Obs Report UofU Astro Club Wednesday Night Star Party
I went to the Wednesday Star Party on the Physics Building tonight and used one of the Meade LX200s for a couple of hours. Most of the night was taken up with mechanics - learning the Meade classic controller, connecting the scope to my laptop, and testing the Cartes du Ciel Meade telescope driver. Also using a text file of Struve's Double Star Catalogue that I found on the web ( http://www.skymap.com/struve.htm ) I was able to get a Cartes du Ciel version of Struve's catalogue going. Altogether this gave me click and slew goto capability for Struve's double stars. The techie part of the night being over, I then switched over to runing some doubles in Bootes using Sue French's _Celestial Sampler_ (pp. 92-93), Sissy Haas's _Double Stars for Small Telescopes_ and the June S&T northern binoular highlights article (p. 44). On Monday, at Little Mountain, I chart checked the position of a number of Bootes and Corona B colorful doubles using binos. Tonight I was out to try to split a few at high mags. I enjoy colorful double stars for after-work urban astronomy, but really hate to have to decode those historical Struve catalogue numbers that double star writers favor into more useable HD catalogue ids. Having a planetarium program controlling the scope and a Struve catalogue installed removed all that burdensome location decoding. Slewing north to south, Struve 1835 (white blue), Struve 1873, xi Boo (orange blue), del Boo (yellow blue), mu1 and mu2 Boo, wide pair nu1 and nu2 Boo (orange blue) were rattled off in quick succession. As I was loading up a filter wheel for planetary filter testing on Saturn, a cloud blew in and ended the night's session. With the filter wheel and a right angle in place, the Meade SCT was able to easily reach an appropriate back focus. But it was clear that an improperly executed slew potentially could chop the assembly off the scope. I didn't have a chance to measure the interferance distance from the back of the autofocuser to the bottom of the fork yok. - Kurt _______________________________________________ Sent via CSolutions - http://www.csolutions.net
The evidence for solar caused global warming continues to grow - see below: Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence? Lorne Gunter National Post Monday, March 12, 2007 Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm. The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago. Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser. Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer." And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't. Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison? Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw! They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too. A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night? And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year? Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days? If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming. For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation. Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun. Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match." Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance." Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity. Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze. Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too? At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause. Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet." Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it. See also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
I don't know about Global warming but I was cutting my lawn the other day and I sure could have used a cold beer. ;) Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
The evidence for solar caused global warming continues to grow - see below:
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter National Post
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
See also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Was it daylight or night when you were doing this? diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
I don't know about Global warming but I was cutting my lawn the other day and I sure could have used a cold beer. ;)
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
The evidence for solar caused global warming continues to grow - see below:
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter National Post
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
See also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Oddly, this spring has been much cooler than usual here. I don't think it's even been 100 here yet and it's only occasionally made it to the '90s. diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
I don't know about Global warming but I was cutting my lawn the other day and I sure could have used a cold beer. ;)
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
The evidence for solar caused global warming continues to grow - see below:
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter National Post
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
See also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
This is funny. I've mostly been emailing back and forth with an old high school friend. I had forwarded him the Colton post on solar caused global warming. For some reason, when I read the original posting about the lawn mowing, I failed to notice who the email was from. I just assumed it was my high school friend. I just now noticed that it was diveboss. I have to be more careful in the future. Lockman wrote:
Oddly, this spring has been much cooler than usual here. I don't think it's even been 100 here yet and it's only occasionally made it to the '90s.
diveboss@xmission.com wrote:
I don't know about Global warming but I was cutting my lawn the other day and I sure could have used a cold beer. ;)
Quoting "Don J. Colton" <djcolton@piol.com>:
The evidence for solar caused global warming continues to grow - see below:
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?
Lorne Gunter National Post
Monday, March 12, 2007
Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
And I swear, I haven't left my SUV idling on any of those planets or moons. Honest, I haven't.
Is there something all these heavenly bodies have in common? Some one thing they all share that could be causing them to warm in unison?
Hmmm, is there some giant, self-luminous ball of burning gas with a mass more than 300,000 times that of Earth and a core temperature of more than 20-million degrees Celsius, that for the past century or more has been unusually active and powerful? Is there something like that around which they all revolve that could be causing this multi-globe warming? Naw!
They must all have congested commuter highways, coal-fired power plants and oilsands developments that are releasing large amounts of carbon dioxide into their atmospheres, too.
A decade ago, when global warming and Kyoto was just beginning to capture public attention, I published a quiz elsewhere that bears repeating in our current hyper-charged environmental debate: Quick, which is usually warmer, day or night?
And what is typically the warmest part of the day? The warmest time of year?
Finally, which are generally warmer: cloudy or cloudless days?
If you answered day, afternoon, summer and cloudless you may be well on your way to understanding what is causing global warming.
For the past century and a half, Earth has been warming. Coincidentally (or perhaps not so coincidentally), during that same period, our sun has been brightening, becoming more active, sending out more radiation.
Habibullah Abdussamatov of the Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in St. Petersburg, Sami Solanki of the Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Germany, Sallie Baliunas and Willie Soon of the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and a host of the rest of the world's leading solar scientists are all convinced that the warming of recent years is not unusual and that nearly all the warming in the past 150 years can be attributed to the sun.
Solar scientists from Iowa to Siberia have overlaid the last several warm periods on our planet with known variations in our sun's activity and found, according to Mr. Solanki, "a near-perfect match."
Mr. Abdussamatov concedes manmade gasses may have made "a small contribution to the warming in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance."
Mr. Soon showed as long ago as the mid-1990s that the depth of the Little Ice Age -- the coldest period in the northern hemisphere in the past 1,500 years -- corresponded perfectly with a solar event known as the Maunder Minimum. For nearly seven decades there was virtually no sunspot activity.
Our sun was particular quiet. And for those 60 to 70 years, the northern half of our globe, at least, was in a deep freeze.
Is it so hard to believe then that the sun could be causing our current warming, too?
At the very least, the fact that so many prominent scientists have legitimate, logical objections to the current global warming orthodoxy means there is no "consensus" among scientists about the cause.
Here's a prediction: The sun's current active phase is expected to wane in 20 to 40 years, at which time the planet will begin cooling. Since that is when most of the greenhouse emission reductions proposed by the UN and others are slated to come into full effect, the "greens" will see that cooling and claim, "See, we warned you and made you take action, and look, we saved the planet."
Of course, they will have had nothing to do with it.
