Dr. Jeff Masters' WunderBlog

Climate of Fear

Posted by: Dr. Jeff Masters, 4:15 PM GMT on April 18, 2006

An opinion piece titled, "Climate of Fear: Global-Warming Alarmists Intimidate Scientists Into Silence" appeared in the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday, criticizing the "iron triangle" of of climate scientists, advocates and policymakers responsible for raising the alarm over the threat posed by global warming. The article's two main points:

1) Climate scientists who are raising alarms over global warming are exaggerating the danger in order to get funding.

2) "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

I'm not familiar with the scientists Dr. Lindzen discusses who have lost their funding because they are greenhouse skeptics, and he does not provide any quotes or references to support this point. So, to keep this discussion shorter, I will only focus on his first argument--that climate scientists are exaggerating the threat of global warming in order to get funding.

Who is Richard Lindzen?
First, a little background on the author. Dr. Richard Lindzen is Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT, a member of the National Academy of Sciences panel of experts that advises the President on climate change science, and was a lead author of the most recent UN-sponsored Climate Assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) that is used as the "official" benchmark of the expected amount of climate change this century. He has written many excellent and highly regarded peer-reviewed scientific papers during a career spanning over 40 years.

Much of his recent work has focused on climate change. Dr. Lindzen hypothesizes that global warming will not increase Earth's temperature significantly because increases in upper-level cloud cover will result from increased thunderstorm activity, and this increased cloud cover will act to reflect away more incoming sunlight, cooling the planet. This "Iris Effect" is named after the ability of the human eye to control the amount of light entering the eye by changing the diameter of its iris. His theory is difficult to prove or disprove, as the water vapor-cloud feedback is one of the hardest things to get right in climate models, and is a key source of uncertainty in them. To my knowledge, his Iris theory has not been disproven, but is thought to be incorrect by most climate scientists.

Dr. Lindzen continues to champion his Iris Effect theory, and has been one of about ten famous outspoken "greenhouse skeptics" who are skeptical of the dangers posed by climate change. He opposes the Kyoto Protocol and efforts to curb greenhouse gas emissions. He has testified in front of Congress multiple times, authored many opinion pieces on the matter, and been a paid consultant for major oil and coal companies. In Ross Gelbspan's 1998 book, The Heat is On, the author discusses a 2-hour interview he did with Lindzen. In the interview, Lindzen estimated that he made $10,000 per year doing consulting work, and typically charged $2500 per day to fossil fuel interests. For example, a trip to Washington D.C. in 1991 to testify in front of a Senate committee was paid for by Western Fuels, a $400 million coal consortium. Gelbspan describes Dr. Lindzen as "exceedingly gracious and hospitable" in person, but relates several instances of unwarranted attacks he has made on scientific opponents.

Some good points
Dr. Lindzen's essay is a typical example of greenhouse skeptic writing, which unfortunately for me, I've read a lot of. Intermingled are scientific truths, scientific distortions, difficult to verify accusations, and some legitimate nuggets of complaint, all wrapped in a fiercely emotional tirade intended to sway the emotions of the reader. Several of Dr. Lindzen's concerns in his article are valid ones. For instance, he complains of "repeated claims that this past year's hurricane activity was another sign of human-induced climate change", which is a concern of mine, as well. A single extreme weather event, or an even a series of extreme hurricanes in one ocean basin during a single year, are not valid indicators of climate change. Lindzen also criticizes the world's most prestigious scientific journals, Science and Nature, for bias against papers by global warming skeptics. This bias is difficult to prove or disprove, but I believe there is probably some substance to this claim. I've seen a number of complaints that ring true about this from the greenhouse skeptic scientists.

Some bad points
While Dr. Lindzen is an excellent scientist, the piece he wrote for the Wall Street Journal is written in emotional, not scientific language. The article contains oversimplifications, distortions, and errors, and would fail the scientific peer review process needed to be published in a scientific journal. Let's look at three of these problems:

1) Dr. Lindzen refers to the "barely discernible, one-degree increase in the recorded global mean temperature since the late 19th century." I would hardly characterize our recent warming as "barely discernible." By measures such as the significant warming of the Arctic in recent decades, the several-week increase in the growing season and early arrival of Spring over most of the globe in recent years, the widespread retreat of glaciers worldwide, and the significant die-off of coral reefs worldwide due in part to record warm sea surface temperatures, a one-degree increase in global temperature is very discernible.

2) Dr. Lindzen says that global warming will lead to a decrease in extratropical cyclones. However, this is not a consensus view among climate scientists. Some model results have shown a decrease, but other models show that global warming will increase the intensity and frequency of El Nino events, which would lead to an increase in extratropical storms over the North Pacific and western U.S. Global warming may also increase the positive phase of the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) pattern, creating increased extratropical storms in the North Atlantic and Western Europe.

3) Lindzen criticizes arguments by other researchers that global warming will increase hurricane intensities thusly:

"The problem with this is that the ability of evaporation to drive tropical storms relies not only on temperature but humidity as well, and calls for drier, less humid air. Claims for starkly higher temperatures are based upon there being more humidity, not less--hardly a case for more
storminess with global warming."

