More on Climate Change

Article written by: Suzanne Penegor

Dr. Gordon J. Fulks, a scientist and physicist, spoke to the Rubicon Society of Lane County on May 15th about the global warming hoax that is perpetuated by the media and politicians like Al Gore that are seeking power and money in their attempts to attack industrialization.

In Feb., Fulks published an editorial in the Oregonian noting how Gov. Ted Kulongoski favored political science over actual science when he fired Oregon’s former state climatologist George Taylor because he wouldn’t toe the doomsday line on global warming, despite scientific evidence supporting Taylor and others who discredit the global warming fad.

Beginning his speach with the phrase “The gospel according to Gore,” Fulks explained many factors other than human impacts that have caused climate change over time. He noted how there were warming periods on earth before industrialization and said that natural factors like changing ocean temperatures, sun activity and volcanic activity have impacted climate change throughout history.

Fulks noted this year in Oregon we saw record snowfall, and it appears that we may be heading into a cooling period, much like in the 1970s and went on to say the government has spent $50 billion on the global warming fad. A website called realclimate.org directs reporters how to write alarmist global warming stories that perpetuate the myth of global warming.

Fulks sent a letter to the United Nations that included numbers of prominent scientists who, like Taylor, disagreed with the global warming scare. This led to the editorial he submitted to the Oregonian.

There are other factors which contribute to climate change as well, for example, after World War II, Fulks pointed out, there was in increase in carbon dioxide–due to industrialization–even with increase carbon, temperatures declined for three years.

Fulks said the global warming alarmists cherry pick their data to mislead the public. He noted that Mount Shasta glaciers increased 30 percent last year.

Fulks said the reality is that the climate is always changing, and humans have less of an impact on the climate than Mother Nature has. To think that we can control the climate is foolish, Fulks said.

Fulks noted the 11 and 22 year sun spot cycle that influences earth’s changing climate. He said lower solar activity leads to lower temperatures on earth. Fulks said the oceans contain heat and ocean phenomenons like la nina and el nino influence climate changes.

The “Great Pacific Climate Shifts” of the mid 1940s and mid 1970s resulted in lower temperatures at a time when industrialization was in place. Fulks said that warm global temperatures in history often resulted in easier travel and even in a Renaissance period. Conversely, when the earth saw a “little ice age” Viking settlements perished, and crops in Europe were affected negatively, leading to grain crop failures and a shift for Europeans to eating potatoes.

Fulks said that solar cycles influence earth’s temperatures, and that solar winds play a part.

In response to a question from the audience, Fulks mentioned the contrived global warming issue may be a product of those who oppose industrialization, such as the counterculture folks.

When asked about the recent concern over polar bear populations and how that may be related to supposed global warming, Fulks said the bears are a hearty animal and it’s a good example of how the global warming alarmists prefer to use emotionalism to make their point rather than invoking rational policy.

Fulks went on to say the climate change issue is a “trojan horse” because it’s an attempt to control and regulate public policy. Fulks concluded by emphasizing that proposals for “carbon trading” would really just mean a new tax or taxes, and we should move with caution.

To hear Dr. Fulks’ speech and other Rubicon guest speakers, please visit the Rubicon Society website for more information.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 06:00 | Posted in Measure 37 | 148 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • Jerry

    Fulks is right. Bravo to him for speaking the truth.

  • Rupert in Springfield

    The debate is over. This heretic must be silenced. Off with his head! There is only one exact temperature the earth should be and the AGW clerics have divined it as the temperature that is occurring right now. Not one degree more or less. Heresy I say, our is not to think, ours is to obey.

  • David

    This essay is riddled with so many holes and inaccuracies it’s difficult to even get started, and probably not worth the effort.

    It’s interesting that Gordon Fulks doesn’t make his objections in the peer-reviewed literature. That’s were real science is done. Instead he must write op-ed pieces and give talks to audiences who want to hear what they already believe.

    He does not present his own theory of 20th century warming. Saying it’s “natural” does not suffice — you have to prove that. That’s the whole point of being a climatologist.

    Scientists who have studied the issue find it impossible to reconstruct 20th century warming via natural forcings alone. It’s only when anthropogenic factors are included that models reproduce the observed climate.

    What does Gordon’s model show?

    Solar influence on climate has been shown to be small relative to anthropogenic GHGs, with no correlations between solar activity and the climate of the last few decades. The solar climate forcing is significantly less than that of anthropogenic GHGs — what do Fulks numbers say?.

    Lockwood et al wrote in the Proc Roy Soc A in 2007, “Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.” They had a follow-up paper in 2008.

    Funny how Gordon F didn’t mention that study, or write an opposing study for submission to the same journal.

    I could go on and on here. If Fulks ideas had scientific merit, he would submit them to the scientific literature and they would be being published there. As a scientist, he knows this as well as anyone.

    • Where is my global warming?

      The global warming folks have no clothes on their issue. Fulks is right. The Church of Environmentalism is out of control again. What is it going to do when it has to support the return of clean nuclear energy?

      • Rupert in Springfield

        Beats me, remember, AGW was founded precisely for this purpose, to further the establishment of nuclear energy in the UK under Thatcher.

    • Sid Leiken

      David

      Will you have an open mind on this issue? It doesn’t look like it. I listened to Mr. Fulks and I have also listened to those who believe we are heading to a catastrophe. One thing about science is that it is about interpreting information. Remember when scientists said the only way to protect fish in the streams is after a timber harvest to completely clear out the streams. They were proved wrong and realized it is better for the fish to have more of a natural environment and to keep the natural debris in the streams. When did this occur? About 30 years ago. Before the old men in congress enact policy let’s make sure the information is accurate with more information.

      • John Fairplay

        No kidding. Remember when the “consensus of scientists” was that the sea lions found dead in the Bonneville traps were shot? Whoops. Remember when the consensus of scientists was that the earth was flat? Remember when the consensus of scientists was that the sun revolved around the earth?

        • David

          So because some scientists have sometimes been wrong, that disproves AGW? Hardly a rigorous scientific argument.

          What about all the science *has* gotten right: Newtonian physics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics, quantum field theory, quark theory, discovering the chemical basis of life — do I really have to go on?

          You life have been immeasurably changed by science in the last four decades. You can’t admit this? And you want to talk about a few sea lions who died in a trap?

          • Boze Noze

            David, Funny you should use Newtonian physics as an example of correct science then, in the same sentence, site quatum theory which proved Newtonian rules could not explain subatomic partical behavior…We discover exceptions to most scientific theories daily. Why is it so hard for you to accept that AGW is not settled science and may possibly be a flawed theory?

            I was there for Dr. Fulks talk and he was not addressing the unsettled science as much as the use of unsettled science for political means. He also only had about 30 minutes to address the entire issue to a laymen audience. He did site several peer reviewed studies and offered to supply additional references for those who wanted them.

            Have you listened to his presentation on Rubicon’s website? Have you seen his bio? It is impressive, particularly his PhD thesis on solar atmosphere. What’s your bio?

            31,000+ scientist (including over 9,000 PhD’s) must have some reason for not agreeing with the IPCC. I guess they all work for Big Oil!

          • Charles moss

            I listened to Dr. Fulks and then went to some web sites and started to see what I could do to determine who is stating facts and who is spinning them. The following site listed 31,000+ scientists and a breakdown of their degrees.
            http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GWPP/Qualifications of Signers.html

            Then I came across the following:Even Mr. Gore qualified his statement(that the debate in the scientific community is over) on ABC only a few minutes after he made it, clarifying things in an important way. When Mr. Stephanopoulos confronted Mr. Gore with the fact that the best estimates of rising sea levels are far less dire than he suggests in his movie, Mr Gore defended his claim by noting that scientists “don’t have any models that give them a high level of confidence” one way or the other and went on to claim-in his defense-that scientists “don’t know . They just don’t know.”
            Also David, the Washington Post reported in 2000, Al Gore’s college grades as follows:Natural Science 6 (Man’s Place in Nature): D.
            I think Dr. Fulks did better than that.

    • Rupert in Springfield

      Couldn’t the same argument be made against an AGW member any time they spoke on an issue? If Fulks is required to refute every study whenever he speaks, then shouldn’t the same be required of the opposite side? Fulks was speaking to a group of people, not a scientific board of inquiry, apparently he sometimes also writes op ed pieces. If you feel Fulks is wrong for taking this approach, then isn’t Al Gore wrong for doing the same? To my knowledge Al Gore has not written up a scientific study that has been published in a peer reviewed journal. I don’t have a problem with this. I do have a problem with the idea that only scientists are allowed to speak against AGW, and even then should be held to the rigorous standard of peer reviewed journals as a forum, when no such requirement seems to be made of the pro AGW membership.

      • David

        Rupert wrote:
        > Couldn’t the same argument be made against an
        > AGW member any time they spoke on an issue? If
        > Fulks is required to refute every study whenever he
        > speaks, then shouldn’t the same be required of the opposite side?

        Rupert, this is exactly what has been going on in the scientific literature for 30 years, only with rigor. Scientists *have* refuted Fulks arguments, and that of the skeptics. They have published volumes about it, and even written the IPCC reports nicely summarize it. Have you read them?

        • Abraxia

          And there have been more rebuttals of the IPCC and others in regards to the rebuttals by the IPCC and others.

          The fact of that matter is that you are wrong, your people are wrong, and when a global ice age hits, you will be the one I laugh at.

        • Rupert in Springfield

          >Have you read them?

          No, and I am sure you have not either. I doubt very highly that you read through vast amounts of scientific journals on the topic, and have the multitude of PhD’s that would qualify you to assess them. If I am wrong, fine, but I doubt it.

          I do what I think you, and probably most do, wade through the reporting on the issue, check as many sources as possible with the level of expertise one has, and draw a conclusion. I simply have come to a different conclusion than you. If peer reviewed study is to be the criterion upon which to judge, there are enough studies of a contrary nature out there to give one pause before jumping over the precipice the AGW crowd encourages. This is especially true, given the sums AGW’rs want everyone to spend. Their actions, more that of zealots, than people engaged in an intellectual debate, they want none, does little to further confidence in them. Two examples:

          This idea that only one who has read all or a lot of the scientific literature has any right to criticize AGW is one of the characteristics of the movement that make people like myself tend to think it takes on more religious tones than scientific ones. This shutting down of debate by anyone who is not either an AGW supporter in the scientific community, or an adherent in the lay community is simply too close to the bible thumping practices of religious zealots to be deniable any longer.

          The fact that the IPCC report is still held up as something that is literal truth revealed, whose statements cannot be challenged gives it less the character of any scientific document and more that of an oracle or a bible. The fact that some scientists have had to sue to have their names removed from it, and others have been quite public about its gerrymandering speaks to the foolishness of this approach. There are no shortage of studies, both peer reviewed and widely publicized that tend to contradict or provide other explanations than AGW. The fact that somehow the IPCC is still held out as the only true dogma says a lot about the scientific method its adherents would like one to believe they have.

          I am perfectly willing to consider AGW as a possibility. I am quite skeptical when ones mode of persuasion tends to involve belittlement of non-believers or shutting down of debate from those with expertise in the field. By their actions so shall you know them, and the AGW churches actions have been read loud and clear by many, myself included.

    • Bruce

      You seem to have never taken a college level science class. They teach you the first week that you should NEVER use models to predict the past due the fact you can simply adjust every input until you get what you want. That is freshman chem!!! Peer-reviewed mags? Peer-reviewed by the same people that support the paper. Science mags have been caught publishing baseless articles on the subject far too often.

      The SUN is a .80 correlation with Temp patterns while CO2 is just .29. They teach you in freshman science that you go with the better correlation. Your Sun having little effect has been debunked and with the new results of bucket data changing your author is looking like a hack.

    • jim karlock

      Hey, David.

