posted April 10, 2006 02:31 PM            

Global annual lower tropospheric temperatures as measured by satellite MSU between latitudes 83 N and 83 S (17, 18) plotted as deviations from the 1979 value. The trend line of these experimental measurements is compared with the corresponding trend line predicted by International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) computer climate models (14). Not only has the global warming hypothesis failed the experimental test; it is theoretically flawed as well. It can reasonably be argued that cooling from negative physical and biological feedbacks to GHGs will nullify the initial temperature rise (26, 30).

posted April 10, 2006 03:02 PM            

STATEMENT BY THE COUNCIL
OF THE NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES
REGARDING GLOBAL CHANGE PETITION

April 20, 1998

The Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is concerned about the confusion caused by a petition being circulated via a letter from a former president of this Academy. This petition criticizes the science underlying the Kyoto treaty on carbon dioxide emissions (the Kyoto Protocol to the Framework Convention on Climate Change), and it asks scientists to recommend rejection of this treaty by the U.S. Senate. The petition was mailed with an op-ed article from The Wall Street Journal and a manuscript in a format that is nearly identical to that of scientific articles published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal.

The petition does not reflect the conclusions of expert reports of the Academy.

In particular, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering (NAE), and the Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a major consensus study on this issue, entitled Policy Implications of Greenhouse Warming (1991,1992). This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change.

NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES COUNCIL

Bruce Alberts (president)
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.

Jack Halpern (vice president)
Louis Block Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Department of Chemistry
University of Chicago

Peter H. Raven (home secretary)
Director
Missouri Botanical Garden
St. Louis

F. Sherwood Rowland (foreign secretary)
Donald Bren Research Professor of Chemistry and Earth System Science
Department of Chemistry
University of California
Irvine

Ronald L. Graham (treasurer)
Chief Scientist
AT&T Laboratories
Florham Park, N.J.

Mary Ellen Avery
Professor of Pediatrics
Harvard Medical School
Boston

Ralph J. Cicerone
Chancellor-Designate
Dean, School of Physical Sciences, and
Daniel G. Aldrich Professor of Earth System Science
Department of Earth System Science
University of California
Irvine

Edward E. David Jr.(1)
President
EED Inc.
Bedminster, N.J.

Marye Anne Fox
Chancellor-Designate
North Carolina State University, and
Vice President for Research and M. June
and J. Virgil Waggoner Regents Chair in Chemistry
Department of Chemistry
University of Texas
Austin

Ralph E. Gomory(2)
President
Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
New York City

David M. Kipnis
Distinguished University Professor
Department of Internal Medicine
Washington University School of Medicine
St. Louis

Daniel E. Koshland Jr.
Professor in the Graduate School
Department of Molecular and Cell Biology
University of California
Berkeley

Mary-Lou Pardue
Boris Magasanik Professor
Department of Biology
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Luis Sequeira
J.C. Walker Professor Emeritus
Department of Plant Pathology
University of Wisconsin
Madison

I.M. Singer
Institute Professor
Department of Mathematics
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Cambridge

Robert H. Wurtz
Chief
Laboratory of Sensorimotor Research
National Eye Institute
National Institutes of Health
Bethesda, Md.

Richard N. Zare
Marguerite Blake Wilbur Professor
Department of Chemistry
Stanford University
Stanford, Calif.

___________________________________
(1) abstained
(2) unable to participate http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/s04201998?OpenDocument

You STILL want to disagree with our government's top source of scientific study?

posted April 10, 2006 03:49 PM            

Yep acoustic, they finally got around to a little truth...after they got caught in their lies and admitted the uncertainty of their findings.

Just for the record acoustic, are you into consensus? Most members of the herd are.

"This analysis concluded that " ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises." In addition, the Committee on Global Change Research of the National Research Council, the operating arm of the NAS and the NAE, will issue a major report later this spring on the research issues that can help to reduce the scientific uncertainties associated with global change phenomena, including climate change."

You also don't read between the lines very well do you acoustic?

Gone are the dramatic statements of global catastrophe, gone are the wiping humanity, animals and plant life off the planet statements, gone are the "we only have a few days, weeks, months" left to act statements.

Now acoustic, I challenge you to find any occasion where those who signed or circulated the petition misrepresented themselves in that they said they were acting under the auspices of the NAS or any other government scientific institution or association.

