Scientists: Global warming to blame for big U.S....

Scientists: Global warming to blame for big U.S. snowstorms

Updated 1d 19h ago |

By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY

What caused the colossal snowfalls that buried much of the USA this winter, setting snow records in New York City and Chicago? One group of scientists blames. .. global warming.

Find a Forecast

Find your local weather with The Weather Channel zip- code lookup:

By Mario Tama, Getty ImagesPeople walk through the snow in Manhattan's East Village on Dec. 27 in New York City, following a blizzard that

dumped 20 inches of snow.Enlarge

By Mario Tama, Getty Images People walk through the snow in Manhattan's East Village on Dec. 27 in New York City, following a blizzard that dumped 20 inches of snow.

Counterintuitive though it may be, "heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet," says Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for the Weather U nderground, a private weather service.

MASTERS' ANSWERS: Expert took your climate questions

The announcement was made at a news conference on Tuesday in Washington, D.C., by the Union of Concerned Scientists, a nonprofit environmental group. It was not published in a peer-reviewed study in an academic journal. "The old adage, 'It's too cold to snow,' has some truth to it," said Masters. "A colder atmosphere holds less moisture, limiting the snowfall that can occur." At one point this winter, 49 of the 50 U.S. states were partly or completely snow- covered. Only Florida was snow-free. Yet, while the USA endured unusually heavy snow this winter, thousands of miles north in the Arctic, temperatures were at near- record high levels, according to Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and

Advertisement

of 3Format Dynamics :: Kodak Viewer

3/4/2011http://www.usatoday.com/cleanprint/?1299250881397

Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo. Additionally and more importantly, Serreze says, the area of the Arctic Ocean covered with ice dropped to record low levels for December, January and February. And there's the rub: Not only does less sea ice mean more moisture in the atmosphere, says Serreze, it can also lead to the "negative" phase of the Arctic Oscillation (AO), an atmospheric circulation pattern in polar regions. During a negative phase of the AO, when atmospheric pressure is higher than average in the Arctic, wind patterns bring warmer- than-average temperatures to the Arctic, while colder air spills down into the USA and Europe. "It's still cutting-edge research and there's no smoking gun, but there's evidence that with less sea ice, you put a lot of heat from the ocean into the atmosphere, and the circulation of the atmosphere responds to that," Serreze says. "We've seen a tendency for autumns with low sea-ice cover to be followed by a negative Arctic Oscillation." But hold the horn. Just last year, a report from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Science Investigators (CSI) team found no evidence — no human "fingerprints" — to implicate man-made climate change in the snowstorms that walloped the mid-Atlantic during the winter of 2009-10. "If global warming was the culprit, the team would have expected to find a gradual increase in heavy snowstorms in the mid- Atlantic region as temperatures rose during

the past century," the report stated. "But historical analysis revealed no such increase in snowfall. Nor did the CSI team find any indication of an upward trend in winter precipitation along the Eastern Seaboard." Another dissenting voice comes from Roger Pielke, Sr., a researcher at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences in Boulder, who says that climate variability and change can occur from natural effects (for example, from the sun and volcanoes) as well as from a diverse set of human-related causes (besides carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases), which include aerosols and land use/land cover change. "The natural variability of the climate is also larger and more diverse than reported in the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) reports" he says. The IPCC, a United Nations science group, claimed in 2007 that most of the increase in average global temperatures since the mid- 20th century is "very likely" due to the increase in human greenhouse gas

Advertisement



concentrations. "The recent extreme cold and snowy weather shows that we understand the climate system less than was reported in the 2007 IPCC reports," Pielke adds. However, Masters counters that "if the climate continues to warm we should expect an increase in heavy snowstorms for a few decades. But eventually, he says, with winters getting shorter, we may reach the point where it's too warm to snow heavily. "In fact, as the Earth gets warmer and more moisture gets absorbed into the atmosphere, we are steadily loading the dice in favor of more extreme storms in all seasons, capable of causing greater impacts on society."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to [email protected]. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Advertisement



Can geoengineering put the freeze on global warming?

