The Faithful Heretic
A Wisconsin Icon Pursues Tough Questions
Some people are lucky enough to enjoy their work, some are lucky enough to love it, and then there’s Reid Bryson. At age 86, he’s still hard at it every day, delving into the science some say he invented.
Reid A. Bryson holds the 30th PhD in Meteorology granted in the history of American education. Emeritus Professor and founding chairman of the University of Wisconsin Department of Meteorology—now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences—in the 1970s he became the first director of what’s now the UW’s Gaylord Nelson Institute of Environmental Studies. He’s a member of the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor—created, the U.N. says, to recognize “outstanding achievements in the protection and improvement of the environment.” He has authored five books and more than 230 other publications and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world.
Long ago in the Army Air Corps, Bryson and a colleague prepared the aviation weather forecast that predicted discovery of the jet stream by a group of B-29s flying to and from Tokyo. Their warning to expect westerly winds at 168 knots earned Bryson and his friend a chewing out from a general—and the general’s apology the next day when he learned they were right. Bryson flew into a couple of typhoons in 1944, three years before the Weather Service officially did such things, and he prepared the forecast for the homeward flight of the Enola Gay. Back in Wisconsin, he built a program at the UW that’s trained some of the nation’s leading climatologists.
How Little We Know
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,” he told Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News.
In the 1960s, Bryson’s idea was widely considered a radical proposition. But nowadays things have turned almost in the opposite direction: Hardly a day passes without some authority figure claiming that whatever the climate happens to be doing, human activity must be part of the explanation. And once again, Bryson is challenging the conventional wisdom.
“Climate’s always been changing and it’s been changing rapidly at various times, and so something was making it change in the past,” he told us in an interview this past winter. “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?”
“All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd,” Bryson continues. “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.”
Little Ice Age? That’s what chased the Vikings out of Greenland after they’d farmed there for a few hundred years during the Mediaeval Warm Period, an earlier run of a few centuries when the planet was very likely warmer than it is now, without any help from industrial activity in making it that way. What’s called “proxy evidence”—assorted clues extrapolated from marine sediment cores, pollen specimens, and tree-ring data—helps reconstruct the climate in those times before instrumental temperature records existed.
We ask about that evidence, but Bryson says it’s second-tier stuff. “Don’t talk about proxies,” he says. “We have written evidence, eyeball evidence. When Eric the Red went to Greenland, how did he get there? It’s all written down.”
Bryson describes the navigational instructions provided for Norse mariners making their way from Europe to their settlements in Greenland. The place was named for a reason: The Norse farmed there from the 10th century to the 13th, a somewhat longer period than the United States has existed. But around 1200 the mariners’ instructions changed in a big way. Ice became a major navigational reference. Today, old Viking farmsteads are covered by glaciers.
Bryson mentions the retreat of Alpine glaciers, common grist for current headlines. “What do they find when the ice sheets retreat, in the Alps?”
We recall the two-year-old report saying a mature forest and agricultural water-management structures had been discovered emerging from the ice, seeing sunlight for the first time in thousands of years. Bryson interrupts excitedly.
“A silver mine! The guys had stacked up their tools because they were going to be back the next spring to mine more silver, only the snow never went,” he says. “There used to be less ice than now. It’s just getting back to normal.”
What Leads, What Follows?
What is normal? Maybe continuous change is the only thing that qualifies. There’s been warming over the past 150 years and even though it’s less than one degree, Celsius, something had to cause it. The usual suspect is the “greenhouse effect,” various atmospheric gases trapping solar energy, preventing it being reflected back into space.
We ask Bryson what could be making the key difference:
Q: Could you rank the things that have the most significant impact and where would you put carbon dioxide on the list?
A: Well let me give you one fact first. In the first 30 feet of the atmosphere, on the average, outward radiation from the Earth, which is what CO2 is supposed to affect, how much [of the reflected energy] is absorbed by water vapor? In the first 30 feet, 80 percent, okay?
Q: Eighty percent of the heat radiated back from the surface is absorbed in the first 30 feet by water vapor…
A: And how much is absorbed by carbon dioxide? Eight hundredths of one percent. One one-thousandth as important as water vapor. You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.
This begs questions about the widely publicized mathematical models researchers run through supercomputers to generate climate scenarios 50 or 100 years in the future. Bryson says the data fed into the computers overemphasizes carbon dioxide and accounts poorly for the effects of clouds—water vapor. Asked to evaluate the models’ long-range predictive ability, he answers with another question: “Do you believe a five-day forecast?”
Bryson says he looks in the opposite direction, at past climate conditions, for clues to future climate behavior. Trying that approach in the weeks following our interview, Wisconsin Energy Cooperative News soon found six separate papers about Antarctic ice core studies, published in peer-reviewed scientific journals between 1999 and 2006. The ice core data allowed researchers to examine multiple climate changes reaching back over the past 650,000 years. All six studies found atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations tracking closely with temperatures, but with CO2 lagging behind changes in temperature, rather than leading them. The time lag between temperatures moving up—or down—and carbon dioxide following ranged from a few hundred to a few thousand years.
Renaissance Man, Marathon Man
When others were laughing at the concept, Reid Bryson was laying the ground floor for scientific investigation of human impacts on climate. We asked UW Professor Ed Hopkins, the assistant state climatologist, about the significance of Bryson’s work in advancing the science he’s now practiced for six decades.
“His contributions are manifold,” Hopkins said. “He wrote Climates of Hunger back in the 1970s looking at how climate changes over the last several thousand years have affected human activity and human cultures.”
This, he suggests, is traceable to Bryson’s high-school interest in archaeology, followed by college degrees in geology, then meteorology, and studies in oceanography, limnology, and other disciplines. “He’s looked at the interconnections of all these things and their impact on human societies,” Hopkins says. “He’s one of those people I would say is a Renaissance person.”
The Renaissance, of course, produced its share of heretics, and 21 years after he supposedly retired, one could ponder whether Bryson’s work today is a tale of continuing heresy, or of conventional wisdom being outpaced by an octogenarian.
Without addressing—or being asked—that question, UW Green Bay Emeritus Professor Joseph Moran agrees that Bryson qualifies as “the father of the science of modern climatology.”
“In his lifetime, in his career, he has shaped the future as well as the present state of climatology,” Moran says, adding, “We’re going to see his legacy with us for many generations to come.”
Holding bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Boston College, Moran became a doctoral candidate under Bryson in the late 1960s and early ’70s. “I came to Wisconsin because he was there,” Moran told us.
With Hopkins, Moran co-authored Wisconsin’s Weather and Climate, a book aimed at teachers, students, outdoor enthusiasts, and workers with a need to understand what the weather does and why. Bryson wrote a preface for the book but Hopkins told us the editors “couldn’t fathom” certain comments, thinking he was being too flippant with the remark that “Wisconsin is not for wimps when it comes to weather.”
