And here they admit that CO2 may not be the dominant factor and “The consensus is not that CO2 is the only thing that is important for climate”.

Thus every time there is an objection we fall back on statements like this and then AL comes along to pin it all on CO2 and “us”.

Then they go to the models which are uncertain at best and have results all over the place – Al taking the worst case of course. Certainly when you put all the data together and then add CO2 it “fits” better – this is what the skeptics have been saying – CO2 rises after temperature increases. This does not mean CO2 is the “cause” or even the major contributing factor does it.

Ted, I missed your last post but will reply to it now.

You seem to be deliberately obtuse in your intereptation of Gavin Schimdt's response. He's trying to explain that consensus climate science has never dismissed multiple causes for past climate variation but that it is impossible to explain the changes in the last several decades without attributing the chief cause to the increasing release of greenhouse gases by industrial society. You, and other critics of the consensus view, seem to want to contend that because other things have influenced climate in the past that it is impossible to attribute recent warming to the release of GHGs. In reality, climate scientists have looked at all possible cause of recent climate change and have concluded that GHGs have to be considered as the major cause of recent warming and other changes.

With respect to the topic of this thread, you should take a look at the Lockwood study of recent trends in solar forcing.



RealClimate's comment in it's Friday Roundup article that references this study is also worth quoting.

And this in particular is where there is disagreement. How can it be “possible to explain” temperature variation without a complete model that can explain all the vast variations from the past – which has not been done.

If you are trying to tell me that scientists models are good enough to account for past and present variations I strongly disagree. We may know that GHGs contribute to global warming but the real question is how much.

IMO without this info spending 400 billion/year is ludicrous. The IPCC predictions are all over the map with Gore, of course, picking the most pessimistic model –which one is your choice.

Meanwhile the “real pollution” of big power in this country goes untouched with resulting disease and loss of life.

http://www.oma.org/phealth/smogmain.htm


Air Pollution Fatalities Now Exceed Traffic Fatalities by 3 to 1

Bernie Fischlowitz-Roberts

The World Health Organization reports that 3 million people now die each year from the effects of air pollution. This is three times the 1 million who die each year in automobile accidents. A study published in The Lancet in 2000 concluded that air pollution in France, Austria, and Switzerland is responsible for more than 40,000 deaths annually in those three countries. About half of these deaths can be traced to air pollution from vehicle emissions.
In the United States, traffic fatalities total just over 40,000 per year, while air pollution claims 70,000 lives annually. U.S. air pollution deaths are equal to deaths from breast cancer and prostate cancer combined. This scourge of cities in industrial and developing countries alike threatens the health of billions of people.

Smaller particulates, especially those 10 micrometers in diameter (1/2,400 of an inch) or smaller, can become lodged in the alveolar sacs of the lungs. They are associated with higher admissions to hospital for respiratory problems and with increased mortality, particularly from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. As particulate concentrations in the air rise, so do death rates.
http://www.earth-policy.org/Updates/Update17.htm


Meanwhile the fight to reduce CO2 is DOOMED as China passes the US in CO2 output and China has other gifts for us – the same crap out power plants pour out.

HANJING, China — One of China's lesser-known exports is a dangerous brew of soot, toxic chemicals and climate-changing gases from the smokestacks of coal-burning power plants.
In early April, a dense cloud of pollutants over Northern China sailed to nearby Seoul, sweeping along dust and desert sand before wafting across the Pacific. An American satellite spotted the cloud as it crossed the West Coast.
Researchers in California, Oregon and Washington noticed specks of sulfur compounds, carbon and other byproducts of coal combustion coating the silvery surfaces of their mountaintop detectors. These microscopic particles can work their way deep into the lungs, contributing to respiratory damage, heart disease and cancer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/11/business...r=rssnytemc=rss

So again my bottom line is – lets spend the 400 billion reducing pollution that we are certain is killing people NOW and if the global temperature continues to rise we can easily deal with that as well. Needless to say, without China and India drastically reducing CO2 (which will not happen) we have absolutely no hope of reducing the increases in CO2 – so why waste time and money on it?

Well to say others disagree with this is an understatement. I find the Discover interview with HenriK Svensmark compelling.

Naturally he has been blackballed, ignored and accused of “working for the oil companies”. I find this disgusting and indicative of the political nature of the issue.

Others find his argument strong enough – so much so they are building a building at CERN to do a large scale test of his theory. Results are 2 yeas away.