See also: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten
tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that. Seth
I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Another two cents: This can be an emotional debate, but if we don't emote too much over it, I'm all for having the discussion. -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I think a healthy debate of all viewpoints is needed before making draconian political decisions that could affect all of us. Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned. You could find almost the same group of organizations opposed to continental drift in the 1960's, yet they were dead wrong. Order the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", Oxford University Press see http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/103-4233475-8101463?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179775211&sr=8-1 None of the CO2 driven advocates of Global Warming can explain the Medieval Warming Period see http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 Get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at a comparison of sunspot activity for the 1800's vs. the 1900's. Finally there is strong evidence particulate emissions have a cooling effect on climate. See: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opin ions1.shtml The author of this article fails to discuss the large amount of particulate pollution now coming from China and they are also proponents of CO2 as a the major factor in global warming. See a list of all the proponents of CO2 as the major factor who have changed their positions in the last few years: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 http://newsbusters.org/node/12793 Finally, a recent article in Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm." See: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I just think its hard to separate the science from the politics Bob Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I think a healthy debate of all viewpoints is needed before making draconian political decisions that could affect all of us. Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned. You could find almost the same group of organizations opposed to continental drift in the 1960's, yet they were dead wrong. Order the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", Oxford University Press see http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/103-4233475-8101463?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179775211&sr=8-1 None of the CO2 driven advocates of Global Warming can explain the Medieval Warming Period see http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 Get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at a comparison of sunspot activity for the 1800's vs. the 1900's. Finally there is strong evidence particulate emissions have a cooling effect on climate. See: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opin ions1.shtml The author of this article fails to discuss the large amount of particulate pollution now coming from China and they are also proponents of CO2 as a the major factor in global warming. See a list of all the proponents of CO2 as the major factor who have changed their positions in the last few years: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 http://newsbusters.org/node/12793 Finally, a recent article in Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm." See: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Fine, let's have the debate. I apologize in advance for the use of this forum for this discussion. There's just as much "debate" in the area of global warming as there was 20 years ago about the addictive and dangerous aspects of tobacco. Then, as now, industry interests manufactured a phony controversy to distract policymakers and provide cover for maintaining the status quo. Take a look at the global denial lobby. Who are they? By and large they're oil/coal/gas/automobile industry affiliated writers with significant conflicts of interest. Look at who funds these guys. You'll find Exxon fingerprints all over them and the "think tanks" that pay for their publications. That, or they're writers venting reactionary angst because some folks just can't abide the notion that "ivory tower intellectuals" (or other talk-radio pejoratives de jour) are telling people that we can no longer live with our collective heads stuck in the sand. You can't simultaneously say "Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned," and then offer vastly inferior appeals to authority by citing some web pages, a book on Amazon.com and an article in the Stanford Review written by an undergraduate majoring in Human Biology. I'll make you a deal - you refrain from posting further citations from Senator Inhofe's blog and I'll refrain from citing Mother Jones. Neither should be the nation's brain trust for deciding matters of vital public policy. Why am I supposed to take seriously articles published on web sites such as "NewsBusters.org: Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias," but not take seriously the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Science or the AAAS? Is science once again the boogeyman of the political right? I get it that a lot of global warming deniers would rather eat worms than agree with anything Al Gore says, but is that really a good way to formulate important public policy? Is our nation so irretrievably polarized that we can't or won't accept an objective, testable scientific conclusion unless it's delivered by someone with whom we agree politically? Global Warming deniers need to either rack up a thousand or so peer-reviewed articles by qualified climate researchers published in professional science journals making the case that global warming is not anthropogenic, or they need to admit that they're really just throwing a tantrum because they don't like what they're learning from the people actually doing the research. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I think a healthy debate of all viewpoints is needed before making draconian political decisions that could affect all of us. Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned. You could find almost the same group of organizations opposed to continental drift in the 1960's, yet they were dead wrong. Order the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", Oxford University Press see http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/103-4233475-8101463?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179775211&sr=8-1 None of the CO2 driven advocates of Global Warming can explain the Medieval Warming Period see http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 Get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at a comparison of sunspot activity for the 1800's vs. the 1900's. Finally there is strong evidence particulate emissions have a cooling effect on climate. See: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opin ions1.shtml The author of this article fails to discuss the large amount of particulate pollution now coming from China and they are also proponents of CO2 as a the major factor in global warming. See a list of all the proponents of CO2 as the major factor who have changed their positions in the last few years: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 http://newsbusters.org/node/12793 Finally, a recent article in Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm." See: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Many of the scientists listed lost funding by changing their positions. Much more money is available from the federal government to "promote" man caused global warming than is available for the skeptics. The Sierra Club, whom I support on some of their positions, has a budget in excess of $500 million per year not to mention Greenpeace. I think both sides of the issue are getting money and support from political groups. I don't think the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is bought out by oil companies nor the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (one of the prominent skeptics of man caused global warming). The Sargasso Sea data, historical accounts about the Medieval Warming Period as well as Greenland ice cores showing both the Medieval Warming Period and warmer temperatures than at present during the Roman era can not be explained by CO2 as the driving factor.