Clearly what those editors couldn’t fathom was that Bryson simply enjoys mulling over the reasons weather and climate behave as they do and what might make them—and consequently us—behave differently. This was immediately obvious when we asked him why, at his age, he keeps showing up for work at a job he’s no longer paid to do.
“It’s fun!” he said. Ed Hopkins and Joe Moran would undoubtedly agree.
“I think that’s one of the reasons for his longevity,” Moran says. “He’s so interested and inquisitive. I regard him as a pot-stirrer. Sometimes people don’t react well when you challenge their long-held ideas, but that’s how real science takes place.”
—Dave Hoopman
Sunday, May 6, 2007
Saturday, May 5, 2007
Some Inconvenient Truths About Al Gore
The inside track on "Cousin Albert"
By Stephen Marshall
Published: Thursday May 25th, 2006
Editor’s note: With the release of his global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore has reemerged as one of the Democratic Party’s most high-profile stars. Despite his repeated statements that he is a “recovering politician” and is not interested in running for office, many believe Gore will throw his hat into the presidential ring come 2008. But despite his many years in high elected office, what do we really know about Gore’s politics? In this exclusive excerpt from his forthcoming book Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing (Disinfo, Jan. 2007), GNN’s Stephen Marshall talks with Gore Vidal about some inconvenient truths about his relative:
While his “cousin Albert” has effortlessly inhabited the vestments of a liberal politician, to hear Gore Vidal tell it, the former Vice President’s liberalism is merely a prop developed to bring him to the head of the Democratic Party.
“Well, although we are cousins, and I was a friend of his father’s, I’ve always thought he was absolutely pointless as a politician. He’s just another conservative southerner.”
In fact, Al Gore’s voting record as a senator was surprisingly conservative until he rolled his eye toward the White House. Throughout most of his career, he was pro-life and had an 84% anti-abortion rating from the National Right to Life Committee. From 1979 – 81, he voted five times on the side of a Republican sponsored rider that granted a tax exemption for schools like Bob Jones University that discriminate on the basis of race. He was openly anti-gay, calling homosexuality “abnormal” and “wrong,” and telling the Tennessean in 1984 that he did “not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm.” Gore was such a strong supporter of the gun lobby – ultimately voting against the critical 1985 legislation for a mandatory 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases – that National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre once said, “We could have made Al Gore NRA Man of the Year – every single vote.” Finally, when it came time to vote on conservative Supreme Court nominees, Gore publicly praised but voted against the scandal-ridden Clarence Thomas. He voted in Antonin Scalia. If the wider public had been more aware of his legacy, few would have recognized the Al Gore of 1988 who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Pulling his hat down so that his eyes are shadowed from the sun, Vidal continues his effortless assault on Al Gore: “Another border-state, southern lover of the Pentagon…there was never anything the Pentagon asked for that Cousin Albert wasn’t down there giving it to them; he voted for the first war in the Gulf.”
Indeed, Al Gore was one of only ten Democrats to break with the party and vote for President Bush Sr.’s Gulf War in 1991. But while Vidal sees this as a facet of Gore’s eager-to-please statism, others have attributed his dissenting vote to self-interest. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson accused Gore of peddling his vote on the Iraq War in exchange for high-visibility, headline-grabbing speech time on the floor. According to Simpson, the night before the vote Gore stopped by the GOP cloakroom and asked, “How much time will you give me if I support the President?” Taking him at his word, Simpson and Senator Bob Dole offered Gore twenty minutes, thirteen more than his own party would grant. In Simpson’s account, over the course of the night Gore jockeyed to have the floor during prime time to ensure that he would get coverage in the next day’s news cycle. The negotiations went right up to the last minute, leaving Simpson to conclude that Gore “arrived on the Senate floor with… two speeches in hand. [He] was still waiting to see which side – Republicans or Democrats – would offer him the most and the best speaking time.”
For Vidal, stories like this just prove the moral bankruptcy of American politicians who serve no master other than their own ambition. And their corporate backers. In Gore’s case, this meant Russian-born oil tycoon Armand Hammer, owner of Occidental Petroleum. Though it was Gore’s father, Senator Al Gore Sr. who was the primary beneficiary of Hammer’s support – in exchange for political and diplomatic favors to further his international business interests – Gore Jr. slipped quietly into his father’s shoes.
Occidental is one of the worst corporate polluters in the world. In its most scandalous case, an Occidental subsidiary dumped thousands of tons of toxic chemical waste near the residential area of Love Canal, New York, causing birth defects, miscarriages, and incidences of cancer in the nearby community. But Gore remained a friend of the company. And the company, a good friend to Al Gore.
Despite being a predominantly Republican supporter, Occidental funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to the Clinton/Gore Democrats over the course of their two-term administration. In return, Gore maneuvered to facilitate Occidental’s acquisition of oil drilling rights in the Elk Hills National Petroleum Reserve outside Bakersfield, California. Long held as a federal oil resource, Elk Hills represented the largest turnover of public lands to a private corporation in American history. It tripled Occidental’s U.S. petroleum reserves, increasing the company’s stock value by ten percent. Gore later admitted to controlling between $250,000 – $500,000 worth of shares through a family held trust.
Gore’s vaunted record as an environmental populist clashed harshly with the 1996 Elk Hills-Occidental deal. Democratic fund-raiser (and former Gore campaign manager) Tony Cohelo sat on the board of the private company hired to provide an environmental impact report for the Energy Department. After the deal was approved, Peter Eisner of the DC-based Center for Public Integrity remarked, “I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an environmental assessment prepared so quickly.” Perhaps even more damning, Elk Hills is part of the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands. Despite protests from the tribe, it took less than five years for Occidental’s massive operations to wipe out any trace of the 100 native archaeological sites, including ancient burial grounds, that were left in Elk Hills.
Throughout Al Gore’s campaign for the 2000 Democratic presidential candidacy, environmentalists protested his relationship to Occidental. This time the issue was Gore’s defense of the company’s plan to drill near the sacred grounds of the Colombian U’wa tribes people. During Clinton’s second term, Occidental spent millions lobbying for American military aide to Colombia in order to bolster the country’s ability to defend its pipelines from rebel armies. The close links between the company and national security forces surfaced when U’wa leaders sued Occidental, claiming the Colombian army used the company’s planes in an operation that ultimately resulted in the murder of 18 innocent peasants. As a measure of last resort, the 5,000 remaining U’wa threatened collective suicide if Occidental refused to alter their drilling plans. And, in February 2000, when U’wa representative Robert Perez traveled to Washington in order to make his people’s case against the company, Gore refused to meet him. In 2002, after a protracted public battle over the U’wa drill site, Occidental pulled out, saying that U’wa protests had “no effect at all” on Occidental’s withdrawal decision. Apparently, neither did Al Gore.