I asked Dr. Andrew Dessler, a professor at Texas A&M University whose research focuses on climate change and water vapor, to comment on this. He responded:

The rate of evaporation from the surface, which is one determinant of the strength of a hurricane, is determined by (q*-q), the difference between saturation specific humidity and the specific humidity. You can convince yourself that this makes sense by thinking of the two limits: if the air is saturated, then q*=q and evaporation is zero, which makes sense since saturated air cannot hold any more molecules. If the air is extremely dry, then q is about 0 and evaporation
is at a maximum, again as you'd expect.

The climate, on the other hand, is sensitive to q in the mid-troposphere. There's not really a simple explanation for this. I can give you a few good references if you want to check this out further (e.g., Held, I. M., and B. J. Soden, 2000: Water vapor feedback and global warming. Ann. Rev. Energy Environ., 25, 441-475).

Lindzen's argument ignores the differences and suggests that if q*-q decreases at the surface, then q must decrease in the mid-troposphere. That argument is so far outside the realm of scientific reasonability or common sense, that it's my opinion that Lindzen is acting as a policy advocate rather than a scientist. Like most advocates, he takes advantage of the lenient rules of policy debates (e.g., no peer review or other vetting mechanism to test for scientific accuracy of arguments), to make patently false scientific arguments as a way to advance his preferred policy position (he opposes any policy to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions).

Alarmism
Dr. Lindzen claims that "Ambiguous scientific statements about climate are hyped by those with a vested interest in alarm, thus raising the political stakes for policy makers who provide funds for more science research to feed more alarm to increase the political stakes." The words "alarm" or "alarmist" or "anti-alarmist" appear 16 times in the editorial, and Dr. Lindzen is clearly trying to provoke an emotional reaction against those Chicken Littles guilty of raising the alarm.

Speaking as an atmospheric scientist, I can tell you from long experience that we are not the wild-eyed, alarmist lot that Dr. Lindzen makes us out to be. This makes for some very dull parties (if you're not excited about discussing quasi-geostrophic theory), when we get together for a big bash. Very little alarming behavior takes place. (In fact, after I dragged my wife to three straight devastatingly dull departmental Christmas parties while I was in graduate school, she forbade me from ever requiring her to go to another.) Atmospheric scientists are not an alarmist lot--put us in quiet room with a window and give us a computer and pile of data to analyze, and we'll be as happy as a clam at high tide. Atmospheric scientists are generally not motivated by money--they selected science as a career out of a genuine curiosity about how the world works, plus a desire to help understand the significant dangers posed by pollution and climate change. If more money to do research really was a primary concern, wouldn't these scientists stop calling for action against global warming, and instead emphasize the uncertainties and claim that more research is needed?

Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeler at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, posted this response to Dr. Lindzen's accusations that scientists feed alarmism to get funding: "Lindzen has frequently claimed that within the scientific community "alarm is felt to be essential to the maintenance of funding". I have yet to see any empirical evidence of this, and a brief perusal of active NSF grants related to climate change reveals a lot of interesting projects but none that jump out as being 'alarmist'. Having sat on panels that decide on funding allocations and as a reviewer of proposals for both US and international agencies, my experience has been that these panels actually do a very good job at deciding which proposals are interesting, tractable and achievable. I have not seen even one example of where the degree of 'alarmism' was ever a criteria in whether funding was given. (NB. I don't regard my own grants (viewable here) as remotely 'alarmist' and I don't have too much trouble getting funding (fingers crossed!))"

Environmental scientists have in the past issued false alarms over environmental problems that did not materialize as expected. However, we should expect and tolerate some degree of false alarms, given the uncertainty in forecasting these events. If our scientists never issue a false alarm, then the tolerance for issuing alarms is not correct. Would you expect the National Weather Service to stop issuing tornado warnings when a possible tornado signature is spotted on Doppler radar, since less than half of these signatures result in in an actual tornado touchdown? No, some degree of false alarms must be tolerated. The NWS forecasters are dedicated public servants, doing their job of warning the public when their best scientific judgment indicates that there might be a significant threat. It is no different with our climate scientists who issue warnings on the dangers of climate change.

Skeptics commonly like to claim that atmospheric scientist "Chicken Littles" in the 1970s warned that the next ice age was coming. While there were some articles in the popular press about this, the scientific literature never made such a claim. This is one of the myths perpetuated by the greenhouse skeptics that crumbles under analysis.

A Public Relations Campaign?
Dr. Lindzen's article appeared at about the same time as similar op-ed pieces by syndicated columnists Robert Novak (April 3) and George Will (April 2). A large number of additional anti-global global warming editorials have appeared in the opinion pages of many newspapers in the past week, including the Washington Times, Detroit News, and Arizona Star. Given Dr. Lindzen's history of accepting consulting money from the fossil fuel industry, it would be no surprise if his article was paid for by the fossil fuel industry as part of an orchestrated public relations campaign that included the appearance of all these op-ed articles. I am sure the industry is very concerned about the recent media attention on global warming that has hurt their position. Scientific studies published this year showed unexpectedly large amounts of melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. A cover story last month in Time magazine headlined, "Be Worried. Be Very Worried", warned that we may be at the "tipping point" for uncorrectable climate change. A episode of 60 Minutes reported that scientific reports on climate change written for Congress were being modified by a White House chief of staff, who changed key phrases of the reports to make climate change appear less threatening (the staffer in question has since resigned to go work for Exxon Mobil). James Hansen of NASA and many scientists working for NOAA and NASA have complained of being gagged by the Bush Administration on climate change issues in recent months. It would be an obvious move for the fossil fuel industry to mount a PR campaign this month to try to push back.