From the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics website:
"While most of official Washington was captivated with the fight on the Senate floor to pass an energy bill before Congress left town for its August vacation, a vicious campaign was under way behind the scenes to smear two leading scientists for pointing out serious flaws in the science behind the theory of human-caused climate change. The targets were Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, both astrophysicists at Harvard, who were characterized as fringe scientists whose work should be ignored. What did they do to attract such characterizations? They had the audacity to pull back the curtain on the wizard of global warming. The issue focuses on a paper by them that supports the widely held view that the climate of the last millennium has been quite variable and includes a Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age. This is only controversial because it, and the wider body of scientific literature that exists, directly contradicts recent research by Michael Mann, a leading global warming proponent. Mr. Mann argues global air temperatures have been stable over the last 1,000 years, with the exception of the last 100. It is the "Mann-made" warming to which Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas have objected." -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:38 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Fine, let's have the debate. I apologize in advance for the use of this forum for this discussion. There's just as much "debate" in the area of global warming as there was 20 years ago about the addictive and dangerous aspects of tobacco. Then, as now, industry interests manufactured a phony controversy to distract policymakers and provide cover for maintaining the status quo. Take a look at the global denial lobby. Who are they? By and large they're oil/coal/gas/automobile industry affiliated writers with significant conflicts of interest. Look at who funds these guys. You'll find Exxon fingerprints all over them and the "think tanks" that pay for their publications. That, or they're writers venting reactionary angst because some folks just can't abide the notion that "ivory tower intellectuals" (or other talk-radio pejoratives de jour) are telling people that we can no longer live with our collective heads stuck in the sand. You can't simultaneously say "Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned," and then offer vastly inferior appeals to authority by citing some web pages, a book on Amazon.com and an article in the Stanford Review written by an undergraduate majoring in Human Biology. I'll make you a deal - you refrain from posting further citations from Senator Inhofe's blog and I'll refrain from citing Mother Jones. Neither should be the nation's brain trust for deciding matters of vital public policy. Why am I supposed to take seriously articles published on web sites such as "NewsBusters.org: Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias," but not take seriously the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Science or the AAAS? Is science once again the boogeyman of the political right? I get it that a lot of global warming deniers would rather eat worms than agree with anything Al Gore says, but is that really a good way to formulate important public policy? Is our nation so irretrievably polarized that we can't or won't accept an objective, testable scientific conclusion unless it's delivered by someone with whom we agree politically? Global Warming deniers need to either rack up a thousand or so peer-reviewed articles by qualified climate researchers published in professional science journals making the case that global warming is not anthropogenic, or they need to admit that they're really just throwing a tantrum because they don't like what they're learning from the people actually doing the research. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I think a healthy debate of all viewpoints is needed before making draconian political decisions that could affect all of us. Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned. You could find almost the same group of organizations opposed to continental drift in the 1960's, yet they were dead wrong. Order the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", Oxford University Press see http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/103-4233475-8101463?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179775211&sr=8-1 None of the CO2 driven advocates of Global Warming can explain the Medieval Warming Period see http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 Get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at a comparison of sunspot activity for the 1800's vs. the 1900's. Finally there is strong evidence particulate emissions have a cooling effect on climate. See: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opin ions1.shtml The author of this article fails to discuss the large amount of particulate pollution now coming from China and they are also proponents of CO2 as a the major factor in global warming. See a list of all the proponents of CO2 as the major factor who have changed their positions in the last few years: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 http://newsbusters.org/node/12793 Finally, a recent article in Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm." See: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
"Many of the scientists listed lost funding by changing their positions." Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them. "Much more money is available from the federal government to "promote" man caused global warming than is available for the skeptics." Please offer evidence. I believe you'll find the contrary to be true. The track record of the Bush administration in censoring and suppressing climate research is well-documented. Why would the Feds, especially in this administration, favor research that so discomforts the fossil fuels industry? The size of the Sierra Club's operating budget, or Greenpeace's for that matter, is irrelevant. (Shall we compare their budgets to just the ad budget of Exxon?) "I don't think the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is bought out by oil companies nor the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (one of the prominent skeptics of man caused global warming)." The Woods Hole web pages you provided are at best a rational and laudable plea for careful data gathering and a caution against jumping too quickly to conclusions. Always good advice. Not by any stretch of the imagination do those pages refute the central tenets of anthropogenic global climate change. The Harvard-Smithsonian reference and the idea of "smeared" scientists, however, is a howler. You're referring to Sallie Baliunas, co-author of the Fraser Institute's now widely-discredited pamphlet "Global warming: a guide to the science." The Fraser Institute receives $60,000 per year from Exxon Mobile. Dr. Baliunas is a senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute (received $310,000 from Exxon Mobil). She's also the "enviro-sci" host of TechCentralStation.com (received $95,000 from Exxon Mobil) and is on science advisory boards of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow ($252,000 from Exxon) and the Annapolis Center for Science-Based Public Policy ($427,500 from Exxon). She has given speeches before the American Enterprise Institute ($960,000 from Exxon) and the Heritage Foundation ($340,000 from Exxon). The Heartland Institute ($312,000 from Exxon) publishes her op-ed pieces. Dr. Soon is similarly associated with virtually the same set of "think tanks." The paper that caused Baliunas & Soon's "persecution" was refuted by a panel of 13 scientists, the authors of the papers Baliunas and Soon cited in reaching their anti-global warming conclusions. Several editors of "Climate Research", the journal which published the paper, later resigned in protest at a flawed peer review process which allowed the publication. Source: Jeff Nesmith, Cox News Yep, the poor persecuted scientists. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 11:34 AM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Many of the scientists listed lost funding by changing their positions. The Sierra Club, whom I support on some of their positions, has a budget in excess of $500 million per year not to mention Greenpeace. I think both sides of the issue are getting money and support from political groups. I don't think the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution is bought out by oil companies nor the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (one of the prominent skeptics of man caused global warming). The Sargasso Sea data, historical accounts about the Medieval Warming Period as well as Greenland ice cores showing both the Medieval Warming Period and warmer temperatures than at present during the Roman era can not be explained by CO2 as the driving factor.