But, for Vidal, the act that most proves Gore’s contempt for representative politics was his total acquiescence in the face of the contested 2000 presidential election result in Florida. The image of Gore presiding over the certification of Bush’s victory was a moving, if tragic, scene in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. There he stood, banging his gavel as each successive member of the Congressional Black Caucus rose to challenge the assignment of Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Bush. “There was a hell of a lot of people ready to march,” Vidal says defiantly. But Al Gore wasn’t one of them.
“He is of above average intelligence, on issues that people didn’t really care about, like the environment. But if there’s a hot issue, he runs the mile,” Vidal concludes firmly and then, looking up at the clouds that have moved over the sun, rises.
GNN co-founder Stephen Marshall is the director of BattleGround: 21 Days on the Empire’s Edge, and This Revolution, a political thriller starring Rosario Dawson, and the co-author of True Lies (Penguin/Plume). He is currently shooting a new documentary entitled Holy Wars and finishing a new book entitled Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, due out in January 2007.
By Stephen Marshall
Published: Thursday May 25th, 2006
Editor’s note: With the release of his global warming documentary An Inconvenient Truth, Al Gore has reemerged as one of the Democratic Party’s most high-profile stars. Despite his repeated statements that he is a “recovering politician” and is not interested in running for office, many believe Gore will throw his hat into the presidential ring come 2008. But despite his many years in high elected office, what do we really know about Gore’s politics? In this exclusive excerpt from his forthcoming book Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing (Disinfo, Jan. 2007), GNN’s Stephen Marshall talks with Gore Vidal about some inconvenient truths about his relative:
While his “cousin Albert” has effortlessly inhabited the vestments of a liberal politician, to hear Gore Vidal tell it, the former Vice President’s liberalism is merely a prop developed to bring him to the head of the Democratic Party.
“Well, although we are cousins, and I was a friend of his father’s, I’ve always thought he was absolutely pointless as a politician. He’s just another conservative southerner.”
In fact, Al Gore’s voting record as a senator was surprisingly conservative until he rolled his eye toward the White House. Throughout most of his career, he was pro-life and had an 84% anti-abortion rating from the National Right to Life Committee. From 1979 – 81, he voted five times on the side of a Republican sponsored rider that granted a tax exemption for schools like Bob Jones University that discriminate on the basis of race. He was openly anti-gay, calling homosexuality “abnormal” and “wrong,” and telling the Tennessean in 1984 that he did “not believe it is simply an acceptable alternative that society should affirm.” Gore was such a strong supporter of the gun lobby – ultimately voting against the critical 1985 legislation for a mandatory 14-day waiting period for handgun purchases – that National Rifle Association leader Wayne LaPierre once said, “We could have made Al Gore NRA Man of the Year – every single vote.” Finally, when it came time to vote on conservative Supreme Court nominees, Gore publicly praised but voted against the scandal-ridden Clarence Thomas. He voted in Antonin Scalia. If the wider public had been more aware of his legacy, few would have recognized the Al Gore of 1988 who ran for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Pulling his hat down so that his eyes are shadowed from the sun, Vidal continues his effortless assault on Al Gore: “Another border-state, southern lover of the Pentagon…there was never anything the Pentagon asked for that Cousin Albert wasn’t down there giving it to them; he voted for the first war in the Gulf.”
Indeed, Al Gore was one of only ten Democrats to break with the party and vote for President Bush Sr.’s Gulf War in 1991. But while Vidal sees this as a facet of Gore’s eager-to-please statism, others have attributed his dissenting vote to self-interest. Former Republican Senator Alan Simpson accused Gore of peddling his vote on the Iraq War in exchange for high-visibility, headline-grabbing speech time on the floor. According to Simpson, the night before the vote Gore stopped by the GOP cloakroom and asked, “How much time will you give me if I support the President?” Taking him at his word, Simpson and Senator Bob Dole offered Gore twenty minutes, thirteen more than his own party would grant. In Simpson’s account, over the course of the night Gore jockeyed to have the floor during prime time to ensure that he would get coverage in the next day’s news cycle. The negotiations went right up to the last minute, leaving Simpson to conclude that Gore “arrived on the Senate floor with… two speeches in hand. [He] was still waiting to see which side – Republicans or Democrats – would offer him the most and the best speaking time.”
For Vidal, stories like this just prove the moral bankruptcy of American politicians who serve no master other than their own ambition. And their corporate backers. In Gore’s case, this meant Russian-born oil tycoon Armand Hammer, owner of Occidental Petroleum. Though it was Gore’s father, Senator Al Gore Sr. who was the primary beneficiary of Hammer’s support – in exchange for political and diplomatic favors to further his international business interests – Gore Jr. slipped quietly into his father’s shoes.
Occidental is one of the worst corporate polluters in the world. In its most scandalous case, an Occidental subsidiary dumped thousands of tons of toxic chemical waste near the residential area of Love Canal, New York, causing birth defects, miscarriages, and incidences of cancer in the nearby community. But Gore remained a friend of the company. And the company, a good friend to Al Gore.
Despite being a predominantly Republican supporter, Occidental funneled hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions to the Clinton/Gore Democrats over the course of their two-term administration. In return, Gore maneuvered to facilitate Occidental’s acquisition of oil drilling rights in the Elk Hills National Petroleum Reserve outside Bakersfield, California. Long held as a federal oil resource, Elk Hills represented the largest turnover of public lands to a private corporation in American history. It tripled Occidental’s U.S. petroleum reserves, increasing the company’s stock value by ten percent. Gore later admitted to controlling between $250,000 – $500,000 worth of shares through a family held trust.
Gore’s vaunted record as an environmental populist clashed harshly with the 1996 Elk Hills-Occidental deal. Democratic fund-raiser (and former Gore campaign manager) Tony Cohelo sat on the board of the private company hired to provide an environmental impact report for the Energy Department. After the deal was approved, Peter Eisner of the DC-based Center for Public Integrity remarked, “I can’t say that I’ve ever seen an environmental assessment prepared so quickly.” Perhaps even more damning, Elk Hills is part of the Kitanemuk people’s traditional lands. Despite protests from the tribe, it took less than five years for Occidental’s massive operations to wipe out any trace of the 100 native archaeological sites, including ancient burial grounds, that were left in Elk Hills.
Throughout Al Gore’s campaign for the 2000 Democratic presidential candidacy, environmentalists protested his relationship to Occidental. This time the issue was Gore’s defense of the company’s plan to drill near the sacred grounds of the Colombian U’wa tribes people. During Clinton’s second term, Occidental spent millions lobbying for American military aide to Colombia in order to bolster the country’s ability to defend its pipelines from rebel armies. The close links between the company and national security forces surfaced when U’wa leaders sued Occidental, claiming the Colombian army used the company’s planes in an operation that ultimately resulted in the murder of 18 innocent peasants. As a measure of last resort, the 5,000 remaining U’wa threatened collective suicide if Occidental refused to alter their drilling plans. And, in February 2000, when U’wa representative Robert Perez traveled to Washington in order to make his people’s case against the company, Gore refused to meet him. In 2002, after a protracted public battle over the U’wa drill site, Occidental pulled out, saying that U’wa protests had “no effect at all” on Occidental’s withdrawal decision. Apparently, neither did Al Gore.