The fossil fuel industry has spent tens of millions of dollars on many such campaigns in the past. The most notorious of these campaigns was launched in 1991, when the Information Council on the Environment (ICE), a creation of a group of utility and coal companies, launched a PR campaign whose goal was to "reposition global warming as theory rather than fact". The campaign targeted "older, less-educated men" and "young, low-income women" in electoral districts who had a congressperson on the House Energy Committee. The PR campaign hired four "greenhouse skeptic" scientists--Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer, Robert Balling, and Sherwood Idso--to generate op-ed pieces, broadcast appearances, and newspaper interviews. Gelbspan writes: "The plan was clever if not accurate. One newspaper advertisement prepared by the ICE, for example, was headlined: 'If the earth is getting warmer, why is Minneapolis getting colder?' (Data indicate that Minneapolis has actually warmed between 1 and 1.5 degrees Celsius in the last century.)" Another print ad featured a cowering chicken under the headline "Who Told You the Earth Was Warming...Chicken Little?"

Environmental groups do their share of public relations campaigns, as well. One recent estimate I saw put the spending of the five major environmental groups on climate issues at about $2.1 million per year (Environmental Defense Fund, NRDC, Sierra Club, Union of Concerned Scientists, and the World Wildlife Federation). Exxon Mobil alone spends over $1 milion per year to fund think tanks like the Competive Enterprise Institute and the George C. Marshal Foundation that generate frequent anti-global warming reports (Gelbspan, 2004).

Flashback to 1974
On June 28, 1974, Sherry Rowland and Mario Molina, chemists at the University of California, Irvine, published the first scientific paper warning that human-generated chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) could cause serious harm to Earth's protective ozone layer. They calculated that if CFC production continued to increase at the going rate of 10%/year until 1990, then remain steady, CFCs would cause a global 5 to 7 percent ozone loss by 1995 and 30-50% loss by 2050.

They warned that the loss of ozone would significantly increase the amount of skin-damaging ultraviolet UV-B light reaching the surface, greatly increasing skin cancer and cataracts. The loss of stratospheric ozone could also significantly cool the stratosphere, potentially causing destructive climate change. Although no stratospheric ozone loss had been observed yet, CFCs should be banned, they said. At the time, the CFC industry was worth about $8 billion in the U.S., employed over 600,000 people directly, and 1.4 million people indirectly (Roan, 1989).

Critics and skeptics--primarily industry spokespeople and scientists paid by conservative think tanks--immediately attacked the theory. Despite the fact that Molina and Rowland's theory had wide support in the scientific community, these handful of skeptics, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them, succeeded in delaying imposition of controls on CFCs for over a decade. Scientists who advocated CFC controls were accused of being alarmists out to get research funding. One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1989).

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. The chairman of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975). The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Fortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

The CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories."

Sound familiar?

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." The very next year, all the "Chicken Little" scientists were proved right, when the Antarctic ozone hole was discovered. Human-generated CFCs were indeed destroying Earth's protective ozone layer. In fact, the ozone depletion was far worse than Molina and Roland had predicted. No one had imagined that ozone depletions like the 50% losses being observed by 1987 over Antarctica were possible so soon. Despite the continued opposition of many of the skeptics, the Montreal Protocol, an international agreement to phase out ozone-destroying chemicals, was hurriedly approved in 1987 to address the threat. By 2003, it appeared that the ozone hole had stopped growing, thanks to the quick action. Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1995. The citation from the Nobel committee credited them with helping to deliver the Earth from a potential environmental disaster.

Conclusion
According to Wikipedia's biography of Richard Lindzen:

The November 10, 2004 online version of Reason magazine reported that Lindzen is "willing to take bets that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now." Climatologist James Annan, who has offered multiple bets that global temperatures will increase, contacted Lindzen to arrange a bet. Annan offered to pay 2:1 odds in Lindzen's favor if temperatures declined, but said that Lindzen would only accept a bet if the payout was 50:1 or better in his favor. No bet occurred.

I would agree with Dr. Lindzen, there is about a 50:1 chance that global average temperatures in 20 years will in fact be lower than they are now. This would most likely occur as a result of a major volcanic eruption that would put up enough stratospheric aerosol dust to cool the climate for a few years. The effect would be temporary, and the Earth would go on warming as before once the dust dissipates.

Climate scientists are not alarmists out to get research funding. They are raising the alarm because they see a genuine major threat to the planet. Dr. Lindzen's voice needs to be considered, because he is a good scientist looking at the same data as the "alarmist" scientists, and is coming up with a different conclusion. But consider that his voice, and voices of the 10 or so famous "greenhouse skeptics", are in the extreme minority. Their voices are greatly amplified by the public relations machinery of the fossil fuel industry, and the politicians sympathetic to them. Thus, it seems like there is more of a scientific controversy than there really is. As a society, we need to decide--do we do the same thing we did for the ozone depletion crisis? Do we take the 50:1 odds, betting on the dark horse because some very loud voices are urging us to do so? Or is it smarter to bet on the favorite?

