I would say this is a fitting moment for an op-ed rebuttal from someone with the altitude to properly counter-- important not to let these missives go unanswered. The speedier the better.
One of the centerpieces of this article is a recent book "Heaven and Earth", by a prominent Australian geologist. The book has drawn a pointed critique from a fellow countryman, Barry Brook, also at the University of Adelaide. http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25372986-30417,00.html Ian Entling from the Univ. of Melbourne has a 35pg pdf of point by point analysis http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer1a8.pdf Another point by point critique http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/04/the_science_is_missing_from_ia.php Another response http://novakeo.com/?p=3931 On Jun 28, 10:27 am, "Eugene I. Gordon" <[email protected]> wrote: > Not right! Truth takes more than work; and it doesn't always prevail. > However, the truth is that the temperature of the Earth is headed up, way up > to 25 C, and it will get there even if the CO2 were brought down to 280 ppm > tomorrow to stay there until the current Malenkovitch cycle ends. The > current temperature rise is partly accelerated by anthropogenic CO2 but it > will rise in any case and ultimately will doom most human life on this > planet, perhaps sustaining a much smaller number in polar areas or in domed > cities. If we want to have some semblance of current climate and current > lifestyle; climate control via geoengineering will be essential. Nothing to > do with CO2 or cutting out fossil fuels! > > _____ > > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of William Fulkerson > Sent: Sunday, June 28, 2009 10:54 AM > To: [email protected] > Cc: Ken Caldeira; Dan Whaley; Geoengineering > Subject: [geo] Re: WSJ - Op-Ed on Global Warming Skepticism > > Dear Mike: > You are exactly right. The truth takes work. > The best, > Bill > > On Jun 28, 2009, at 9:17 AM, Mike MacCracken wrote: > > Ken, et al.---It takes a bit of patience, but we simply have to address > these types of claims. I have offered comments on a couple of these. See: > > http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_c... > _of_robinson_etal/ > > http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/maccracken_o... > en/ > > MacCracken, M. C., E. Barron, D. Easterling, B. Felzer, and T. Karl, 2003: > Climate change scenarios for the U. S. National Assessment, Bulletin of the > American Meteorological Society, 84, 1711-1723. > > MacCracken, M. C., 2003: Uncertainties: How little do we really understand, > pp. 63-70 in Bridging the Gap Between Science and Society: The Relationship > Between Policy and Research in National Laboratories, Universities, > Government, and Industry, November 1-2, 2003, Rice University, Houston TX, > 287 pp. > > And realclimate.org does a lot of clearing up of things. Plus then there is > the Santer et al. article on Douglass et al. and lost of others as well. It > takes time (and time away from real research) and is frustrating at times, > but simply has to be done. I am very surprised that there was now a response > trying to address the concerns (especially with Tom Wigley and Barrie > Pittock being in Australia and being real slayers of myths, etc.). > > But old criticisms keep popping up (and I mean really old ones, like that > there can be no CO2 effect because the bands are saturated-a myth explained > by Arrenihius and clearly demonstrated in Manabe's modeling of over 40 years > ago-but up comes the myth again, and again, and again. > > We just have to keep explaining in clearer and clearer ways, not reverting > to the authority or numbers doing the IPCC reports types of arguments. > Explain, teach, explain. > > Mike > > On 6/28/09 4:35 AM, "Ken Caldeira" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > That something like this would be published in The Wall Street Journal > indicates the deterioration of a world that believes that it is what you > believe that counts, not empirical confrontation with experience. > > Empiricism may have risen its little head for a few centuries, but is now > drowning in a sea of medievalism. > > Reality has become just another special interest group. > > On Sun, Jun 28, 2009 at 1:01 AM, Dan Whaley <[email protected]> wrote: > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124597505076157449.html#printMode > > The Climate Change Climate Change > The number of skeptics is swelling everywhere. > > By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL > > Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him > on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration > proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change > legislation. > > If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of > the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares > to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing > to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing > number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again > doubt the science of human-caused global warming. > [POTOMAC WATCH] Associated Press > > Steve Fielding > > Among the many reasons President Barack Obama and the Democratic > majority are so intent on quickly jamming a cap-and-trade system > through Congress is because the global warming tide is again shifting. > It turns out Al Gore and the United Nations (with an assist from the > media), did a little too vociferous a job smearing anyone who > disagreed with them as "deniers." The backlash has brought the > scientific debate roaring back to life in Australia, Europe, Japan and > even, if less reported, the U.S. > > In April, the Polish Academy of Sciences published a document > challenging man-made global warming. In the Czech Republic, where > President Vaclav Klaus remains a leading skeptic, today only 11% of > the population believes humans play a role. In France, President > Nicolas Sarkozy wants to tap Claude Allegre to lead the country's new > ministry of industry and innovation. Twenty years ago Mr. Allegre was > among the first to trill about man-made global warming, but the > geochemist has since recanted. New Zealand last year elected a new > government, which immediately suspended the country's weeks-old cap- > and-trade program. > > The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. > Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the > U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate > summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to > receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement > last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her > nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical > chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made > warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar > Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new > religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will > Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position > that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have > refused to run the physicists' open letter.) > > The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The > inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined > since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed > research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, > hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial > crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would > require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon. > > Credit for Australia's own era of renewed enlightenment goes to Dr. > Ian Plimer, a well-known Australian geologist. Earlier this year he > published "Heaven and Earth," a damning critique of the "evidence" > underpinning man-made global warming. The book is already in its fifth > printing. So compelling is it that Paul Sheehan, a noted Australian > columnist -- and ardent global warming believer -- in April humbly > pronounced it "an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, > including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and > beware of ideology subverting evidence." Australian polls have shown a > sharp uptick in public skepticism; the press is back to questioning > scientific dogma; blogs are having a field day. > > The rise in skepticism also came as Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, elected > like Mr. Obama on promises to combat global warming, was attempting > his own emissions-reduction scheme. His administration was forced to > delay the implementation of the program until at least 2011, just to > get the legislation through Australia's House. The Senate was not so > easily swayed. > > Mr. Fielding, a crucial vote on the bill, was so alarmed by the > renewed science debate that he made a fact-finding trip to the U.S., > attending the Heartland Institute's annual conference for climate > skeptics. He also visited with Joseph Aldy, Mr. Obama's special > assistant on energy and the environment, where he challenged the Obama > team to address his doubts. They apparently didn't. > > This week Mr. Fielding issued a statement: He would not be voting for > the bill. He would not risk job losses on "unconvincing green > science." The bill is set to founder as the Australian parliament > breaks for the winter. > > Republicans in the U.S. have, in recent years, turned ever more to the > cost arguments against climate legislation. That's made sense in light > of the economic crisis. If Speaker Nancy Pelosi fails to push through > her bill, it will be because rural and Blue Dog Democrats fret about > the economic ramifications. Yet if the rest of the world is any > indication, now might be the time for U.S. politicians to re-engage on > the science. One thing for sure: They won't be alone. > > Write to [email protected] > > ----- > > Much of the detail quoted in the article comes from a 250 page report > posted by the senate minority... > > http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View > <http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStor... > 3947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9> > &FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9 > > Bill Fulkerson, Senior Fellow > Institute for a Secure and Sustainable Environment > University of Tennessee > 311 Conference Center Bldg. > Knoxville, TN 37996-4138 > <mailto:[email protected]> [email protected] > 865-974-9221, -1838 FAX > Home > 865-988-8084; 865-680-0937 CELL > 2781 Wheat Road, Lenoir City, TN 37771 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