But, for Vidal, the act that most proves Gore’s contempt for representative politics was his total acquiescence in the face of the contested 2000 presidential election result in Florida. The image of Gore presiding over the certification of Bush’s victory was a moving, if tragic, scene in Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11. There he stood, banging his gavel as each successive member of the Congressional Black Caucus rose to challenge the assignment of Florida’s 25 electoral votes to Bush. “There was a hell of a lot of people ready to march,” Vidal says defiantly. But Al Gore wasn’t one of them.
“He is of above average intelligence, on issues that people didn’t really care about, like the environment. But if there’s a hot issue, he runs the mile,” Vidal concludes firmly and then, looking up at the clouds that have moved over the sun, rises.
GNN co-founder Stephen Marshall is the director of BattleGround: 21 Days on the Empire’s Edge, and This Revolution, a political thriller starring Rosario Dawson, and the co-author of True Lies (Penguin/Plume). He is currently shooting a new documentary entitled Holy Wars and finishing a new book entitled Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing, due out in January 2007.
Al Gore's Environmentally Shabby Past
February 22, 2007
Global warming detractor defends himself
Ed Jackson of Chatfield has been a dart board of criticism on our Opinions Page since we published his letter a week or so ago in which he pooh-poohed global warming. Ed wants a chance to defend himself...
Hey, three long derisive letters against my one short, lighthearted effort?
No fair, Post-Bulletin. What's next? Are you going to bring out the big guns like Paul Klugman and Ellen Goodman to ridicule me, too? (Oops, sorry. I forgot that liberals hate guns.)
I don't suppose you want to give me any more ink, but I can't let these unfortunate and uninformed people attack me without rebuttal, no matter how well-intentioned they may be. (Have you noticed that environmentalists and other liberals have no sense of humor? With them, everything is doom and gloom 24/7/365, and 366 in a Leap Year. Maybe they could resolve to lighten up at least every February 29. I guess itís hard to laugh when youíre always waiting for the sky to fall. But I digress.)
We do need to look seriously at the many sides of this global warming debate, so here goes another try to bring some light where now there is mostly heat (heh, heh). Does anyone out there remember the story of the Six Blind Men and the Elephant? (Oops, sorry, I meant 'Visually Challenged.')
First, let me tell you why I referred to the 'pseudo-scientists'. These are people who have politicized science. This was a method favored by the Bolsheviks who believed that crop genetics would improve under the sheer will power of Communist thought.
Today, there are people who either don't know what the true scientific method is, or have chosen for ideological reasons to abandon it. Having learned at a young age to look at things through scientific eyes, I know that hypothesis and theory are the not same thing, even though these terms are often used interchangeably in common parlance, especially by so-called journalists who are notoriously deficient in scientific knowledge.
Second, about consensus: While a hypothesis might be based on a consensus that there is something to investigate, theory is not. Theory is only based on honest investigation, fact and replicable cause and effectñor in other words, provable, objective truth. If every consensus made truth, the earth would still be flat, the West Indies would be next to India, man would never fly, humans would never walk on the moon, and viruses could be treated with antibiotics. We also would now be in the midst of the Ice Age some of these same people were agonizing about 30 years ago.
Third, I would like to address the issue of future generations. Yes, I worry about my descendants, I worry about them often and very much. And I do have children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren, one only a few weeks old. But my concern about them is not based on climate change, but on the fear of demagogic politicians, ideological 'scientists,' and mushy- headed go-gooders and elites who think they have the divine right to tell the rest of the world how to live, what to eat, what to drive, how to spend our own money, and generally everything we can and can't do. I even worry about the world my wife and I will have to experience in our few remaining years as our nation creeps inexorably into socialism.
Fourth, good old Al Gore.
Now there is a study in hypocrisy if there ever was one. Has the main stream media ever told you about Gore's background and financial holdings? The story of all this is too long to cover here. But suffice to say that Al Gore's father, Al Gore Sr., (the first Senator Gore from Tennessee) developed close ties with Armand Hammer and Occidental Petroleum. Through inheritance Gore ended up controlling a big block of Occidental stock and also continued his father's coziness with Occidental. While serving as Vice-President, Gore is reported to have engineered the sale of the federal government's Elk Hills Naval Petroleum Reserve to Occidental, not only enriching himself, but setting up environmental destruction on a grand scale.
The Reserve was rich in Indian archaeological and burial sites, as well as sensitive plant and animal habitat areas. According to published reports, it took Occidental less than five years to obliterate more than 100 native American archaeological sites and burial grounds. (Look up 'Kitanemuk' tribes and especially go to
http://gnn.tv/print/2301/Some_Inconvenient_Truths_About_Al_Gore.If you are paying any attention to the world around you, you know that 'The Nation' is about the most liberal rag of all the liberal press. During the 2000 Presidential campaign, the magazine published a lengthy article by Ken Silverstein about Al Gore's sweetheart relationship with Occidental Petroleum, and about his involvement with environment destruction not only in the Elk Hills Reserve but also in Colombia, South America.
Look up 'Gore's Oil Money' in 'The Nation.'
Also look up 'U'wa tribe.'
Especially see:
http://thirdworldtraveler.com/Oil_watch/Colombias_Oil_War.html,
which details Gore's involvement in the South American scandal, which resulted in 5,000 U'was pledging to commit mass suicide rather than let Occidental drill. There is lots more on the web if anyone wants to look for it.
You will also find great support for Gore, including some who deny that Gore ever owned any Occidental stock. Why then, did he report holding between $500,000 and $1,000,000 in such stock on his mandatory senatorial financial reports?
Oh, and while youíre at it, look up 'Love Canal.'
Many readers will remember this scandal, the responsibility for which ended up at the feet of Occidental Petroleum, who had to pay $60 million to help clean it up. This is the kind of company Al Gore keeps while ranting and raving about environmental pollution and global warming. If I remember correctly, Al Gore tried to make political hay from this atrocity, all the while knowing his buddies were responsible for it. He claimed to have discovered and revealed the problem, when in fact it had been made public months before he ever thought of trying to capitalize on it.
There is much more to look at, but this is getting too long anyway. If you are inclined to be a seeker of truth and wisdom, instead of slogans and emotions, do some research on your own—read books, look at opposing viewpoints. Try to sort out provable truth from emotional feelings. Look to see how many doom and gloom ideas lend themselves so conveniently to anti-capitalist, anti-corporate and anti-American solutions. Be careful who you take your education from. Take advantage of the vast resources found on the internet. You will see a lot of trash and irrational emotion there, but you can also find truth, rationality and wisdom.