These are some of the true leading scientists in the field acoustic. Notice, they work for some of the foremost institutions of research science in the world. They opposed Kyoto and take exception to both the science used by UN collaborators and the lying methods used to stampede the world into turning over all energy usage to a bunch of incompetent bungling bureaucrats at the UN.

posted April 10, 2006 04:37 PM            

Published online: 5 May 2005; | doi:10.1038/news050502-8
Clear skies end global dimming
Quirin Schiermeier

Earth's air is cleaner, but this may worsen the greenhouse effect.

Our planet's air has cleared up in the past decade or two, allowing more sunshine to reach the ground, say two studies in Science this week.

Reductions in industrial emissions in many countries, along with the use of particulate filters for car exhausts and smoke stacks, seem to have reduced the amount of dirt in the atmosphere and made the sky more transparent.

That sounds like very good news. But the researchers say that more solar energy arriving on the ground will also make the surface warmer, and this may add to the problems of global warming. More sunlight will also have knock-on effects on cloud cover, winds, rainfall and air temperature that are difficult to predict.

The results suggest that a downward trend in the amount of sunlight reaching the surface, which has been observed since measurements began in the late 1950s, is now over.

The researchers argue that this trend, commonly called 'global dimming', reversed more than a decade ago, probably following the collapse of communist economies and the consequent decrease in industrial pollutants.

The widespread brightening has remained unnoticed until now simply because there wasn't enough data for a statistically significant analysis, says Martin Wild, an atmospheric scientist at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich and an author on one of the reports.

Sunny days

Wild and his team looked at data on surface sunshine levels from hundreds of devices around the planet. They found that since the 1980s there has been a transition from decreasing to increasing solar radiation nearly everywhere, except in heavily polluted areas such as India and at scattered sites in Australia, Africa, and South America1.

A second study, led by Rachel Pinker from the University of Maryland, College Park, found a similar trend by looking at satellite data, although their research suggests the extent of the brightening is smaller2. Unlike ground stations, satellites can sample the whole planet, including the oceans. However, satellite data are difficult to calibrate, and so are considered less accurate than measurements from the ground.

Surprisingly, Wild's study shows a brightening trend in China, despite the fact that there is a booming, fossil-fuel-intensive industry in that country. Wild says he can only speculate that the use of clean-air technologies in China might be more widespread and efficient than has been thought.

In contrast, India's vast brown clouds of smog, which result from wildfires and the use of fossil fuels, have reduced the sunlight reaching the ground.

Just warming up

Researchers will now focus on working out the long-term effects of clearer air. One thing they do know is that black particulate matter in the air has been contributing a cooling effect to the ground. "It is clear that the greenhouse effect has been partly masked in the past by air pollution," says Andreas Macke, a meteorologist at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences in Kiel, Germany.

posted April 10, 2006 05:03 PM            

Which part of, "" ...even given the considerable uncertainties in our knowledge of the relevant phenomena, greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. ... Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

The language is quite clear. The data is inconclusive, and yet despite that it is STILL deserving of attention.

quote:

---

Gone are the dramatic statements of global catastrophe, gone are the wiping humanity, animals and plant life off the planet statements, gone are the "we only have a few days, weeks, months" left to act statements.

---

I don't think any of those statements originated in the NAS.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, I challenge you to find any occasion where those who signed or circulated the petition misrepresented themselves in that they said they were acting under the auspices of the NAS or any other government scientific institution or association.

---

You don't have to challenge me. The list is already widely discreditted.

quote:

---

They opposed Kyoto and take exception to both the science used by UN collaborators and the lying methods used to stampede the world into turning over all energy usage to a bunch of incompetent bungling bureaucrats at the UN.

---

I don't know that they'd appreciate you putting words in their mouths.

posted April 10, 2006 05:14 PM            

Headlines:

posted April 10, 2006 06:04 PM            

They finally admitted the science is not sufficient to form a definitive opinion.

They finally admitted there is not the consensus of opinion they have claimed all along.

They're sunk, shot down, out of luck to catch that global warming gravy train of research money acoustic. You too are out of luck pushing this piece of crap.

Has it occurred to you yet acoustic that you still haven't posted a list of those "leading scientists"?

Don't worry acoustic, I know your memory isn't up to par so I'll keep reminding you.

posted April 10, 2006 06:07 PM            

Canada's new Conservative prime minister, Stephen Harper, has been urged by more than 60 leading international climate change experts to review the global warming policies he inherited from his centre-Left predecessor.

In an open letter that includes five British scientists among the signatories, the experts praise his recent commitment to review the controversial Kyoto protocol on reducing emissions harmful to the environment.