From the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics website:
"While most of official Washington was captivated with the fight on the Senate floor to pass an energy bill before Congress left town for its August vacation, a vicious campaign was under way behind the scenes to smear two leading scientists for pointing out serious flaws in the science behind the theory of human-caused climate change. The targets were Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, both astrophysicists at Harvard, who were characterized as fringe scientists whose work should be ignored. What did they do to attract such characterizations? They had the audacity to pull back the curtain on the wizard of global warming. The issue focuses on a paper by them that supports the widely held view that the climate of the last millennium has been quite variable and includes a Medieval Warm Period and subsequent Little Ice Age. This is only controversial because it, and the wider body of scientific literature that exists, directly contradicts recent research by Michael Mann, a leading global warming proponent. Mr. Mann argues global air temperatures have been stable over the last 1,000 years, with the exception of the last 100. It is the "Mann-made" warming to which Mr. Soon and Ms. Baliunas have objected." -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 4:38 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Fine, let's have the debate. I apologize in advance for the use of this forum for this discussion. There's just as much "debate" in the area of global warming as there was 20 years ago about the addictive and dangerous aspects of tobacco. Then, as now, industry interests manufactured a phony controversy to distract policymakers and provide cover for maintaining the status quo. Take a look at the global denial lobby. Who are they? By and large they're oil/coal/gas/automobile industry affiliated writers with significant conflicts of interest. Look at who funds these guys. You'll find Exxon fingerprints all over them and the "think tanks" that pay for their publications. That, or they're writers venting reactionary angst because some folks just can't abide the notion that "ivory tower intellectuals" (or other talk-radio pejoratives de jour) are telling people that we can no longer live with our collective heads stuck in the sand. You can't simultaneously say "Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned," and then offer vastly inferior appeals to authority by citing some web pages, a book on Amazon.com and an article in the Stanford Review written by an undergraduate majoring in Human Biology. I'll make you a deal - you refrain from posting further citations from Senator Inhofe's blog and I'll refrain from citing Mother Jones. Neither should be the nation's brain trust for deciding matters of vital public policy. Why am I supposed to take seriously articles published on web sites such as "NewsBusters.org: Exposing & Combating Liberal Media Bias," but not take seriously the American Meteorological Society, the National Academy of Science or the AAAS? Is science once again the boogeyman of the political right? I get it that a lot of global warming deniers would rather eat worms than agree with anything Al Gore says, but is that really a good way to formulate important public policy? Is our nation so irretrievably polarized that we can't or won't accept an objective, testable scientific conclusion unless it's delivered by someone with whom we agree politically? Global Warming deniers need to either rack up a thousand or so peer-reviewed articles by qualified climate researchers published in professional science journals making the case that global warming is not anthropogenic, or they need to admit that they're really just throwing a tantrum because they don't like what they're learning from the people actually doing the research. Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 2:10 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I think a healthy debate of all viewpoints is needed before making draconian political decisions that could affect all of us. Appeals to authority do not cut water as far as real science is concerned. You could find almost the same group of organizations opposed to continental drift in the 1960's, yet they were dead wrong. Order the book "The Role of the Sun in Climate Change", Oxford University Press see http://www.amazon.com/Role-Sun-Climate-Change/dp/019509414X/ref=pd_bbs_s r_1/103-4233475-8101463?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1179775211&sr=8-1 None of the CO2 driven advocates of Global Warming can explain the Medieval Warming Period see http://www.skepticism.net/articles/2002/000033.html and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=9986 and http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 Get out your Norton Star Atlas and look at a comparison of sunspot activity for the 1800's vs. the 1900's. Finally there is strong evidence particulate emissions have a cooling effect on climate. See: http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXXVI/Issue_8/Opinions/opin ions1.shtml The author of this article fails to discuss the large amount of particulate pollution now coming from China and they are also proponents of CO2 as a the major factor in global warming. See a list of all the proponents of CO2 as the major factor who have changed their positions in the last few years: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Blogs&Conten tRecord_id=927B9303-802A-23AD-494B-DCCB00B51A12 http://newsbusters.org/node/12793 Finally, a recent article in Energy and Environment, German researcher Ernst-Georg Beck, shows that the pre-industrial level is some 50 ppm higher than the level used by computer models that produce all future climate predictions. Completely at odds with the smoothly increasing levels found in the ice core records, Beck concludes, "Since 1812, the CO2 concentration in northern hemispheric air has fluctuated, exhibiting three high level maxima around 1825, 1857 and 1942, the latter showing more than 400 ppm." See: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051407.htm -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 10:09 AM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Bill, I've been away for a few days. Sorry for the delay in responding. The only remotely astronomical connection to the issue of Global Warming comes from a handful of folks who say that rather than being the result of human activity, the global climate change we're currently experiencing is caused by a change in solar output. That's just not so - it's been investigated thoroughly. Natural causes (solar output, volcanoes, etc.) can account for only a small fraction of the climate change we're experiencing ("Climate Change Science Moves from Proof to Prevention" Scientific American, Feb 1, 2007). Citing an opinion piece by a right-wing blowhard in a Canadian newspaper does not mean the decades of work by thousands of working scientists who've published their work in peer-reviewed professional journals has somehow been disproved. Our sense of "fairness" has been distorted to the point that anyone can say anything, no matter how nonsensical it is, and the press feels obligated to give their ideas equal consideration with the scientific data that professional researchers have labored long and hard to acquire. Remember "Intelligent Design?" The National Academies of Science, the Association for the Advancement of Science, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, American Meteorology Society and other organizations representing professional climate researchers are unequivocal in their position that the global climate change we're seeing is primarily the result of human activities, and they've got libraries of hard scientific fact to back them up. Professional climate esearchers are finding _more_ evidence, not less, that the majority of the climate change we're seeing around the world is caused by us. Global Warming deniers have been shown the data and they're not letting go of their delusions. What good comes from arguing with them? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Lockman Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 1:42 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I would be very interested to know why you would object to a posting with obvious astronomical ties being put on this forum. Bill Seth Jarvis wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Seth
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I am no fan of Exxon-Mobil but they contribute to both sides of the political spectrum and BP is big environmental supporter being the largest producer of wind power electric generation in the U. S. I think both sides of the argument are getting major funding to support their views. "Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them." Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans as noted below: Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! Once Believers, Now Skeptics: Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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." Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest." Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'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.'" Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote.
Don, I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?) Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics? If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good? Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon. I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered. Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:17 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I am no fan of Exxon-Mobil but they contribute to both sides of the political spectrum and BP is big environmental supporter being the largest producer of wind power electric generation in the U. S. I think both sides of the argument are getting major funding to support their views. "Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them." Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans as noted below: Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! Once Believers, Now Skeptics: Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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." Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest." Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'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.'" Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
It would be great to see some "science" on global warming that isn't motivated by some political agenda. We can quote from al gore to Rush Limbaugh and get no more science of what is really happening but...... WOW what a spirited debate we will have! Bob Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:29 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Don, I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?) Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics? If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good? Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon. I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered. Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:17 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I am no fan of Exxon-Mobil but they contribute to both sides of the political spectrum and BP is big environmental supporter being the largest producer of wind power electric generation in the U. S. I think both sides of the argument are getting major funding to support their views. "Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them." Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans as noted below: Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! Once Believers, Now Skeptics: Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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." Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest." Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'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.'" Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Just to be fair I cut an pasted the "Rush" article from his website today Rush RUSH: Boy, I'm lucky I just found this story. I meant to give you the details of this earlier when I alluded to it at the beginning of the program. By the way, welcome back, RushLimbaugh.com, talent on loan from God. This is from the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News, and it's about a guy named Reid Bryson, he's 86, still goes to work every day. He's a climate scientist, has a Ph.D. in meteorology, granted in the history of American education, held the 30th Ph.D. in meteorology. "Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he's as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth's climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet's existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate. 