(One more subject to look up is the 'Medieval Warm Period.' Another is Dr. Timothy Ball on http://canadafreepress.com.)
If nothing else, you will see opposing viewpoints, and that's a good thing. I know this is too long to be a 'letter to the editor', but if you are interested in providing a few facts and different viewpoints, you could run it as a free-lance contribution, the same as you have done with Paul Scott with his recent screed about government control of private property. Being a good money-grubbing conservative, I should ask for payment, but I won't.
Ed Jackson
A freelance writer from Chatfield, MN
Friday, May 4, 2007
Dems Shift Intelligence Funds to Global Warming
The Washington Times
www.washingtontimes.com
House GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climate
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 4, 2007
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times.
"There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."
Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
"We want to get feedback from the intelligence community to understand if there are possible global issues," Mr. Reyes said, noting the change was on the advice of "several former military commanders."
The panel voted 11-9 to keep the provision that directs a National Intelligence Estimate "on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States," according to a Republican staffer familiar with the bill.
The study, which so far has an undetermined cost, would examine the science of climate change, among other things. Few details about its method were available, but the staffer said it would "divert already scarce resources to study the climate."
The staffer added that the U.S. already tried using intelligence resources for this purpose in the 1990s.
"There are other parts of the government better suited to doing this type of study," agreed Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment."
The Clinton administration's Director of Central Intelligence created the DCI Environmental Center in 1997 to examine environmental issues.
In 1999, President Clinton announced he was declassifying satellite images of Antarctica captured by the intelligence community under an initiative to make public previously classified data.
A Clinton White House press release outlines Vice President Al Gore's role in making sure that 59 satellite images of the Arctic were released to "help scientists better understand the interaction between polar ice caps and global warming."
"Together with data gathered on the ground, the newly released images will help scientists better understand ecological dynamics in this extreme environment and their response to climate change," the release read.
Several Republicans trotted out the statistic that the government already spends $6.5 billion annually on global-warming related issues through several agencies, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Mr. Reyes said the provision "makes sense" because of the growing international concern over climate change. "We think it's time," he said.
Republicans were critical yesterday after The Times first reported the provision on its Web site.
"It's hard to imagine how anyone could believe that climate change represents a more clear and present danger to the United States than radical Islamic terrorists armed with bombs, but that's essentially what Democrats have concluded in this bill," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday or Thursday on the overall authorization measure, which identifies how intelligence appropriations can be spent in 2008. It is not clear whether Democrats will allow Republicans to offer amendments to the bill.
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to pass its Intelligence Authorization bill.
Mr. Reyes lauded his panel's work on the bill, noting that it will lead to "stronger, better intelligence," especially by adding money for human intelligence training and for sending analysts abroad.
For the first time, the bill will fund a "baseline" for intelligence activities related to terrorism and Iraq, he said.
He also said it will strengthen counterintelligence, enhance oversight and eliminate wasteful spending.
The completed bill, mostly considered behind closed doors because it includes sensitive information, passed the committee on a voice vote after a more-than-eight-hour markup session. Observers characterized the hearing as "chaotic and contentious."
www.washingtontimes.com
House GOP hits shift of spy funds to study climate
By Christina Bellantoni
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
Published May 4, 2007
Senior House Republicans are complaining about Democrats' plans to divert "scarce" intelligence funds to study global warming.
The House next week will consider the Democrat-crafted Intelligence Authorization bill, which includes a provision directing an assessment of the effects that climate change has on national security.
"Our job is to steal secrets," said Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
"There are all kinds of people analyzing global warming, the Democrats even have a special committee on this," he told The Washington Times.
"There's no value added by the intelligence community here; they have no special expertise, and this takes money and resources away from other threats."
Democrats, who outnumber Republicans on the committee, blocked the minority from stripping the warming language from the bill.
Intelligence panel Chairman Silvestre Reyes, Texas Democrat, said the climate-change study is one of several shifts his party has made to intelligence policy.
"We're concerned that global warming might impact our ability to maintain national security," he told The Times, describing the idea as "cutting edge."
"We want to get feedback from the intelligence community to understand if there are possible global issues," Mr. Reyes said, noting the change was on the advice of "several former military commanders."
The panel voted 11-9 to keep the provision that directs a National Intelligence Estimate "on the anticipated geopolitical effects of global climate change and the implications of such effects on the national security of the United States," according to a Republican staffer familiar with the bill.
The study, which so far has an undetermined cost, would examine the science of climate change, among other things. Few details about its method were available, but the staffer said it would "divert already scarce resources to study the climate."
The staffer added that the U.S. already tried using intelligence resources for this purpose in the 1990s.
"There are other parts of the government better suited to doing this type of study," agreed Rep. Darrell Issa, California Republican. "Our government should not commit expensive spy satellites and human intelligence sources to target something as undefined as the environment."
The Clinton administration's Director of Central Intelligence created the DCI Environmental Center in 1997 to examine environmental issues.
In 1999, President Clinton announced he was declassifying satellite images of Antarctica captured by the intelligence community under an initiative to make public previously classified data.
A Clinton White House press release outlines Vice President Al Gore's role in making sure that 59 satellite images of the Arctic were released to "help scientists better understand the interaction between polar ice caps and global warming."
"Together with data gathered on the ground, the newly released images will help scientists better understand ecological dynamics in this extreme environment and their response to climate change," the release read.
Several Republicans trotted out the statistic that the government already spends $6.5 billion annually on global-warming related issues through several agencies, including NASA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency.
But Mr. Reyes said the provision "makes sense" because of the growing international concern over climate change. "We think it's time," he said.
Republicans were critical yesterday after The Times first reported the provision on its Web site.
"It's hard to imagine how anyone could believe that climate change represents a more clear and present danger to the United States than radical Islamic terrorists armed with bombs, but that's essentially what Democrats have concluded in this bill," said Brian Kennedy, a spokesman for Minority Leader John A. Boehner, Ohio Republican.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday or Thursday on the overall authorization measure, which identifies how intelligence appropriations can be spent in 2008. It is not clear whether Democrats will allow Republicans to offer amendments to the bill.
Last year, the Republican-controlled Senate failed to pass its Intelligence Authorization bill.
Mr. Reyes lauded his panel's work on the bill, noting that it will lead to "stronger, better intelligence," especially by adding money for human intelligence training and for sending analysts abroad.
For the first time, the bill will fund a "baseline" for intelligence activities related to terrorism and Iraq, he said.
He also said it will strengthen counterintelligence, enhance oversight and eliminate wasteful spending.
The completed bill, mostly considered behind closed doors because it includes sensitive information, passed the committee on a voice vote after a more-than-eight-hour markup session. Observers characterized the hearing as "chaotic and contentious."
