St. Maarten Private Eye

Dam, you may have your doubts about how much CO2 is contributing to Global Warming and of course you are welcome to express them and challenge me, because clearly my doubts are not as strong as yours. At least we can agree on one thing, GW is real.

I am not closed to the possibility that the sun may be a cause of it, but at the same time, I am already convinced, as is the ICCP, that human activity is a major contributing factor. We here in St. Maarten don't really see how bad smog and pollution from cars, factories and power generating is in other parts of the world, although we do get the occasional toxic dust storm from Africa.

In an Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore asked viewer to imagine the earth as a basketball and to then paint it with a coat of varnish. This, he said, is the atmosphere that we live in. Do I really need to post the images of smog and smoke stacks billowing to make my point that it's all a bit like pissing in the swimming pool, if we don't stop then the piss content will continue to rise, making it very unpleasant to swim in.

Is CO2 and burning fossil fuels the only cause of GW? No, that's not what I have said, but I do think it's a major contributor and it is also killing hundreds of thousands, if not millions, yearly through illnesses it causes. Please watch this video with top NASA climate scientist James Hansen who explains more about CO2 and climate change.

The technology exists and is within reach to clean up how we produce and use energy, I do not understand your apparent opposition to progress and advancement in these areas. The health and economic effects of CO2 are an argument on their own to reduce and reduce our dependance on fossil fuels.

I'm not going to jeer or harangue you, by all means go right ahead and keep us all informed of the science and stories related to the sun being behind GW, I on the otherhand will continue to inform people of the news and science reports which relate to man's contribution to it. Below is a roundup of news from the past week or two, this first link is to the Wiki page on Greenhouse gases. If you see anything wrong there Dam, please feel free to change it.

I'll start off with Mark Fiore's take on energy innovation in the US, I should add here that the US did just vote to improve fuel economy standards, but not till 2020. The UN reports that the 'renewable revolution' is here and news sources of bio fuels, such as plastic bags are being discovered, an improvement on using food crops. In the US, from milk to meat, US food prices spike upward.

In the Amazon the drought is extreme (Video) and you can find the long term problems of glacier melt being explained here and here.

Unfortunately I am called away just now, below are a few more stories that are worth a read. Dam, please feel free to come and inform us about the sun and the data from studies about it, but please, don't tell me that CO2 and greenhouse gasses are not a problem that needs urgently to be addressed.

Caribdude

Rising Seas to Destroy U.S. Beaches - 22nd June 2007

Arctic spring's 'rapid advance' - 18th June 2007

Environmentally Friendly New Jet Planned - 15th June 2007

Google's drive for clean future - 19th June 2007

Swinging wave device to be tested - 13th June 2007

Carbon trade scheme 'is failing' - 5th June 2007

Caribdude,
My credentials first - I am a PhD environmental scientist and have been in the business for over 25 years. I have spent 10 years in climatology, including climate modeling, model evaluation, etc. I am a skeptic of CO2 being a primary forcing of AGW (anthropogenic global warming). My models can predict with good accuracy the temperature variations over the last 2,000+ years using solar radiation and volcanic activity as the primary forcings. This includes the medieval warming period and the little ice age. In my opinion, this is not settled science.
First off, the climate of earth has been changing constantly since the earth was formed. We are going to have climate in the future - there is little that we can do about it. What we can do is deal with Anthropogenic contributions.
The forecasts about global warming are based upon computer modeling (the IPCC used three models primarily). The summary was written by politicians with the final report to follow months later (actually there are four groups that wrote key sections).
The reports in 1990, 1995 and 2001 had been progressively more alarmist. the report this year has toned down much of the rhetoric. Although CO2 is increasing, global temperatures haven't.
The UN’s (you know, the organization that can't organize a dog fight) 2001 IPCC report shows that our greenhouse-gas emissions since 1750 had caused a “radiative forcing” of 2.43 watts per square meter. Other effects on climate were shown as broadly self-cancelling. In the current draft, the UN has cut its estimate of our net effect on climate by more than a third, to 1.6 watts per square meter. It now thinks pollutant particles reflecting sunlight back to space have a very strong cooling effect. Dr. James Hansen, the father of global warming, has started to believe that the impacts of CO2 are much less than originally thought.
Global change modeling can be characterized into a number of categories. The models that the IPCC relies on are not predictive models, but quality assurance models. In short, they are not reliable for predicting future events.
I am not going to refute or argue the many points that I disagree with on AGW. However, for those wanting to read about scientific work that doesn't get into the press very often, see:
Co2 Science
Icecap
Climate Science
The last URL is technical in nature. If you read the comments, you can usually figure out what the significance of the topic is. Icecap is more for the layman.

As a final note for now, how do the global warming believers explain the following taken from Icecap: The most reliable global, regional and local temperature records from around the world display no distinguishable trend up or down over the past century. The last peak temperatures were around 1940 and 1998, with troughs of low temperature around 1910 and 1970. During this period the CO2 concentrations were increasing. Between 1940 and 1975, the temperatures were dropping. Believe what you may, but this is not settled science.

I took a look at the sites you linked to and the discussions in the comments. I'd like to let you know that SXM PE is not interested in such nonsensical back and forth arguing, links flying here and there. While we encourage discussion and debate, the kind that I see on those sites is not the sort that we want here.