Updated 3d ago |

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Scientists call it "geoengineering," but in plain speak, it means things like this: blasting tons of sulfate particles into the sky to reflect sunlight away from Earth; filling the ocean with iron filings to grow plankton that will suck up carbon; even dimming sunlight with space shades.

By Karl Gelles, USA TODAYOnce the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, geoengineering is getting a

serious look in the political realm.Enlarge

By Karl Gelles, USA TODAY Once the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm.

Each brings its own set of risks, but in a world fretting about the consequences of global warming, are these ideas whose time has come? With 2010 tying as the world's warmest year

on record and efforts to slow greenhouse gas emissions looking stymied, calls are rising for research into engineering our way out of global warming — everything from launching solar shade spacecraft to genetically engineering green deserts. An international consortium of 12 universities and research institutes on Tuesday, for example, announced plans to pioneer large- scale "ocean fertilization" experiments aimed at using the sea to pull more greenhouse gases out of the sky. Once the domain of scientists' off-hours schemes scrawled on cocktail napkins, such geoengineering is getting a serious look in the political realm. "We're moving into a different kind of world," says environmental economist Scott Barrett of Columbia University. "Better we turn to asking if 'geoengineering' could work, than waiting until it becomes a necessity." A National Academy of Sciences' best estimate has global warming bumping up average temperatures by 3 to 7 degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century.

Advertisement

Page 1 of 5Format Dynamics :: Kodak Viewer


Meanwhile, greenhouse gas emissions that are largely responsible, most from burning the modern economy's main fuels, coal and oil, look set to continue to rise for the next quarter-century, according to Energy Information Agency estimates. "That's where geoengineering comes in," says international relations expert David Victor of the University of California-San Diego. "Research into geoengineering creates another option for the public." Geoengineering takes its cue from the natural experiment that actually had made the only dent in global warming's rise in the last two decades — the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, which blasted more than 15 million tons of sulfur dioxide 21 miles high, straight into the stratosphere. The stratosphere suspended those sulfur particles in the air worldwide, where the haze they created scattered and reflected sunlight away from the Earth and cooled global atmospheric temperatures nearly 0.7 to 0.9 degrees Fahrenheit in 1992 and 1993, before finally washing out, according to NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies estimates. Firing about half that much sulfur into the stratosphere every year for 30 years would help stabilize global warming's rise, National Center for Atmospheric Research climate scientist Tom Wigley estimated in a much-debated 2006 Science journal report. Humanity would effectively become addicted to sky-borne sulfates to keep the cooling on track. The tradeoff is that rain and snow patterns would likely shift, a 2008 Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study found, consigning hundreds of millions of the poorest people on the planet in Africa and Asia to recurring

drought. No longer eyed askance "Geoengineering is no longer a taboo topic at scientific meetings. They are looking at it as one more policy prescription," says Science magazine reporter Eli Kintisch, author of Hack the Planet: Science's Best Hope — Or Worst Nightmare — For Averting Climate Catastrophe. "But it is yet to become a household word." That may be changing, as the terms of debate about geoengineering become clear. On the pro-research side, this October the U.S. House Committee on Science and Technology called for more research into geoengineering, "to better understand which technologies or methods, if any, represent viable stopgap strategies for managing our changing climate and which pose unacceptable risks." On the more cautious side, a United Nations Environment Programme species conservation meeting in Nagoya, Japan, ended that same month with a call for, "no climate-related geoengineering activities," without

Advertisement



environmental and scientific review. What are the actual geoengineering proposals? Broadly, they come in two flavors: those that deal with greenhouse gases directly by soaking up carbon dioxide (the greenhouse gas with the biggest warming impact); and those that seek to limit the sunlight that warms those greenhouse gases. Here's a sampling, from the deep ocean to deep space: •Ocean fertilization. Dumping iron filings into the ocean to spur phytoplankton blooms is the saltwater version of forestation. The increased mass of the plankton's cells would swell with carbon pulled from the air. On the downside, it may kill fish, belch out other greenhouse gases such as methane, and hasn't worked very well in small trials. •Forestation. Intense planting of trees and reclaiming deserts with hardier plants is one of the ideas endorsed at the recent Cancun, Mexico, climate meeting, where representatives of 192 nations made some progress on an international climate agreement. More fantastic versions, endorsed by Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, would rely on genetic engineering to produce trees that act as natural carbon scrubbers, their trunks swollen with carbon pulled from the air. •Cloud engineering. Painting rooftops white, genetically engineering crops to have shinier surfaces, and floating blocks of white Styrofoam in the oceans are all proposals to mimic the effects of clouds, whose white surfaces reflect sunlight. Pumping sea salt into the sky from thousands of "spray ships" could increase clouds themselves. Cost- effectiveness aside, such cloud-seeding