Thursday, May 3, 2007
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
Global Coolness
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 29, 2007
THE rush to go on a carbon diet, even if by proxy, is in overdrive.
In addition to the celebrities — Leo, Brad, George — politicians like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now running, at least part of the time, carbon-neutral campaigns. A lengthening list of big businesses — international banks, London’s taxi fleet, luxury airlines — also claim “carbon neutrality.” Silverjet, a plush new trans-Atlantic carrier, bills itself as the first fully carbon-neutral airline. It puts about $28 of each round-trip ticket into a fund for global projects that, in theory, squelch as much carbon dioxide as the airline generates — about 1.2 tons per passenger, the airline says.
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.
In many ways, the carbon-neutral campaign mimics other efforts that use markets to save the environment. For nearly two decades, for example, forest protection groups have disputed the merits of “certified” tropical hardwood and other products that manufacturers claim are harvested in ways that don’t imperil virgin forests.
Some environmentalists say it’s better to offer some income to those who use forests in a renewable way. But others insist that instead of trying to police the trade by rooting our fraudulent planks, it’s better to avoid the timber altogether. Only one of many forest certification programs, run by the Forest Stewardship Council, has been widely endorsed by environmental groups.
Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at St. Joseph's University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.
“Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”
But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”
Charles Komanoff, an energy economist in New York, said the commercial market in climate neutrality could have even more harmful effects.
It could, by suggesting there’s an easy way out, blunt public support for what will really be needed in the long run, he said: a binding limit on emissions or a tax on the fuels that generate greenhouse gases.
“There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,” he said.
Jonathan Shopley, the chief executive of Britain’s CarbonNeutral Company, which does only 5 percent of its offsetting directly for individuals and the rest for businesses, insisted that the voluntary markets fill a vital gap.
This is particularly true, he said, because laws or treaties, like the Kyoto Protocol, that have mandatory limits on greenhouse gases have so far failed to blunt the relentless global rise in such emissions.
“That isn’t going to get us where we need to go,” Mr. Shopley said.
Carbon-Neutral Is Hip, but Is It Green?
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
Published: April 29, 2007
THE rush to go on a carbon diet, even if by proxy, is in overdrive.
In addition to the celebrities — Leo, Brad, George — politicians like John Edwards and Hillary Clinton are now running, at least part of the time, carbon-neutral campaigns. A lengthening list of big businesses — international banks, London’s taxi fleet, luxury airlines — also claim “carbon neutrality.” Silverjet, a plush new trans-Atlantic carrier, bills itself as the first fully carbon-neutral airline. It puts about $28 of each round-trip ticket into a fund for global projects that, in theory, squelch as much carbon dioxide as the airline generates — about 1.2 tons per passenger, the airline says.
Also, a largely unregulated carbon-cutting business has sprung up. In this market, consultants or companies estimate a person’s or company’s output of greenhouse gases. Then, these businesses sell “offsets,” which pay for projects elsewhere that void or sop up an equal amount of emissions — say, by planting trees or, as one new company proposes, fertilizing the ocean so algae can pull the gas out of the air. Recent counts by Business Week magazine and several environmental watchdog groups tally the trade in offsets at more than $100 million a year and growing blazingly fast.
But is the carbon-neutral movement just a gimmick?
On this, environmentalists aren’t neutral, and they don’t agree. Some believe it helps build support, but others argue that these purchases don’t accomplish anything meaningful — other than giving someone a slightly better feeling (or greener reputation) after buying a 6,000-square-foot house or passing the million-mile mark in a frequent-flier program. In fact, to many environmentalists, the carbon-neutral campaign is a sign of the times — easy on the sacrifice and big on the consumerism.
As long as the use of fossil fuels keeps climbing — which is happening relentlessly around the world — the emission of greenhouse gases will keep rising. The average American, by several estimates, generates more than 20 tons of carbon dioxide or related gases a year; the average resident of the planet about 4.5 tons.
At this rate, environmentalists say, buying someone else’s squelched emissions is all but insignificant.
“The worst of the carbon-offset programs resemble the Catholic Church’s sale of indulgences back before the Reformation,” said Denis Hayes, the president of the Bullitt Foundation, an environmental grant-making group. “Instead of reducing their carbon footprints, people take private jets and stretch limos, and then think they can buy an indulgence to forgive their sins.”
“This whole game is badly in need of a modern Martin Luther,” Mr. Hayes added.
Some environmental campaigners defend this marketplace as a legitimate, if imperfect, way to support an environmental ethic and political movement, even if the numbers don’t all add up.
“We can’t stop global warming with voluntary offsets, but they offer an option for individuals looking for a way to contribute to the solution in addition to reducing their own emissions and urging their elected representatives to support good policy,” said Daniel A. Lashof, the science director of the climate center at the Natural Resources Defense Council.
But he and others agree that more oversight is needed. Voluntary standards and codes of conduct are evolving in Europe and the United States to ensure that a ton of carbon dioxide purchased is actually a ton of carbon dioxide avoided.
The first attempt at an industry report card, commissioned by the environmental group Clean Air/Cool Planet (which has some involvement in the business), gave decidedly mixed reviews to the field, selecting eight sellers of carbon offsets that it concluded were reasonably reliable.
But the report, “A Consumer’s Guide to Retail Carbon-Offset Providers,” concluded that this market was no different than any other, saying, “if something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.”
Prices vary widely for offsetting the carbon dioxide tonnage released by a long plane flight, S.U.V. commute or energy-hungry house. The report suggested that the cheapest offsets may not be legitimate.
For example, depending on where you shop for carbon credits, avoiding the ton of carbon dioxide released by driving a midsize car about 2,000 miles could cost $5 or $25, according to data in the report.
Mr. Hayes said there were legitimate companies and organizations that help people and companies measure their emissions and find ways to cut them, both directly and indirectly by purchasing certain kinds of credits. But overall, he said, an investment in such credits — given the questions about their reliability — should be looked at more as conventional charity (presuming you check to be sure the projects are real) and less as something like a license to binge on private jet travel.
In many ways, the carbon-neutral campaign mimics other efforts that use markets to save the environment. For nearly two decades, for example, forest protection groups have disputed the merits of “certified” tropical hardwood and other products that manufacturers claim are harvested in ways that don’t imperil virgin forests.
Some environmentalists say it’s better to offer some income to those who use forests in a renewable way. But others insist that instead of trying to police the trade by rooting our fraudulent planks, it’s better to avoid the timber altogether. Only one of many forest certification programs, run by the Forest Stewardship Council, has been widely endorsed by environmental groups.
Michael R. Solomon, the author of “Consumer Behavior: Buying, Having and Being” and a professor at St. Joseph's University, said he was not surprised by the allure of the carbon-offsetting market.
“Consumers are always going to gravitate toward a more parsimonious solution that requires less behavioral change,” he said. “We know that new products or ideas are more likely to be adopted if they don’t require us to alter our routines very much.”
