Since IPCC climate modellers possess the super-computing power to use data collected from both past and present to predict sea levels, weather patterns, planetary temperature, and polar bear populations 50 years into the future… what are they waiting for?
Surely they can set an afternoon aside to tell us who’s going to win the 2007 World Series.
That wasn’t meant as a joke.
Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming…
The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations, and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.
The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.
In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007.Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel’s top young award winning scientists Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa.
Lots more at the link. PDF version
Dave Rutherford had a great guest on this morning talking about this topic. A must listen! 630 Ched in Edmonton (not sure the station in Calgary). It starts just past the 11:00 mark and runs until 11:45.
All this scientific proof against the Kyoto Kult. And what do they counter with ? Science ?? Nope.
They build an ark !! 🙂
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) – Environmental activists are building a replica of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat—where the biblical vessel is said to have landed after the great flood—in an appeal for action on global warming, Greenpeace said Wednesday.
Turkish and German volunteer carpenters are making the wooden ship on the mountain in eastern Turkey, bordering Iran. The ark will be revealed in a ceremony on May 31, a day after Greenpeace activists climb the mountain and call on world leaders to take action to tackle climate change, Greenpeace said.
//www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8P5ET601&show_article=1
ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) – Environmental activists are building a replica of Noah’s Ark on Mount Ararat—where the biblical vessel is said to have landed after the great flood—in an appeal for action on global warming, Greenpeace said Wednesday.
Turkish and German volunteer carpenters are making the wooden ship on the mountain in eastern Turkey, bordering Iran. The ark will be revealed in a ceremony on May 31, a day after Greenpeace activists climb the mountain and call on world leaders to take action to tackle climate change, Greenpeace said.
Cool. Maybe this “ship” can also ‘jump-the-shark’.
Who will be the bearded old captain ?? Suzuki ??
The Pastor ?? Gore, of course.
The Chaplain ?? Dion.
The financier ? Mo.
Out-to-launch ? Layton.
Will the CBC have Niel MacDonald there live ?? Stupid question.
Ron,
Perfect type casting. You are a clairvoyant.
Ark building is a fitting and profitable Liberal symbol.
It IS a symbol, an Icon.
It is artistic and creative.
It is an expression of high emotion.
The theme is spiritual, not factual.
And above all, It is ideal for fund-raising.
They will want to fill it with our folding money for the cause.
Now if *THE CAUSE* was to provide *clean coal tech*, for the tens of thousands of CoalGen plants around the world, then there my be some merit to the idea.
More likely the funds raised would be for helping a Liberal / NDP coop take power with vague promises of saving the globe.
It will be interesting to see what nebulous cause they finally decide to use. = TG
The baseball prediction analogy is quite apt as there is no a-priori means of calculating who will win the world series. One can make educated guesses and there are those baseball fanatics who amass huge quantities of stats in order to better refine their predictions. Regardless of how detailed they get, one cannot algorithmically predict who will win the world series. This problem has a number of constraints in that the winning team will be a member of the set of professional baseball teams competing against one another. The system is sufficiently chaotic that the only way to find who wins the world series is to wait until the season is over.
The earth’s climate is a much more complicated quasi-stable chaotic system than the America’s professional baseball league. We have access to historical climate data which give some constraints on average temperature, albedo, etc. Given the chaotic nature of the world’s climate, I would expect that a reasonable model would produce a set of possible climate states when run for time T. I’m very suspicious of a model which would keep producing global warming scenario’s every time it is run; one would expect some runs to produce ice ages and other’s to do nothing.
There have been very abrupt changes in climate over the last 30,000 years and some of the highlights I would have like to have been arount to see are when Lake Agassiz suddenly began to drain through the St. Lawrence river (and totally changed Atlantic ocean currents) and when the Mediterranean sea filled in. The change in Lake Agassiz drainage occurred over a very short time scale and resulted in a massive change in climate.
Global climate models that don’t consider such events are less than useless. What I would expect is a spectrum of possible climates showing how increasing atmospheric [CO2] changes the probability of ice ages, no change in climate, much wetter climates, hotter climates, etc. This would require one to run models millions of times with slightly different initial conditions with each run giving a single point in the future climate space.
The only good thing about the eco-hysteria related to AGW is that it has made people aware that the earth’s climate is quasi-stable. Even if there were no SUV’s, it could suddenly change dramatically and produce another ice age. This suggests to me is that we need to be prepared to deal with any climatic contingency and this would require an enormous expansion of industrial production capacity which is the exact opposite response to what Dr. Fruitfly and his disciples are preaching.
One way of getting around the problem of planetary climates is by leaving the earth and building space habitats. If Suzuki and his eco-fanatics are successfull, human expansion to space will never happen.
Three cheers for finding some sane and conscientious scientists. But it’s too late. The barn door has been busted open and the wild horse of unrestrained government intervention is already aiming its hoofed feet at your head.
Of course you could always – nah – what am I saying!
I was going to say, you could maybe call to account the political boneheads in your own party who are about to crack your car-driving, home-heating, job-working skulls so they can win a few more votes from bus-riding nitwits and hydro-dam-owning corruption monkies. But if that’s too much of a bother, never mind …
MT rejected my trackback for this
AL GORE is one of the biggist producers of HOT AIR he needs to contain it
Gees Jeff, still waiting here. Where the hell are you?