'I was laughed off the platform for saying that.'" I can't read the whole thing to you because I don't have the time to do it. It's the WisconsinEnergyCooperativeNewsMagazine.com, WECNmagazine.com, and let me just summarize for you. He points out that here that we're finding evidence of civilization where the glaciers that are melting are melting, where they once stood. In Switzerland, for example, they're finding silver mines under the glaciers. As the glacier retreats there, they're finding the mine shafts and the mining tools stacked up and waiting, waiting for the mine workers to return as the winter snows melted but it seems that one year, those winter snows didn't actually melt. Then year upon year passed and the snows grew deeper and finally they had a glacier there. It was the little ice age, they came to learn. Now the little ice age is ending, the glaciers are retreating, and evidence of civilization is emerging where we've known nothing but ice in our lifetimes. They're also finding water management structures built by man where glaciers are retreating. In other words, yeah, it's warmer, and as this guy points out all that's happening here is we're getting back to normal. There used to be less ice than now, we're just getting back to normal. There are constant cycles on the planet. These glaciers, that was global cooling, a little ice age, it was much, much warmer, and before all this so-called talk about could she footprints and industrialization and so forth. We've been there before. We've been warmer than we are now. We did it without SUVs and the industrial revolution. It's a funky little source here, the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News and the 86-year-old Reid Bryson, but I wanted to pass it on to you because once again this is something people have no historical perspective. I think the global warming crowd is pure politics. We never heard about this when Democrats are in office, just like we never hear about homelessness when Democrats are in office. It's a purely political issue to advance liberalism, big government, and all that. Beyond that, one of the things that is troubling is if there were just a rudimentary understanding of science at the basic Junior High level, every citizen who had that would be able to debunk the global warming claims. I know there's some psychology involved here, but we know the earth's been much colder and much hotter than it is today, long before the current crop of people and their reasons for the warming now were ever around. I don't know that a hundred thousand years ago, billions, did the people alive back then blame themselves for these changes? Hell no. They didn't have that kind of vanity, didn't have that kind of time. So it's purely political. A little total, 100 percent political hoax, made all that much easier to accomplish by virtue of the fact that basic science education is so inept. Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:29 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Don, I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?) Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics? If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good? Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon. I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered. Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet? Seth -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:17 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming I am no fan of Exxon-Mobil but they contribute to both sides of the political spectrum and BP is big environmental supporter being the largest producer of wind power electric generation in the U. S. I think both sides of the argument are getting major funding to support their views. "Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them." Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans as noted below: Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! Once Believers, Now Skeptics: Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great." Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said. Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote. Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link ) Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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." Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest." Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005. Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'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.'" Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles." Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases." Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added. Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote. _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Any one who forgets that Rush describes himself as "Only entertainment" gets the exact quality of information that they deserve.... Quoting Bob Moore <BMoore@commercecrg.com>:
Just to be fair I cut an pasted the "Rush" article from his website today
Rush RUSH: Boy, I'm lucky I just found this story. I meant to give you the details of this earlier when I alluded to it at the beginning of the program. By the way, welcome back, RushLimbaugh.com, talent on loan from God. This is from the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News, and it's about a guy named Reid Bryson, he's 86, still goes to work every day. He's a climate scientist, has a Ph.D. in meteorology, granted in the history of American education, held the 30th Ph.D. in meteorology. "Bryson is a believer in climate change, in that he's as quick as anyone to acknowledge that Earth's climate has done nothing but change throughout the planet's existence. In fact, he took that knowledge a big step further, earlier than probably anyone else. Almost 40 years ago, Bryson stood before the American Association for the Advancement of Science and presented a paper saying human activity could alter climate. 'I was laughed off the platform for saying that.'" I can't read the whole thing to you because I don't have the time to do it. It's the WisconsinEnergyCooperativeNewsMagazine.com, WECNmagazine.com, and let me just summarize for you.
He points out that here that we're finding evidence of civilization where the glaciers that are melting are melting, where they once stood. In Switzerland, for example, they're finding silver mines under the glaciers. As the glacier retreats there, they're finding the mine shafts and the mining tools stacked up and waiting, waiting for the mine workers to return as the winter snows melted but it seems that one year, those winter snows didn't actually melt. Then year upon year passed and the snows grew deeper and finally they had a glacier there. It was the little ice age, they came to learn. Now the little ice age is ending, the glaciers are retreating, and evidence of civilization is emerging where we've known nothing but ice in our lifetimes. They're also finding water management structures built by man where glaciers are retreating. In other words, yeah, it's warmer, and as this guy points out all that's happening here is we're getting back to normal. There used to be less ice than now, we're just getting back to normal. There are constant cycles on the planet. These glaciers, that was global cooling, a little ice age, it was much, much warmer, and before all this so-called talk about could she footprints and industrialization and so forth.
We've been there before. We've been warmer than we are now. We did it without SUVs and the industrial revolution. It's a funky little source here, the Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News and the 86-year-old Reid Bryson, but I wanted to pass it on to you because once again this is something people have no historical perspective. I think the global warming crowd is pure politics. We never heard about this when Democrats are in office, just like we never hear about homelessness when Democrats are in office. It's a purely political issue to advance liberalism, big government, and all that. Beyond that, one of the things that is troubling is if there were just a rudimentary understanding of science at the basic Junior High level, every citizen who had that would be able to debunk the global warming claims. I know there's some psychology involved here, but we know the earth's been much colder and much hotter than it is today, long before the current crop of people and their reasons for the warming now were ever around. I don't know that a hundred thousand years ago, billions, did the people alive back then blame themselves for these changes? Hell no. They didn't have that kind of vanity, didn't have that kind of time. So it's purely political. A little total, 100 percent political hoax, made all that much easier to accomplish by virtue of the fact that basic science education is so inept.
Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com
-----Original Message-----
From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:29 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming
Don,
I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?)
Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics?
If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good?
Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon.
I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered.
Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet?
Seth
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+sjarvis=slco.org@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Don J. Colton Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 2:17 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming
I am no fan of Exxon-Mobil but they contribute to both sides of the political spectrum and BP is big environmental supporter being the largest producer of wind power electric generation in the U. S. I think both sides of the argument are getting major funding to support their views.
"Please name them. Drs. Baliunus & Soon don't count; they are discussed in detail below. Please provide better examples than them."
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans as noted below:
Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
Once Believers, Now Skeptics:
Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the "prophets of doom of global warming" of being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" "Glaciers' chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious," Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting "Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution." Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers" mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity" in which the scientists warned that global warming's "potential risks are very great."
Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a "Kyoto house" in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol's goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled "The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming." A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel's conversion while building his "Kyoto house": "Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and 'red flags,' and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures." Wiskel now says "the truth has to start somewhere." Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, "If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion" and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed," he said.
Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye," Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is only "incriminating circumstantial evidence." "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist," Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant," Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that "CO2 should have a large effect on climate" so "he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views." Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. "I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views," he wrote.
Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. "I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical," Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. "But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds," Evans wrote. "As Lord Keynes famously said, 'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?'" he added. Evans noted how he benefited from climate fears as a scientist. "And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed," Evans wrote. "The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role," he added. "Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics," he concluded. (Evans bio link )
Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. "I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself," Murty explained on August 17, 2006. "I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously," Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "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."
Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said "global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can't be fixed." "The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything," Bellamy added. Bellamy's conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy's long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy "won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain's peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest."
Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. "At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous 'global warming,' But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation." de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. "I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute," he added. "One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people," de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "Significant [scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."
Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970's ( See Time Magazine's 1974 article "Another Ice Age" citing Bryson: & see Newsweek's 1975 article "The Cooling World" citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. "Before there were enough people to make any difference at all, two million years ago, nobody was changing the climate, yet the climate was changing, okay?" Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. "All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it's absurd. Of course it's going up. It has gone up since the early 1800s, before the Industrial Revolution, because we're coming out of the Little Ice Age, not because we're putting more carbon dioxide into the air," Bryson said. "You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide," he added. "We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of 'greenhouse gases' until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem," Bryson explained in 2005.
Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, "I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN's IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics." "After that, I changed my mind," Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book "Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma," with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "'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.'"
Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. "I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change," Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his "conversion" happened following his research on "the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific." "[My conversion from believer to climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator)," Patterson explained. "Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances," he wrote. "As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate," Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion "probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go." Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority," Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime," Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. "I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. "The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."
Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970's all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. "At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution," Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. "With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies," Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled "CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time." "We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming-with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy-is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels," Jaworowski wrote. "For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists-and not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time," Jaworowski wrote. "The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present," he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth's climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."
Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. "I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe," Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change." "However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol," Clark explained. "Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol," he added.
Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. "I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given," Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. "The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario," Veizer wrote. "It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved," Veizer explained. "The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver," he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. "The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language 'positive water vapor feedback',) Veizer wrote. "Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system," he continued. "Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language 'prescribed CO2'). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse," he wrote.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Paul Harvey = light entertainment. Rush Limbaugh = professional wrestling On 5/22/07, Josephine Grahn <bsi@xmission.com> wrote:
Any one who forgets that Rush describes himself as "Only entertainment" gets the exact quality of information that they deserve....
Seth, See Woods Hole at http://www.whoi.edu/ and Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics http://cfa-www.harvard.edu/ and http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/Index.jsp There are reviews of numerous publications from many different journals on the last site. I think these sites present credible information although you may disagree. A review of a paper from the "Journal of Geophysical Research" http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/articles/V9/N26/C1.jsp is interesting. Woods Hole points out that we have had abrupt climate changes in the past that clearly were not related to the activities of man although they believe our current activities may contribute to and/or escalate the problem. Can any serious researcher deny that we have had many warming and cooling periods on the earth such as multiple ice ages and subsequent warming. Were these caused by man? The Sargasso Sea data http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=441&cid=8722&ct=61&article=384 2 indicates that the earth was warmer during the middle ages contradicting Mann's data. I am extremely skeptical of the hockey stick data since it ignores this and the Little Ice Age. The Maunder solar minimum and the Little Ice Age coincide. Proponents of man-made global warming believe the Medieval Warming Period is a major problem and are doing all in their power to minimize or to deny it happened. After the debates in 2000, Al Gore commented he was glad Bush didn't know enough to bring up the Medieval Warm Period. Anyone who actively opposes man-made global warming would have an extremely difficult time publishing in a journal where all the peer reviews were done by proponents of man-made global warming. The sad example of Halton Arp who presented data opposing cosmological distances for quasars is a great example (whether he was right or wrong). I used Senator Inhofe's site because it readily lists several opponents with good credentials. However, there have been several climatologists from MIT and Harvard that have published opinion pieces in the Wall Street Journal that I do not think were listed. I think there is hardly a consensus when proponents shout done the opposition. The director of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics appeared on 20/20 on an hour long special questioning man caused global warming (I have a copy of the program). I don't think proponents of man caused global warming are any more objective when their careers, funding and social status would be jeopardized if they took the contrary position. Read Arp's "Seeing Red" for a classic example of peer review censorship. The strong reaction I have gotten on this website is also a good example. Don -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+djcolton=piol.com@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Seth Jarvis Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2007 4:29 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Don, I see you're cutting and pasting directly from Senator Inhofe's staff blog again. All 3,800 words, including misspellings. (acknowledgez?) Where's the published research of these "converted" skeptics? If I similarly copied and pasted into a post a series of short descriptions of how a hundred times as many global warming scientists came to believe in the reality of anthropogenic climate change would that do the debate any good? Should that even be necessary? I've offered the position statements of many respected scientific organizations derived from hundreds of research studies, while you've offered opinion pieces written by groups funded by Exxon. I confess my resources are limited. I don't have time to research the positions and affiliations of every global warming skeptic you offer. I think it's enough that since we began this exchange I've been able to consistently call into question the credibility of the sources of information you've offered. Why is the skepticism of a few dozen climate scientists, who offer no contrasting research of their own, being offered as some kind of proof that the other 90% of the world's climate scientists, with libraries of published research to support their positions, are all wet? Seth