Stephen Harper has been urged to review his policies

"Much of the billions of dollars earmarked for implementation of the protocol in Canada will be squandered without a proper assessment of recent developments in climate science," they wrote in the Canadian Financial Post last week.

They emphasised that the study of global climate change is, in Mr Harper's own words, an "emerging science" and added: "If, back in the mid 1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary." Despite claims to the contrary, there is no consensus among climate scientists on the relative importance of the various causes of global climate change, they wrote.

"'Climate change is real' is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified.

"Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural 'noise'."

posted April 10, 2006 07:15 PM            

quote:

---

That's right acoustic, the global warming nuts finally admitted the global warming threat is only a potential threat. So is an asteroid strike on the earth.

---

A potential threat is reason enough to put our country into debt and uncharacteristically start a war, right?

Who are these global warming nuts you refer to?

quote:

---

They finally admitted the science is not sufficient to form a definitive opinion.

---

Finally when? Finally years ago when the NAS had to distance itself from the 'junk' science put forward by OISM?

quote:

---

They finally admitted there is not the consensus of opinion they have claimed all along.

---

posted April 11, 2006 02:01 PM            

I already went through this with you once acoustic but I see you didn't grasp it.

The NAS admits they're talking about a "potential threat" not necessarily a "real threat".

The NAS admits there are "great uncertainties" about the possibility of a dramatic surprise...about climate change.

The NAS admits there are "scientific uncertainties" about the global change phenomena..including climate change.

The NAS admits there are "considerable uncertainties" in their knowledge greenhouse gases pose a threat.

NAS admitted all that in the very article you posted acoustic. In your haste to prove the junk science of global warming, don't you even read what you post?

I've been trying to improve your vocabulary acoustic. I've already helped you with the word Most. Now, it appears I must also help you with the word Consensus.

Global warming conspirators spout the nonsense of consensus among the scientific community that global warming is caused by release of CO2 into the atmosphere, is caused by humans and is harmful to humans, animals and plants.

Neither you nor the global warming conspirators know what the word "consensus" means.

So far acoustic, we have almost 20,000 academically and professionally qualified scientists who say global warming is hooey.

You on the other hand have this:

The National Academy of Sciences membership is composed of approximately 2,000 members and 350 foreign associates. http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=MEMBERS_Main
In other words acoustic, the National Academy of Sciences is a private membership club and one which toots it's own horn.

So acoustic, if, as NAS says, there is a consensus that global warming is caused by CO2 emissions by humans and that it's harmful to humans, animals and plants, that consensus is only among those at NAS and they number only about 2000

If we're talking about a consensus among qualified scientists then the true consensus is that global warming is hooey, as evidenced by the much larger group of over 19,000 qualified scientists who signed the anti-global warming petition.

Consensus
An opinion or position reached by a group as a whole.

Now acoustic, I don't mind if NAS wants to study the climate...as long as they do it on their own dime and reap their rewards from the publishing of papers.

But if the intent is to shut down the manufacturing sector, the transportation sector and energy sectors of the US economy or pressure the US government to pony up government handouts for their "research", then up theirs.

posted April 11, 2006 02:29 PM            

I've been quoting the NAS all along. It's been you who's been grasping. It's been you who's taken the position that climate change isn't an issue. It's you who's taken the position that the science isn't worthy of attention. It's you who's taken the position that it would be bad to take responsibility with regard to the environment.

Your nonsense about "potential threat" versus "real threat" holds no weight, because as I've said we went to war on the basis of a "potential threat." I'm not going to sit here and let you flip flop on what kind of "threat" warrants government oversight.

quote:

---

I've been trying to improve your vocabulary acoustic. I've already helped you with the word Most. Now, it appears I must also help you with the word Consensus.

---

Actually, I won that argument, and I'm winning this one as well, so it's really your ego that seems to be inflated. It's not my fault you can't interpret a chart, and it's not my fault you believe a political idea of climate change over the actual study of climate change.

quote:

---

Now acoustic, I don't mind if NAS wants to study the climate...as long as they do it on their own dime and reap their rewards from the publishing of papers.

---

We both know that the NAS is supported by our government. It was founded under a Republican, and it is held in high regard by Bush senior.

quote:

---

But if the intent is to shut down the manufacturing sector, the transportation sector and energy sectors of the US economy or pressure the US government to pony up government handouts for their "research", then up theirs.