Conspiracy or conspiracy theory? Did ExxonMobil pay off scientists to discredit global warming?
Posted Jan 4th 2007 1:02PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski
Filed under: Etc.
According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, ExxonMobil gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming.
This backs up the claims by Britain’s leading scientific academy, The Royal Society, who in September wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that “misrepresented the science of climate change.”
According to ExxonMobil’s web site, $6.8 million of nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally for “public information and policy research” was distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups.
Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. In September, ExxonMobil admitted that it donates to companies that research “significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company.
==========AutoBlogGrren.com
How can ExxonMobile afford 16 Million$ donations? Well let*s see. . .
As if they didn’t already have enough… Exxon still trying to pay off scientists?
Posted Feb 2nd 2007 5:04PM by Jeremy Korzeniewski
Filed under: Etc., Green Culture, Legislation and Policy.
To go along with our previous coverage of the newest report on global warming by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the Guardian in the U.K. is reporting that the American Enterprise Institute is offering $10,000 each to any scientist willing to undermine the I.P.C.C.’s report. The AEI is funded by…
drumroll… ExxonMobil. Again, according the the Guardian, “The AEI has received more than $1.6m from ExxonMobil and more than 20 of its staff have worked as consultants to the Bush administration.
Lee Raymond, a former head of ExxonMobil, is the vice-chairman of AEI’s board of trustees.” And, they also offered travel expenses. “The letters were sent by Kenneth Green, a visiting scholar at AEI, who confirmed that the organization had approached scientists, economists and policy analysts to write articles for an independent review that would highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the IPCC report.”
I think that they were kind of cheap on this one. I mean, if they made $1,252.54 every second last…
====== AutoBlogGreen.com
I don*t take sides on these giants. Lee Iacocca says they are milking us, soo, who knows? = TG
PS: ExxonMobile are rolling off white plastic type battery liner film. The heart of the Litium polymer battery industry. Guess energy to them means every last type possible. = TG
Just occurred to me Jeff. Maybe Kate cut you off!! God, I can’t imagine being cut off by Kate!!
Sorry about all this ExxonMobile griping, but it was interesting to me and could be to you as well.
If you have any questions about why it will be very, very difficult for biofuel start-ups and solar car enthusiasts to compete in the oil-friendly auto industry, don’t look only at the technological troubles with lithium-ion batteries or getting biodiesel from algae.
Look at the cash register over at Exxon Mobil. The company has just posted 2006 profits (not revenue, which was an obscene $377.64 billion last year) of $39.5 billion.
Aside from being the largest annual profit by a U.S. company, how much is that, exactly? $39.5 billion profit in one year = $39,500,000,000.00 = $759,615,384.62/week = $108,219,178.08/day = $4,509,132.42/hour = $75,152.21/minute = $1,252.54/second.
I could do a lot with $1,200 a second. What does Exxon Mobil do with it? Paying off scientists in an effort to mislead the public on global warming and pressuring teachers not to show An Inconvenient Truth in schools. In the mean time, Exxon only spends 0.1 percent of its total annual capital investment on sustainable technologies such…
========= AutoBlogGreen.com
Once you go Green, some develop this viewpoint… = TG
?My own skepticism began when I read the IPCC scientific reports starting with the Vostok ice core data.”
My skepticism came when I heard two words–MAURICE STRONG
Horny Toad
A different Bob said: “Gees Jeff, still waiting here. Where the hell are you?”
I fear he’s lost in the forests of High Park.
jmorrison: I missed your comment earlier, but in the interest of keeping things correct you are not talking about an ice core from Greenland. Greenland provides a maximum of 200,000 years ice record. The one you are thinking of if from the Antarctic.
Iceman_Aragorn: you did not understand what the graph is showing. It does not show warming but melting. This is an important distinction.
I have heard of ‘big oil’ conspiracy theories all my life. From super milage carburators to electric cars to oil reserves…. Track record ?? Zero.
If electric vehicles can compete, I welcome them. Otherwise they will remain golf carts.
And remember. Just who are the “THEY” that make so much money in the oil industry ?? … “They” are “us”.
Yes, us. In pension funds, savings, investments, workers.
Kill the Golden Goose and we are all cooked. Even the slack-ass hippys who rely on flaky basket weaving hand outs.
Loki, that was an interesting point about Lake Agassiz and the GCM’s. I did a bit of digging abd found the following in the IPCC AR4 Chapter 6.
“A likely cause for the 8.2 ka event is an outburst flood during which pro-glacial Lake Agassiz drained about 1,014 m3 of freshwater into Hudson Bay extremely rapidly (possibly 5 Sv over 0.5 year; Clarke et al., 2004). Climate models have been used to test this hypothesis and assess the vulnerability of the ocean and atmospheric circulation to different amounts of freshwater release (see Alley and Agustsdottir, 2005 for a review).
The National Post has been doing a series about Climate Change Deniers. I think there’s an article about it every week with the name and mini-CV of the denier. The last article they seem to have was the 19th on on April 13th but there may be more elsewhere. A nice list of these articles can be found here:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0
So you could probably glean a few more names for your list from them. Some interesting Climate Change rebuttals too.