We got very lucky with the ozone hole. The lifetime of CFCs in the atmosphere is a few tens of years, and the quick action to eliminate emissions has kept ozone destruction from reaching severe levels. Carbon dioxide stays in the atmosphere hundreds of years, and 25% of what we add stays there essentially forever. By the time it is obvious we are severely damaging the planet, it will be too late to avoid much of the damage.

Jeff Masters

My next blog will be Thursday or Friday, to give people time to comment on this one.

For further reading
The climate scientists who run realclimate.org have an interesting discussion on the op-ed piece by Dr. Lindzen, as well the one by George Will and Robert Novak. I also wrote an opinion piece titled, The Skeptics vs. the Ozone Hole, which presents a more complete comparison of how the skeptics attacked the science of ozone depletion and succeeded in delaying CFC emission controls for many years.

References

Blyskal, J., and M. Blyskal, "PR: How the public relations industry writes the news", William Morrow and Co., New York, 1985.

Gelbspan, Ross, The Heat is On, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 1998.

Gelbspan, Ross, Boiling Point, Perseus Books, Cambridge, MA, 2004.

Roan, Sharon L., Ozone Crisis: The 15-year Evolution of a Sudden Global Emergency, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1989.

Categories: Climate Change

Permalink | A A A

Top of Page

Reader Comments

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200

Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

101. snowboy 1:42 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
I know this is heresy for you Americans, but why on earth would your government not raise gasoline and other carbon-based energy taxes? It would encourage energy conservation, encourage investment in alternative (untaxed) energy sources, and for sure the money could be used to help cover your huge federal budget deficit.. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

104. louastu 1:46 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
I wasn't alive yet.

105. snowboy 1:47 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
good article, louastu, but the oil will not run out fast enough to make a dent in the global warming problem.. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

107. louastu 1:52 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
cyclonebuster, At just under 20 years old, I enjoy making you feel that way. Your welcome.

108. louastu 1:53 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
That was really mean. I shouldn't have said that.

110. ForecasterColby 2:00 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
backs slowly away from the rapidly warming issue [pun intended] Not gonna touch this. But it's tempting. touches issue pulls back burnt hand, runs

111. F5 2:07 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
snowboy, We don't do that because it's not the government's responsibility to redistribute money from those who have it to those who the government wants to have it (although they do a fair bit of this anyway). One need look no further back than the complete and utter distrust of a federal government than the people who put it together. If it weren't for an out-of-control judiciary, this wouldn't be an issue. And in no way would the money be used to cover the federal deficit. Politicians never saw a dime they didn't want to spend, and then some. If people ran their houses the way the government runs it's business, we'd all be in jail.

112. F5 2:11 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
snowboy, You may not be positing that in this post, but in other posts of yours, and posts by others as well, it always comes back to those damn republicans and their big oil friends. No one ever states that such and such scientist got money from the other side. It's used as an ad-hominem attack from the left, but if you question someone on the other side, he is supposed to be considered above reproach and only intererested in the future of humanity and therefore, you have no right to question his motives. And I've yet to read an op-ed piece that really got into anything other than opinion. That's the last place I would expect to find any science at all. I suppose when we see all these articles talking about global warming and they have no science at all, they should all just be dismissed as well? Should scientific papers only about science be the only place the discussion ever takes place?

113. snowboy 2:17 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
c'mon F5 - even us lowly Canadians have managed to balance our budget (I think 7 or 8 years running now), through a combination of increased taxes and decreased spending. I think the whole purpose of having a government is to take leadership, have the vision needed to steer a nation in the right direction on matters of national/international importance, even when vested interests (like big business) don't like it. There is a societal understanding developing that carbon-based energy sources should be used less, and that alternatives need to be developed. A tax on carbon-based energy sources would do the trick. Colby you chicken, come out here and show your colours.. And louastu, respect your seniors or we'll teach you some respect - that's if we can catch you, you young whipper-snapper.. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

114. grizzled 2:25 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
This is like a biblical play: Eden = Gaia, benign mother Earth The Apple = industrialization The Snake = oil companies Kyoto refusers = Adam and Eve, after biting the apple, cast out of Eden High Priests = Drs. Masters, Mann, et al. Eden was fine, till The Snake persuaded Adam and Eve to bite the Apple. Now, bad Adam and bad Eve have been cast out of Eden and are headed to catastrophe. The High Priests will save them, if only they would obey the Priests.

115. snowboy 2:27 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
F5, when the vast majority of scientists in a particular field agree on an issue (which is mighty rare), then I think it is valid to look at whether a loudly dissenting and widely promoted small (<5%?) minority is being financed from some influential groups in society which are perhaps aiming to promote their interests.. One tends not to look quite as hard at where the funding for the other (>95%?) of the scientists has come from, as it will be widespread across all of the usual funding sources for the field. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

116. silence9 2:41 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
michalp Ok, I take back the "NEVER" and replace it with merely "at a rate not perceptible on a human timescale". See this online appendix from a chemistry text book "Chemistry" by Lewis and Evans, if you would like an extended explanation.