---

I don't believe the NAS has ever called for shutting down the manufacturing sector, or any of that other nonsense. You're being overly dramatic again.

posted April 11, 2006 03:43 PM            

Climate change ahead?
N.C. global warming panel right to take long-term view

Too often, government agencies are way late to the planning table to cope with emerging problems. Maybe not this time. The N.C. Legislative Commission on Global Climate Change is hearing from a broad variety of viewpoints to determine what, if anything, the state should do.

Good. If rising temperatures portend dramatic climate change, as many scientists predict, it's best for this state, its economy and the health of its people to be prepared for possible consequences -- and opportunities.

One thing seems likely: Government will need to respond. North Carolina finds itself in a position to figure out what response it might take, or cede all major decisions to Washington. That would be nuts. The federal government has proved to be fairly ignorant about the needs of individual states with special circumstances.

"The questions are which states are going to be ahead of the curve and which aren't," Bill Chameides, chief scientist for the conservation group Environmental Defense, told the commission Tuesday. "For you to decide is whether you want to wait until the nation does it as a whole, or do you want to get ahead."

The commission's members represent a mix of views on whether carbon-based fuels are the cause of increasing temperatures -- and whether any government action could alter the pattern. A few of its members believe the state should take strong steps to reduce emissions; others believe they would any positive impact would be so ineffective as to be impossible to measure.

But the actions of some of the region's largest businesses suggest they have already had this debate internally and opted for measures to reduce carbon-based greenhouse emissions. The list of companies includes Duke Energy, Progress Energy, DuPont and Bank of America.

The point is obvious: If some of the biggest companies in their fields believe in reducing emissions, then government agencies charged by law with responding to environmental problems should consider taking action as well. One possible course is setting goals for reductions in greenhouse gases. As one speaker put it last week, it's hard to measure improvement without providing a target to shoot for.

What's encouraging about the commission is that it's taking a long view and hearing an array of facts and opinions about what's happening. That's appropriate. Before the commission decides whether to do anything, it must determine whether there's a problem the state can address, and what difference that action might make.

One state in one nation in one hemisphere cannot solve this problem all by itself. But problems usually get solved one step at time. The commission's job is to figure out what that step is, and how big to make it. It's off to a good start.

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

posted April 11, 2006 03:48 PM            

April 10, 2006

New research on global warming has caused a split at the top end of town, writes Deborah Snow.

WESTPAC chief executive David Morgan had an interesting story to tell at an invitation-only breakfast for a handful of journalists in Sydney last week.

The anecdote concerned a recent private conversation with the head of the giant General Electric Company in the US, Jeff Immelt.

"He said to me he was virtually certain that the first action of the next president of the United States, be it Republican or Democrat, would be to initiate urgent action on climate change. And he wasn't saying that as a casual political comment ... he is [allocating] billions of dollars worth of investment in the confidence of that development."

George Bush and John Howard have both cold-shouldered the case for more direct government intervention to combat global warming.

But last Thursday Morgan - and five other top businesss executives - put their heads above the parapet with the launch of the Australian Business Roundtable on Climate Change, a powerful new voice which wants business and government to respond more rapidly to inexorably rising world temperatures.

The move is not risk-free for the six corporate chiefs. It has flushed into the open a long-simmering row within the highest ranks of corporate Australia over global warming - the kind of dispute big business generally likes to keep behind closed doors.

In Europe and Britain, some major corporations have been in the vanguard of urging greater action on climate change for several years. In the US the experience of Hurricane Katrina which devastated New Orleans has helped turn sentiment. But in Australia the roundtable's emergence marks a significant watershed for business.

It is also an open rebuke to the Business Council of Australia, the body which represents the chief executives of Australia's top 100 companies. The council was so wracked with division the last time it debated the issue nearly four years ago that it wound up deadlocked and decided not to take a position at all.

Morgan told journalists last week that the council's debate had been "immature", and signalled that he and other members of the roundtable would now be going back into that forum to try to move it forward. "The thing that has been missing is some fact base about the economics," he said.

To fill that gap the roundtable group has commissioned detailed modelling from Allen Consulting, which demonstrates it is possible for Australia to cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent from 2000 year levels before 2050 and still have strong economic growth.

It's an important new plank in the case for direct action, until now stymied by arguments from business opponents, and indeed from the Prime Minister, that strong greenhouse gas action by Australia would have damaging economic effects.

