GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Sunday, July 26, 2009

Resisting climate hysteria....

Richard Lindzen is one of my favorite climatologists....
Given that the evidence (and I have noted only a few of many pieces of evidence) strongly implies that anthropogenic warming has been greatly exaggerated, the basis for alarm due to such warming is similarly diminished. However, a really important point is that the case for alarm would still be weak even if anthropogenic global warming were significant. Polar bears, arctic summer sea ice, regional droughts and floods, coral bleaching, hurricanes, alpine glaciers, malaria, etc. etc. all depend not on some global average of surface temperature anomaly, but on a huge number of regional variables including temperature, humidity, cloud cover, precipitation, and direction and magnitude of wind. The state of the ocean is also often crucial. Our ability to forecast any of these over periods beyond a few days is minimal (a leading modeler refers to it as essentially guesswork). Yet, each catastrophic forecast depends on each of these being in a specific range. The odds of any specific catastrophe actually occurring are almost zero. This was equally true for earlier forecasts of famine for the 1980's, global cooling in the 1970's, Y2K and many others. Regionally, year to year fluctuations in temperature are over four times larger than fluctuations in the global mean. Much of this variation has to be independent of the global mean; otherwise the global mean would vary much more. This is simply to note that factors other than global warming are more important to any specific situation. This is not to say that disasters will not occur; they always have occurred and this will not change in the future. Fighting global warming with symbolic gestures will certainly not change this. However, history tells us that greater wealth and development can profoundly increase our resilience.

In view of the above, one may reasonably ask why there is the current alarm, and, in particular, why the astounding upsurge in alarmism of the past 4 years. When an issue like global warming is around for over twenty years, numerous agendas are developed to exploit the issue. The interests of the environmental movement in acquiring more power, influence, and donations are reasonably clear. So too are the interests of bureaucrats for whom control of CO2 is a dream-come-true. After all, CO2 is a product of breathing itself. Politicians can see the possibility of taxation that will be cheerfully accepted because it is necessary for ‘saving’ the earth. Nations have seen how to exploit this issue in order to gain competitive advantages. But, by now, things have gone much further. The case of ENRON (a now bankrupt Texas energy firm) is illustrative in this respect. Before disintegrating in a pyrotechnic display of unscrupulous manipulation, ENRON had been one of the most intense lobbyists for Kyoto. It had hoped to become a trading firm dealing in carbon emission rights. This was no small hope. These rights are likely to amount to over a trillion dollars, and the commissions will run into many billions. Hedge funds are actively examining the possibilities; so was the late Lehman Brothers. Goldman Sachs has lobbied extensively for the ‘cap and trade’ bill, and is well positioned to make billions. It is probably no accident that Gore, himself, is associated with such activities. The sale of indulgences is already in full swing with organizations selling offsets to one’s carbon footprint while sometimes acknowledging that the offsets are irrelevant. The possibilities for corruption are immense. Archer Daniels Midland (America’s largest agribusiness) has successfully lobbied for ethanol requirements for gasoline, and the resulting demand for ethanol may already be contributing to large increases in corn prices and associated hardship in the developing world (not to mention poorer car performance). And finally, there are the numerous well meaning individuals who have allowed propagandists to convince them that in accepting the alarmist view of anthropogenic climate change, they are displaying intelligence and virtue For them, their psychic welfare is at stake.

3 Comments:

Blogger John Cross said...

Hi Fred: Nothing wrong with Lindzen, he is probably the best climatologist the skeptic camp has left but he hasn't done much research since his iris hypothesis was shattered by observations.

In regards to this article, I don't see much here. A lot of what I would consider non-scientific talk. Unfortunately the science he gets into seems to be somewhat off (as always we can discuss further if you wish). For one example, he relies heavily on a paper by Douglass. I am familiar with this paper and there are at least two major problems with it; one scientific and one not.

The scientific one is the same issue that affects most satellite work - stratospheric cooling. One of the strong points for global warming and the models is that according to the models we should see the stratosphere cool - which we are. Unfortunately this tends to contaminate the satellite signals with a cooling bias.

The non scientific one is that radiosondes are tricky things to use and the authors were supplied with two versions of them (different corrections). They picked the ones that supported their case without reference to the others that did - even though there was a slight scientific preference for selecting the others. Makes me a bit wary.

I am a little disappointed you did not respond to me on the other thread.

Regards,
john

10:31 AM  
Blogger GayandRight said...

I did answer you...you just didn't like my answer...and my answer is a question...is there any evidence that moving from 280 of CO2 ppm to 380 ppm is responsible for the warming that occurred from 1980 - 2000?

fred

3:54 PM  
Blogger John Cross said...

I thought my three points were sufficient answer. But if not, let me ask you, what do you mean by evidence - or what would you accept as evidence?

Regards,
John

7:39 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home