might end up dumping rain on the ocean or already soggy regions, instead of where it's needed. •Pinatubo a-go-go. As mentioned above, sulfur aerosols could be fired into the sky by cannons, released by balloons or dropped from planes. •Space mirrors. Hundreds of thousands of thin reflective yard-long disks fired into a gravitational balance point between the sun and Earth could dim sunlight. Cost aside, rocket failures or collisions might lead to a tremendous orbital debris cloud circling the Earth. And a recent Geophysical Research Letters space tourism report suggests the rocket fuel burned to launch the needed number of shades would dump enough black soot — which absorbs sunlight and heats the atmosphere — to increase average global temperatures about 1.4 degrees. "Most of the technologies are not yet proven and are at the theoretical or research phase," an August Congressional Research Service report noted.

Advertisement



On the environmental side, cutting temperature increases through these techniques may still shift rain and snow patterns, leaving the planet cooler, but it could also trigger droughts across vast swaths of farmland in Africa and India. Further, ocean fertilization could contribute to mass killing of sea life and releases of methane greenhouse gas, while using sulfur aerosols could bring not only drought but also enlarged ozone holes. Leaving aside the environmental risks each one carries, the estimated costs tend to increase with how quickly each method removes carbon or deflects sunlight. The space reflectors would top the bill at a cost of several trillion dollars over 25 years. "Geoengineering technologies, once developed, may enable short-sighted and unwise deployment, with potentially serious unforeseen consequences," said a 2009 American Meteorological Society statement. Turning over weather management to human beings raises, "legal, ethical, d iplomatic, and even national security concerns," the statement added. Deflected storm tracks could result in floods such as the ones hitting Australia last month or P akistan last year. And simply cutting temperatures won't stop the rise in ocean acidification arising from increased carbon dioxide levels in the air, which may affect marine life underlying the ocean food web. Simply putting a worldwide price on carbon emissions from smokestacks and letting the marketplace lead to lower carbon emissions would likely be cheaper and more sensible than geoengineering, says Barrett, the economist. "But let's face it. We're talking about (geoengineering) because we don't have a price on carbon."

That's why geoengineering could happen before a global climate treaty ever passes the U.S. Senate, suggests Victor. International climate talks rest on getting 192 self-interested and short-sighted n ations to cooperate in ways that will benefit some and cost others, particularly coal- powered ones such as the United States and China. But with geoengineering, you only need one nation to start "hacking," or geoengineering, the planet. "It would be not at all surprising to wake up one morning and discover that Chinese testing (of geoengineering) has begun on a large scale," Victor says. "That would freak everyone out and create huge international tensions." No international treaty governs geoengineering, other than a 2008 amendment to ocean pollution agreements limiting ocean fertilization to research studies. Still a foreign concept to many A Yale University survey of 1,001 people

Advertisement



nationwide last year found that 1% could correctly describe geoengineering. The field needs to be researched, suggests climate scientist Michael MacCracken of the Climate Institute in Washington, D.C., before opinions harden without accurate information. Geoengineering at this point looks like one of many options in addressing climate change, MacCracken adds. "You can only geoengineer so much before the side effects become so much worse than the cure that it doesn't make sense to bother." He and others argue geoengineering research should begin in earnest, before some abrupt climate change, such as Greenland's ice sheet melting precipitously, stampedes the world into an overreaction and rush to costly technology as a quick, untested fix. "No research is really going on in a lot of these areas," he says, raising the prospect of a lot of fruitless or counterproductive climate engineering efforts suddenly sprouting in a global panic about collapsing ice sheets decades from now. Global warming by itself is a kind of geoengineering, noted as far back as 1896 by the Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius, who calculated that doubling the amount of carbon dioxide (the most noted greenhouse gas) in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels would likely warm the atmosphere by 9 degrees. Arrhenius supposed that would take thousands of years to happen, based on fossil fuel use rates at the turn of the century. Instead, the global average temperature has warmed about 1.4 degrees since he made his estimate, as carbon dioxide levels have increased tremendously, and his 9-degree increase is now within the range of forecasts for 2100.