Insurance boss Keith Scott says an increase in extreme weather events is linked to global warming: "The year 2005 set a record in terms of the number of natural catastrophes, and there is no reason why 2006 would be any less a year. My company is committed to this [roundtable agenda] because the issue not only goes to the very heart of our business dynamic, it concerns lives, livelihoods, health, infrastructure and the ability to maintain current levels of biodiversity."

Scott is the head of Australian and New Zealand operations for Swiss Re, one of the world's largest reinsurers. With Morgan, he is a core member of the new alliance, along with Michael Hawker, the chief executive of Insurance Australia Group, Gerry Hueston, the president of BP Australasia; Grant King, the managing director of Origin Energy; and Harry Debney, the chief executive of Visy Industries. Don Henry, of the Australian Conservation Foundation, is also a member.

The six business leaders have come up with a carefully worded report aimed at demonstrating the economic costs of doing little.

For instance, 250,000 jobs could be at stake if greenhouse action is delayed. Delay will also mean the need for much more drastic and costly action later on, they argue.

The report diplomatically seeks to avoid direct criticism of the state and federal governments, or other sections of the business community which are dragging their feet.

But reading between the lines, the implied criticism is clear. "There is a widening gap between [the] advancing scientific evidence and the international response from governments," the roundtable report says. "The Australian Government has a strong long-term focus on technology which is a necessary part of the solution. However many in business perceive a near-term policy gap.

"We believe that climate change is a major business risk and we need to act now."

The real grenade the group has rolled into the ring is its call for a "national, market-based carbon pricing mechanism", which it wants the Government to sketch out a framework for next year.

What the mechanism would look like has been left deliberately vague - a concession to the sensitivities of those industries that have lobbied long and hard against such a move.

But any plain English construction of "carbon pricing mechanism" translates, for most experts, into either a direct impost on carbon (greenhouse gas) emissions, or an indirect impost through some kind of emissions trading system, like the one now operating in the European Union.

Imposing a direct cost on carbon emissions has been resisted by the biggest greenhouse gas-producing industries, which have long had the ear of the Federal Government on climate change policy. The aluminium industry and the Minerals Council of Australia have led the charge, arguing that such a move would have a disproportionate impact on them and drive some of their operations offshore.

Dr Clive Hamilton, the head of the Australia Institute, has hailed the roundtable's call for a "carbon price signal" as highly significant because "it flies in the face of current government policy and does represent a fracturing of business opinion".

But he is critical of the roundtable for sidestepping the vexed issue of the Kyoto Protocol.

Australia and the US are the only two major developed nations not to have ratified Kyoto, which binds industrialised countries to targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

"They [the roundtable] are trying to avoid discussing the issue because they don't want to engage in a direct confrontation with the Federal Government - and that's playing into the Government's hands," Hamilton told the Herald.

However Origin Energy's King insists that reviving the Kyoto debate "is not constructive in my view for getting the Government to move forward in policy terms".

The CSIRO research commissioned by the roundtable reveals the frightening dimensions of the challenge ahead.

Over the past 100 years the average surface air temperature of Australia has increased by just 0.7 per cent. Yet that alone has been enough to trigger marked declines in regional rainfall along the east and west coasts.

The report says even if global emissions stabilised at current levels, the planet would be committed to additional warming of between 2 and 5.5 degrees. At the upper end of this scale, the consequences would be dramatic.

Some leading scientists now fear the massive Greenland ice sheet could melt at temperature rises of between 2 and 3 degrees.

"Destabilisation or collapse of these ice sheets would lead to centuries of irreversible sea-level rise and coastal inundation around the world," the CSIRO report warns.

The disaster movie, The Day After Tomorrow, predicated on just such scenarios, stops looking like Hollywood make-believe and more like looming reality, though on a much longer time scale.

Late last week the federal Environment Minister, Ian Campbell, reiterated the Government's line that, while it had left the door open to a carbon trading system, this could only be workable when an international system, or at least a regional system, was in place.

"It would be highly effective if you could find a market mechanism that didn't have a perverse outcome for the economy and the environment," he told the Herald. "If you set it [the price of carbon] too low it won't drive investment [into renewable energies] and if you set it too high it will drive investment offshore."

But Hamilton accuses the Government of still being hostage to a network of industry lobby groups which their opponents dub the "greenhouse mafia", representing the heavy carbon-emitting industries such as coal, oil, cement, aluminium, mining and electricity.

He cites the work of Guy Pearse, a Liberal and former government adviser, who has researched a PhD thesis on the companies and industry associations which make up this network, which he calls the greenhouse "blockers".