      We’re still waiting for that peer-reviewed paper that proves CO2 actually causes warming at today’s levels.

      thanks
      JK

  • David

    Here’s a big reason to believe in AGW:

    IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
    https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

    What do Gordon Fulks’ graphs show?

    • Where’s my global warming?

      Would anyone like to respond to the fact that we have record snowfall in Oregon this year in spite of all the global warming scaremongering going on with the writers who have written in? Don’t let reality interfere with your “scientific theory.” Ask the rafters. Or how about the global cooling scare in the 1970s that Newsweek and other media were shrieking about?

  • John Fairplay

    If someone would actually run a scientifically relevant experiment on this issue – that is, pump additional Co2 into a planet-sized atmosphere of the same composition as earth’s and measure temperature changes – it would be useful. Unfortunately, all we have is speculation and computer model runs based on speculation and/or the politico/religious views of the folks funding the computer model run.

    Over the past 100 years there has been a statistically insignificant increase in global average temperatures – an increase which is in the process of being wiped out by the current cooling trend. The cause of that very slight warming – as well as the cause of the current very slight cooling – is unknown.

  • John in Oregon

    Suzanne I noticed you mentioned the 11 and 22 year cycle Dr. Fulks spoke about in his talk. Did he mention the approximately 200 year solar cycle? That is the one I find more interesting as sunspot activity influences my work as it does many other fields.

    For my field there is a particular historic connection with sunspot activity minimum in the early 1800’s. We do have observational sunspot records going back to the very late 1500’s early 1600’s when the investigators of the time thought sunspots foretold the future.

    It turns out today for many technological activities that sunspots do control events. Talk about coming full circle!

    • David

      > For my field there is a particular historic connection with
      > sunspot activity minimum in the early 1800’s.

      This was a time when there was no anthropogenic GHG forcing.

  • Crawdude

    Global Warming has fallen apart! Now they desperately are changing their catch phrase to ” Climate Change” since the warming phenomenon didn’t last long enough. This is just the earth’s normal meander of change, its happened before and it will happen again.

    Algore has been uncharacteristically quiet about the demise of his crackpot hypothesis. Perhaps he’s designing a new internet or something.

    • dean

      Dude…its not Al Gore’s hypothesis. He is a political and civic leader who has popularized the hypothesis of actual climate scientists.

      John F….that is the problem. We can’t create a planet sized experiment, because we do not have a Magrathea (from Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy). We are our own lab mice on this issue. There was no “scientific consensus” on what killed the sea lions. There was an initial theory that was not substantiated by further investigation of available evidence. That is the way it is supposed to work no?. And “flat earth” was a pre-science concept.

      Rupert..if Fulks was speaking as a climate expert to a lay audience, then yes he has an obligation to back up his claims,particularly his central one that global warming theory is a “hoax.” Show us how data is being falsafied or manipulated, and by who, and for what purpose if you are going to make such a claim. Don’t just speculate.

      Beyond that, he accuses climate scientists who accept the global warming thesis of “cherry picking,” and then he has the gall to cite a 1 year growth of glaciers on Mt Shasta as evidence that the earth is now cooling? I mean…his entire talk should be discredited on this nonsense alone.

      And no…Al Gore is not “doing the same.” For one, Al is not presenting his own scientific credentials or his thesis or research. He is summarizing the work of climate scientists…the vast, vast majority of whom agree on the fundamentals.

      Sid…point well taken that scientists are sometimes wrong. But the way their mistakes are corrected are through further observation, experimentation, improved models, and peer review. Not through some unsubstantiated “what ifs” presented to a political audience. Is the current “consensus” among aquatic ecologists that large wood is a key factor in stream an salmon health right or wrong? It is right until someone demonstrates otherwise through evidence to the satisfaction of his or her peers.

      Rupert writes: AGW was “founded precisely for this purpose, to further the establishment of nuclear energy in the UK under Thatcher.” Good grief. What rock did you dig that one out from under? Why not blame it on the French? They have far more nukes than the Brits.

      • Gienie

        Morning Dean! Good to see you!

      • Charles moss

        Dean,
        Relax, you sound like your shorts are pulled up to high. Let me give you some of Al Gore’s scientific supporters.
        ABC- Sam Champion, B.A. Broadcast News. (not a meteorologist)
        CBS-Harry Smith, B.A. Communications and Theater
        NBC-Matt Lauer B.A. Communications
        And there are a lot more like Michael Moore, College Dropout. etc. If you want to refute Dr. Fulks do so with facts and not BS

  • David

    > If someone would actually run a scientifically
    > relevant experiment on this issue – that is, pump
    > additional Co2 into a planet-sized atmosphere
    > of the same composition as earth’s and measure
    > temperature changes

    Of course we can’t do this. So therefore we should completely ignore the issue and not try to understand it as best we can? That would be completely foolish.

    We can’t run “scientifically relevant experiments” on supernovae, either, making on in the laboratory. All we can do is watch them as they unfold. Yet, from these mere observations scientists have discovered enormous facts about the composition of the universe.

    We don’t test every new drug on humans first, and sometimes not on humans at all. Does that mean we cannot make any judgements about the wisedom of giving certain drugs to humans? Of course not.

    > Over the past 100 years there has been a statistically
    > insignificant increase in global average temperatures

    Define “statistically insignificant.”

    > The cause of that very slight warming – as well as the cause of the
    > current very slight cooling – is unknown.

    False. See:

    IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
    https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

  • David

    And by the way, it is logically absurd to assert that RealClimate.org somehow directs journalists. On any given issue, journalists publish *before* RC comments on the paper. These papers are embargoed and the press gets first crack at them.

  • wikiwikiwu

    These people often act unintelligently or appear uninformed, and may behave in an overtly bigoted manner. The effect is often to obfuscate the debate and prevent a serious discussion of the arguments from each side. Suspicion is often harder to verify though, as there are often people who naturally behave in such a manner with the same effects.

  • John in Oregon

    David, What precisely does *”This was a time when there was no anthropogenic GHG forcing.”* have to do with my question to Suzanne Penegor about Dr. Fulks presenation?

    > *This essay is riddled with so many holes and inaccuracies it’s difficult to even get started*

    This is a news story reporting on a talk given by Dr. Fulks. Which part of this news item inaccurately reflects the contents of the talk?

    > *It’s interesting that Gordon Fulks doesn’t*

    Attack by diminishment. Its Dr. Gordon Fulks.

    > *It’s interesting that [Dr.] Gordon Fulks doesn’t make his objections in the peer-reviewed literature.*

    Which part of the scientific method requires that scientists may not speak to the public?

    > *Fulks doesn’t make his objections in the peer-reviewed literature. That’s were real science is done.*

    Real science is done in the laboratory and field by observation, investigation and experimentation. Peer review is a convention intended to provide an orderly publication of results of scientific work done in the laboratory and field by observation, investigation and experimentation.

    Peer review does not guarantee accuracy of published articles. Work is often withdrawn after publication, frequently by the authors. A particular embryonic work comes to mind.

    Nor does non-peer reviewed publication convey any label of fallaciousness. All work either stands or falls based on accuracy, reliability, repeatability, and evidence, not individual or group opinion.

    > *Instead he must write op-ed pieces and give talks to audiences who want to hear what they already believe.*

    The byline on this article is: “Article written by: Suzanne Penegor” Why are you attacking the messinger?

    Nevertheless this is the logical fallacy of Ad hominem. An ad hominem argument is any that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person, rather than addressing the argument itself.

    > *He does not present his own theory of 20th century warming. Saying it’s “natural” does not suffice — you have to prove that. That’s the whole point of being a climatologist.*

    This it the logical fallacy of Ad ignorantiam. That is the argument from ignorance basically states that a specific belief is true because we don’t know that it isn’t true.

    For example, here, David has argued that anthropogenic global warming is certainly occurring because nobody has demonstrated conclusively that it is not. But failing to prove the global warming theory false is not the same as proving it true.

    > *Scientists who have studied the issue find it impossible to reconstruct 20th century warming via natural forcings alone.*

    The logical fallacy of confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable. Because we do not currently have an adequate natural explanation for a phenomenon does not mean that it is forever unexplainable.

    That scientists currently find something impossible does not mean it is forever impossible.

    > *Scientists who have studied the issue find it impossible to reconstruct 20th century warming via natural forcings alone. It’s only when anthropogenic factors are included that models reproduce the observed climate.*

    False statement of fact. Dr. Roy W. Spencer, Ph.D has produced such a model which is consistent with the known record and does not include AGW factors.

    > *What does Gordon’s model show?*

    The logical fallacy of argument from the negative. The argument that Dr. Fulks, having not produced a model proves AGW is true.

    David, I didn’t know you were on a first name basis with Dr. Fulks. Would you mind providing me an introduction to Dr. Fulks?

    > *Solar influence on climate has been shown to be small relative to anthropogenic GHGs, with no correlations between solar activity and the climate of the last few decades. The solar climate forcing is significantly less than that of anthropogenic GHGs.*

    Solar variability is a contested and evolving aspect of science. The issue is solar variability and not solar forcing.

    Its interesting that none of the current predictions of the future of the next solar cycle seem particularly reliable. An exciting time for solar physics and the physicists conducting it and also not surprising as its only recently that satellite technology has been in place to provide the level of data presently available.

    One antidotal comment, it is interesting that when the smoothing filter is removed the 11/22 year solar cycle clearly becomes visible.

    > *what do Fulks numbers say?*

    The logical fallacy of argument from the negative. The argument that Dr. Fulks, having not produced numbers proves AGW is true.

    > *Lockwood et al wrote in the Proc Roy Soc A in 2007, “Here we show that over the past 20 years…*

    This argument asserts that what is true for a 20 year period is true for all time.

    Its also Argument from Authority. While it is reasonable to give more credence to the claims of those with the proper background the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

    > *Funny how Gordon F didn’t mention that study, or write an opposing study for submission to the same journal.*

    Attack by diminishment. Its Dr. Gordon Fulks.

    Ad hominem. An argument that attempts to counter anothers claims or conclusions by attacking the person.

    Argument from the negative. The argument that Dr. Fulks, having not conducted an opposing study proves AGW is true.

    Minor point. One does not write a study. One conducts a study and writes a report.

    > *If Fulks ideas had scientific merit, he would submit them to the scientific literature and they would be being published there. As a scientist, he knows this as well as anyone.*

    Ad hominem

    > *I could go on and on here.*

    In the absence of a cogent and civil discussion, its best not.

    • Dr. David Appell

      John, it’s just that most people I know have a Ph.D., so I don’t take them that seriously. They are not a substitute for rigorous thinking.

      • John in Oregon

        PHD = piled higher and deeper 🙂

      • jim karlocik

        wow!, You wouldn’t know it from the things you say and how you say them.

        Thanks
        JK

    • Dean

      Beyond that John…by insisting that the “Dr” appelation be used whenever referring to Mr Fulks, aren’t you yourself engaging in “argument from authority?” Who cares if he is a PhD or a high school dropout? Does he have anything worthwhile or new to add to the debate? From this post…apparently not.

      But the larger point, back to the original post:

      “Dr. Gordon J. Fulks, a scientist and physicist, spoke to the Rubicon Society of Lane County on May 15th about the global warming hoax that is perpetuated by the media and politicians like Al Gore that are seeking power and money in their attempts to attack industrialization.”

      I mean…read that sentence slowly and use the same well honed analytical skills you apply to David’s remarks.

      “Global warming hoax?” Please explain. What makes it a “hoax?” Who is doing this to us and why? What is the evidence that this is a “hoax?” Does Dr Fuchs really believe that his fellow scientists are engaged in fraud? Because that is a pretty serious charge to make.

      “perpetuated by the media.” How about “reported in the media?” What is it reporters are “perpetuating?” The unexplained hoax? Are they “in on it?” Of course! How do we know? Because they report what the lying scientists tell us! Please. This is lapsing into Descartian paranoia.