"I think it is settled that some climate engineering research will go forward," Kintisch says. "We haven't seen it enter the national debate yet. Hard to know what will happen when it does. That may be the biggest question."

For more information about reprints & permissions, visit our FAQ's. To report corrections and clarifications, contact Standards Editor Brent Jones. For publication consideration in the newspaper, send comments to [email protected]. Include name, phone number, city and state for verification. To view our corrections, go to corrections.usatoday.com.

Advertisement



Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html[2/2/2011 11:16:02 AM]

Former Vice President Al Gore in hishome office in Nashville, TN. (Timemagazine)

February 2011

January 2011

December 2010

November 2010

October 2010

September 2010

August 2010

July 2010

June 2010

May 2010

April 2010

March 2010

February 2010

January 2010

December 2009

November 2009

October 2009

September 2009

August 2009

July 2009

June 2009

May 2009

April 2009

March 2009

February 2009

January 2009

December 2008

November 2008

October 2008

September 2008

August 2008

July 2008

June 2008

April 2008

March 2008

< Previous: States Take the Lead... |

An Answer for Bill February 1, 2011 : 11:43 AM

Last week on his show Bill O’Reilly asked, “Why has southern New Yorkturned into the tundra?” and then said he had a call into me. I appreciatethe question.

As it turns out, the scientific community has been addressing this particularquestion for some time now and they say that increased heavy snowfalls arecompletely consistent with what they have been predicting as a consequenceof man-made global warming:

“In fact, scientists have been warning for at least two decades that globalwarming could make snowstorms more severe. Snow has two simpleingredients: cold and moisture. Warmer air collects moisture like a spongeuntil it hits a patch of cold air. When temperatures dip below freezing, a lotof moisture creates a lot of snow.”

“A rise in global temperature can create all sorts of havoc, ranging fromhotter dry spells to colder winters, along with increasingly violent storms,flooding, forest fires and loss of endangered species.”

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/



































http://blog.algore.com/2011/01/states_take_the_lead.html

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010-02-14/news/ct-oped-0214-page-20100212_1_global-warming-term-climate-change-snow

http://www.algore.com/index.html

http://www.algore.com/about.html

http://www.algore.com/action.html

http://blog.algore.com/

http://www.algore.com/booksdvds.html

Al's Journal : An Answer for Bill

http://blog.algore.com/2011/02/an_answer_for_bill.html[2/2/2011 11:16:02 AM]

February 2008

January 2008

December 2007

November 2007

October 2007

September 2007

August 2007

July 2007

June 2007

May 2007

April 2007

March 2007

February 2007

All Posts

Syndication:














http://blog.algore.com/archives.html

http://blog.algore.com/index.xml

http://blog.algore.com/atom.xml

http://www.allianceforclimateprotection.org/

http://www.theclimateproject.org/

http://liveearth.org/

http://www.climatecrisis.net/

http://www.current.tv/

http://www.generationim.com/

Dow Jones Reprints: This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. To order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers, use the Order Reprints tool at the bottom of any article or visit www.djreprints.com

See a sample reprint in PDF format. Order a reprint of this article now

Defections Shake Up Climate Coalition FEBRUARY 17, 2010

By STEPHEN POWER And BEN CASSELMAN

Three big companies quit an influential lobbying group that had focused on shaping climate-change legislation, in the latest

sign that support for an ambitious bill is melting away.

Oil giants BP PLC and ConocoPhillips and heavy-equipment maker Caterpillar Inc. said Tuesday they won't renew their

membership in the three-year-old U.S. Climate Action Partnership, a broad business-environmental coalition that had been

instrumental in building support in Washington for capping emissions of greenhouse gases.