Sun's Shifts May Cause Global Warming
His studies show that natural variations in the sun plays a major role in global warming. So are humans off the hook? And if so, why does he use compact fluorescent lightbulbs?
by Marion Long
Most leading climate experts don’t agree with Henrik Svensmark, the 49-year-old director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen. In fact, he has taken a lot of blows for proposing that solar activity and cosmic rays are instrumental in determining the warming (and cooling) of Earth. His studies show that cosmic rays trigger cloud formation, suggesting that a high level of solar activity—which suppresses the flow of cosmic rays striking the atmosphere—could result in fewer clouds and a warmer planet. This, Svensmark contends, could account for most of the warming during the last century. Does this mean that carbon dioxide is less important than we’ve been led to believe? Yes, he says, but how much less is impossible to know because climate models are so limited.
There is probably no greater scientific heresy today than questioning the warming role of CO2, especially in the wake of the report issued by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That report warned that nations must cut back on greenhouse gas emissions, and insisted that “unless drastic action is taken . . . millions of poor people will suffer from hunger, thirst, floods, and disease.” As astrophysicist ?Eugene Parker, the discoverer of solar wind, writes in the foreword to Svensmark’s new book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, “Global warming has become a political issue both in government and in the scientific community. The scientific lines have been drawn by ‘eminent’ scientists, and an important new idea is an unwelcome intruder. It upsets the established orthodoxy.”
We talked with the unexpectedly modest and soft-spoken Henrik Svensmark about his work, the criticism it has received, and truth versus hype in climate science.

In 1996, when you reported that changes in the sun’s activity could explain most or all of the recent rise in Earth’s temperature, the chairman of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel called your announcement “extremely naive and irresponsible.” How did you react?
I was just stunned. I remember being shocked by how many thought what I was doing was terrible. I couldn’t understand it because when you are a physicist, you are trained that when you find something that cannot be explained, something that doesn’t fit, that is what you are excited about. If there is a possibility that you might have an explanation, that is something that everybody thinks is what you should pursue. Here was exactly the opposite reaction. It was as though people were saying to me, “This is something that you should not have done.” That was very strange for me, and it has been more or less like that ever since.

So it’s difficult to do climate research without being suspected of having a hidden agenda?
Yes, it is frustrating. People can use this however they want, and I can’t stop them. Some are accusing me of doing it for political reasons; some are saying I’m doing it for the oil companies. This is just ridiculous. I think there’s a huge interest in discrediting what I’m doing, but I’ve sort of gotten used to this. I’ve convinced myself the only thing I can do is just to continue doing good science. And I think time will show that we are on the right track.
http://discovermagazine.com/2007/jul/the-d...enrik-svensmark

I disagree with that conclusion. As I have posted in all the various threads on global warming, non man made factors contribute monumenentally more to global warming than man made factors do. Why do we not hear this? Because there's no political incentive to do so. Ditto for the solar effect.



That is probably true. Which is why it is a political incentive, and not an economic one, driving the issue. How many non-environmentalist groups out there have come out strongly in support of the global warming phenomenon? Not many, if any. Why? Politics. To borrow a phrase, that sounds a lot like an ideology trying to impose a conclusion, then, no? Hence the skepticism, especially when that skepticism is also supported by much of the science.

Keep in mind that being peer reviewed doesn't necessarily mean something isn't pure hooey. There's a lot of pure hooey in peer reviewed journals. I've seen multiple peer reviewed articles on this site and elsewhere in which the science, and most particularly the conclusions, were highly suspect at best, and complete farce at worst. Not to say that peer reviewed isn't perhaps more sound than non peer reviewed, but being peer reviewed doesn't make something correct, or even sound logically or methodologically. All it really means is that several (or sometimes even just one) people reviewed it and passed it on. So, if say they were like minded and agreed with the conclusion, it would get published. There is also a strong incentive not to reject others work in a system which makes publishing the measure of one's success. Peer reviewed or not, it is up to the reader to judge the science, the methodology employed, and the conclusions reached.

So when unnamed others accuse this source as being questionable and influenced by oil companies (which nobody on this board has, by the way), that is 'disgusting and political', and you hold it in deep contempt.

But when YOU arbitrarily dismiss the vast majority of scientific research all of which agrees on the man-made impact of global warming, backed up by hiundreds of independent studies conducted by independent organisations around the world... when YOU dismiss ALL of that majoritarian scientific consensus as 'just for the grant money' or 'entirely motivated by politics' (which you do on this board frequently), THAT is perfectly acceptable?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/double%20standard

WRONG
I just maintain that the “evidence” presented sop far and the models that they are derived from are not conclusive – and guess what I have lots of support there.

So how do you dismiss the man I quoted? Or could he be right??

So much for the bogus claim that there is wide agreement that man causes global warming.



Survey: Less Than Half of all Published Scientists Endorse Global Warming Theory

“Medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte recently updated this research. Using the same database and search terms as Oreskes, he examined all papers published from 2004 to February 2007. The results have been submitted to the journal Energy and Environment, of which DailyTech has obtained a pre-publication copy. The figures are surprising.

Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."


In fact of all papers published in this period (2004 to February 2007), only a single one makes any reference to climate change leading to catastrophic results.



http://www.dailytech.com/Survey+Less+Than+...article8641.htm