But he said there was danger ahead, “if we become trained to substitute dollars for deeds — kind of an ‘I gave at the office’ prescription for the environment.”
Charles Komanoff, an energy economist in New York, said the commercial market in climate neutrality could have even more harmful effects.
It could, by suggesting there’s an easy way out, blunt public support for what will really be needed in the long run, he said: a binding limit on emissions or a tax on the fuels that generate greenhouse gases.
“There isn’t a single American household above the poverty line that couldn’t cut their CO2 at least 25 percent in six months through a straightforward series of fairly simple and terrifically cost-effective measures,” he said.
Jonathan Shopley, the chief executive of Britain’s CarbonNeutral Company, which does only 5 percent of its offsetting directly for individuals and the rest for businesses, insisted that the voluntary markets fill a vital gap.
This is particularly true, he said, because laws or treaties, like the Kyoto Protocol, that have mandatory limits on greenhouse gases have so far failed to blunt the relentless global rise in such emissions.
“That isn’t going to get us where we need to go,” Mr. Shopley said.
Wednesday, May 2, 2007
Is Global Warming a Sin?
From Papal Indulgences to Carbon Credits
Is Global Warming a Sin?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.
Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.
Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a construct now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith or doctrine. Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.
As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 per cent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little bit warmer.
The not very reliable data on the world's average temperature (which omit most of the world's oceans and remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) show about a 0.5Co increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it's still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 per cent of solar radiation that's absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in humid tropical atmosphere, can be as high as 2 per cent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm. As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, clouds, snow, ice cover and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today's temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.
We're warmer now, because today's world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth's elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth's orbit and tilt gives us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.
Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there's at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. "So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.
It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. Trouble is, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, and that's not even to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth's increasingly hot molten core.
Is Global Warming a Sin?
By ALEXANDER COCKBURN
In a couple of hundred years, historians will be comparing the frenzies over our supposed human contribution to global warming to the tumults at the latter end of the tenth century as the Christian millennium approached. Then, as now, the doomsters identified human sinfulness as the propulsive factor in the planet's rapid downward slide.
Then as now, a buoyant market throve on fear. The Roman Catholic Church was a bank whose capital was secured by the infinite mercy of Christ, Mary and the Saints, and so the Pope could sell indulgences, like checks. The sinners established a line of credit against bad behavior and could go on sinning. Today a world market in "carbon credits" is in formation. Those whose "carbon footprint" is small can sell their surplus carbon credits to others, less virtuous than themselves.
The modern trade is as fantastical as the medieval one. There is still zero empirical evidence that anthropogenic production of CO2 is making any measurable contribution to the world's present warming trend. The greenhouse fearmongers rely entirely on unverified, crudely oversimplified computer models to finger mankind's sinful contribution. Devoid of any sustaining scientific basis, carbon trafficking is powered by guilt, credulity, cynicism and greed, just like the old indulgences, though at least the latter produced beautiful monuments. By the sixteenth century, long after the world had sailed safely through the end of the first millennium, Pope Leo X financed the reconstruction of St. Peter's Basilica by offering a "plenary" indulgence, guaranteed to release a soul from purgatory.
Now imagine two lines on a piece of graph paper. The first rises to a crest, then slopes sharply down, then levels off and rises slowly once more. The other has no undulations. It rises in a smooth, slowly increasing arc. The first, wavy line is the worldwide CO2 tonnage produced by humans burning coal, oil and natural gas. On this graph it starts in 1928, at 1.1 gigatons (i.e. 1.1 billion metric tons). It peaks in 1929 at 1.17 gigatons. The world, led by its mightiest power, the USA, plummets into the Great Depression, and by 1932 human CO2 production has fallen to 0.88 gigatons a year, a 30 per cent drop. Hard times drove a tougher bargain than all the counsels of Al Gore or the jeremiads of the IPCC (Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change). Then, in 1933 it began to climb slowly again, up to 0.9 gigatons.
And the other line, the one ascending so evenly? That's the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, parts per million (ppm) by volume, moving in 1928 from just under 306, hitting 306 in 1929, to 307 in 1932 and on up. Boom and bust, the line heads up steadily. These days it's at 380.There are, to be sure, seasonal variations in CO2, as measured since 1958 by the instruments on Mauna Loa, Hawai'i. (Pre-1958 measurements are of air bubbles trapped in glacial ice.) Summer and winter vary steadily by about 5 ppm, reflecting photosynthesis cycles. The two lines on that graph proclaim that a whopping 30 per cent cut in man-made CO2 emissions didn't even cause a 1 ppm drop in the atmosphere's CO2. Thus it is impossible to assert that the increase in atmospheric CO2 stems from human burning of fossil fuels.
I met Dr. Martin Hertzberg, the man who drew that graph and those conclusions, on a Nation cruise back in 2001. He remarked that while he shared many of the Nation's editorial positions, he approved of my reservations on the issue of supposed human contributions to global warming, as outlined in columns I wrote at that time. Hertzberg was a meteorologist for three years in the U.S. Navy, an occupation which gave him a lifelong mistrust of climate modeling. Trained in chemistry and physics, a combustion research scientist for most of his career, he's retired now in Copper Mountain, Colorado, still consulting from time to time.
Not so long ago, Hertzberg sent me some of his recent papers on the global warming hypothesis, a construct now accepted by many progressives as infallible as Papal dogma on matters of faith or doctrine. Among them was the graph described above so devastating to the hypothesis.
As Hertzberg readily acknowledges, the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere has increased about 21 per cent in the past century. The world has also been getting just a little bit warmer.
The not very reliable data on the world's average temperature (which omit most of the world's oceans and remote regions, while over-representing urban areas) show about a 0.5Co increase in average temperature between 1880 and 1980, and it's still rising, more sharply in the polar regions than elsewhere. But is CO2, at 380 parts per million in the atmosphere, playing a significant role in retaining the 94 per cent of solar radiation that's absorbed in the atmosphere, as against water vapor, also a powerful heat absorber, whose content in humid tropical atmosphere, can be as high as 2 per cent, the equivalent of 20,000 ppm. As Hertzberg says, water in the form of oceans, clouds, snow, ice cover and vapor "is overwhelming in the radiative and energy balance between the earth and the sun Carbon dioxide and the greenhouse gases are, by comparison, the equivalent of a few farts in a hurricane." And water is exactly that component of the earth's heat balance that the global warming computer models fail to account for.
It's a notorious inconvenience for the Greenhousers that data also show carbon dioxide concentrations from the Eocene period, 20 million years before Henry Ford trundled his first model T out of the shop, 300-400 per cent higher than current concentrations. The Greenhousers deal with other difficulties like the medieval warming period's higher-than-today's temperatures by straightforward chicanery, misrepresenting tree-ring data (themselves an unreliable guide) and claiming the warming was a local, insignificant European affair.