The move comes as debate over climate change intensifies and concerns mount about the cost of capping greenhouse-gas

emissions.

On a range of issues, from climate change to health care, skepticism is growing in Washington that Congress will pass any

major legislation in a contentious election year in which Republicans are expected to gain seats. For companies, the shifting

winds have reduced pressure to find common ground, leading them to pursue their own, sometimes conflicting interests.

Last week, the head of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, Billy Tauzin, said he would step down as

president of the industry's main lobby in Washington, amid criticism from some in the industry over the alliance he made

last year with the White House to support health-care legislation.

The administration had worked hard to persuade industry groups to climb aboard its major legislative initiatives—a tack

many business interests saw as sensible following the Democrats' big gains in the 2008 elections. But "unlikely bedfellows

make for breakups," said Kevin Book, managing director of Clearview Energy Partners, a consulting firm.

Spokesmen for ConocoPhillips and BP said the companies still support legislation to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions, but

believe they can accomplish more working outside USCAP's umbrella. Caterpillar said it plans to focus on commercializing

green technologies.

ConocoPhillips's senior vice president for government affairs, Red Cavaney, said the USCAP was focused on getting a

climate-change bill passed, whereas Conoco is increasingly concerned with what the details of such a bill would be.

"USCAP was starting to do more and more on trying to get a bill out without trying to work as much on the substance of it,"

Mr. Cavaney said.

A spokesman for USCAP said it intends to continue its work. More than 20 other large companies, including oil company

Royal Dutch Shell PLC and industrial heavyweights General Electric Co. and Honeywell International Inc., remain in the

Page 1 of 2BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

2/17/2010http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html

coalition with environmental groups such as the Environmental Defense Fund and Natural Resources Defense Council. The

USCAP said it expects to add new members in coming months.

"We think there's momentum to get [a climate bill] done," USCAP spokesman Tad Segal said. "President [Barack] Obama's

State of the Union address made it clear the administration is behind us."

But experts said the companies' decision to withdraw from USCAP is a sign the politics of climate change is shifting in

Washington. When Mr. Obama took office, Congress appeared to have momentum for a climate bill that would push the

economy toward lower-carbon alternatives. But as the economy soured, support waned.

The Obama administration says it will curb greenhouse-gas emissions using the Clean Air Act if Congress doesn't act, and the

Environmental Protection Agency has been pushing ahead with rule making.

When USCAP was founded in 2007, leaders of big U.S. companies had grown concerned that Democrats in Congress were

preparing to put strict limits on industrial emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to climate change. Many executives

decided it was better to be part of the debate in a united front.

"The saying in Washington is that if you're not at the table, you're on the menu," said Whitney Stanco, an energy policy

analyst for Concept Capital, a Washington research firm.

The big-tent approach boosted USCAP's influence. In January 2009, the group released its recommendations for legislation.

Many were incorporated into legislation, adopted by the House, that would require companies to reduce carbon emissions or

buy pollution credits from firms that did.

But not all of USCAP's members supported the bill. Caterpillar objected in part because it would impose tariffs on goods

from countries that didn't match U.S. efforts to combat climate change. BP and Conoco opposed it on the grounds that it

didn't treat energy producers equally.

As long as climate legislation appeared imminent, companies were willing to paper over their differences and continue to

work together. But by late last year, momentum had stalled in the Senate as Washington turned its attention to health care,

the economy and the midterm elections. Few experts expect a bill to pass this year.

USCAP isn't the only group to be roiled by the issue. Last year, several members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce quit the

group over its stance against the climate bill.

Write to Stephen Power at [email protected] and Ben Casselman at [email protected]

Copyright 2009 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. Distribution and use of

this material are governed by our Subscriber Agreement and by copyright law. For non-personal use or to order multiple copies, please contact Dow Jones Reprints

at 1-800-843-0008 or visit www.djreprints.com

Page 2 of 2BP, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar Pull Out of Climate Partnership - WSJ.com

2/17/2010http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704804204575069440096420212.html

NOAA proposes new climate agency

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Monday proposed a new climate change service intended to consolidate and improve long-range data and predictions, including rises in sea levels, droughts and other adverse effects.

