthermore, famine has declined rapidly in the past half century. The main deviation has been the past two years of record-high food prices, caused not by climate change but by the policies designed to combat it: the dash for ethanol, which put food into cars and thus upward pressure on food prices. The World Bank estimates that this policy has driven at least 30 million more people into hunger. To cite policy-driven famine as an argument for more of the same policy seems unreasonable, to say the least.
Finally, it is simply wrong to say that storms are growing stronger every hurricane season. Even for the Atlantic hurricane basin, which we tend to hear about most, the total hurricane energy (ACE) as measured by the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has declined by two-thirds since the record was set in 2005. For the world, this trend has been more decisive: maximum ACE was reached in 1994 and has plummeted for the past three years, while hurricanes across the world for the past year have been about as inactive as at any time since records began to be kept.
Global warming should be tackled, but smartly through research and development of low-carbon alternatives. If we are to get our policies right, it is crucial that we get our facts right.
Bjorn Lomborg is the author of The Sceptical Environmentalist and Cool It, head of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre, and adjunct professor at Copenhagen Business School.
I said Lomborg is a scientist. I misspoke. He's an economist, environmentalist, and author on global warming. A lot of the criticism about him is doubtless due to his being labeled a "denier", since he doesn't drink all the KoolAid. The point is, he BELIEVES man is warming the planet, and he has reservations about what Obama plans to do. I believe the points in his article are spot on.
Bjørn Lomborg (born January 6, 1965) is a Danish author, academic, and environmentalist. He is an adjunct professor at the Copenhagen Business School, director of the Copenhagen Consensus Centre and a former director of the Environmental Assessment Institute in Copenhagen. He became internationally-known for his best-selling and controversial book The Skeptical Environmentalist.
In 2002, Lomborg and the Environmental Assessment Institute founded the Copenhagen Consensus, which seeks to establish priorities for advancing global welfare using methodologies based on the theory of welfare economics.
Lomborg campaigns for an unconventional position on climate change: he opposes the Kyoto Protocol and other measures to cut carbon emissions in the short-term, and argues that we should instead adapt to short-term temperature rises as they are inevitable, and spend money on research and development for longer-term environmental solutions, and on other important world problems such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition.
Q: Does Lomborg deny man-made global warming exists?
A: No. In Cool It he writes: "global warming is real and man-made. It will have a serious impact on humans and the environment toward the end of this century" (p8).
Q: But he used to deny it, didn't he?
A: No. In both his first Danish book in 1998 and the English version of The Skeptical Environmentalist in 2001, Bjorn Lomborg stressed that man-made global warming exists. The introduction to a section on climate change in The Skeptical Environmentalist clearly states, "This chapter accepts the reality of man-made global warming" (p259).
Q: Does he believe we should do anything about global warming?
A: Yes. As Bjorn Lomborg argues in 'Cool It', we should focus on the smartest solutions to the problems that the world faces, whether we're dealing with climate change, communicable diseases, malnutrition, agricultural subsidies, or anything else. Lomborg concludes that the smartest approach to global warming is a CO 2 tax comparable with the central or high estimates of CO2 damages. That means an estimate in the range of $2-14 per ton of CO 2, but not the unjustifiably high taxes of $20-40 implicit in Kyoto or the even higher ones ($85) suggested by the Stern report or Gore ($140). He also suggests a ten-fold increase in R&D in non-CO2 -emitting energy technologies like solar, wind, carbon capture, fusion, fission, energy conservation etc..
The "record" only goes back to 1979, at least as far as satellite data. That ain't much in geological terms. Also, I guess you missed the earlier posts I made which showed significant ice reductions at least twice earlier this century. I've also posted before some historical accounts of wooden ships being able to navigate the Arctic Ocean in the 1700s and possibly the 1400s.
Ice covering a cup of water could be 100% on the concentration scale, but that says nothing of the thickness of the ice (and it's long term viability).
Ice covering a cup of water could be 100% on the concentration scale, but that says nothing of the thickness of the ice (and it's long term viability).
Volume is the total amount of space taken up. There is more this year then last. And as pointed out there has been less before. This is just more dishonest spin to make it all doom and gloom. Just another failed attempt to will a catastrophe into place. All it does is convince the gullible there is a problem. Like how they use a picture of the smallest amount of ice there was.