Pearse writes in his recently published thesis that "the self-declared 'mob' works as a pack to keep the brakes on greenhouse policy and to protect the narrow interests of a few resource-based industries ... They have demonstrated an unrivalled capacity to influence the direction of government policy ... and have drawn on the support of various captains of industry - or 'aces' - to apply pressure on the Government to get their way on greenhouse policy."

Now, with the emergence of the Roundtable on Climate Change, the forces Pearse documents may have met their match.
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/business-warms-to-change/2006/04/09/11445 21210225.html#

posted April 11, 2006 04:46 PM            

Such programs are used extensively by electricity producers in Europe. They allow greenhouse gas producers who exceed emission levels to buy credits from producers who have reduced their pollutants.

The Republican governor will lay out his strategy to cut back levels of gases linked to global warming at a summit in San Francisco on Tuesday bringing together legislators, business executives, government regulators, economists and environmentalists.

The San Francisco Chronicle, citing an advance copy of Schwarzenegger's speech, said he will make his "strongest commitment yet to make California a leader in regulating emissions that most scientists believe are causing climate changes that could have disastrous consequences."

The governor, who set emissions reduction goals a year ago, also will back a "cap and trade" system that would establish financial incentives to reduce emissions, the Los Angeles Times said. The plan calls for two years of study to design the program.

A "Climate Action Team" of environmental advisors recommended a series of new clean-air programs last week to Schwarzenegger, and state lawmakers also introduced a bill to reduce emissions by 25 percent by 2020.

The climate report said the emissions reduction target for 2020 "should be the basis for an emissions cap."

The report also called for mandatory reporting of emissions levels by the largest polluting industries -- oil and gas exploration and production, oil refining, electric power, cement manufacturing and solid waste landfills.

Some business groups and utilities support parts of the climate strategy but others like the California Manufacturers and Technology Association oppose emissions caps, saying they would harm California's economy.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060411/pl_nm/energy_california_emissions_dc_1

In the cited report:

quote:

---

On June 1, 2005, Governor Schwarzenegger signed an Executive Order
establishing climate change emission reduction targets for the State and
declared, “…the debate is over. We know the science. We see the threat.
And we know the time for action is now.”

---

posted April 11, 2006 04:59 PM            

As I said before you seem to think saying something is true makes it true but parents learn to deal with that kind of nonsense early on.

It's not a matter of fairness acoustic...a favorite word of the left used to cover their inane losing arguments. It's not about fairness, it's about truth and accuracy. In the case of leftist conspirators it is a political issue and they have done all they could to make it so.

If Bush was so enamored with the NAS he would have signed the Kyoto treaty...which is what they wanted so that's a losing argument too acoustic.

I'm well aware you've been quoting the NAS and it's this group who is in the minority of qualified scientists...that minority who are putting forth the argument for global warming and who are now backing off their dire predictions after being caught with projections which didn't accurately predict the actual CO2/temperature changes. And acoustic, they were just computer modeled projections, nothing more.

Sadly, these so called scientists started out with a premise that global warming was real, that it was caused by humans and that it was harmful. Instead of letting the science take them where it lead, they threw out any evidence or factual data which disagreed with their preconceived and political ideas. That's junk science at it's worse.

How illogical of you acoustic to attempt to link the Iraq war with global warming...but how very like you. Ummm, a little reality here acoustic. Saddam had WMD, Saddam used WMD, Saddam trained terrorists inside Iraq, Saddam hates the US, Saddam had numerous connections to al-Qaida. Saddam was more than a potential threat. Global warming has none of that certainty going for it. The tinkerers over at the NAS can't even say with any certainty there is a threat from "global warming", can't say the science is at a sufficient level to permit them to make predictions as they once did.

Of course the NAS haven't talked about shutting down the US economy. They've talked about Kyoto...which would shut down the US economy and cost trillions of dollars over time to meet the CO2 standards.

Didn't I say I have no problem with studies about climate? I don't, providing junk science isn't used in attempts to prove a political position...as global warming enthusiasts are doing.

Now acoustic, real scientists would have taken a time period...a long time period and checked temperatures and CO2 levels. They would have established the mean temperature over the period, average temperature over the period or starting temperature and then acoustic they would have plotted the actual temperatures and CO2 levels along the mean, average or from the starting temperature. They would have also used a smoothing factor because temperatures can fluctuate wildly year to year in the same location. That wasn't done by the tinkerers acoustic because when it is done, you get a very different story about the temperature/CO2 relationship than the NSA got. Instead, they used a computer model which was wildly inaccurate in predicting the actual temperatures and very much higher than actual.