The plan is modeled on the 140-year-old National Weather Service, which provides short-term information.

"Now we need a climate service ... to really focus on the long-range impacts of climate change," said Commerce Secretary Gary Locke. "This will provide a single point of contact, a one-stop shop for businesses and government that need NOAA's high-quality forecasting for making predictions."

House and Senate appropriators would need to approve the restructuring, Locke said. He wants the new climate service to start in fiscal 2011. Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center, would be the transitional director of the service, which would also have six regional directors.

The service would rely on existing resources but will eventually need additional funds, said NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco.

The Obama administration's proposal comes amid controversy surrounding some climate data released in a much-heralded report by the United Nation's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which the United States and others have used as justification to try to curb global greenhouse gas emissions.

A 2007 IPCC report contained unsubstantiated figures to conclude the melting of Himalayan glaciers, which officials at the panel said was an accident.

Climate skeptics have pounced on the flub, with Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wyo., last week calling for IPCC Chairman Rajendra Pachauri to resign.

"Every day, new scandals emerge about the so called 'facts' in the UN reports," Barrasso said in a statement. "The integrity of the data and the integrity of the science have been compromised."

Lubchenco Monday defended the IPCC.

"The IPCC has recognized that that particular conclusion was in error," she said. "That said, the vast majority of the conclusions ... are credible, have been through a very rigorous process and are absolutely state of the

By Darren Goode CongressDaily February 8, 2010

Page 1 of 2PRINT: NOAA proposes new climate agency (2/8/10) -- GovExec.com

2/9/2010http://www.govexec.com/story_page_pf.cfm?articleid=44559&printerfriendlyvers=1

science, state of the art."

Lubchenco said the inclusion of the glacier data "was unfortunate but quite atypical of the rest of the IPCC," noting the panel "has thousands and thousands of conclusions about specific changes in the climate system, and that most of them have been shown to be quite reliable."

(C) 2010 BY NATIONAL JOURNAL GROUP, INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

Page 2 of 2PRINT: NOAA proposes new climate agency (2/8/10) -- GovExec.com

2/9/2010http://www.govexec.com/story_page_pf.cfm?articleid=44559&printerfriendlyvers=1

Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientistsJun 7 08:45 PM US/Eastern You worry a lot about the environment and do everything you can to reduce your carbon footprint -- the emissions of greenhouse gases that drive dangerous climate change.

So you always prefer to take the train or the bus rather than a plane, and avoid using a car whenever you can, faithful to the belief that this inflicts less harm to the planet.

Well, there could be a nasty surprise in store for you, for taking public transport may not be as green as you automatically think, says a new US study.

Its authors point out an array of factors that are often unknown to the public.

These are hidden or displaced emissions that ramp up the simple "tailpipe" tally, which is based on how much carbon is spewed out by the fossil fuels used to make a trip.

Environmental engineers Mikhail Chester and Arpad Horvath at the University of California at Davis say that when these costs are included, a more complex and challenging picture emerges.

In some circumstances, for instance, it could be more eco-friendly to drive into a city -- even in an SUV, the bete noire of green groups -- rather than take a suburban train. It depends on seat occupancy and the underlying carbon cost of the mode of transport.

"We are encouraging people to look at not the average ranking of modes, because there is a different basket of configurations that determine the outcome," Chester told AFP in a phone interview.

"There's no overall solution that's the same all the time."

The pair give an example of how the use of oil, gas or coal to generate electricity to power trains can skew the picture.

Boston has a metro system with high energy efficiency. The trouble is, 82 percent of the energy to drive it comes from dirty fossil fuels.

By comparison, San Francisco's local railway is less energy-efficient than Boston's. But it turns out to be rather greener, as only 49 percent of the electricity is derived from fossils.

The paper points out that the "tailpipe" quotient does not include emissions that come from building transport infrastructure -- railways, airport terminals, roads and so on -- nor the emissions that come from maintaining this infrastructure over its operational lifetime.

These often-unacknowledged factors add substantially to the global-warming burden.

In fact, they add 63 percent to the "tailpipe" emissions of a car, 31 percent to those of a plane, and 55 percent to those of a train.