117. Inyo 2:42 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
We don't do that because it's not the government's responsibility to redistribute money from those who have it to those who the government wants to have it (although they do a fair bit of this anyway). Ok, but the corporate feedlots/taxbreaks have to go too then! honestly, when the oil company is making 60 cents a gallon pure profit off of the oil, the solution isnt raising taxes on the consumer end. Someone needs to bust up this monopoly, in my opinion... shoot, you could cut that in half, and pay 15 cents a gallon more to uncle sam and still end up saving 15 cents. the oil companies will still be fine, but maybe Cheney won't get a new yacht this year. Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

118. F5 3:01 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Inyo, Hey, I'm all for that. I don't believe in corporate welfare. I wish you had left it at that though. There are two flaws with the rest of your statements. 1. There is no such thing as pure profit, obscene profits, too much profit, etc. Price cannot be viewed as a stand-alone component of economics. It is one component of a complex array of inputs that all work together. 2. Oil companies are not a monopoly. 3. The cost of oil to the producers are also based on a wide array of factors. Oil is at $70 per barrel, but that has nothing to do with the oil companies. 4. Who are you to determine what the profit of a particular item should be. That is of no concern to you, unless you are a shareholder. As a consumer, you should only care about the price. In our economic system, the voluntary exchange of goods and services works just fine. If the price of gasoline is a problem, then drive less, find alternative transportation, move closer to where you need to be for work, etc, buy a more fuel efficient vehicle, buy a vehicle that doesn't depend on gasoline, car pool, etc. The oil companies are going to charge whatever they think they can get and maintain their profit level the best they can. Remember, a lot of that profit is being invested back into research and exploration, maintenance of aging facilities, replacement of lost/damaged facilities during hurricane season, roi for investors, etc. Just because it's inconvenient for you doesn't make it wrong. 5. Cheney does not own stock in the oil companies. Why do people persist in this myth. At one time he was president of Halliburton. They do a variety of things, but producing gasoline is not one of them. And he divested his interest a long time ago.

119. Inyo 3:17 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
i feel that there is some kind of price fixing going on since the price has been so high and yet the oil companies are making record profits. can i prove this? of course not! i'm sure you are aware that if the oil companies "hypothetically" conspired to raise prices, it would lead to a situation where the 'free market' was ineffective and the companies could effectively hold us captive until we all accumulate the capitol to somehow procure alternate fuel sources (hybrids wont get us off of oil)... the problem is we can't choose between EXXON GAS and MOBIL BIODIESEL and CHEVRON HYDROGEN... there is effectively no competition, and that is what is supposed to regulate the economy right? perhaps i am some kind of 'evil socialist' because i don't think the oil companies should be able to form into a huge bottleneck into the economy that makes it impossible for ordinary middle class citizens to lead their lives. Who am i to decide what the oil profits should be? Who are you to tell me that this lassiez fierre (sp) oligarchy is good for our country? I'm pretty sure Cheney has his fingers in the oil industry. Of course i can't prove it, any more than you can prove he doesn't. THeres no way to tell what those corrupt politicians (of either party) have gotten into these days. I will try to avoid even thinking about halle burton at this point. I guess it just comes down to fundimental differences in opinion. To be totally honest, your views are interesting to me... i can see some of the logic behind them, but in my opinion they won't work... letting corporations run rampant at the expense of the citizen doesnt seem like a good idea for me. I am all for massive amounts of freedom when it comes to citizens.. but i don't agree that corporations deserve the same... but i guess that makes me a 'liberal' Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

120. Scotth 3:25 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
The conversation seems to be getting off topic here. I knew it couldn't last. Sorry, that was very negative. ForecasterColby - How can you sit there and not jump in? Isn't it just eating you up inside? Member Since: August 4, 2004 Posts: 0 Comments: 11

121. kerneld 3:26 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
stevation: You asked about other causes for coral die off. There are several that I know of, which effect the Great Barrier Reef off the north east coast of Australia. Extra sediment in the river systems due to deforestation and agriculture has been harmful to the reefs. A starfish called the Crown of Thorns starfish eats coral and can cause a lot of damage to the reef where there is an outbreak. In a lot o tropical countries with reefs, they use dynamiting to harvest fish from the coral. This destroys the coral. I am not sure that any of these factors are linked to the reefs that are dying off apparently due to higher than normal SSTs.

122. snowski 3:30 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Tropical Cyclone Monica has made landfall on the Australian coast with 85-kt maximum sustained winds: Link

123. F5 3:33 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
snowboy, That 95% number has been thrown around a lot, but isn't even close to being remotely correct. 95% may agree that we are currently in a warming phase of natural climate variability, but 95% do not agree that anthropogenic activity is the cause of such warming, nor that CO2 is the primary driver behind such increases. In the words of Dr. Lindzen... Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.

124. HurricaneMyles 3:34 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Inyo, You are talking about when you inquire to oil companies conspiring and raising prises is called and oiligopy. And it's illegal in the US. Specific laws have been enactited in the US that is supposed to prevent price fixing and other oligopic practices. However, OPEC is a perfect example of an oiligopy. The nations of OPEC get together and decide at what quantiy they can get the best price for. NOT THE HIGHEST, but the highest that consumption should not decline. If they didnt cooperate and keep the quanity supplied to the market artifically low, then market prices for oil would be lower then they actually are. Member Since: January 12, 2006 Posts: 5 Comments: 827

125. Inyo 3:34 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
ok i admit i was getting off-topic but it was a remarkably level headed discussion so i was enjoying it. i will try to be more relevant! back to climate change.. i really am curious about that 'iris' theory... do they really think that massively increased storms won't cause harm to our country? Member Since: September 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 765