I showed you such charts acoustic but you weren't able to grasp them either. However, this is the chart that says all that needs to be said about the computer model projections used by the global warming tinkerers.

You will note acoustic that while the period monitored is the period of rapidly rising CO2 levels and the computer model predicts rising temperatures, the temperatures are actually on a down trend.

And now acoustic I must leave you to your delusions about global warming. You are ineducable...mainly because your mind is closed to the real science being done in the field.

However acoustic, I would leave you with one thought. Over the course of this discussion...actually, you've been babbling about global warming, I've moved you from your starting position here:
"As far as the issue is concerned, I've been on the fence for a long time. There is no conclusive proof of catastrophic global warming, or if there is, I haven't seen it." http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001812.html

To being a raving proponent of the junk science theory of global warming put forth by the NAS...and others.

posted April 11, 2006 05:17 PM            

Probably something to do with people questioning their academic and professional credentials.

Perhaps you will be able to come up with a list of real scientists who back the global warming theory.

posted April 11, 2006 06:15 PM            

It's never about being contrary. It's about dispelling the nonsense, and it is nonsense. That whole 19,000 "scientists" bit was one of the most extraordinary bits of untruth I've seen from you.

quote:

---

Over the course of this discussion...actually, you've been babbling about global warming, I've moved you from your starting position here:
"As far as the issue is concerned, I've been on the fence for a long time. There is no conclusive proof of catastrophic global warming, or if there is, I haven't seen it." http://www.linda-goodman.com/ubb/Forum16/HTML/001812.html

To being a raving proponent of the junk science theory of global warming put forth by the NAS...and others.

---

You've just shown that I have remained consistent. It's amazing to me that you can sit there, and claim that my position has changed when in actuality it's been the same all along. "There is no conclusive proof of catastrophic global warming, or if there is, I haven't seen it." Also, you left out, "It's kind of like the avian flu - you just gotta keep an eye on it. Also, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be environmentally conscious and responsible." Plain and simple. That's what I've said, and that's the position I've defended. It's a VASTLY more arguable position than touting the Global Warming petition.

Furthermore, you've not illustrated an ounce of logical competency in this debate. You can't even bring yourself to accepting a moderate view like fellow Republicans Arnold Schwartzenegger and Robert Ehrlich Jr. That's pretty silly on your part. I guess the far right fringe isn't into responsibility or accountability, huh?

So keep digging that hole Jwhop. Nevermind the business leaders, farmers, and politicians. You've proved once again that you have the narrowest of minds when it comes to issues of politics.

From Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004 dated December 2005 produced and written by the Energy Information Administration Office of Integrated Analysis and Forecasting, U.S. Department of Energy page 6:

Summary of Science Academies’ Joint Statement on Global Response to Climate Change

The U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the national science academies of Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Russia, and the United Kingdom in June 2005 issued a joint statement on the global response to climate change. Their statement stressed the following principles:

• Climate change is real: warming attributable to human activities is taking place and has already led to changes in the Earth’s climate.

• The causes of climate change should be reduced: nations should identify cost-effective steps that they can take now to reduce the growth of greenhouse gas emissions.

• Nations should prepare for the consequences of climate change: because large portions of the climate respond slowly, even if steps were taken today to stabilize emissions at current levels the climate would continue to change; therefore, nations should prepare for unavoidable changes.

• An international study should be launched: the G8 nations should develop a science-based approach to targets for greenhouse gas emissions that avoid “unacceptable” impacts.

• There should be cooperation with developing countries: G8 nations should work with developing countries to find solutions that best fit the circumstances
of those countries.

posted April 11, 2006 06:36 PM            

Careful acoustic, you're far too easy to control

You know acoustic, your continued attempts to paint 19,000 scientists as a minority party on the global warming issue is really lame.

Where the hell is your list. I've posted the list against. Where's your list for the issue?

All your ducking, bobbing and weaving and denial will do you no good. Neither will your saying it's true make it true. That only works in the little leftist fantasy world.

posted April 11, 2006 07:00 PM            

quote:

---

You know acoustic, your continued attempts to paint 19,000 scientists as a minority party on the global warming issue is really lame.

---

Really lame, or completely accurate. Depends on the viewer.

quote:

---

I've posted the list against. Where's your list for the issue?