      “politicians like Al Gore.” I don’t know any LIKE Al Gore. He is a rather unique political actor, whther one loves him or hates him. Why not just say Al Gore and name a few others if there is a point to be made? Like don’t believe global warming is happening because you should not trust Al Gore or anyone like him (white male Democrat?) as a messenger?

      “attacking industrialization.” Who is doing this attack? I thought those of us concerned about global warming (including Al Gore) are trying to come to grips with a byproduct of industrialization that is causing harm? And I thought those of us pushing for solutions are relying on the very technocratic and industrial infrastructure to find solutions to the problem? Did I miss something? If Al Gore for example, were in this for his personal enrichment, and if he is advocating the de-industrialization of society, then has he invested in draft horses?

      Unfortunately we are not having much of a cogent and civil discussion on this issue. Maybe civil, but not very cogent, since neither side seems to be breaking through to the other.

      And hello to Genie, my favorite (if misguided) young conservative.

      • Gienie

        Dean,

        Misguided… is such an unfair annalysis. Unless you are referring to the liberal training I have received through government education!!

        O.M.G. Don’t get me started.

      • Sid Leiken

        Dean

        When it comes to asking and talking to those of us in the business community who have actually made a difference to protect the environment, I have never and repeat never, received a phone call by anyone believing global warming or climate change is real on what business can do to be better. I have, however, spoken to an international conference in New York City, spoke to a group in Chicago, spoke to the Pollution Prevention Resource Center in Portland, worked as a consultant, was asked to give my blessing to a new technology being developed at the research triangle at the University of North Carolina, tested new fabrics being developed by Boeing with my cleaning system in the late 90’s and served on a group called Design for the Environment. The latter was a partnership between a group of business leaders and the EPA to work towards creating a positive atmosphere for green business. Again this was in 1998. I am fairly easy to get in touch with as I am the mayor of the 9th largest city in the state of Oregon.

        My point is too many people are making the decisions that are making their living with grant money or writing a good thesis statement in college instead of those of us who risked our own investment to create. Again, science is about interpreting information and then you can create whatever computer model you would like.

        • dean

          Sid…those doing the research are not those making the policy decisions. If that were the case our nation would have taken the plunge into conservation and alternative energy development some number of years ago. All the scientists can do is present their findings and suggest solutions. The dilemna many of them find themselves in is that they are dependent on the same planet as the rest of us, so are as affected by whatever outcome is chosen.

          I can’t speak for those who are taking policy leadership roles on global warming as to who they contact among business leaders and what they ask for. I have seen a number of business leaders step up and make changes to lower their company carbon “footprint” as they call it. Even WallMart has done so. I believe businesses can and will respond to the challenge, but some may need more of a nudge than others.

        • David

          Sid, frankly, I have a difficult time trying to understand what you are getting at, but your last comment that “…you can create whatever computer model you would like” is complete, total, umitigated, pure bull.

          Models must conform to reality. They must incorporate the best physics possible. They must be as finely honed as possible. They must back-predict climate based on a given set of initial conditions — IPCC models do that.

          I keep asking everyone: have you even looked at this?

          IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
          https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

          This is how science is done, Sid — you need to examine the nitty-gritty details. You need specific predictions from specific models, not just “whatever computer model you like.”

          You show very little understanding of what a model is or how they are judged and validated.

          Have you ever, perhaps, built one?

          • Sid Leiken

            David

            Why are you having a difficult time understanding what I am getting at? I thought it was very understandable. Those who understand the economics and how to create jobs in sustainable business practices should be involved in the process and that has not been the case as should be. This is being driven by environmental think tanks, attorney’s and yes, science.

            Again, you are focused on computer models around climate change. My thoughts on computer models was more of a global approach. Do you think for a moment when science was used like it was to create the northwest forest plan that the computer models had an answer for the Barred Owl killing and running the Northern Spotted Owl out of its habitat. No it did not and probably should not either, but the point is a computer model can only do as much as what kind of information is inputted. Have I ever built one? No I have not and I do not have the time to do so. My schedule is just alittle bit busy, but I may eventually hire someone who is capable of building one.

            If we are creating policy that could have disasterous effects on us, like the NW Forest Plan, then lets look at more than just one side. Hopefully this is a little more clear for you to understand.

          • David

            Sid wrote:
            > Why are you having a difficult time understanding what I
            > am getting at?

            Because you’re a poor writer, seemingly incapable of cogently summarizing your thoughts.

          • Sid Leiken

            I actually hire folks to do that for me. I have a few more important things to do with my time.

          • David

            Good writing skills are the sign of a keen mind. You can hire out a lot of things, but keenness isn’t one of them.

          • jim karlocik

            *Sid Leiken:* Why are you having a difficult time understanding what I am getting at? I thought it was very understandable.
            *JK:* I have the same problem with those two.

            I am starting to think that their goal has nothing to do with climate, rather it is about stopping man’s imagined sins against nature. It is a bit Luddite, with a green religion thrown in — the facts don’t really matter – they have received the truth from Al Gore and Jim Hansen (both of which are raking in the dollars.)

            *Sid Leiken:* Those who understand the economics and how to create jobs in sustainable business practices should be involved in the process and that has not been the case as should be.
            *JK:* They don’t have a clue about economics – they merely think that they know it all and in reality don’t have a clue about the real world. The sad thing is that they both are writers.

            *Sid Leiken:* This is being driven by environmental think tanks, attorney’s and yes, science.
            *JK:* And millions of Federal research dollars. And Millions of dollars donated to green hucksters that scare people into sending money to save the earth. Just like those TV preachers that need you money to save ……. and they end up spending it on temples and prostitutes.

            *Sid Leiken:* Have I ever built one? No I have not and I do not have the time to do so. My schedule is just alittle bit busy, but I may eventually hire someone who is capable of building one.
            *JK:* The basic problem with a model is that if you leave out one factor, all of the others MUST be mis-weighted to make it fit history. This guarantees that it will not project the future. Further, you cannot know what is left out! So the type of modeling that they are trying are simply impossible at our current state of knowledge.

            They are too uniformed to recognize this. We are arguing with scientifically illeterates.

            Thanks
            JK

      • John in Oregon

        > *Beyond that John…by insisting that the “Dr” appelation (sic) be used whenever referring to Mr Fulks, aren’t you yourself engaging in “argument from authority?” Who cares if he is a PhD or a high school dropout? Does he have anything worthwhile or new to add to the debate?*

        Of course it is. And is permitted as well, *provided,* and this is key, the truth of a claim should ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the authority of the person promoting it.

        This becomes a fallacy when the authority of the person replaces logic and evidence.

        Just as consensus is permitted, *provided* the truth of a claim must ultimately rest on logic and evidence, not the consensus. This also becomes a fallacy when the consensus replaces the test of logic and evidence.

        By convention, Dr. Fulks, Mr. Fulks, or simply Fulks would be acceptable depending on usage. It’s the misplaced personal, Gordon, or Dr. F that become diminutive.

        > *I mean…read that sentence slowly and use the same well honed analytical skills you apply to David’s remarks.*

        I know what you mean. Its hard to tell if that’s colorful reporting, a reflection of Fulks, or just what. But then you know my criticism of the media.

      • Charles moss

        I guess my list of Al Gore supporters, such as Paris Hilton-High School dropout, was not the right list for you. I noticed in your reply to Gienie, it didn’t make any difference whether they had a PHD or were high school dropouts. So much for a discussion. Have a nice day and put on a coat in this cool spring Global Warming day.

  • David

    John, do you mean the 4/22/08 post Spencer’s on Pielke Sr’s site?

    It hasn’t even been peer-reviewed, so I’m hesitate to even take it seriously.

    But, looking at Fig. 3, I see a noticeable lack of agreement with the rise in global temperatures since around 1992. He’s at least 0.2C too low for the last decade. Not very impressive.

    The weighting functions he uses for the SOI and PDO (Eq. 2) appear to be completely ad hoc. He fiddles with them until he gets the best answer. Not very impressive.

    Ray Pierrehumbert discussed this on RealClimate (5/21), made a different choice for the ad hoc parameters, and obtained a completely different result.

    Notably, Spencer doesn’t run his model into the future. Isn’t that the point?

    This one, simple, linear model hardly substitutes for the dozens of huge, multi-feedback models derived over the years and, right now, running on some of the fastest computers in the world.

    • John in Oregon

      > *John, do you mean the 4/22/08 post Spencer’s on Pielke Sr’s site?*

      I believe I do. In particular I am referring to the graphical output that Spencer posts on his site. My point however was to offer that such a model exists. While my goal was not to discuss this particular model, nevertheless, you have raised a productive avenue of inquiry.

      You commented > *He’s at least 0.2C too low for the last decade.*

      I concur it understates 92-02. I also note that 42 is understated and 48 over stated as tho the program smoothed out short term (5-10 years) excursions. I would very much like to see what the model does when the input data is added for 2002 to 2008.

      Let me come back to that in a moment, I need to take a short side trip here. Inside your computer monitor there are adjustments for color balance, saturation, contrast and intensity. They are used to adjust the hardware to match reality. IE, make the picture look right. Misadjusted they can make things look ugly, green faces, etc.

      Similarly a computer model can be used to create computer generated faces. The computer program can use equations built into the program. For example if the surface of the face is at such and so angle then the reflection is calculated to thus and so intensity and color balance. These kinds of programs are very mechanical, that is, they don’t match reality well. This is where assumptions and adjustments are used to make the product more real.

      These adjustments are not only acceptable, they are necessary.

      Weather forecasting models are the same. They take observed input data, make calculations and apply adjustments to produce a predictive output. Over time, with small adjustments made and, the predictions tested against the real world, the prediction accuracy is validated.

      > *The weighting functions he uses for the SOI and PDO (Eq. 2) appear to be completely ad hoc. He fiddles with them until he gets the best answer.*

      I agree with your perception of “fiddling”. Nevertheless given my description above. that’s fully acceptable, with one important _caveat

      Now back to Spencer’s admiralty simple model. Here is the challenge I would make to Spencer. Lets take your model, and this is the important caveat, _without making adjustments to its calculation engine,_ add the input data for 02 to 08. The output will likely fall in one of three categories.

      1] It will diverge further from the observed trend, in which case the model is invalid.
      2] The output will converge with the observed trend, in which case it is necessary to explain the divergences, which might be done by,
      3] Showing the model smoothes out observed trend excursions. IE, 1908, 1942, 1948, 2000.

      Now, in case 1], subsequent adjustment is allowed, however further tests are required.

      I said the above not to defend Spencer’s model but for another purpose. First one other quick excursion.

      > *Ray Pierrehumbert discussed this on RealClimate (5/21), made a different choice for the ad hoc parameters, and obtained a completely different result.*

      Given Spencer’s simple model, how model engines work, and the assumption changes Pierrehumbert made, then;
      In fact, had the results _not_ diverged, I would assert the calculation engine is faulty.

      Referring to Spencer’s model you stated > *It hasn’t even been peer-reviewed, so I’m hesitate to even take it seriously.*

      Here we are at the central question. How do we validate models? Further what purpose do we validate them for? As a research tool we might well have simple criteria. If, however, as a predictive tool in support of legislation, rigorous validation ought to be the norm.

      For this task I suspect peer review may be an ill-suited tool to the task. What do we review and publish, the computer code, the underlying assumptions, the equations. Each of these is only a component of the model. Somewhat akin to the blind men describing the elephant.

      Now I am not suggesting these components be withheld. In fact I would suggest, absent a compelling proprietary need, the computer code, the underlying assumptions, the equations and input data source be publicly available for audit.

      It is my perception that the model calculation engines, the input data, or both are being manipulated while the central tenants of the models are undisclosed. I consider this kind of Ad Hoc model adjustment a huge problem.

      As a laboratory research tool this is quite fine. However these models are now being used for purposes well beyond the laboratory. In this case the lack of validation is a huge problem. BTW, I believe this is precisely what Sid was referring to above, particularly as it applies to policy.