126. Levi32 3:34 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Monica is on the radar images now. http://mirror.bom.gov.au/products/IDR182.loop.shtml Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25600

127. Milton1583 3:36 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
A lot of people who have commented on this blog suggest that the solution to dealing with global warming is to hold corporations accountable for their actions. While I agree with this 100%, I am not sure all are aware of exactly what this entails. If we do hold the corporations accountable then that means one of two things: 1. The corporations reduce their own profits OR 2. The corporations pass the cost of their accountability onto consumers Now if you are a greedy corporation then which option do you think you're going to take? Are you willing to pick up the increased costs by changing your own buying habits? How many people are willing to pass up a costly SUV (which is a status symbol), for a much more energy efficient vehicle, maybe even a bicycle? I do believe that we are going to mess up this planet eventually, as I see little recourse to the path that we are on. I, like all, retain hope that perhaps we can go backwards and improve things. However, I see no evidence that western civilization is willing to turn away from prosperity for the sake of saving the Earth. I hope that those who accuse the corporations of being greedy (which they undoubtedly are), do not hold a double standard by being greedy themselves. At some point somebody has to make sacrifices in order to help this planet. The corporations sure aren't going to do it - so it has to be us.

128. Levi32 3:37 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Oops. Link Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25600

129. F5 3:41 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Inyo, You speak about corporations as though they are some living entity. A corporation is just people. Some work for it, some have ownership in it, etc. Corporations can't run rampant at the expense of citizens, because of the voluntary exchange that must occur. You are under no obligation to spend any money on gasoline. The amount you do spend is up to you. I listed a number of ways that people could reduce their costs. Hey, I'm not happy with the current costs either. And the fact that right now I am working 7 days a week and so driving more is costing me more money. But I'm not going to start calling for "price controls". The last time we did that was 1973, and you may have seen the result. Shortages, lines miles long at the pump, etc. Otherwise, as always, whether we agree or disagree, I appreciate your viewpoint and enjoy the discussion.

130. F5 3:47 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Milton1583, Again, I point out that corporations are simply an extension OF people. They are only an entity for legal purposes. Otherwise, they exist to make money for their owners, the stockholders. As for passing on increased costs, every cost is passed on to the consumer. When I hear about raising business "taxes", I laugh. There is no such thing as a business "Tax". Businesses try to make a certain EBIDTA. If they know their tax rate is going up, then they will simply charge more to keep the EBIDTA at their desired level. That means that any business tax is simply another tax on the consumer. And no, we should not be going backward. I for one do not want to run naked in the forest with only a fig leaf around me. And frankly, none of you would want to see that either :) We need to move forward. Greed has been one of the greatest drivers of change in the history of mankind. People are willing to put their blood, sweat, and tears into developing new things in the hopes of getting rich. They don't do it for the sheer benefit to humanity. Without the wealth of the western world, we wouldn't be able to feed the world, reduce/prevent disease, have the longer lifespan we currently enjoy, etc.

131. snowski 3:50 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Here's Monica (multispectral) from the Joint Typhoon Warning Center (http://www.npmoc.navy.mil/jtwc.html):

132. louastu 3:52 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
That image is absolutely spectacular.

134. kerneld 3:56 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
.. unless you are in capetown

135. louastu 3:58 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
MichaelSTL, If that storm is heading for you, I hope you are not reading this.

136. Milton1583 4:01 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
F5, As surely as I live the rest of my days I will suggest that greed is the end of the world and not the continuity of it. Take a look at how things work in the natural world. Nature is a balance between a myriad of forces that hold things together. Our own bodies are in many ways a balance - a homeostasis. Nature abhors extremes, and they only exist for the purpose of change. If this were not the case then we would have 7 Category 5 hurricanes every year, which we don't see. Rather we see far more weaker storms, and less extreme ones. Greed,if you follow the logic out to its endpoint), results in a few rich and many poor. Look at what we see when we have an uncontrolled 'pure' free market. We end up with a few savvy individuals who have all the wealth and a large mass of poor people. Is this not an extreme? Does not the very nature of greed create extremity? If the corporations had their way in everything they'd tear down every forest on the face of the planet! If there were no controls then surely they'd destroy everything. Fortunately, in the past we have been able to enact controls over the rampant free-market to reign it in. This is not to say that a centrally managed economy is the answer (that is definitely NOT the case!), but to say that the free-market system needs regulation in order to effectively work. However, in the current political and social climate, there are no forces in place to allow those controls to continue to exist. The Bush administration has done nothing but empower corporations all the more. (Of course this isn't the scariest thing about the Bush administration - the real scary thing is despite the fact that the guy is a complete and total moron 37% of the population still supports him). The people, also being greedy themselves, just play right into the system. As long as they get their new clothes, SUVs, and can live their 'comfortable' lives in their middle-class neighborhoods everything will be ok. I assure you that if we do not moderate our views of prosperity that we will take a precipitous fall. There is still hope left. All you have to do is do your part.