Originally posted by Phranc: Volume is the total amount of space taken up.
Yes, and at 100% sea ice concentration, that means what? Correct, the ocean has a solid layer of ice on top of it. But _how thick is it_? Your graphics say nothing about it. That's volume.
Yes, and at 100% sea ice concentration, that means what? Correct, the ocean has a solid layer of ice on top of it. But _how thick is it_? Your graphics say nothing about it. That's volume.
No it doesn't say how thick it is. But I'm sure all that extra ice means nothing. In fact I bet a few thousand square miles of ice has very little impact on the total volume of ice. That ice is only a few centimeters thick after all, right? Its not like we are talking feet tick over many many many more square miles. But I'm not basing my understanding of things on a report a few months old out of an organization that has an agenda and has put forth erroneous data sets to further that agenda.
Volume is the total amount of space taken up. There is more this year then last. And as pointed out there has been less before. This is just more dishonest spin to make it all doom and gloom. Just another failed attempt to will a catastrophe into place. All it does is convince the gullible there is a problem. Like how they use a picture of the smallest amount of ice there was.
Like this similar bit of journalistic tripe from Seth Borenstein?
Scientists from around the world are denouncing an Associated Press article hysterically claiming that global warming is "a ticking time bomb" about to explode, and that we're "running out of time" to do anything about it.
As reported by NewsBusters, Seth Borenstein, the AP's "national science writer," published a piece Sunday entitled "Obama Left With Little Time to Curb Global Warming."
Scientists from all over the world have responded to share their view of this alarmist propaganda:
How can this guy call himself a "science reporter?"
He is perhaps the worst propagandist in all the media, and that's stating something.
In his latest screed, he screams: "global warming is accelerating"
How then does he explain the fact that the mean global temperature (as measured by satellite) is the same as it was in 1980?
How can global warming be "accelerating" when the last two years have seen dramatic cooling? Is this guy totally removed from all reality?????
He completely ignores any evidence contrary to his personal beliefs, and twists everything to meet his preconceived notions.
How can anyone so ignorant be a reporter for AP? Seriously? -- David Deming, University of Oklahoma
“Since Clinton's inauguration, summer Arctic sea ice has lost the equivalent of Alaska, California and Texas. The 10 hottest years on record have occurred since Clinton's second inauguration. Global warming is accelerating.”
Rubbish! Global warming is not “accelerating”: global warming has stopped. There has been no statistically significant rise in (mean global temperature: MGT) since 1995 and MGT has fallen since 1998.
The Earth has been warming from the Little Ice Age (LIA) for 300 years so, of course, the warmest years happened recently. But that warming from the LIA peaked in the El Nino year of 1998. MGT has been near but below that peak for the last 10 years.
Arctic ice advances and recedes over decades. 2007 saw a minimum in Arctic ice cover in the short period that it has been monitored using satellites. But 2008 saw the most rapid growth in Arctic ice cover in that same period and Arctic ice cover is now back to the average it has had in the period. Also, 95% of polar ice is in the Antarctic and Antarctic ice is increasing.
Nobody can know if the recent halt to global warming is temporary, permanent or the start of a new warming or cooling phase. But it is certain that anybody who proclaims that “Global warming is accelerating” is a liar, a fool, or both. -- Richard S. Courtney, a UN IPCC expert reviewer and a UK-based climate and atmospheric science consultant.
The Great Global Warming Hoax appears to be a collaborative effort between the worlds [sic] incompetent scientists and the worlds [sic] scientifically illiterate journalists. Science Illiterates like Borenstein are the Chicken Littles of the 21st Century, spreading climate change poppycock like bread crumbs in the forest. The crumbs, hopefully, will lead them to a paycheck at the end of the week from their similarly science-illiterate employers. Well, the lower-I.Q. portion of the population has to eat, too....< sigh > -- James A. Peden, atmospheric physicist formerly of the Space Research and Coordination Center in Pittsburgh.
Borenstein, time is definitely running out – for you to save any possible credibility unless you find a new drama to act out on the public because your current one is going down the drain faster than a so-so sitcom in September.