      _There must be some means to validate and audit models._

      • dean

        John….Dr Fulks, at least as far as is reported in the post, provided no orignial research findings, no evidence, no new analysis to refute any aspect of glogbal warming. He apparently just used his “authority” as a PhD to recyle old charges, already well refuted arguments, and what ifs. So the entire post appears to be “argument by authority.” Not logic nor evidence.

        In contrast the consensus position on global warming is clearly backed by logic (physics of radiative forcing,) measurement (observed and recorded increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and average surface temperatures,) analysis, and authority (IPCC, NASA, etc….).

        I’m puzzled by your easy acceptance and defense of his presentation, given your analytcal mind.

        • John in Oregon

          > *Dr Fulks, at least as far as is reported in the post, provided no orignial (sic) research findings evidence…*

          _Translation_ absent research done by a particular scientist, that scientist may not speak to the public.

          > *Dr Fulks, at least as far as is reported in the post, provided no orignial (sic) research findings evidence no new analysis…*

          _Translation_ absent new analysis done by a particular scientist, that scientist may not speak to the public. Those who speak in support however must not be muzzled.

          > *Dr Fulks, at least as far as is reported in the post, provided no orignial (sic) research findings, no evidence, no new analysis to refute any aspect of glogbal (sic) warming.*

          _Translation_ absent research or new analysis done by a particular scientist which refutes AGW, that scientist may not speak to the public. Those who speak in support however must not be muzzled.

          > *In contrast the consensus position on global warming is clearly backed by logic (physics of radiative forcing,)*

          Absent other factors, it’s the physics of radiative forcing while assuming a _constant_ solar input. This assumes everything in the climate system will stay unchanged.

          > *He apparently just used his “authority” as a PhD to recyle (sic) old charges, already well refuted arguments, and what ifs. So the entire post appears to be “argument by authority.”*

          As I read this news item, I take it that Dr Fulks was speaking to the interface between Science, International Politics, the Legal Profession, National Politics, Economics and the public. To what degree Argument from Authority would apply is not clear.

          > *In contrast the consensus position on global warming is clearly backed by … and authority (IPCC, NASA, etc….)*

          Scientists are involved with the IPCC. But, keep in mind the IPCC is a particularly peculiar kind of political organization, controlled by politicians, and operating under the mandate of a political organization.

          In this case the IPCC has assumed the role of a publisher, and in the unique position of refereeing its own work. In peer review neither the reviewer nor the author is in the position to control the other. Most authors do consider the review comment but ultimately it is the publisher and the review process that determines publication. Here however the IPCC is in a position to reject review comments. And for the “Summary for Policymakers” not even that if at all.

          > *I’m puzzled by your easy acceptance and defense of his presentation…*

          Here I have spoken to some specifics of the issue. I have not spoken of acceptance or mounted a particular defense Per se.

          I would however note there is a particularly fruitful discussion to be had of the interface between Science, International Politics, the Legal Profession, National Politics, Economics and the public.

          For the moment I wish to peruse other comments.

          On another thread we had a discussion about media and success in Iraq. I wondered if you had noticed the following item.

          *The Iraqi Upturn
          Don’t look now, but the U.S.-backed government and army may be winning the war.
          Washington Post*
          Sunday, June 1, 2008

          Still, the rapidly improving conditions should allow U.S. commanders to make some welcome adjustments — and it ought to mandate an already-overdue rethinking by the “this-war-is-lost” caucus in Washington, including Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.).

          If the positive trends continue, proponents of withdrawing most U.S. troops, such as Mr. Obama, might be able to responsibly carry out further pullouts next year. Still, the likely Democratic nominee needs a plan for Iraq based on sustaining an improving situation, rather than abandoning a failed enterprise. That will mean tying withdrawals to the evolution of the Iraqi army and government, rather than an arbitrary timetable; Iraq’s 2009 elections will be crucial. It also should mean providing enough troops and air power to continue backing up Iraqi army operations such as those in Basra and Sadr City. When Mr. Obama floated his strategy for Iraq last year, the United States appeared doomed to defeat. Now he needs a plan for success.

  • David

    > There must be some means to validate and audit models.

    There is. It’s called back-prediction. See:

    IPCC 4th Assessment Report, FAQ 9.2, Fig 1, p. 703.
    https://tinyurl.com/27ocvp

    Thanks for agreeing with me that Spencer’s model is seriously deficient on several different points, including a significant underprediction of global temperatures since 1992.

    I wonder, then, why we are supposed to believe in this model, if it gives incorrect results but IPCC models do?

    -=-=-

    Bu the way, this week’s Physical Review Letters has a review of the tau lepton. Could you please enlighten us at to the correctness of their review, whether the tau fits into the SU(3)xSU(2)xU(1) theoretical scheme, and whether you agree with their generation of its spin and mass.

    Especially its spin. That’s particularly tricky, but crucial.

    What should the spin be, John?

    Thanks.

    • John in Oregon

      > *Especially its spin. That’s particularly tricky, but crucial.*

      When I first saw your question a few words came to mind, relevance, uninteresting and the like. We both know that you wouldn’t intentionally setup a Hobson’s choice, or would you? So as I thought about it I came upon an interesting question.

      That fascinating question I came too; why in your wildest imagination would you think I would want to go down that rabbit hole? Oddly, I do have it on good authority that the hole is the domain of a White Rabbit. Its color value as a White rabbit is crucial.

      > *Thanks for agreeing with me that Spencer’s model is seriously deficient on several different points, including a significant underprediction of global temperatures since 1992.*

      Not to quibble, tho of course that’s what I am going to do.

      I completely agree it’s a simple model, Spencer himself says that. It’s also evident that for several periods the observed trend is either under stated or over stated. Note I did not use the word prediction, strictly speaking a prediction involves the future, which has not yet occurred.

      Prediction is a tricky thing. At one time the consensus of investigators was that sunspots were predictive of the future. That fell when the predictions failed, nevertheless we now have an observational sunspot record dating from the late 1500’s.

      As to deficient, by the criteria you have used it would be. I observe that sufficiency and deficiency are dependent upon goal. Deficient for one may be more than sufficient for another. It very much depends upon Spencer’s purpose doesn’t it?

      And there is a clue to that thinking;
      Roy W. Spencer, William D. Braswell
      *Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Demonstration*
      Journal of Climate, American Meteorological Society, April 29 2008

      > In response to [S]ome means to validate and audit models. You commented.. *There is. It’s called back-prediction.*

      That is a good tool, and I see statisticians discussing the nuances of data set contamination. Rigorous and appropriate. In a different context, another description would be, _”20 – 20 hindsight”_

      I thought what I said was clear. Your somewhat dismissive answer suggests not. Therefor, in place of the word Validation, I will use the word Certification.

      Recall that in this forum we are discussing the confluence of Science, Politics, the Law, and Economics. Based on models, Politicians will write legislation, the Courts interpret the legislation (typically ever more restrictive), that will impact Economics.

      The public has a right to know that models have been Certified as predictive, and the models and data audited for accuracy and free from manipulation. The people expect no less of any corporation.

      The potential for harm must be balanced and not overlooked.

      In Science when a model fails, Science refines its understanding and moves on to a better model. Moving on from mass starvation caused by bad legislation and restrictive court interpretations is quite a different matter.

      What is the public to think in the face of:
      *Cold Water Thrown on Antarctic Warming Predictions*
      Andrea Thompson, Senior Writer
      LiveScience.com
      Antarctica hasn’t warmed as much over the last century as climate *models* had originally predicted, a new study finds…

      The new study, detailed in the April 5 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, marks the first time that researchers have been able to give a progress report on Antarctic climate model projections by comparing climate records to model simulations…

      Monaghan and his team found that while climate models projected temperature increases of 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.75 degrees Celsius) over the past century, temperatures were observed to have risen by only 0.4 F (0.2 C)….

      On another aspect, my original question here was about solar cycles. As I said solar cycles impact my field directly. I am aware of a relevant paper;
      *”Sunspots May Vanish by 2015″.*
      Science. 7. Mason, D., R. Komm, F. Hill, R. Howe, D. Haber, and B. W. Hindman. 2005.

      Although they also used other analyses, I had partially questioned their use of straight line projection of a short term trend to arrive at the 2015 date. I am also observed the October 2005 step function drop in the observed geomagnetic averaged planetary index. Both are interesting and I watch closely with anticipation.

      Then there was this in *Wired Magazine;*
      In the March, 2008 issue of Physics Today, West, the chief scientist of the Army Research Office’s mathematical and information science directorate, wrote that “the Sun’s turbulent dynamics” are linked with the Earth’s complex ecosystem. These connections are what is heating up the planet. The Sun could account for as much as 69 percent of the increase in Earth’s average temperature,” West noted.

      I mention this not from a scientific point of view, but rather that it would be so ironic if those ancient investigators were correct that sunspots are predictive after all.

      • David

        > At one time the consensus of investigators was that
        > sunspots were predictive of the future. That fell when
        > the predictions failed, nevertheless we now have
        > an observational sunspot record dating from the late 1500’s.

        I’m sorry, John, I can’t do anything but laugh here.

        Here’s what you said: The predictions were wrong but we still have the data.

        Well, duh, yeah. The data is the data. The predictions are the predictions.

        So freaking what?

        • John in Oregon

          David, I am pleased you see the irony of that consensus of those early investigators.

          You may have missed the ultimate irony which I will discuss below.

          The consensus that sunspots foretold the future must have been powerful indeed. With new fanged telescope in hand great effort was expended to maintain meticulous records of daily sunspot activity. Looking back today, from the twenty first century with 20 – 20 hindsight, the consensus that sunspots would predict when the King might die is simply ridiculous isnt it? Lets step back for a moment and take a wider view.

          Keep in mind this is the Renaissance, the medieval warming period. Western civilization was learning to observe and investigate the world. Too divine the laws of nature. Too apply the scientific method.

          With the challenge of the Little Ice Age, worldwide mass starvation, western civilization was challenged but did not collapse, as had been the previous history of cold periods. Understanding the world and the laws of nature, primitive as the understanding was at the time, and the scientific method played no small part in the survival of western civilization.

          And yes, that early consensus that sunspots foretold the death of the King was simply ridiculous. Today we have another consensus that the world is heating up – fast. That unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilization as we know it will come to an end. That the world is on track towards climate Armageddon. But there is no special claim of reality based on consensus.

          You may have missed the ultimate irony.

          Those early sunspot records may well be the starting point of understanding solar variability. Something that may well turn out to be the major climate driver of warming and cooling today.

          *Our discussion was the reliability of climate models.*

          One line in a recent article in _The Register_ caught my eye. “Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the “consensus” models which don’t.”

          What the article did not say is that all the IPCC models said the world would continue to warm. That all the IPCC models *failed* to predict the most recent decade as flat or declining in temperature.

          All of which prompted the Leibniz Institute to produce a new model, which includes Large Ocean currents.

          Some here have suggested that the cooling is just La Nina, nothing special. That’s just wrong. The physics of CO2 can not just conveniently switch off for the next few decades.

          What the Leibniz Institute model shows is the models are incomplete. That they are _not_ predictive. That the models are evolving to include natural factors. And I would argue should not be used as the basis for legislation.

          • jim karlocik

            John, I just want to say what a pleasure it is to see one more rational person here.

            Thanks
            JK

  • Anonymous

    David,

    You’re the worst debater of Global Warming I have seen yet. Even worse than dean.

    You said on the other thread
    “We are talking about dangerous environmental pollutants. CFCs, DDT, PAHs, carcinogens, dioxin, lead, sulfates, CO2, etc.”

    CO2 isn’t a pollutant.

    The IPCC has lost their credibility and you trotting out that sorry bit about peer review with the old and soured pretense than no credible scientists dispute AGW is no substitute for the cold hard facts.