And another big variable that may be overlooked in green thinking is seat occupancy.

Page 1 of 2Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

6/7/2009http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.243153c6a091a3b942a75077729e8c92.c51&s...

A saloon (sedan) car or even an 4x4 that is fully occupied may be responsible for less greenhouse gas per kilometer travelled per person than a suburban train that is a quarter full, the researchers calculate.

"Government policy has historically relied on energy and emission analysis of automobiles, buses, trains and aircraft at their tailpipe, ignoring vehicle production and maintenance, infrastructure provision and fuel production requirements to support these modes," they say.

So getting a complete view of the ultimate environmental cost of the type of transport, over its entire lifespan, should help decision-makers to make smarter investments.

For travelling distances up to, say, 1,000 kilometres (600 miles), "we can ask questions as to whether it's better to invest in a long-distance railway, improving the air corridor or boosting car occupancy," said Chester.

The paper appears in Environmental Research Letters, a publication of Britain's Institute of Physics.

The calculations are based on US technology and lifestyles.

It used 2005 models of the Toyota Camry saloon, Chevrolet Trailblazer SUV and Ford F-150 to calibrate automobile performance; the light transit systems in the San Francisco Bay Area and Boston as the models for the metro and commuter lines; and the Embraer 145, Boeing 737 and Boeing 747 as the benchmarks for short-, medium- and long-haul aircraft.

Copyright AFP 2008, AFP stories and photos shall not be published, broadcast, rewritten for broadcast or publication or redistributed directly or indirectly in any medium

Page 2 of 2Think twice about 'green' transport, say scientists

6/7/2009http://www.breitbart.com/print.php?id=CNG.243153c6a091a3b942a75077729e8c92.c51&s...

News

Fatties cause global warming By BEN JACKSON Environment Editor

Published: Today

THE rising number of fat people was yesterday blamed for global warming.

Scientists warned that the increase in big-eaters means more food production — a major cause of CO2 gas emissions warming the planet.

Overweight people are also more likely to drive, adding to environmental damage.

Page 1 of 5Print Friendly Page

4/21/2009http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article2387203.ece?print=yes

Dr Phil Edwards, of the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, said: “Moving about in a heavy body is like driving in a gas guzzler.”

Each fat person is said to be responsible for emitting a tonne more of climate-warming carbon dioxide per year than a thin one.

It means an extra BILLION TONNES of CO2 a year is created, according to World Health Organisation estimates of overweight people.

Lard help us ... overweight must eat less for planet

The scientists say providing extra grub for them to guzzle adds to carbon emissions that heat up the



world, melting polar ice caps, raising sea levels and killing rain forests.

The environmental impact of fat humans is made even worse because they are more likely to travel by car — another major cause of carbon emissions.

Battle

And researchers at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine say wealthy nations like the US and Britain are getting fatter by the decade.

Dr Phil Edwards said: “Food production accounts for about one fifth of greenhouse gases.

“We need to do a lot more to reverse the global trend towards fatness. It is a key factor in the battle to reduce carbon emissions and slow climate change.

“It is time we took account of the amount we are eating.

“This is about over-consumption by the wealthy countries. And the world demand for meat is increasing to match that of Britain and America.

“It is also much easier to get in your car and pick up a pint of milk than to take a walk.”



The study by Dr Edwards and colleague Ian Roberts is published in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

Dr Edwards went on: “We are not just pointing the finger at fat people. All populations are getting fatter and it has an impact on the environment.

In peril ... polar ice melting

“UK health surveys estimate fatness has increased from an average body mass index of 26 to 27 in the last ten years.

“That’s equivalent to about half a stone for every person.”

Anyone with a BMI above 25 is overweight, while more than 30 is obese.

A staggering 40 per cent of Americans are obese, among 300 million worldwide.

Disasters



Australian Professor Paul Zimmet predicted a disastrous obesity pandemic back in 2006.

And Oxfam warned yesterday that the number of people hit by climate-related disasters will soar by more than half in the next six years to 375million.

The impact of more storms, floods and droughts could overwhelm aid organisations.