The world hasn’t “warmed” in a dozen years and over the past year not even Jim Hansen and His Magic Bag of Tricks can make it appear we’re all getting “warmer”.
Once the Public gets wind of the true data that shows their intuition has been right all along – not even the tabloids will pick you up for an occasional column to entertain them. -- Chemical Scientist Dr. Brian G. Valentine of the U.S. Department of Energy and Professor at University of Maryland, has studied computational fluid dynamics and modeling of complex systems
"Hottest on record" means little for a 5 billion yr old planet, when the 'record" is only 100 years or less. Please avoid parsing the data, to support you [sic] indefensible conclusions and to ignored [sic] the data which don't support your conclusions. Selecting data for a desired outcome is as old as drying labbing [sic] chemistry labs. This seems to be SOP for today as environmental journalists and just as silly (and detectable---you are outta my chem. class). Your hypothesis is easily falsified, and has been falsified. Lots of Temp stations show cooling for decades while CO2 rises, ergo falsified. Ergo there are more powerful unspecified climate forces involved. CO2 is likely uninvolved or if so a minor player. Next problem please. -- Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., is a retired nuclear scientist and university chemistry professor. He is the science and energy writer/reporter for the HawaiiReport.com
One of the biggest problems in all this is that the major media are so busy bashing President Bush for any and every thing that they have lost sight of what he realized 5+ years ago: none of the CO2-related strategies will work unless China and India join the community. Bush's initiative to form an "Asia-Pacific" consortium of nations was the very first realistic step in the direction of a coherent approach to climate-change mitigation.
What is going on currently is that A) India has dismissed the whole thing, saying "we will never be higher in "per capita" energy use than the western countries; B) the Europeans have figured out that it will cost them big bucks and are fleeing from their Kyoto promises; C) the bandwagon in the USA is still going forward in high gear, and in about a year they'll realize they're way out in front with no followers. -- Dr. Thomas P. Sheahen, an MIT educated physicist, author of the book "An Introduction to High-Temperature Superconductivity," and writer of the popular newspaper column "Ask the Everyday Scientist"
One further critical aspect of global warming alarmists that is so fiercely debated by all is the "climate forcing" property of carbon dioxide. Allow me to state categorically that, despite any and all arguments to the contrary, including the most elaborately well-balanced mathematical formulae by the best mathematicians in the world, the climate forcing ability of carbon dioxide equals exactly zero. Not 4 degrees C, not 1 degree C, not even 0.0001 degree C. Just plain zero. Even the much heralded graphic indicating that the first 20ppmv of carbon dioxide makes a difference to the air temperature that is much greater than any subsequent increase in concentration is a useless bit of info based on laboratory tests that have absolutely no relation to the open atmosphere. There exists not one single laboratory test on climate that can be extrapolated to mimic the open atmosphere and that includes the most advanced computers that in any case treat the earth as a flat disc with a 24 hour haze of solar radiation - about as far removed from reality as is possible. -- Hans Schreuder, Ipswich, UK, www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
In responce to what is happening to global temperatures. The key is using the right statistical technique to plot the "average" temperature. I do not have the qualifications to establish what the correct technique is. I just understand such things as non-linear least square regression analysis. There are five organizations which report global temperature anomalies on a monthly basis. If you use simple non-linear analysis, and include 2008 data, then all five data sets show that world temperatures seem to have passed through a shallow maximum. My guess is that when we can look back with 20/20 hindsight, we will be able to see that this maximum occurred around 2005. So it is understandable that recent years are amongst the warmest on record. This fact is no argument that temperatures are still rising. What counts is the slope of the average temperature/time graph at the present time. For a couple of years, this slope has been negative; global temperatures have been falling. We do not know, of course, if this will continue. But so far as I can see, none of the IPCC and other pro-AGW organizations predicted falling temperatures. However, before you attempt to use an argument like this, you need someone who really knows statistical analysis techniques. -- Physicist F. James Cripwell, a former scientist with UK’s Cavendish Laboratory in Cambridge who worked under the leading expert in infra red spectroscopy -- Sir Gordon Sutherland – and worked with the Operations Research for the Canadian Defense Research Board
World's oceans rise slower since 2005, fail to display predicted accelerating trend.