Papers supporting Medieval Warming Period from peer reviewed journals: Reference Hemer, M.A. and Harris, P.T. 2003. Sediment core from beneath the Amery Ice Shelf, East Antarctica, suggests mid-Holocene ice-shelf retreat. Geology 31: 127-130. Description Changes in the location of the edge of the Amery Ice Shelf were inferred from measurements of biogenic opal, absolute diatom abundance and the abundance of Fragilariopsis curta found in sediments retrieved from beneath the ice shelf at a point that is currently 80 km from land's edge. The MWP at ca. 750 14C yr BP was likely warmer than at any time during the CWP. Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula Reference Khim, B.-K., Yoon, H.I., Kang, C.Y. and Bahk, J.J. 2002. Unstable climate oscillations during the Late Holocene in the Eastern Bransfield Basin, Antarctic Peninsula. Quaternary Research 58: 234-245. Description General climatic features were inferred from a study of the grain size, total organic carbon content, biogenic silica content and, most importantly, magnetic susceptibility of 210Pb- and 14C-dated sediments retrieved from the eastern Bransfield Basin (61°58.9'S, 55°57.4'W) just off the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Most of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 1050-1550) was warmer than the Current Warm Period. Reference Noon, P.E., Leng, M.J. and Jones, V.J. 2003. Oxygen-isotope (δ18O) evidence of Holocene hydrological changes at Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Holocene 13: 251-263. Description Primarily summer climatic conditions were inferred from a δ18O record preserved in authigenic carbonate retrieved from sediments of Sombre Lake (60°43'S, 45°38'W) on Signy Island, maritime Antarctica. The Medieval Warm Period (AD 1130-1215) was warmer than the Current Warm Period. Reference Castellano, E., Becagli, S., Hansson, M., Hutterli, M., Petit, J.R., Rampino, M.R., Severi, M., Steffensen, J.P., Traversi, R. and Udisti, R. 2005. Holocene volcanic history as recorded in the sulfate stratigraphy of the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica Dome C (EDC96) ice core. Journal of Geophysical Research 110: Do6114, doi:10.1029/2004JD005259. Description The authors analyzed sulfate ice core stratigraphy from Dome C, Antarctica (75.10°S, 123.40°E) to obtain a record of Holocene volcanic eruptions, which they compared with other volcanic indices throughout Antarctica. Sulfate depositional fluxes of individual volcanic events were found to vary greatly among the different sites, which variation was attributed to changes in atmospheric circulation driven by climate forcing; and the team of ten researchers concluded that "changes in the extent and intra-Antarctic variability of volcanic depositional fluxes may have been consequences of the establishment of a Medieval Warming-like period that lasted [from about 1000] until about 1500 AD." Reference Holmgren, K., Tyson, P.D., Moberg, A. and Svanered, O. 2001. A preliminary 3000-year regional temperature reconstruction for South Africa. South African Journal of Science 97: 49-51. Description Maximum annual air temperatures in the vicinity of Cold Air Cave (24°1'S, 29°11'E) in the Makapansgat Valley of South Africa were inferred from a relationship between color variations in banded growth-layer laminations of a well-dated stalagmite and the air temperature of a surrounding 49-station climatological network developed over the period 1981-1995, as well as a quasi-decadal-resolution record of oxygen and carbon stable isotopes (MWP: AD 800-1100): Peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period was as much as 2.5°C warmer than the Current Warm Period (AD 1961-1990 mean). Reference Giraudi, C. 2005. Middle to Late Holocene glacial variations, periglacial processes and alluvial sedimentation on the higher Apennine massifs (Italy). Quaternary Research 64: 176-184. Description Based on current relationships between elevation and soil periglacial and glacial processes, Giraudi estimated that the mean annual temperature on higher Apennine massifs in Italy (42°23'N, 13°31'E) from approximately AD 700 to 1030 were "higher than at present," and that winter temperatures were "at least 0.9°C higher" than those of today. Reference Liu, Z., Henderson, A.C.G. and Huang, Y. 2006. Alkenone-based reconstruction of late-Holocene surface temperature and salinity changes in Lake Qinghai, China. Geophysical Research Letters 33: 10.1029/2006GL026151. Description The authors developed a quantitative reconstruction of temperature changes over the past 3500 years based on alkenone distribution patterns in a sediment core retrieved from China's Lake Qinghai (37°N, 100°E), based on the alkenone unsaturation index that has been calibrated to the growth temperature of marine alkenone producers and "to temperature changes in lacustrine settings on a regional scale." This work revealed that the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (AD 900-1500) exceeded the temperature of the latter part of the 20th century by about 0.5°C. Reference Wilson, A.T., Hendy, C.H. and Reynolds, C.P. 1979. Short-term climate change and New Zealand temperatures during the last millennium. Nature 279: 315-317. Description Temperatures derived from an 18O/16O profile through a stalagmite found in a New Zealand cave (40.67°S, 172.43°E) revealed the Medieval Warm Period to have occurred between AD 1050 and 1400 and to have been 0.75°C warmer than the Current Warm Period. Reference Cronin, T.M., Dwyer, G.S., Kamiya, T., Schwede, S. and Willard, D.A. 2003. Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age and 20th century temperature variability from Chesapeake Bay. Global and Planetary Change 36: 17-29. Description Using the magnesium/calcium (Mg/Ca) proxy method as a paleothermometer, the authors reconstructed a 2200-year record of spring sea surface temperature from four sediment cores taken from Chesapeake Bay (~38.89°N, 76.40°W). Statistical analyses revealed mean 20th-century temperatures were 0.15°C cooler than mean temperatures during the first stage of the Medieval Warm Period, which they delineate as occurring between 450 and 900 AD. Reference D'Arrigo, R., Wilson, R. and Jacoby, G. 2006. On the long-term context for late twentieth century warming. Journal of Geophysical Research 111: 10.1029/2005JD006352. Description D'Arrigo et al. (2006) assembled mostly tree-ring width (but some density) data from living and subfossil wood of coniferous tree species found at 66 high-elevation and latitudinal treeline North American and Eurasian sites, after which they analyzed the data via the Regional Curve Standardization detrending technique to reconstruct a history of annual temperature for the Northern Hemisphere between 20 and 90°N for the period AD 713-1995. In comparing the temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period (MWP, 950-1100 A.D.) with those of the Current Warm Period (CWP), based on the six longest chronologies they analyzed, they concluded that "the recent period does not look particularly warmer compared to the MWP." However, the mean of the six series did depict a warmer CWP; but they describe this relationship as "a bias/artifact in the full RCS reconstruction where the MWP, because it is expressed at different times in the six long records, is 'averaged out' (i.e., flattened) compared to the recent period which shows a much more globally consistent signal." Nevertheless, the data are what they are; and for the period covered only by the proxy data (so that "apples and oranges" are not compared), they found that peak twentieth century warmth (which occurred between 1937 and 1946) exceeded peak MWP warmth by 0.29°C. Reference Bjorck, S., Rittenour, T., Rosen, P., Franca, Z., Moller, P., Snowball, I., Wastegard, S., Bennike, O. and Kromer, B. 2006. A Holocene lacustrine record in the central North Atlantic: proxies for volcanic activity, short-term NAO mode variability, and long-term precipitation changes. Quaternary Science Reviews 25: 9-32. Description General climatic conditions were inferred from "sedimentology, geochemistry, diatom analyses, magnetic properties, and multivariate statistics, together with 14C and 210Pb dating techniques" applied to a core obtained from the center of a small crater lake on the Azores island of Pico (38°26'N, 28°12'W). The MWP was broadly characterized by the adjoining "cooler/drier periods" of 400-800 and 1300-1800 cal yr BP, but was said by the authors to be most strongly expressed between AD 1000 and 1100, which is where we have located it. Reference Rein B., Lückge, A., Reinhardt, L., Sirocko, F., Wolf, A. and Dullo, W.-C. 2005. El Niño variability off Peru during the last 20,000 years. Paleoceanography 20: 10.1029/2004PA001099. Description The authors derived sea surface temperatures from alkenones extracted from a high-resolution marine sediment core retrieved off the coast of Peru (12.05°S, 77.66°W), spanning the past 20,000 years and ending in the 1960s. From their Figure 11, adapted below, it can be seen that the warmest temperatures of this 20,000 year period (~23.2°C) occurred during the late Medieval time (AD 800-1250). Taking this value, 23.2°C, and comparing it with the modern monthly long-term means in sea surface temperature, which the authors characterize as between 15°C and 22°C, we estimate the peak warmth of the Medieval Warm Period for this region was about 1.2°C above that of the Current Warm Period.