We're warmer now, because today's world is in the thaw following the last Ice Age. Ice ages correlate with changes in the solar heat we receive, all due to predictable changes in the earth's elliptic orbit round the sun, and in the earth's tilt. As Hertzberg explains, the cyclical heat effect of all of these variables was worked out in great detail between 1915 and 1940 by the Serbian physicist, Milutin Milankovitch, one of the giants of 20th-century astrophysics. In past postglacial cycles, as now, the earth's orbit and tilt gives us more and longer summer days between the equinoxes.
Water covers 71 per cent of the surface of the planet. As compared to the atmosphere, there's at least a hundred times more CO2 in the oceans, dissolved as carbonate. As the postglacial thaw progresses the oceans warm up, and some of the dissolved carbon emits into the atmosphere, just like fizz in soda water taken out of the fridge. "So the greenhouse global warming theory has it ass backwards," Hertzberg concludes. "It is the warming of the earth that is causing the increase of carbon dioxide and not the reverse." He has recently had vivid confirmation of that conclusion. Several new papers show that for the last three quarter million years CO2 changes always lag global temperatures by 800 to 2,600 years.
It looks like Poseidon should go hunting for carbon credits. Trouble is, the human carbon footprint is of zero consequence amid these huge forces and volumes, and that's not even to mention the role of the giant reactor beneath our feet: the earth's increasingly hot molten core.
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Light Bulb Lunacy
FoxNews.com
Sunday , April 29, 2007
By Steven Milloy
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.
Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.
According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.
Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.
Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”
Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.
Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.
The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.
This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.
The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.
It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American households, we’re looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges’ bedroom.
Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes.
These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.
As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”
Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.
And let’s not forget about the regulatory nightmare known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.
We’ll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.
As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.
Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Sunday , April 29, 2007
By Steven Milloy
How much money does it take to screw in a compact fluorescent lightbulb? About $4.28 for the bulb and labor — unless you break the bulb. Then you, like Brandy Bridges of Ellsworth, Maine, could be looking at a cost of about $2,004.28, which doesn’t include the costs of frayed nerves and risks to health.
Sound crazy? Perhaps no more than the stampede to ban the incandescent light bulb in favor of compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs) — a move already either adopted or being considered in California, Canada, the European Union and Australia.
According to an April 12 article in The Ellsworth American, Bridges had the misfortune of breaking a CFL during installation in her daughter’s bedroom: It dropped and shattered on the carpeted floor.
Aware that CFLs contain potentially hazardous substances, Bridges called her local Home Depot for advice. The store told her that the CFL contained mercury and that she should call the Poison Control hotline, which in turn directed her to the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
The DEP sent a specialist to Bridges’ house to test for mercury contamination. The specialist found mercury levels in the bedroom in excess of six times the state’s “safe” level for mercury contamination of 300 billionths of a gram per cubic meter.
The DEP specialist recommended that Bridges call an environmental cleanup firm, which reportedly gave her a “low-ball” estimate of $2,000 to clean up the room. The room then was sealed off with plastic and Bridges began “gathering finances” to pay for the $2,000 cleaning. Reportedly, her insurance company wouldn’t cover the cleanup costs because mercury is a pollutant.
Given that the replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFLs in the average U.S. household is touted as saving as much as $180 annually in energy costs — and assuming that Bridges doesn’t break any more CFLs — it will take her more than 11 years to recoup the cleanup costs in the form of energy savings.
Even if you don’t go for the full-scale panic of the $2,000 cleanup, the do-it-yourself approach is still somewhat intense, if not downright alarming.
Consider the procedure offered by the Maine DEP’s Web page entitled, “What if I accidentally break a fluorescent bulb in my home?”
Don’t vacuum bulb debris because a standard vacuum will spread mercury-containing dust throughout the area and contaminate the vacuum. Ventilate the area and reduce the temperature. Wear protective equipment like goggles, coveralls and a dust mask.
Collect the waste material into an airtight container. Pat the area with the sticky side of tape. Wipe with a damp cloth. Finally, check with local authorities to see where hazardous waste may be properly disposed.
The only step the Maine DEP left off was the final one: Hope that you did a good enough cleanup so that you, your family and pets aren’t poisoned by any mercury inadvertently dispersed or missed.
This, of course, assumes that people are even aware that breaking CFLs entails special cleanup procedures.
The potentially hazardous CFL is being pushed by companies such as Wal-Mart, which wants to sell 100 million CFLs at five times the cost of incandescent bulbs during 2007, and, surprisingly, environmentalists.
It’s quite odd that environmentalists have embraced the CFL, which cannot now and will not in the foreseeable future be made without mercury. Given that there are about 4 billion lightbulb sockets in American households, we’re looking at the possibility of creating billions of hazardous waste sites such as the Bridges’ bedroom.
Usually, environmentalists want hazardous materials out of, not in, our homes.
These are the same people who go berserk at the thought of mercury being emitted from power plants and the presence of mercury in seafood. Environmentalists have whipped up so much fear of mercury among the public that many local governments have even launched mercury thermometer exchange programs.
As the activist group Environmental Defense urges us to buy CFLs, it defines mercury on a separate part of its Web site as a “highly toxic heavy metal that can cause brain damage and learning disabilities in fetuses and children” and as “one of the most poisonous forms of pollution.”
Greenpeace also recommends CFLs while simultaneously bemoaning contamination caused by a mercury thermometer factory in India. But where are mercury-containing CFLs made? Not in the U.S., under strict environmental regulation. CFLs are made in India and China, where environmental standards are virtually non-existent.
And let’s not forget about the regulatory nightmare known as the Superfund law, the EPA regulatory program best known for requiring expensive but often needless cleanup of toxic waste sites, along with endless litigation over such cleanups.
We’ll eventually be disposing billions and billions of CFL mercury bombs. Much of the mercury from discarded and/or broken CFLs is bound to make its way into the environment and give rise to Superfund liability, which in the past has needlessly disrupted many lives, cost tens of billions of dollars and sent many businesses into bankruptcy.
As each CFL contains 5 milligrams of mercury, at the Maine “safety” standard of 300 nanograms per cubic meter, it would take 16,667 cubic meters of soil to “safely” contain all the mercury in a single CFL. While CFL vendors and environmentalists tout the energy cost savings of CFLs, they conveniently omit the personal and societal costs of CFL disposal.
Not only are CFLs much more expensive than incandescent bulbs and emit light that many regard as inferior to incandescent bulbs, they pose a nightmare if they break and require special disposal procedures. Should government (egged on by environmentalists and the Wal-Marts of the world) impose on us such higher costs, denial of lighting choice, disposal hassles and breakage risks in the name of saving a few dollars every year on the electric bill?
Steven Milloy publishes JunkScience.com and CSRWatch.com. He is a junk science expert, and advocate of free enterprise and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