Satellite altimetry data indicates that the rate at which the world's oceans are rising has slowed significantly since 2005. Before the decrease, sea level had been rising by more than 3mm/year, which corresponds to an increase of about one foot per century. Since 2005, however, the rate has been closer to 2mm/year.
The decrease is significant as global climate models predict sea level rise to accelerate as atmospheric CO2 continues to increase. In the 1990s, when such acceleration appeared to be occurring, some scientists pointed to it as confirmation the models were operating correctly.
Sea level rise was calculated from altimetry data from the TOPEX/Poseidon and Jason-1 satellite missions, published by the University of Colorado, Boulder.
Dr. James Choe, a research associate with the University of Colorado, says the decrease is temporary. "Interannual variations often cause the rate to rise or fall", he says. Choe believes an accelerating trend will reappear within the next few years. Oceanographer Gary Mitchum of the University of South Florida, says making any judgement from the limited data available is "statistically so uncertain as to be meaningless".
Others disagree. Dr. Vincent Gray, a New Zealand based climatologist and expert reviewer for the IPCC, believes that the accelerated trends seen earlier were simply an artifact of poor measurements. "The satellite system has undoubtedly shown a rise since 1992, but it has leveled off", he tells DailyTech. "They had some bad calibration errors at the beginning."
Gray points to a study done by Flanders University using tide gauges which, he says, measured no perceptible increase in sea level over its entire 15 year period.
Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, some 20,000 years ago. During an episode known as "Meltwater Pulse 1A", the world's oceans rose by more than 5 meters per century, a rate about 20 times faster than the current increase.
TOPEX/Poseidon was launched by NASA in 1992, and collected data until 2005. In 2001, NASA and France's Centre National d'Études Spatiales (CNES) launched its follow-up mission, Jason-1.
We are building a religion We are building it bigger We are widening the corridors And adding more lanes
We are building a religion A limited edition We are now accepting callers For the pendant key chains
To resist it is useless It is useless to resist it His cigarette is burning But he never seems to ash ...
- Comfort Eagle -- Cake
That song is so fitting. It is a religion.
I am already hearing ads about buying emissions offsetting credits, etc. Its such a joke, its alerady been bought and sold by our media who's sole purpose is to make money on whatever sells.
I think that Lomborg article is great. I wonder, all these scientists are amazingly smart at what they do and they hold so much knowledge, can they all really be so dense as to make climate predictions on data from 10, 20, or even 100 years? Anyone with even the slightest amount of statistics education knows the deviations can be huge and the trend needs to be looked at on a grand scale, not with the notion "I'm sure it was cooler in the 80s". I watched that Global Warming Swindle movie and the discussion on that Australian TV show, and it was so obvious that the people running it were ignorant.
One thing that has really stood out to me is how this really is almost like a religion now, with anger expressed at those who don't 'believe'. I feel bad for people who live their lives and are swayed by such pop culture crap.
Here is an interesting quote from the bible. In the book of Romans, Paul stated well the condition of our society. Notice verse 25.
Holding the environment in higher esteem than the creator of the environment is called 'worship'. It is a religion.
22. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23. And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. 24. Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves: 25. Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen. 26. For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature: 27. And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet. 28. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; 29. Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, 30. Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31. Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: 32. Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
I'd like to thank Fierobear for continuing to post the truth about the Great Global Warming Swindle. It is clear that somebody has been making big bucks and gaining World Influence by this swindle.
I am somewhat disappointed, (albeit not surprised) that Obama is aiming to appoint Gore as an Energy czar. We need to lobby our respective governments, State, Provincial, and Federal to wake up to the reality that the CO2 levels are caused by the Sun warming the earth and creating more or less CO2 not the other way around. CO2 always has been the product of growth in the Earth, including the tons of emissions by the 2 or 3 million bisons in past centuries as well as the coal fired industrial revolution of the 1800's and the volcanic erruptions.
We need to recognize that Mankind does not control the weather. The notion is, as Texasfiero shows, based on following false beliefs which try to promote Mankind as being somehow in charge and diminish the role of our Creator.