It's just come to the point of people posting whatever source-du-jour salves their conscience and justifies them in continuing to do what they want to do, think what they want to think. Very few minds ever get changed when the issue is tied to politics and ecconomics, as this certainly is. The nay sayers have gone from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault"...you can see where it's going to end up. Whatever the cause, there is much social, ecconomic, and eccological trouble ahead for most of the earth. Life is going to change for just about everyone. I wholeheartedly agree with Seth and won't touch this topic on this forum any more. Now where's that blood-pressure pill??? ;o) On 5/17/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
Last comment (I promise): I still would like to see scientific (and not emotional) discussions of global warming issues as they relate to astronomy. Others, such as Don, may follow this more closely than I do and I appreciate being provided with links to thoughtful articles from qualified observers/scientists that I would probably not otherwise even know about. Chuck, sit down in the lotus position and repeat after me: "Oooooooommmmmmmmm....." -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming It's just come to the point of people posting whatever source-du-jour salves their conscience and justifies them in continuing to do what they want to do, think what they want to think. Very few minds ever get changed when the issue is tied to politics and ecconomics, as this certainly is. The nay sayers have gone from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault"...you can see where it's going to end up. Whatever the cause, there is much social, ecconomic, and eccological trouble ahead for most of the earth. Life is going to change for just about everyone. I wholeheartedly agree with Seth and won't touch this topic on this forum any more. Now where's that blood-pressure pill??? ;o) On 5/17/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
Where's that beer? Quoting Kim <kimharch@cut.net>:
Last comment (I promise): I still would like to see scientific (and not emotional) discussions of global warming issues as they relate to astronomy. Others, such as Don, may follow this more closely than I do and I appreciate being provided with links to thoughtful articles from qualified observers/scientists that I would probably not otherwise even know about.
Chuck, sit down in the lotus position and repeat after me: "Oooooooommmmmmmmm....."
-----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming
It's just come to the point of people posting whatever source-du-jour salves their conscience and justifies them in continuing to do what they want to do, think what they want to think. Very few minds ever get changed when the issue is tied to politics and ecconomics, as this certainly is. The nay sayers have gone from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault"...you can see where it's going to end up. Whatever the cause, there is much social, ecconomic, and eccological trouble ahead for most of the earth. Life is going to change for just about everyone. I wholeheartedly agree with Seth and won't touch this topic on this forum any more. Now where's that blood-pressure pill??? ;o)
On 5/17/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I think I just need the high blood pressure pills from reading all this. Reality is I think I will stock up on suntan lotion Bob Bob Moore Commerce CRG - Salt Lake City office 175 East 400 South, Suite 700 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Direct: 801-303-5418 Main: 801-322-2000 Fax: 801-322-2040 BMoore@commercecrg.com www.commercecrg.com -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+bmoore=commercecrg.com@mailman.xmission.c om] On Behalf Of Kim Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:46 PM To: 'Utah Astronomy' Subject: RE: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming Last comment (I promise): I still would like to see scientific (and not emotional) discussions of global warming issues as they relate to astronomy. Others, such as Don, may follow this more closely than I do and I appreciate being provided with links to thoughtful articles from qualified observers/scientists that I would probably not otherwise even know about. Chuck, sit down in the lotus position and repeat after me: "Oooooooommmmmmmmm....." -----Original Message----- From: utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com [mailto:utah-astronomy-bounces+kimharch=cut.net@mailman.xmission.com] On Behalf Of Chuck Hards Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2007 4:31 PM To: Utah Astronomy Subject: Re: [Utah-astronomy] Solar Caused Global Warming It's just come to the point of people posting whatever source-du-jour salves their conscience and justifies them in continuing to do what they want to do, think what they want to think. Very few minds ever get changed when the issue is tied to politics and ecconomics, as this certainly is. The nay sayers have gone from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault"...you can see where it's going to end up. Whatever the cause, there is much social, ecconomic, and eccological trouble ahead for most of the earth. Life is going to change for just about everyone. I wholeheartedly agree with Seth and won't touch this topic on this forum any more. Now where's that blood-pressure pill??? ;o) On 5/17/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com ______________________________________________________________________ This e-mail has been scanned by Cut.Net Managed Email Content Service, using Skeptic(tm) technology powered by MessageLabs. For more information on Cut.Nets Content Service, visit http://www.cut.net ______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
Not to mention those who just shout down opposing views without offering actual evidence that the opposing view is wrong. Chuck Hards wrote:
It's just come to the point of people posting whatever source-du-jour salves their conscience and justifies them in continuing to do what they want to do, think what they want to think. Very few minds ever get changed when the issue is tied to politics and ecconomics, as this certainly is. The nay sayers have gone from "it's not happening" to "it's not our fault"...you can see where it's going to end up. Whatever the cause, there is much social, ecconomic, and eccological trouble ahead for most of the earth. Life is going to change for just about everyone. I wholeheartedly agree with Seth and won't touch this topic on this forum any more. Now where's that blood-pressure pill??? ;o)
On 5/17/07, Seth Jarvis <SJarvis@slco.org> wrote:
I respectfully recommend that we all voluntarily refrain from using this forum for posting articles and opinions on global warming. The internet offers zillions of other places to do that.
_______________________________________________ Utah-Astronomy mailing list Utah-Astronomy@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/utah-astronomy Visit the Photo Gallery: http://www.utahastronomy.com
I reluctantly agree with Seth, although I do like to discuss this issue and I find it extremely interesting. But the last time we got into a tangle we went on so long that some folks wanted to (or maybe did) drop out of the newsgroup. In the interest of harmony and friendship, I guess we should lay off the subject for now. -- Joe
participants (10)
-
Bob Moore -
Chuck Hards -
diveboss＠xmission.com -
Don J. Colton -
Joe Bauman -
Josephine Grahn -
Kim -
Kurt Fisher -
Lockman -
Seth Jarvis