    Worse yet is your contention that skepetics must prove AGW is not occuring.

    Even though the mere .7 degree 20th centurty increase is not proportianately or historicly significant.

    Down right ridiculous are your PEERS who keep attributing everything they see or dream up to that .7 degree increase that insist man has caused.

    What models show AGW causes arson? Thats what caused a lot of the recent wild fires. Not the .7 increase.

    Hurricanes are not increasing and number and strength due to AGW but your pals are still bellowing that whopper.

    dean says he and his friends can walk through the wilderness and see signs of AGW everywhere.
    He and his friends are kooks.

    On and on we go with the wing nuts and their wild imaginations and dishonesty.

    This IPCC scientist resigned because the IPCC is corrupted.
    An Open Letter to the Community from Chris Landsea

    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.

    Shortly after Dr. Trenberth requested that I draft the Atlantic hurricane section for the AR4’s Observations chapter, Dr. Trenberth participated in a press conference organized by scientists at Harvard on the topic “Experts to warn global warming likely to continue spurring more outbreaks of intense hurricane activity” along with other media interviews on the topic. The result of this media interaction was widespread coverage that directly connected the very busy 2004 Atlantic hurricane season as being caused by anthropogenic greenhouse gas warming occurring today.

    Listening to and reading transcripts of this press conference and media interviews, it is apparent that Dr. Trenberth was being accurately quoted and summarized in such statements and was not being misrepresented in the media. These media sessions have potential to result in a widespread perception that global warming has made recent hurricane activity much more severe.

    I found it a bit perplexing that the participants in the Harvard press conference had come to the conclusion that global warming was impacting hurricane activity today. To my knowledge, none of the participants in that press conference had performed any research on hurricane variability, nor were they reporting on any new work in the field. All previous and current research in the area of hurricane variability has shown no reliable, long-term trend up in the frequency or intensity of tropical cyclones, either in the Atlantic or any other basin. The IPCC assessments in 1995 and 2001 also concluded that there was no global warming signal found in the hurricane record.

    Moreover, the evidence is quite strong and supported by the most recent credible studies that any impact in the future from global warming upon hurricanes will likely be quite small. The latest results from the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory (Knutson and Tuleya, Journal of Climate, 2004) suggest that by around 2080, hurricanes may have winds and rainfall about 5% more intense than today. It has been proposed that even this tiny change may be an exaggeration as to what may happen by the end of the 21st Century (Michaels, Knappenberger, and Landsea, Journal of Climate, 2005, submitted).

    It is beyond me why my colleagues would utilize the media to push an unsupported agenda that recent hurricane activity has been due to global warming. Given Dr. Trenberth’s role as the IPCC’s Lead Author responsible for preparing the text on hurricanes, his public statements so far outside of current scientific understanding led me to concern that it would be very difficult for the IPCC process to proceed objectively with regards to the assessment on hurricane activity. My view is that when people identify themselves as being associated with the IPCC and then make pronouncements far outside current scientific understandings that this will harm the credibility of climate change science and will in the longer term diminish our role in public policy.

    My concerns go beyond the actions of Dr. Trenberth and his colleagues to how he and other IPCC officials responded to my concerns. I did caution Dr. Trenberth before the media event and provided him a summary of the current understanding within the hurricane research community. I was disappointed when the IPCC leadership dismissed my concerns when I brought up the misrepresentation of climate science while invoking the authority of the IPCC.

    Specifically, the IPCC leadership said that Dr. Trenberth was speaking as an individual even though he was introduced in the press conference as an IPCC lead author; I was told that the media was exaggerating or misrepresenting his words, even though the audio from the press conference and interview tells a different story (available on the Web directly); and that Dr. Trenberth was accurately reflecting conclusions from the TAR, even though it is quite clear that the TAR stated that there was no connection between global warming and hurricane activity. The IPCC leadership saw nothing to be concerned with in Dr. Trenberth’s unfounded pronouncements to the media, despite his supposedly impartial important role that he must undertake as a Lead Author on the upcoming AR4.

    It is certainly true that “individual scientists can do what they wish in their own rights,” as one of the folks in the IPCC leadership suggested. Differing conclusions and robust debates are certainly crucial to progress in climate science. However, this case is not an honest scientific discussion conducted at a meeting of climate researchers. Instead, a scientist with an important role in the IPCC who represented himself as a Lead Author for the IPCC [Dr. Trenberth] has used that position to promulgate to the media and general public his own opinion that the busy 2004 hurricane season was caused by global warming, which is in direct opposition to research written in the field and is counter to conclusions in the TAR.

    This becomes problematic when I am then asked to provide the draft about observed hurricane activity variations for the AR4 with, ironically, Dr. Trenberth as the Lead Author for this chapter. Because of Dr. Trenberth’s pronouncements, the IPCC process on our assessment of these crucial extreme events in our climate system has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost. While no one can “tell” scientists what to say or not say (nor am I suggesting that), the IPCC did select Dr. Trenberth as a Lead Author and entrusted to him to carry out this duty in a non-biased, neutral point of view. When scientists hold press conferences and speak with the media, much care is needed not to reflect poorly upon the IPCC.

    It is of more than passing interest to note that Dr. Trenberth, while eager to share his views on global warming and hurricanes with the media, declined to do so at the Climate Variability and Change Conference in January where he made several presentations. Perhaps he was concerned that such speculation–though worthy in his mind of public pronouncements–would not stand up to the scrutiny of fellow climate scientists.

    I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by preconceived agendas and being scientifically unsound. As the IPCC leadership has seen no wrong in Dr. Trenberth’s actions and have retained him as a Lead Author for the AR4, I have decided to no longer participate in the IPCC AR4.

    Sincerely,

    Chris Landsea

    • dean

      David…being deemed “worse than Dean” by this anonymous yahoo should be considered quite an accomplishment. I cede the ring to you.

      • Gienie

        Awww Dean,

        I don’t think I have ever seen you “cede” anything before… I’m a little shocked…

        • dean

          It is rare I admit. Don’t expect it too often okay? We Greeks are a stubborn lot.

          • David

            Thanks, Dean…. when this yahoo has the guts to sign his real name to his opinions and criticisms, I’ll respond. Until then, I can’t be bothered to swat away every anonymous gnat without the courage of his convictions.

    • John in Oregon

      I note the pollution list is missing one of the most dangerous chemicals known.

      Dihydrogen Monoxide which is a colorless, odorless, and dangerous chemical. Each year accidental inhalation of Dihydrogen Monoxide even in small quantities causes numerous fatalities in the United States. More 3,000 are killed every year.

      Another problem is that Dihydrogen Monoxide is the strongest of the greenhouse gases. Although the government in Oregon has not yet moved to control this dangerous chemical I am assured regulations for sharp mandatory reductions are on the agenda for the 09 legislature.

      Sadly yet another death was featured on the news tonight. Even in the smallest quantities this chemical is fatal. In low doses symptoms may include slurred speech or drowsiness.
      .
      Some groups associated with “industry” claim this dangerous chemical is normal in the environment said an environmental protection spokesman. These industry groups are no different than Big Oil or Big Energy, they simply ignore and gloss over the thousands of victims each year.

      For those interested in doing further research on Dihydrogen Monoxide, its chemical formula is HOH or more commonly H2O.

      😉

      • Gienie

        John, I appreciate your work on this blog. You crack me up!

  • Anonymous

    dean and David,

    This anonymous yahoo gnat couldn’t care less about your typical nitiwit lefty reaction to my coloring you both as you are. Your using my irrelevant anonimity as an excuse is completely consistent with your other methods.
    Your collective assesment of AGW is so deliberately biased and closed minded that you are incappable of accurately perceiving either side of this debate. So bad is your convoluted reasoning that you will never break free from it.
    You’ll simply follow the latest excuses and spins never altering your
    ludicrous global warming sermons.

    • dean

      Irrelevant is the operative word.

      • Suzanne Penegor

        Well it is interesting to see all the responses re the Rubicon speaker on such a hot topic. I would encourage those who have written in from the left to go to the Oregonian archives and dig up Fulks editorial opinion on this subject that the Oregonian thought was valid, “Climate orthodoxy perpetrates a hoax.” Climate change as both Dr. Fulks and Oregon climatologist George Taylor have noted, are nothing new. And the reasons for climate change are not historically all human caused. However, it is a great way for Gore and co. to support more government regulations and Big Government for a hot new political fad. It’s important to look beneath the surface of their claims for what their real goals are and that is more power of the government over the individual in this country.

        • David

          > Climate change as both Dr. Fulks and Oregon
          > climatologist George Taylor have noted, are
          > nothing new. And the reasons for climate change are
          > not historically all human caused.

          Suzanne, this is obvious to the point of banality. But it’s 4th-grade reasoning to assume that because something changed in the past and because it again changed in the future that the cause was the same.

          It’s a logical fallacy of the highest sort.

          The question is, *why* did climate change in the past. *Why* is it changing now? What are the relevant factors at work in each situation?

          Because the Dow Jones Industrial Average had a bad year in, I don’t know, 1933, is not the same reason it is having a bad year today. The economic environment is completely different.

          • jim karlocik

            You now show you ignorance of the markets!

            The reasons are usually the same, just different window dressing.

            Basics: supply and demand, Greed and fear, mass delusions & manias.

            Please read: Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. It is a free download from several web sites.

            Thanks
            JK

        • John in Oregon

          Hi Suzanne

          David makes a particularly valid point and I want to add a bit to it. First a little side trip.

          When you said > *Climate change as both Dr. Fulks and Oregon climatologist George Taylor have noted, are nothing new. And the reasons for climate change are not historically all human caused.*

          A technical point. I first knew of Dr. Taylor from a preparation presentation he did for local Volunteer Emergency Services. His crystal ball helped us to be ahead of the curve in what turned out to be a bad storm season. I believe the appropriate reference to Dr. Taylor would be Oregon State University Climatologist. That goes with the OSU School of Climatology, or did at the time.

          With your above statement I believe you were reporting on the content of what Dr. Fulks had to say. > *{T}he reasons for climate change are not historically all human caused.*

          That statement is actually quite reasonable.

          When David says > *The question is, why did climate change in the past. Why is it changing now? What are the relevant factors at work in each situation?* he is absolutely spot on correct. The question is why things happen.

          Formally a False Dichotomy, is reducing many variables to one or few. Lets look at some examples;

          1] What changed climate in the past is what changes climate today. False, what is happening today could be something different. In a complex system more than one thing can change.

          2] What changed climate in the past doesn’t change climate today. Again False, what happened in the past might well be happening today.

          3] Climate changed naturally in the past but CO2 warms climate today. Also False , reducing the variables to nature in the past and CO2 today. (I have seen this or variations said in many news stories)

          4] Climate changed in the past so CO2 warming can’t be real. False just because things changed in the past doesn’t mean CO2 can’t also cause changes. (I have seen this kind of argument on occasion.)

          5] Climate was stable in the past, today CO2 causes warming. False, this statement not only eliminates variables like the sun, it also goes so far as to eliminate past warming and cooling. (I have seen this claim a lot.)

          I believe a good general statement would be something like;

          In the past climate warmed and cooled because of natural forces, today natural forces and CO2 are involved in warming and cooling.

          The task at hand for science is to _determine what the mix of natural and CO2 factors is._

          • jim karlocik

            Of course the game going on is to identify a tiny effect of man and claim the xx thousand scientists agree that man is a cause of warming. So we must stop man’s contribution, ignoring the fact that it is too small to be sure that is even above the noise and error levels in the data.

            Thanks
            JK

  • David

    Jim: these papers are collected in exhaustive detail in

    IPCC 4AR WG1
    https://www.ipcc.ch

    • dean

      Suzanne….I read Dr Fulks’ Oregonian op ed. What do you mean in saying “the Oregonian thought was valid?” Are you saying the Oregonian agreed with his position, or that they thought his article, whether they agreed with it or not was “valid” enough to print? The op ed page of a newspaper is generally reserved for positions that are not of the paper.If the Oregonian ran its own editorial supporting Fulks view, then you could say they believe his views are “valid.”