On the ice issue in the Artic, there is an ebb and flow to it, however, the sea ice gets many feet thick. It gets so thick you can drive a tank over it.
I am waiting to see how the Bearing Strait is going to close up again may next summer or the one thereafter.
I'm sitting at my computer as a snow storm is engulfing my area today. Schools are closed and the police are warning drivers to stay off the roads. Winter doesn't start until Sunday. Hmm..........
I'd like to thank Fierobear for continuing to post the truth about the Great Global Warming Swindle. It is clear that somebody has been making big bucks and gaining World Influence by this swindle.
I am somewhat disappointed, (albeit not surprised) that Obama is aiming to appoint Gore as an Energy czar. We need to lobby our respective governments, State, Provincial, and Federal to wake up to the reality that the CO2 levels are caused by the Sun warming the earth and creating more or less CO2 not the other way around. CO2 always has been the product of growth in the Earth, including the tons of emissions by the 2 or 3 million bisons in past centuries as well as the coal fired industrial revolution of the 1800's and the volcanic erruptions.
We need to recognize that Mankind does not control the weather. The notion is, as Texasfiero shows, based on following false beliefs which try to promote Mankind as being somehow in charge and diminish the role of our Creator.
On the ice issue in the Artic, there is an ebb and flow to it, however, the sea ice gets many feet thick. It gets so thick you can drive a tank over it.
I am waiting to see how the Bearing Strait is going to close up again may next summer or the one thereafter.
I'm sitting at my computer as a snow storm is engulfing my area today. Schools are closed and the police are warning drivers to stay off the roads. Winter doesn't start until Sunday. Hmm..........
Arn
I appreciate the kind words, you're welcome. It's nice to know folks are reading this material and perhaps learning something. I know I am!
Continuing...here's an article with some good points being raised. It was written in 2007, evidently after the release of the IPCCs 4th assessment report. There are two VERY good questions asked - if the science is settled, the debate is over, and there is *nothing* we really can do about global warming, then...
1. Why are we still paying climate scientists to study the climate? If the debate is over and the science settled, what are we paying them for? I say we cut off all their funding, since the issue is so settled.
2. If the temperature will keep going up even if we do the most drastic cuts in CO2, why are we going to bother spending the money (trillions, by the way) and messing up the economy and job market even more?
On February 2nd, 2007, the first report of the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC was released. This document, produced by climate scientists and, interestingly, bureaucrats , basically says that global warming is almost definitely caused by humans and that, even if we were to curtail emissions, it's too late at this point: The climate will continue to warm and sea levels continue to rise for centuries.
This is an interesting conclusion because it has the very real political possibility of rendering virtually moot the discussion about whether to make any real effort to reduce CO2 emissions. Based on previous reports, there was at least some hope that reducing CO2 emissions would actually avert the supposed catastrophes that civilization faces as a result of global warming. Advocates for harsh reductions in emissions or staggering wealth redistribution from developed countries to third world countries could make the assertion that it was a necessary evil to avoid the even worse perils that we were up against. No more. The latest IPCC report says, on page 12 that "Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would continue for centuries due to the timescales associated with climate processes and feedbacks, even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be stabilized." In other words, even if we make draconian adjustments to our society to reduce emissions, we're still toast.
It's enough to make one wonder, then, why we presumably will continue to spend money on research, scaremongering, artificial economies such as carbon trading, or attempting to make massive reductions in our CO2 emissions. Whether or not we do anything, we need to prepare for what the IPCC now says is inevitable.
So what does the IPCC say is inevitable? Well, not that much really--they're basically predicting a 0.5C increase in temperature in the next 200 years and a 30cm to 80cm rise in sea level in the next 300 years. That's quite the change since the 1995 report that said "models project an increase in global mean surface temperature relative to 1990 of about 2C by 2100. This estimate is approximately one-third lower than the “best estimate” in 1990." and "models project an increase in sea level of about 50 cm (20 inches) from the present to 2100. This estimate is approximately 25% lower than the “best estimate” in 1990 due to the lower temperature projection, but also reflecting improvements in the climate and ice melt models."