137. snowboy 4:39 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
F5, both Dr. Lindzen and you have it wrong. No one is insisting on unanimity on the global warming issue. The vast majority of scientists in the climate field simply believe that while their models may not be perfect, they are certainly good enough to be accurate in their predictions that the ongoing emissions of vast amounts of greenhouse gases will cause the climate to warm. The mechanism is the well-known greenhouse effect. It is not rocket science, it is very basic atmospheric science. A few gadflys like Lindzen may sputter: ".. but, but the models aren't perfect.. " or "we can't measure how much of an effect we're having.." or "the climate may be warming anyway.." or "we're being muzzled by the Iron Triangle..". There may even an element of truth to some of their sputtering. But the sputtering doesn't change the basics of the science, or the observed warming which is underway, or the beliefs of the vast majority of scientists in the field that their models are certainly adequate to be used to predict further warming. Good lord, even 25 years ago (my college days) when the models were pathetically unsophisticated compared to today's beauties and when there was almost no observable warming signature (due to the cooling from the nuclear tests), the majority of atmospheric scientists still believed that putting large amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere would lead to a warming climate. They did so because of the basics of their science, and they do so today. It doesn't take an "Iron Triangle" to bully these scientists into believing our climate will warm. It is the fundamentals of their science. For this they are attacked in op-ed pages by the likes of Dr. Lindzen who huffs and puffs and calls them "climate alarmists". Dr. Masters was right to take the man to task. Member Since: September 21, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 2546

138. franck 4:56 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
America knows nothing about social business practice. Yes, it does exist. We've been indoctrinated to think from a purely capitalistic openly competitive perspective, with regard to business and industry. When such a system proceeds unchecked, by hook or by crook a few end up owning all the toys, and the rest kissing their butts, begging to play with one for a little while. Member Since: August 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1150

139. Levi32 4:58 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
For some strange reason Monica is having a very difficult time developing an eye. The eye wall is ragged and deformed. This is puzzling because Monica is in the most perfect environment that any storm could want. Just goes to show that we still don't know everything about hurricanes yet. They are still a big mystery. Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25600

140. franck 4:58 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Sorry, that really has nothing to do with weather. I should find a political blog. Really, sorry holds head down. Member Since: August 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1150

141. Levi32 4:59 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25600

142. Levi32 5:04 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Microwave image just in suggests that Monica may be forming a more complete solid outer eyewall, which will take over eventually. It is just about too late for that to help her though as she is very close to land now. Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 593 Comments: 25600

143. Skyepony (Mod) 5:17 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Coral bleaching is one of the many hazards to coral & is caused by higher SST, NOAA has done extensive studies & proved it~ random NOAA article on what they are going to do to monitor it ~ highlight~ The warning system will give local officials advance warning that a bleaching event is about to occur. With this advance notice, officials can take measures to prevent human activity, such as diving, boating and recreational fishing, from adding to the stress of higher sea temperatures already affecting the coral reefs. ~closer to the subject at hand, I agree with snowboy~ even F5 has written better pieces than this article. The days I go through the weather news to see if anything is worth posting, it's like wading through mounds of fluff being tossed about. A news article shouldn't be filled with ones thoughts with nothing to prove your side. It's should be unbiest reporting that has sources, quotes, uncovered facts along with there origins, something that convays something that happened, something to learn from. If that had said humans aren't causing global warming because...here's some factual proof I found, then it had been worthy news. When your convaying your beliefs, trying to sway someone, if it blogging or defending your life work on climate change ~ to accomplish things~ let the facts speak, to rant with emotion is less effective. That article sounded like propiganda...the excessive use of they & alarmist. The whole bit about evaperation increasing with increase in global warming hasn't even occured, in fact, it has been reduced. Humidity & particularly polution particals & contrails reducing the earth's exposure to the sun (global dimming) looks to has been an unreconized colpret in masking how bad the global warming affects of the greenhouse gases are. NOVA's show tonight on it was well done. If NASA media overseers had someone else in mind to use for the PBS (jesting the article posted earlier) Dr Hansen must of scared them into calling in sick. Member Since: August 10, 2005 Posts: 145 Comments: 29944

144. F5 5:28 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
franck, Ha, somehow, I don't think so. You have a gross misunderstanding of capitalism and America in general if you believe that. Economic studies have repeatedly shown that over time, people move through the different scales of earnings. So, people in the bottom 20% today are generally not in the bottom 20% in 10 years. People in the top 20% generally are not in the top 20% in the ensuing 10 years. Its a simple cycle that shows the older you get, the more you make, until you reach retirement, at which point your "Earnings" put you back in the bottom 20%. There is no such thing as socially responsible capitalism, when mandated by governments. That is just an extension of socialism.

145. F5 5:35 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Milton1583 Greed,if you follow the logic out to its endpoint), results in a few rich and many poor. Look at what we see when we have an uncontrolled 'pure' free market. We end up with a few savvy individuals who have all the wealth and a large mass of poor people. Is this not an extreme? Does not the very nature of greed create extremity? If the corporations had their way in everything they'd tear down every forest on the face of the planet! If there were no controls then surely they'd destroy everything. I'm not even sure where to begin on this one. Apart from the fact that the very history that surrounds you defies your hypothesis, it's incredulous that someone could even think this way. Again, I ask you, what makes up a corporation? People. Are you saying that the people who make up a corporation would simply destroy everything they need to survive on? And the very things that the corporation needs in order to produce it's products? Let me make sure I understand what you are saying. You are saying that, for example, wood companies would destroy every tree on the planet to produce the wood they want to sell. And so, not only would the corporation then go out of business, not having any more wood to sell, but the very people who's lives depend on the trees to produce oxygen, help control the world's climate, etc., would simply destroy all of that threatening their own survival? That's certainly an interesting point of view. I'm not sure many people would ascribe to it, but you are certainly welcome to believe that if you must.