      1) Dr. Fulks says Kulongowski “purged” George Taylor. Didn’t hapen.
      2) Dr. Fulks says: “Many, like Taylor, are unwilling to support political agendas at odds with good science”. Ridiculous. It is Taylor who is at odds with the global scientific consensus on global warming. Kulongowski’s political agenda is exactly in line with the science on global warming.
      3) Dr. Fulks cites a “sharp decline in global temperature this January, returning us close to where we were decades ago.” How can one month of data negate decades of measured temperature change? He does not say.
      4) Dr Fulks cites Callion’s work on post glacial CO2 without noting that glacial periods were determined by a periodic wobble in the earth’s tilt. They were not caused by CO2 accumulations.
      5) He cites John Tierney, who posts this about himself: “John Tierney always wanted to be a scientist but went into journalism because its peer-review process was a great deal easier to sneak through.”

      Enough said about Dr. Fulks.

      • John in Oregon

        > *3) Dr. Fulks cites a “sharp decline in global temperature this January, returning us close to where we were decades ago.” How can one month of data negate decades of measured temperature change? He does not say.*

        Dean: this is what Dr. Fulks is talking about:

        *UAH MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE LT5.2*
        Global Temperature Anomaly 1979 – 2008
        January 2007 —————— > *+ .594* Degree C
        May 2008 ———————– > *- .180* Degree C
        17 Month Delta T (1.07 – 5.08) = *- .774* Degree C

        • dean

          John…is your point that he used a 17 month time frame as opposed to a one month time frame? If yes…I’m afraid 17 months is not much better on this issue.

          • Alex

            In the interest of further fueling Dr. Fulks somewhat outspoken stance ( if not in the spirit of his comments) and contributing to the political / social / economic / op-ed here:
            https://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/decadal_survey.pdf – taken from an indirectly referenced site above (see “John in Oregon”)…
            Note – Interestingly enough, these hundred plus multi-disciplined scientists gathered together and recommended that:
            *”…NOAA embrace its new mandate to understand climate variability and change by asserting national leadership in applying new approaches to generate and manage satellite [Climate Data Record]s, developing new community relationships, and ensuring long-term accuracy of satellite data records.”*

            Furthermore:
            *”Recommendation: NOAA, working with the Climate Change Science Program and the international Group on Earth Observations, should create a climate data and information system to meet the challenge of ensuring the production, distribution, and stewardship of high-accuracy climate records from NPOESS and other relevant observational platforms.”*

            They go on and suggest:
            *”The committee endorses the recommendation stating, “NASA/SMD (Science Mission Directorate) should develop a science strategy for obtaining long-term, continuous, stable observations of the Earth system that are distinct from observations to meet requirements by NOAA in support of numerical weather prediction.”*
            …and…
            *”Recommendation: Earth system observations should be accompanied by a complementary system of observations of human activities and their effects on Earth.”*

            This recent (2007) publication by the National Academy of Sciences, some fly-by-night American national scientific community 🙂 , summarizing findings to date seems to indicate that there is a general lack of high-level confidence in any current numerical Earth weather prediction system. – This is my interpretation of their comments, but given these comments, I believe, and I believe they would perhaps agree, that our ability to predict our weather patterns over any long-term time period is numerically / statistically still based upon too small a data-set. It is only within the last 30 years we have been able to establish the type of wide-spread network of collection points that might over another 20 to 30 years lead to modeling systems that are statistically and somewhat reliably able to predict weather patterns over periods of time spanning more than a few days, weeks, or months.

            Now, being bold enough to post in the midst of those who so gleefully undercut every argument that might be different from the AWG argument, I will go ahead and suggest (of my own opinion) that perhaps we might find some acceptable middle ground(s):
            1) Do not waste funding on unproven (i.e. expensive, costly, not scientifically-based, ethanol comes to mind…) counter-global warming initiatives until we have a longer term, more substantial scientific data set. We are probably 10 to 50 years from having reasonable data sets (yes, reasonable is my opinion here). If that’s not convincing, proving estimated viability of counter-actions is likely to take 10 to 50 years…yes, the two might be done simultaneously…
            2) Do fund additional scientific ventures / research as the world’s top scientists keep repeatedly requesting we do. Are so many so wrong to say they don’t know for sure and that we should gather more data before taking drastic measures?
            3) Do not do nothing. Do undertake low-cost, simple initiatives that might counter the potential global warming that we are inflicting. I do believe there is sufficient evidence to say we are causing some change, but whether we are the largest change factor, let alone a significant change factor is not at all settled. So, rather than quibble over degrees of impact, let us do what is easy / cheap…
            …a) Change American CAFE (and similar other national) fuel efficiency requirements. I hope most will agree that better fuel efficiency vehicles are common sense…
            …b) Throw out the zero-carbon nonsense and look more at low-impact footprints. It does no good to have a low-carbon footprint if you pollute the air you breathe or the water you (or your neighbor) drink…
            …c) Focus on encouraging conservation where possible rather than outright mandating it (ala CAFE or Cap-and-trade standards).
            …d) Look at ways to reduce urban impact through more conscientious urban planning as 75% of humankind will live in urban settings by 2100 (as opposed to 10% urban around 1900). It would seem that if we are warming Earth to a factorable degree, that these urban settings will have the largest impact and conversely the largest payoff in reductions…
            4) Remember that we live in a system that swings wildly on its own without our inputs. Rash counter-inputs on our part can equally cause swings in the opposite direction. We need to have care that we don’t unduly unbalance the system either direction. Also, we should be ware that other factors can cause the pendulum to swing and we need to study both ends of the temperature spectrum…
            5) As a society, we need be equally concerned with future happenings as well as today’s…large-scale starvation today or tomorrow still equates to large-scale suffering…

            All right..it’s late, I’ve ranted overly long and I’ve given plenty to skewer. Critiques are always welcome, but suggestions are likely more collaborative, constructive, and to the general public’s good as opposed to harsh critiques of the strength or weakness of my comments. Destroying me for being non-scientific (I proposed opinions without any studies to back them) and sometimes illogical probably won’t add much to a social discussion.
            If you read this, thank you and please be active in the social / political context…tuning out won’t solve this problem.

          • Gienie

            Alex, Thank you for your comment, and I appreciate you pointing out what harsh critiques actually do. I know I have been known to give them myself as well as many others on this blog.

            Its a good reminder anyway! Thanks again

          • jim karlocik

            *Alex:*..d) Look at ways to reduce urban impact through more conscientious urban planning as 75% of humankind will live in urban settings by 2100 (as opposed to 10% urban around 1900). It would seem that if we are warming Earth to a factorable degree, that these urban settings will have the largest impact and conversely the largest payoff in reductions…
            *JK:* Thanks for the thoughtful post. Just a nit to pick:

            There is a little confusion here. The big cities have been losing population for a hundred years, it is the suburbs that are gaining. Suburban is quite different than urban (ie downtown, high density inner neighborhoods.)

            Has any one shown, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that urban settings reduce CO2 or energy use? My grues is just the opposite, especially as you get to larger suburban lots where you can have enough space for a wind mill, on site runoff water retention, wood heat, well and septic. Almost nothing leaves you land and little off site energy is requires. Yet the planning class keeps insisting that we all move into tiny little boxes in the high density area.

            Thanks
            JK

        • John in Oregon

          Dean, you asked the question, what Dr. Fulks was talking about. My point was to simply answer the question.

          I use RSS and UAH satellite because they are worldwide, free from site bias (burn barrels, ETC) and are not “adjusted”. The new RSS data is in for May;

          *RSS MSU Global Temperature Anomaly*
          MONTHLY MEANS OF LOWER TROPOSPHERE V3.01
          January 1979 – May 2008

          January 2007 —————— > *+ .560* Degree C
          May 2008 ———————– > *- .083* Degree C
          17 Month Delta T (1.07 – 5.08) = *- .643* Degree C

          BTW, in his talk Dr. Fulks spoke of the January 2007 to January 2008. I presented January 07 to May 08 as the latest data available. May 08 is even colder than January 08, roughly down 1.2 Degree F from 07.

          > *If yes…I’m afraid 17 months is not much better on this issue.*

          Is what I presented a trend? Of course it is. It’s a trend for nearly the last 1 and 1/2 years and noting more or less.

          Is that trend a prediction of the future? Of course it’s not. Next month it could get colder, it could get warmer, or it could stay the same.

          Might we want longer trends? Of course we might.

          Is what happened in the past useful too know? Of course it is.

          Sometimes it is necessary to know what is happening now. To know what the most current trend might be. Knowing historic data is useful. Nevertheless, standing in the present, experiencing the arrival of the future, I will want to examine the present data, and if it’s cold I will still want to turn on the furnace, which I did today.

          You and I have talked about decade and multidecadal temperature trends. Particularly in regard to the decade, 1998 – 2008 being flat or down. Part of that disagreement dealt with the temperature trend data source.

          I have commented on what was done with one of the four major temperature sources, the one you generally use. Now that particular discussion has been taken up in the legacy media.

          *Is the earth getting warmer, or cooler?*
          *A tale of two thermometers*
          _The Register,_ UK 5 2 08
          Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the “consensus” models which don’t. But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source.

          Two authorities provide us with analysis of long-term surface temperature trends. Both agree on the global temperature trend until 1998, at which time a sharp divergence occurred.

          The UK Meteorological Office’s Had-Crut data shows worldwide temperatures declining since 1998…. [T]he earth is not much warmer now than it was than it was in 1878 or 1941. By contrast, NASA [GISS] data shows worldwide temperatures increasing at a record pace – and nearly a full degree warmer than 1880.

          The other two widely used global temperature data sources are from earth-orbiting satellites UAH (University of Alabama at Huntsville) and RSS (Remote Sensing Systems.) Both show decreasing temperatures over the last decade, with present temperatures barely above the 30 year average.

          Confusing? How can scientists who report measurements of the earth’s temperature within one one-hundredth of a degree be unable to concur if the temperature is going up or down over a ten year period? Something appears to be inconsistent with the NASA data – but what is it?

          One clue we can see is that NASA has been reworking recent temperatures upwards and older temperatures downwards – which creates a greater slope and the appearance of warming… The pre-1970 temperatures have been nearly uniformly adjusted downwards and the post 1970 temperatures have been adjusted upwards Some of the yearly temperatures have been adjusted by as much as 0.5 degrees. That is a huge total change for a country the size of the US with thousands of separate temperature records.

          NASA [GISS] temperatures for March 2008 indicate that it was the third warmest March in history, but satellite data sources RSS and UAH disagree. They show March as the second coldest ever in the southern hemisphere, and barely above average worldwide.

          *Painting by numbers: NASA’s peculiar thermometer*
          _The Register,_ UK 6 5 08
          The story is that the world is heating up – fast. Prominent people at NASA warn us that unless we change our carbon producing ways, civilisation as we know it will come to an end. At the same time, there are new scientific studies showing that the earth is in a 20 year long cooling period. Which view is correct? Temperature data should be simple enough to record and analyze. We all know how to read a thermometer – it is not rocket science.

          NASA’s published data is largely based on data from the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), which derives its data from thermometer readings across the country… USHCN is directly affiliated with the Oak Ridge National Laboratories’ Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center, an organisation which exists primarily to promote the idea of a link between CO2 and climate.

          So how does NASA’s data compare with other temperature sources? During the last thirty years, we also have the benefit of more sophisticated technology – satellites which can indirectly record temperatures across most of the planet. The satellite data is from Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) and the University of Alabama at Huntsville

          In 1998 NASA and the satellite data sources RSS and UAH all agreed quite closely – within one-tenth of a degree. Ten years later – in March 2008 – NASA is reporting temperature anomalies more than 0.5 degrees warmer than UAH. The divergence between NASA and UAH has increased at a rate of 0.13 degrees per In contrast, RSS has converged with UAH over the period and is now within 0.02 degrees.