Pay special attention to the time frames. The 1995 report gave estimates for the year 2100 but the new 2007 report gives estimates for the years 2200 and 2300. Even given the extended dates, the effect of temperature is reduced: Instead of 2C change expected in the next 100 years, we're to expect 0.5C in the next 200 years. As for sea level rise, instead of a 50cm rise in the next 100 years, we're to expect a 30-80cm rise in the next 300 years.
Let's try to put that in perspective. Although it's not accurate to assume that all warming and sea level rise will occur evenly over the specified time periods, let's assume that the 0.5C temperature rise over 200 years happens evenly such that we'd expect 0.5/200 = 0.0025C per year, which is 0.025C per decade, or 0.25C per century. That means that the 1995 report suggested a 2C increase in temperature by 2100 but their new report essentially implies an increase of only 0.25C. Even if we assume the increase initially happens twice as fast, that's only an increase of 0.5C by 2100. Their estimate for 2100 went down by 75% from 2C to 0.5C.
Doing the same with sea level rise, even if we use their upper estimate of an 80cm rise in sea level over 300 years, that's 80/300 = 0.27cm per year, which is 2.7cm per decade, or 27cm in a century. So, again, their 1995 report indicated a sea level rise of 50cm by the year 2100 but their new report essentially indicates a worst case sea level rise of 27cm by 2100. Their worst-case estimate went down 54% from 50cm to 27cm.
Also keep in mind that the quotes above from 1995 indicate that their 1995 temperature estimate was 33% lower than their 1990 estimate and the sea level rise estimate was 25% lower. Now, 12 years later, their temperature estimate is down 75% and their temperature estimate is down 54%. Interestingly, this IPCC report does not indicate how much their estimate changed by from the previous report.
The point is, it seems the more we learn about climate change, the further the estimates of the impact are reduced. This seems to be an ongoing trend ever since the first IPCC report was issued. The more we know, the less it seems we need to be concerned--yet the more we are told we need to be concerned. In an honest media, this report would be reported as "New IPCC report indicates that temperatures will rise 75% less than we thought they would 12 years ago, and sea levels will rise 50% less." But, no, we are treated to gloom and doom.
But it gets better: As I said in the beginning, this new report says that even if we curtail CO2 emissions, it's too late: Temperatures and sea levels will continue to rise for centuries, even if we stabilize CO2 emissions.
According to the IPCC, it's too late.
In a rational world, that would be the death knell of global warming research funding. We have the answer, we know it's coming, and we know we need to prepare for slightly higher temperatures and a modest sea level rise; and it's inevitable. What more do we need to know? Unless, of course, they really aren't as certain about their conclusions as they seem to be. I know that I'm not certain about their conclusions. As has already been demonstrated, the more we learn, the more we realize the estimated increases are less and less than we originally expected. In other words, the more we know, the less it seems we are really impacting our climate. That sounds strangely like what global warming skeptics have been saying for decades.
Keep in mind that political bureaucrats participated in the writing and editing of the IPCC document. The fact that politicians are involved in what should be a purely scientific matter should alarm you. The document may be based on science, but it is strongly influenced by politics.
It is my guess that it is the hope of global warming scaremongerers that this be a final, conclusive report on what they consider to be the "reality" of global warming. I suspect we will see a gradual shift from predicting the exact increases in temperature and sea level to an emphasis on policy decisions based on this latest report. Why? Because if we keep learning more and more about climate change, at the rate we've been going over the last 17 years, it would seem that within another 5-10 years we would know that, surprise, there's not going to be much of a drastic change in the climate and this issue will no longer serve any political purpose.
Watch the evolution of the debate over the next few months and years. Already, global warming advocates assume that it's real and that we're causing it. To any honest and curious mind, the fact that every IPCC report reduces its estimate of temperature and sea level rise should be a red flag. If the global warming movement now takes this last report as indisputable gospel and pushes for fast policy decisions based on it even though the estimates continue to appear less and less worrisome, that should be a huge red flag.
And it's already happening: "The debate has clearly shifted from a battle over the science to fighting over the scope and design of the solution," says Jason Grumet, executive director of the National Commission on Energy Policy, a private bipartisan advocacy group on the country's future direction on energy. " RED FLAG!