146. F5 5:42 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
snowboy, I think the point Dr. Lindzen was making is that you don't find 95% agreement amongst scientists on practically ANY subject, let alone one as complex as global climate. Not only that, but the fact is that there isn't anywhere close to 95% agreement that AGW is occurring or even for those who agree it is occurring, that CO2 is the primary driver. It could be due to land-use changes, which, while anthropogenic activity induced, may not have the same consequences as if it really were a GHG issue. And again, I'll point out that the models, while the "best" we have, doesn't make them right. Also, the models should at best be used to confirm actual observation, not used as a "forecasting" tool to predict the future. We have great models for predicting the weather on a local scale, and many times, they are wrong, right up until the actual day. And yet, we are somehow supposed to believe that these models that predict these massive changes are supposedly accurate? They haven't even accurately predicted the current temperature increase. They are still about 1deg too warm compared to actual observations.

147. F5 5:44 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
Well, it's been a long day and again, an interesting discussion. One wonders if Dr. Master's reads through any of these posts and what his reactions might be. I know that he occasionally answers questions people have posed to him. Whether or not we agree with each other and/or with Dr. Masters, I appreciate the thoughtful discussions on everyone's parts. Hope everyone has a good night. Getting swamped at work so I may not be back on for awhile.

148. franck 5:52 AM GMT on April 19, 2006
A little something about primitive belief systems and their effect on the abilities of many in recognizing global warming. Weather = God > Man, therefore man does not have the ability to cause global warming, no matter how many pollutants he may throw into the air or sea, or how many British Thermal Units he may create. Since man can't create I guess he can't create BTU's either. Guess God does that too, but now I digress. To a mind steeped in religious dogma, it is difficult to accept that man could have the ability to change the earth. For this reason, though scientific data paints the picture ever clearer, many will deny it more and more. God is not to blame, but the false understanding of God. Member Since: August 30, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1150

149. fredwx 12:46 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
The global warming controversy has been raging since the 1950�s and 1960�s when it was evident that the temperatures seemed to be on a gradually rise and speculation began as to whether this was a real trend or not. As time went on there were more record high�s being set than record lows which seemed to verify the notion of a warming trend. The vast majority of temperature observations are made at sites in or near metropolitan areas and the urbanization of the landscape effects the temperature by making it warmer than the surrounding areas. Just look at the daily min temperatures in and around New York City which can show variations of up to 20 degrees (f) or more in just a few dozen miles. How much does the urban heat island effect result in the warming trend and has this been effectively eliminated from the models There is also an apparent relationship between sunspots and sunspot cycles with Solar radiation and based on this it appears that the sun has been increasing its output over the past couple of hundred years or so and likely has caused a portion of the observed global warming. There is little doubt that the level of CO2 has been increasing and that is mostly the result of burning hydrocarbons. CO2 is a greenhouse gas which adds to the warming of the planet. The arguments are mostly about how much does the increasing CO2 contribute. Last night�s Nova program Dimming Sun reported on new evidence that air pollution has been masking the full impact of global warming. The program showed interesting evidence that the amount of sunlight reaching the earth has been reduced by 5-10% due to pollution. Member Since: June 8, 2005 Posts: 221 Comments: 261

150. weathergeek5 1:34 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
I am a college student doing a research paper on the hot topic between global warming and hurricanes. DR William Gray says the globe has been warming but not to the extent that the global warming scientists make it out to be. He says greenhouse gases were increasing from 1970-1994. How come the Atlantic was in a cool AMO then? If the globe was warmiong would that have caused more hurricanes. Does anybody have any info on the Pacifice decadal oscillation during this period? Also what are the characteristics that cause the warm and cold AMO? Reference: Weather Seer: We�re Lucky. (2005). Discover. Sept2005. Vol.26 Issue 9. p15-16. Retrieved March 17, 2006 from EBSCOhost database. [Magazine Article from Database.] Member Since: December 25, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1729

151. gcain 1:45 PM GMT on April 19, 2006
Someone made the point (if you can find it!) about humans "changing the earth" for 8,000 years (probably even longer)...the fact is that there is no such thing as a "pristine earth"--all living things have their effect on the global condition...rotting wood, methane gas from animal poop, bird droppings, etc. all have some effect on the mystical pure earth. Luckily, the earth is a "self-cleaning oven" of the first order and can handle just about anything we or other creatures hand it. But just like the oven, it can become overwhelmed and fail to function...can the human species be the one that can create such an event? Unfortunately, because of our brain power we can generate both good and bad...for ourselves and the earth...thus we have MORAL RESPONSIBILITY... the earth will do its best to rid itself of those elements that destroy the balance...thus, warming and cooling cycles...let's face it...warming of the earth, in its own right, is neither good nor bad...we worry about it because of the imposition it will place on US as a species. I doubt that the earth cares one way or another!

Viewing: 101 - 151

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 — Blog Index

Top of Page

New Comment

Community Standards Policy Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

About JeffMasters