          One month does not make a temperature trend, and _the point of this article is not to ascertain whether or not the earth is warming towards Armageddon._ We are not qualified to analyze that or second-guess the experts. _What is being examined is the quality and stability of the data being used by people making those claims._

          For example, whatever motivations NASA had for picking the 1951-1980 baseline undoubtedly have some valid scientific basis. Yet, _when the data is calibrated in lockstep with a very high-profile and public political philosophy,_ we should at least be willing to ask some hard questions. Dr. JameHansen at GISS is _the person in charge of the NASA temperature data._ He is also _the world’s leading advocate of the idea of catastrophic global warming,_ and is Al Gore’s primary climate advisor. The discrepancies between NASA and other data sources can’t help but make us consider Einstein’s advice: “If the facts don’t fit the theory, change the facts.”

          A tale of two thermometers: Bottom Line

          Both of the satellite data sources, as well as Had-Crut, show worldwide temperatures falling below the IPCC estimates. Satellite data shows temperatures near or below the 30 year average – but NASA data has somehow managed to stay on track towards climate Armageddon. _You can draw your own conclusions, but I see a pattern that is troublesome._ In science, as with any other endeavour, _it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it._

          • jim karlocik

            *John* In science, as with any other endeavour, it is always a good idea to have some separation between the people generating the data and the people interpreting it.
            *JK* Not to mention people making massive amounts of money off of the data.

            NASA’s Jim Hansen, keeper of some of the data got $750,000 from the Kerry’s Heinz foundation.

            Al Gore gets $100,000 per speech (see the smoking gun.com). He is also involved in green investing through a mutual fund where he is president and a venture capital company where he is a partner.

            Thanks
            JK

    • jim karlocik

      Hey, David.

      We’re still waiting for that peer-reviewed paper that proves CO2 actually causes warming at today’s levels.

      An actual citation please, not some vague refrence that it exists somewhere.

      thanks
      JK

      • dean

        Jim K said: “The big cities have been losing population for 100 years”

        New York City 1900: 3.4 million
        NYC 2000: 8 million
        Los Angeles 1920: 576,000
        LA 2000: 3.7 million
        Chicago 1900: 1.7 million
        Chicago 2000: 2.8 million
        Philly 1900: 1.2 million
        Philly 2000: 1.5 million

        A number of rust belt cities: Buffalo, Detroit, Newark, & Cleveland have lost population to the burbs over the past 20-30 years, but this is more than offset by the growth of large sunbelt cities like San Jose, Phoenix, Las Vegas, San Diego, Houston, Dallas, Atlanta, Miami, and a whole lot of others.

        Jim K also said: “Has any one shown, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that urban settings reduce CO2 or energy use? My grues (sic) is just the opposite, especially as you get to larger suburban lots where you can have enough space for a wind mill, on site runoff water retention, wood heat, well and septic. Almost nothing leaves you land and little off site energy is requires. Yet the planning class keeps insisting that we all move into tiny little boxes in the high density area.”

        Jim…there is certainty that walking and cycling emit less CO2 than driving. And there is certainty that driving shorter distances emits less CO2 than driving longer distances, assuming the same personal vehicle. It is logical that taking transit uses less CO2 than driving. Add all this up and you logically get lower CO2 emissions in denser cities than in the less dense burbs.

        Suburban housing, being more recently built, probably has better energy efficiency, but the larger size of suburban houses may negate that.

        “Space for a windmill” is not meaningful, since there are few power generating windmills in the burbs or in the city. If there were actual windmills operating in the burbs, different story. And by the way, a modern wind turbine needs multiple acres of space. Rural yes…burbs no. On site runnoff retention, while a good thing, has nothing to do with CO2.

        I don’t see the “planning class,” whatever that is, as insisting people move into “tiny little boxes in the high density area.” Public policy in the Portland area, which planners are charged to carry out, requires residential densities of 6-10 units per acre (net). In practice this is 3-4 homes per acre across a given land area. Not very dense, still mostly single family detached homes that are averaging over 2000 square feet.

        • jim karlocik

          *Dean: *Jim K said: “The big cities have been losing population for 100 years”

          New York City 1900: 3.4 million
          NYC 2000: 8 million

          *JK:* You are not using constant city size – here it is for constant city area (sorry if I was unclear):

          City………….Area…Date…Population….Latest Pop..change….Location
          NYC. ……….1.45…1910…..542,061……164,607…..-69.6%…Lower East Side
          NYC…………3.95…1910…..768,360……292,146…..-62.0%…Lower Manhattan
          Paris……..10.40…1901…1,268,674……595,015…..-53.1%…
          London..117.90…1901…4,536,267…2,765,975…..-39.0%…
          (see: demographia.com/db-intlcitycores.htm for more details)

          *Jim K also said:* “Has any one shown, to a reasonable degree of certainty, that urban settings reduce CO2 or energy use? My grues (sic) is just the opposite, especially as you get to larger suburban lots where you can have enough space for a wind mill, on site runoff water retention, wood heat, well and septic. Almost nothing leaves you land and little off site energy is requires. Yet the planning class keeps insisting that we all move into tiny little boxes in the high density area.”

          *Dean: * Jim…there is certainty that walking and cycling emit less CO2 than driving.
          *JK:* What does that have to do with the current topic.

          *Dean: * And there is certainty that driving shorter distances emits less CO2 than driving longer distances, assuming the same personal vehicle.
          *JK:* Again you present the irrelevant. A showing of less vehicle-miles per capita would be relevant, but Dunphy and Fisher (Transportation Research Record, #1552) showed us that vehicle miles per capita is essentially constant (+/-10%) from farm land density to a density where the streets are constantly congested (about triple that of Portland) debunkingportland.com/Smart/DensityCongestion.htm

          *Dean: * It is logical that taking transit uses less CO2 than driving.
          *JK:* Guess what “it is logical” gets you? Wrong again. Nationally, transit uses about the same energy as driving on a passenger-mile basis. Compared, to efficient cars, transit is and energy hog. debunkingportland.com/Transit/BusVsCarTEDB.htm

          *Dean: * Add all this up and you logically get lower CO2 emissions in denser cities than in the less dense burbs.
          *JK:* Add it all up and you have again shown how wrong one can be by ignoring data and going by feelings.

          *Dean: * “Space for a windmill” is not meaningful, since there are few power generating windmills in the burbs or in the city. If there were actual windmills operating in the burbs, different story.
          *JK:* I am talking of “larger suburban lots” (several acre) sites which have plenty of space for windmills.

          *Dean: * And by the way, a modern wind turbine needs multiple acres of space.
          *JK:* You are so wrong about so many things. People mount wind mills in their roof, on a pole attached to the house or, better on a 50 -100 ft telephone pole in the back yard. Many people do this on an acre or two, the major obstacle being, as usual, the local land use regulations. See homepower.com/article/?file=HP119_pg34_Sagrillo

          Thanks
          JK

          • dean

            Jim…I agree with your adjustment on city populations. Cities were much denser in the 19th century, in Europe and the US. The more moderate densities of today have improved liveability. The debate is about moderate densities versus low densities. Which is better? My answer is both. Moderate densities are better for some purposes, and low densities are better for other ones. Some people prefer moderate,others low. I think we need to provide for both options, and one size does not fit all.

            Your central argument on energy differences might make more sense if you contrasted rural living (say 5 acres or more, ) with urban living, and left the suburbs out. One can acheive a level of self sufficiency in a rural area, but the true burbs, if you go out and survey them, are riding lawn mowers, flower beds, and 3 car garages, not hardy yeomen growing their own food and chopping their own wood.

            I neglected the smaller scale home windmills. But these can be mounted on urban rooftops as easily as suburban ones no?

            You posed the question of whether there have been any studies that show CO2 generation as being less in dense cities than in suburbs. I did come across this data from the New York City office of sustainability. I can’t verify its accuracy.

            Electricity use per capita by city:
            New York: 4600 KWH
            SanFran: 6700
            Chicago: 8100
            Phenix: 13,000
            Houston: 14,500
            Dallas: 16,000

            These numbers indicate there is a relationship between density and energy use, since they correlate roughly with density. However, air conditioning might play a huge role in the disparity as well.

            Here is a link to a study on energy savings from transit use:
            https://www.apta.com/media/releases/energystudy.cfm

            According to the economists who did this study, “For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation is twice as fuel efficient as private automobiles, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks.” They also show significant CO2 reduction from transit use.

            Granted, if everyone drove small, fuel efficient vehicles, then the fuel savings from transit would be less, or possibly even zero. The same could occur through car pooling. But we are not driving very fuel efficient vehicles, especially in the burbs, and not doing much car pooling.

          • jim karlocik

            *Dean:* I think we need to provide for both options, and one size does not fit all.
            *JK:* NO!, NO!, NO!, NO!, We need to let people be free, it is not the government’s place to provide.

            *Dean:* Your central argument on energy differences might make more sense if you contrasted rural living (say 5 acres or more, ) with urban living, and left the suburbs out. One can acheive a level of self sufficiency in a rural area, but the true burbs, if you go out and survey them, are riding lawn mowers, flower beds, and 3 car garages, not hardy yeomen growing their own food and chopping their own wood.
            *JK:* But most could if they needed to. It is simply cheaper to use grid power. That is not the case where new long wires have to be run or as idiot CO2 schemes drive up prices.

            *Dean:* I neglected the smaller scale home windmills. But these can be mounted on urban rooftops as easily as suburban ones no?
            *JK:* Check the land use laws.

            *Dean:* You posed the question of whether there have been any studies that show CO2 generation as being less in dense cities than in suburbs. I did come across this data from the New York City office of sustainability. I can’t verify its accuracy.
            Electricity use per capita by city:
            New York: 4600 KWH
            SanFran: 6700
            Chicago: 8100
            Phenix: 13,000
            Houston: 14,500
            Dallas: 16,000
            *JK:* Sorry, any “New York City office of sustainability” is a suspect a a scientist in the pay of Exxon.

            *Dean:* These numbers indicate there is a relationship between density and energy use, since they correlate roughly with density.
            *JK:* You have to be kidding. I can’t believe that anyone beyone the third grade would declare correlation = causation. (But you did get suckered by Al Gore.)

            *Dean:* However, air conditioning might play a huge role in the disparity as well.
            *JK:* Not to mention differences in industry & business uses? Note that, the best way to cut electricity use is to put people in little boxes.

            *Dean:* Here is a link to a study on energy savings from transit use:
            https://www.apta.com/media/releases/energystudy.cfm
            According to the economists who did this study, “For every passenger mile traveled, public transportation is twice as fuel efficient as private automobiles, sports utility vehicles (SUVs) and light trucks.” They also show significant CO2 reduction from transit use.
            *JK:* Garbage bought & paid for by the transit industry. Apparently you didn’t bother to look at the government data I linked to?

            *Dean:* Granted, if everyone drove small, fuel efficient vehicles, then the fuel savings from transit would be less, or possibly even zero.
            *JK:* Wrong. National, Federal government data shows *today’s cars beat transit.* DO NOT cheat by adding in trucks. Just look at my previous reference.

            Dean, I am getting really tired of people giving me crappy, or nor references when I provide mostly government data. It is becoming apparent that you probable do not care about facts or people, you just want to pervert the world to some perverted green model.

            JK.

  • Tim

    Did any of you go to the Rubicon site and listen to the audio version of what Dr. Fulks said? I actually attended that forum and was very impressed by the amount of study and evidence he brought with him.

    It’s one thing to read about it, but being there, I can personally testify he had many references to his conclusions, and provided those references to the group openly. He also stayed and answered questions for things that needed more clarification.