---

Jwhop, I've already thoroughly disproved your list. Did you look up those affiliations yet? Have you looked into OISM? It's laughable that you think this is still worth pursuing.

If you want a new list I suggest you do the logical thing, which is to look at the papers written by climate change scientists. Every one that I've seen references their work, so you can see both the obvious supporter as well as the back-up for the supporter's hypothesis. Do I need to hold your hand?

Let's start with the 100,000 strong Union of Concerned Scientists.

Here's an article: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/recordtemp2005.html

Here are the references:

Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. 2004. Impacts of a Warming Arctic. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Available at http://www.acia.uaf.edu.

Arrenhius, S. 1896. On the influence of carbonic acid in the air upon the temperature of the ground. Philosophical Magazine 41:237-276.

Barnett, T.P., D.W. Pierce, and R. Schnur. 2001. Detection of anthropogenic climate change in the world's oceans. Science 292:270-274.

Domack, E., D. Duran, A. Leventer, S. Ishman, S. Doane, S. McCallum, D. Amblas, J. Ring, R. Gilbert and M. Prentice. 2005. Stability of the Larsen B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula during the Holocene Epoch. Nature 436:681-685.

Fu, Q., C. M. Johanson, S. G. Warren and D. J. Seidel. 2004. Contribution of stratospheric cooling to satellite inferred tropospheric temperature trends. Nature 429:55-58.

Hansen, J., L. Nazarenko, R. Ruedy, M. Sato, J. Willis, A. Del Genio, D. Koch, A. Lacis, K. Lo, S. Menon, T. Novakov, J. Perlwitz, G. Russell, G. A. Schmidt, N. Tausnev. 2005. Earth's energy imbalance: Confirmation and implications. Science 308:1431-1435.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2001. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Krabill, W., E. Hanna, P. Huybrechts, W. Abdalati, J. Cappelen, B. Csatho, E. Frederick, S. Manizade, C. Martin, J. Sonntag, R. Swift, R. Thomas and J. Yungel. 2004. Greenland Ice Sheet: Increased coastal thinning. Geophysical Research Letters 31.

Levitus, S., J. Antonov, and T. Boyer. 2005. Warming of the world ocean, 1955-2003. Geophysical Research Letters 32.

Mears, C.A., and F.J. Wentz. 2005. The effect of diurnal corrections on satellite-derived lower tropospheric temperatures. Science 309:1548-1551.

Mote, P. W., A..F. Hamlet, M.P. Clark and D. P. Lettenmaier 2005. Declining mountain snowpack in western North America. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 86:39-49.

Rodhe, H., and R.J. Charlson, eds. 1998. The Legacy of Svante Arrhenius: Understanding the Greenhouse Effect. Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Stockholm University.

Santer, B.D., T.M.L. Wigley, C. Mears, F.J. Wentz, S.A. Klein, D.J. Seidel, K.E. Taylor, P.W. Thorne, M.F. Wehner, P.-J. Gleckler, J.S. Boyle, W.D. Collins, K.W. Dixon, C. Doutriaux, M. Free, Q. Fu, J.E. Hansen, G.S. Jones, R. Ruedy, T.R. Karl, J.R. Lanzante, G.A. Meehl, V. Ramaswamy, G. Russell, and G.A. Schmidt. 2005. Amplification of surface temperature trends and variability in the tropical atmosphere. Science 309:1551-1556.

Sherwood, S., J. Lanzante, and C. Meyer. 2005. Radiosonde daytime biases and late-20th century warming. Science 309:1556-1559.

Siegenthaler, U., T.F. Stocker, E. Monnin, D. Lüthi, J. Schwander, B. Stauffer, D. Raynaud, J.-M. Barnola, H. Fischer, V. Masson-Delmotte and J. Jouzel. 2005. Stable carbon cycle-climate relationship during the late Pleistocene. Science 310:1313-1316.

Steffen, K., and R. Huff. 2005. Greenland Melt Extent, 2005. Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado at Boulder and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Available at http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005.

United Kingdom Climate Research Unit (CRU). 2005. Global Temperature for 2005: Second warmest year on record. Norwich U.K. Available at http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/press/2005-12-WMO.pdf

U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). 2005. Emissions of Greenhouse Gases in the United States 2004. DOE/EIA-0573(2004). Washington DC. Available at ftp://ftp.eia.doe.gov/pub/oiaf/1605/cdrom/pdf/ggrpt/057304.pdf.

U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 2005. Global Temperature Trends: 2005 Summation. NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). New York, NY. Available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2005/.