Let me put this to you bluntly and clear. The core group of bloggers and administrators of this site have absolutely no doubt that Global Warming is real and that a primary cause of it is our addiction to fossil fuels. While we are interested in hearing about other possible causes, you coming here to tell us that CO2 has nothing to do with it and in fact GW does not even exist is really quite insulting to our intelligence. Seeing as you are in Colorado, would you by chance know that other skeptic there, Dr. William Grey. You know, the guy who makes long range forcasts/guesses every year about Hurricanes that have an accuracy rate of zero.

Please, go post your comments on those sites you linked to, they appear to like the ol back and forth mindless banter that you seem to be wanting to create here too. For every one of your points you make, we here can post several respected (probably not in your circles) links in response. But what is the point? Go start your own site and promote your cause and views there, we know where we stand on this issue and nothing you have presented supports your suggestion that the IPCC, the UN, an overwhelming majority of scientists and governments, and ourselves, are all under the influence of a mass hysteria delusion.

Dam, the other skeptic posting here at least has the honesty and clear thinking to say "For me, if the side effect of this hysteria is a cleaning up of the planet (regardless of the 'real' causes of global warming) then something has been achieved." As Caribdude explained, there are dozens of other reasons aside from global warming that tell us our addiction to fossil fuels, in particular oil, is not a healthy way to live nor the path to a healthy future for our planet, our children and their future.

Your comment is the same as going to a religious site and promoting the God Delusion, it is the same as going to a right wing republican site and claiming Bush and Cheney are war criminals (they are) or a liberal site and using the WH talking points. The only reason someone would do that is because they want to stir things up, sow seeds of doubt and cause back and forth arguments that achieve nothing, it's called flaming and you are acting like a troll.

We here have no doubts that CO2 and human activity are major causes of Global Warming, which is a growing reality. If you want to dispute that, then fine, go do it on one of those sites where they welcome such banter. We look at the matter the same as we look at the earth being round, your statement about CO2 and GW not being a reality is like someone arguing it's actually flat.

We are very open to being proved wrong, we don't mind egg on our faces, at least our children will have a better future and cleaner planet. Your argument would leave us all far worse off than egg if you are wrong. By the way, didn;t you know that the sceptics have moved on from denying GW exists to arguing about it's causes. Now thats progress, sort of.

You are in the wrong place.

Flipper

Flipper,

You are correct, I am not in the right place. I didn't realize that this web site is for AGW CO2 acolytes only. I misunderstood Caribdude - I thought that he was interested in scientific dialogue. I find it ironic that Dr Gray uses GCMs as does the IPCC yet you believe the IPCC GCM models even thought they are multidecadal models. I won't post again as I am not welcome here.

BTW I am not in Colorado but the Republic of Panama - I use a proxy server in Colorado. Identifying the IP address of a posting is not a very reliable method of determining the location where the posting originated.

SunSetSam

If you do come back then be sure to check out the link below.

A spokesman for the Royal Society, the UK's leading scientific academy, said: "This is an important contribution to the scientific debate on climate change. At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

New analysis counters claims that solar activity is linked to global warming - 11th July 2007

The credntials of the climatologist's posts may be genuine but contemporary scientists are in agreement that global warming is not only occurring but is from tracable man-made conditions.
Here is a link to a few studies that are alarming -

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/04/85020.html

There are currently vast sums of money being spent by oil industry friends to refute this science and their views pop up in all forums of public discussion.

I doubt his 'model' was one shown at he NASA-Goddard Earth Institute last fall (I attended) where the diverse leading climate models made on the world's largest computers and multi-computer link ups all fell into agreement on projections of super heating.

Further studies are coming out daily.
This climate change-is-hooey material is not accepted by leading climate scientists, universities or (importatly) insurance companies.
Since insurance companies project risk idecades into the future it is not suprising that sponsors like Swiss-Re are funding aggressive climate change education projects like www.thegreatwarming.com

Where the climate-change-is-hooey theorists find a welcome mat are in government lobby groups that stall clean air initiatives for fossil fuel producers.

London didn't build the Thames Barier as a tourist attraction. The Netherlands didn't create roads that can float for amusement. Europe and most of the industrialized world are modifying infrastructure, building practices and energy policy because of a proven need to do so.

Here's a little more news for concerned readers -
Terrific weather anamolies right now:

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2007/07/87890.html

and part 1 of the L.A. Times series on 'altered oceans'

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/oceans/la-me-ocean30jul30,0,6670018,full.story

...discusses the death of coral reefs. The 80% destruction of the Caribbean reefs is evident over on Pointe Blanche bay where the ruins of bleached dead coral washes up daily in amounts that make the coast look like a marble quarry.

The reefs globally are in danger from one thing: rising ocean temperatures.

...at last a breakthrough! It's seems you have at least 'heard' me - that is all I was trying to achieve. As I said before I am not going to stand on a soapbox to try and convince anyone of my opinion - I am just trying to illustrate that dogmatism, no matter what the subject, is not helpful - there are other theories out there - BUT they are not being looked at because the hysteria has become about Co2 instead of global warming.
You still need to toss links at me as if to convince when in fact I have seen a lot of the things you are talking about first hand as well as having read a lot about them myself - so I cannot have "apparent opposition to progress and advancement in these areas.."

For me, if the side effect of this hysteria is a cleaning up of the planet (regardless of the 'real' causes of global warming) then something has been achieved.

Time will tell. Perhaps somewhere down the line (if we last that long!) history will tell a slightly different story from the one we are being told right now.

That's all and thank you for 'hearing'

All the best with your 'mission'

Dam