    I would strongly urge all of you who have taken such great interest in this article to listen to what he said, and then comment on what you hear, rather than relying on second hand information.

    You can listen to the audio version here: http://www.rubiconsociety.org

    • dean

      Alex…for my part:
      1) agree on avoiding pork barrel investments. Agree on improving sata sets over time.
      2) agree on funding further climate research, including that which seeks to counter global warming theory
      3) Market-based solutions will seek out lowest cost options. Putting a price on carbon is the most market savvy way to get alternatives deployed (CAFE type regulations are not as good).
      4) Carbon molecules live 40 or more years in the atmosphere. This is why we can’t keep putting off action.
      5) Earth’s life support system does not “swing wildly on its own” over short time periods. Cimate is remarkebly stable over thousands of year periods, with only mild swings.

      Appreciate yoru attempt at putting ideas on the table instead of simply sowing doubt.

  • John in Oregon

    Hi JK

    Your comments about > *Al Gore gets $100,000 per speech… He is also involved in green investing through a mutual fund where he is president and a venture capital company where he is a partner.*

    Your comments about Mr. Gore bring up the general question about just how well cap and trade is working out in the EU. Here are a few snippets. Al Gore is mentioned in one of them.

    *Billions wasted on UN climate programme*
    The Guardian, Monday May 26 2008

    Billions of pounds are being wasted in paying industries in developing countries to reduce climate change emissions, according to two analyses of the UN’s carbon offsetting programme.

    Leading academics and watchdog groups allege that the UN’s main offset fund is being routinely abused by chemical, wind, gas and hydro companies who are claiming emission reduction credits for projects that should not qualify. The result is that no genuine pollution cuts are being made, undermining assurances by the UK government and others that carbon markets are dramatically reducing greenhouse gases, the researchers say.

    The criticism centres on the UN’s clean development mechanism (CDM), an international system established by the Kyoto process that allows rich countries to meet emissions targets by funding clean energy projects in developing nations.

    “It looks like between one and two thirds of all the total CDM offsets do not represent actual emission cuts.” — David Victor, Stanford University and co-author of a study examining 3000 UN funded offset programs

    [The above refers to Michael Wara and David G. Victor, A Realistic Policy on International Carbon Offsets. Stanford University, Program on Energy and Sustainable Development]

    *CRC Capitol Research Center*
    A Generation Investment Management LLP spokesman said; Al Gore denies that he is in a position to make an immense fortune from global warming-mitigation efforts. [CRC is the carbon trading company formed by Al Gore and others. Gore serves as chairman.]

    *Revealed: cover-up plan on energy target*
    The Guardian, Monday August 13 2007
    Government officials have secretly briefed ministers that Britain has no hope of getting remotely near the new European Union renewable energy target that Tony Blair signed up to in the spring – and have suggested that they find ways of wriggling out of it.

    In contrast to the government’s claims to be leading the world on climate change, officials within the former Department of Trade and Industry have admitted that under current policies Britain would miss the EU’s 2020 target of 20% energy from renewables by a long way. And their suggestion that “statistical interpretations of the target” be used rather than new ways to reach it has infuriated environmentalists.

    An internal briefing paper for ministers, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, reveals that officials at the department, now the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, think the best the UK could hope for is 9% of energy from renewable sources such as wind, solar or hydro by 2020.

    *Doug Saunders, Globe and Mail, 28 May 2008*
    After hundreds of angry drivers shut down highways in England Tuesday in protest against green automobile taxes, and drivers and fishermen in France and Spain paralyzed their ports and roads in a fuel-tax protest, politicians began to signal Europe’s ambitious emission-control policies may soon have to be abandoned. While Europe has led the way in using tax incentives to encourage people to buy low-emission cars and to build carbon-neutral houses in order to meet Kyoto targets, it has become increasingly apparent that inflation-battered voters are no longer willing to go along. Political leaders in Britain and France are seeking the reversal of tax policies designed to make polluting vehicles more expensive, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and some British ministers calling on their own governments and the European Union to relax ecologically friendly taxes in order to give relief to citizens suffering from fast-rising food and fuel prices.

    *Nick Clegg, The Daily Telegraph, 28 May 2008*
    The fuel protests hammer home a clear message. After the 10p tax rebellion, the local elections, and the Crewe by-election, no one can doubt the mood of the country any more. There is insurrection in the air. The British people are ready for change and they don’t believe Labour can deliver it.

    *Ben Russell, The Independent, 28 May 2008*
    Gordon Brown has been urged to stand firm against calls to abandon green tax rises on fuel as environmentalists warned that scrapping the proposals would risk undermining Britain’s drive towards a low carbon future and send the wrong message about the Government’s commitment to tackling greenhouse gas emissions. Amid fears that the gloomy financial outlook could sap the political will needed to combat climate change, Charlie Kronick, senior climate adviser at Greenpeace, said: “When they are willing to spend millions of pounds shoring up their vote in a by-election they can do this as well. How serious can they be about using the tax system to try to affect environmental outcomes when, if they are under political pressure, it is the first thing that goes?”

    *Bob Roberts, The Mirror, 28 May 2008*
    Drivers should not be “hammered” by the Government, Cabinet Minister John Hutton declared yesterday in a clear sign of a road tax climbdown. The Business Secretary spoke out as senior Labour sources admitted planned increases of up to £245 a year that could hit millions of family car drivers were a “mistake”.

    *Philip Webster, The Times, 28 May 2008*
    Huge rises in road and petrol taxes for millions of motorists could be scrapped after two Cabinet ministers hinted at another U-turn in government policy.

    After warnings from MPs that the party was alienating ordinary voters, Jack Straw and John Hutton suggested that the Pre-Budget report in the autumn would contain changes to plans set out by the Chancellor in March. But, in a further sign of government confusion, Downing Street and the Treasury insisted that no plans were being considered to revise the vehicle excise duty changes announced in the Budget.

    *Flight International*
    Lufthansa chief executive Wolfgang Mayrhuber has reacted strongly to this imposition of extra costs, even threatening to move some hub operations to Zurich, Switzerland, which is not an EU member, and which is geographically close to Lufthansa’s second largest hub at Munich’s Franz Josef Strauss International Airport. Flight International quotes him as saying,

    “Should the European Union go ahead with its plan we would have to think about relocating.”

    Lufthansa says: “We have no concrete plans, but the idea of relocating is an indication of what could happen if the scheme is only applied to flights landing and departing from EU countries. If Lufthansa was to fly from Zurich to Hong Kong, for example, there would be no carbon trading.

    Lufthansa already owns Swiss International Airlines, which it took over in 2005 and operates as a separate company. Accordingly, Lufthansa could operate freely from Zurich, as Swiss International enjoys all operating rights of a Swiss airline.

    *Despite Climate Concerns, Germany Plans Coal Power Plants*
    Deutsche Welle 21 3 07
    Germany and other EU-member states agreed on a binding reduction of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by 20 percent by 2020 compared with 1990 levels. The EU also proposed a 30-percent cut if other nations followed suit.

    There’s a hitch, though, for Germany, said Reinhard Loske, a member of the German parliament and climate expert for the Green party parliamentary group: Currently, up to 26 coal-fired power plants — which would burn either hard (anthracite) or brown (lignite) coal — are either being built right now or are in the planning stages in Germany.

    *Climate Be Damned
    E.U. plows ahead with coal*
    Grist 23 Apr 2008
    Even as it makes plans to cut greenhouse-gas emissions, the European Union is gearing up to put some 50 coal plants on line in the next five years. Europeans’ distaste for nuclear energy and the relative cheap cost of coal — even when carbon permits are factored in — have made the black rock attractive for meeting rising demand. E.U. electric companies say they’re seeking out “clean” coal, an oxymoron that is unlikely to be feasible anytime soon. Any way you slice it, a slew of new coal plants means another five decades of dirty electricity in the E.U., which environmentalists say is pretty much a death sentence for the climate as we know it. Says ubiquitous NASA climate scientist James Hansen, “Given our knowledge about what needs to be done to stabilize climate, this plan is like barging into a war without having a plan for how it should be conducted, even though information is available.”

    *German minister says car tax plan looks doomed*
    Reuters Wed May 28, 2008
    BERLIN, May 28 (Reuters) – Members of German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s coalition remain “miles apart” on a plan to link car taxes to emissions and are unlikely to introduce the change in 2009 as planned, Transport Minister Wolfgang Tiefensee said.

    Merkel came under criticism for backtracking on her environmental aims when the government announced last week that approval of the plan to change car tax rules to take exhaust emissions into account would be delayed.

    But Tiefensee, in an interview with Die Welt newspaper, suggested the plan was doomed and blamed Economy Minister Michael Glos for a “surprising reversal” on the issue.

    “The chances of getting the Kfz tax in place from Jan. 1, 2009 are next to nil,” Tiefensee told the newspaper in an article to be published in its Thursday edition. “We are miles apart in the coalition on this project.”

    Tiefensee, a member of the centre-left Social Democrats (SPD), said Glos and his party, the Christian Social Union (CSU), appeared reluctant to back the plan ahead of elections in their home state of Bavaria later this year.

    • John in Oregon

      Correction

      Capitol Research Center is the reporting organization.

      *Generation Investment Management LLP* is the carbon trading company formed by Al Gore and others. Gore serves as chairman.

  • boris

    Rubicon Society?  Are you trying to compare yourself to Caesar about to claim dictatorial powers over ancient Rome?  And as to your Cascade Policy Institute, if it shows any items in its mission statement other than the dissemination of factually accurate, peer reviewed scientific observations and conclusions in the hope that honest policy makers will consider them in due course, it has an agenda.  In fact, it shows its agenda very clearly.

  • Pingback: tickled()

  • Pingback: limbah domestik()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas()

  • Pingback: pengertian siswa()

  • Pingback: contoh pembangunan berkelanjutan()

  • Pingback: pengertian budaya()

  • Pingback: karangan argumentasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian siswa()

  • Pingback: pengertian budaya()

  • Pingback: contoh judul proposal()

  • Pingback: pay4you()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk()

  • Pingback: signifikan adalah()

  • Pingback: pengertian eksistensi()

  • Pingback: great dane rescue()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: robert half finance & accounting()

  • Pingback: community health center()

  • Pingback: pengertian komunitas()

  • Pingback: pengertian demonstrasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian estetika()

  • Pingback: pengertian observasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian pelajar()

  • Pingback: pengertian keterampilan()

  • Pingback: jodoh menurut islam()

  • Pingback: pengertian administrasi()

  • Pingback: pengertian dokumentasi()

  • Pingback: contoh pembangunan berkelanjutan()

  • Pingback: manfaat keberagaman budaya()

  • Pingback: variabel bebas()

  • Pingback: contoh wacana()

  • Pingback: contoh pembangunan berkelanjutan()

  • Pingback: pengertian penduduk()

  • Pingback: nike roshe custom for sale()

  • Pingback: nike air max 360 bb()

  • Pingback: Michael Kors()

  • Pingback: mini usb to hdmi()

  • Pingback: test()

  • Pingback: liefert ihr auch nach deutschland()

  • Pingback: 1/2-Inch Drive Click Torque Wrench()

  • Pingback: 1/2-Inch Drive Click Torque Wrench()

  • Pingback: click here()

  • Pingback: learn more()

  • Pingback: learn more()

  • Pingback: ecm car()

  • Pingback: go here()

  • Pingback: discover more here()

  • Pingback: custom writing essay service()

  • Pingback: prediksi bola hari ini()

  • Pingback: best websites to buy an essay()

  • Pingback: custom writing services united states()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: read this()

  • Pingback: learn more here()

  • Pingback: click site()

  • Pingback: roshe shoes()

  • Pingback: custom term paper writing service()

  • Pingback: clip in hair extensions()

  • Pingback: express hair extensions()

  • Pingback: gymnastics mats pennsylvania()

  • Pingback: discover more here()

  • Pingback: Ruksis780()

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)