Sun doctor Carol Cooper said last night: “I’m not sure which came first, people getting fat and driving or the other way around. It is true fat people eat more food than average.

“A few obese people have a hormone problem, although most simply don’t use enough calories and eat too many. But making them feel guilty antagonises them and may not help.”

[email protected]

Share this article What is this?

Digg it! del.icio.us MySpace Facebook Fark Reddit NowPublic

© 2008 News Group Newspapers Ltd. "The Sun", "Sun", "Sun Online" are registered trademarks or trade names of News Group Newspapers Limited. This service is provided on News Group Newspapers' Standard Terms and Conditions in accordance with our Privacy Policy . To inquire about a licence to reproduce material, visit our Syndication site . View our online Press Pack. For other inquiries, Contact Us . To see all content on The Sun, please use the Site Map.



Powered by

Greenhouse gases pose health hazard, EPA says Story Highlights EPA official says "concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels" Environmentalists say announcement is important step in reduction efforts Critic: Finding may help destroy jobs, raise energy prices, cut U.S. competitiveness The House is will begin discussing the American Clean Energy and Security Act

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Six heat-trapping gases that contribute to air pollution pose potential health hazards, the Environmental Protection Agency said Friday in a landmark announcement that could lead to regulation of the gases.

The gases -- carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride -- have been the subject of intensive analysis by scientists around the world, the EPA said. The U.S. Supreme Court ordered the EPA's scientific review in 2007.

"This finding confirms that greenhouse gas pollution is a serious problem now and for future generations," EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson said in a release, later adding, "The science clearly shows that concentrations of these gases are at unprecedented levels as a result of human emissions, and these high levels are very likely the cause of the increase in average temperatures and other changes in our climate."

The EPA's finding now goes into a public comment period.

The report, titled "Assessment of the Impacts of Global Change on Regional U.S. Air Quality: A Synthesis of Climate Change Impacts on Ground-Level Ozone," is the culmination of a study started in 2000, the EPA said.

The White House moved quickly to try to squelch any concerns that the EPA would immediately issue any regulations concerning the gases.

"The president has made clear his strong preference that Congress act to pass comprehensive legislation rather than address the climate challenge through administrative action," White House spokesman Ben LaBolt said. "That's why the president has repeatedly called for a bill to provide for market-based solutions to reduce carbon pollution and transition to a clean-energy economy that creates millions of green jobs."

The EPA announcement comes amid efforts by Congress to enact a limit on global warming pollution.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee is scheduled to begin hearings next week on a comprehensive energy and climate bill, called the American Clean Energy and Security Act.

Committee Chairman Henry Waxman is said to want the bill out of committee by Memorial Day, which falls on May 25, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wants to bring the bill to the House floor for a vote this year.

Environmentalists hailed the EPA's announcement, with the nonprofit Environmental Defense Fund calling it a "historic step ... [that] formally determined that global warming pollution 'endangers' the nation's human health and well-being."

"The U.S. is taking its first steps as a nation to confront climate change," said Vickie Patton, deputy general counsel at the environmental advocacy group. "Global warming threatens our health, our economy, and our children's prosperity. EPA's action is a wake-up call for national policy solutions that secure our economic and environmental future."

Page 1 of 2Greenhouse gases pose health hazard, EPA says - CNN.com

4/20/2009http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Greenhouse+gases+pose+health+...

© 2008 Cable News Network

But critics say the finding will just produce a "glorious mess."

"Today's action by the EPA is the beginning of a regulatory barrage that will destroy jobs, raise energy prices for consumers and undermine America's global competitiveness," said Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, the ranking member on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. "It now appears EPA's regulatory reach will find its way into schools, hospitals, assisted living facilities and just about any activity that meets minimum thresholds in the Clean Air Act."

The EPA notes in an accompanying report released Friday that global warming could make ozone pollution worse in some parts of the United States. Future ozone management decisions may have to take into account the possible effects of global warming, the report says.

"Climate change, along with other aspects of global change, including changes in population, land use and the technologies employed for energy production and transportation, may alter the capacity for U.S. states to successfully attain the national air quality standards in the future," the report concludes.

Ground-level ozone is formed when sunlight causes a chemical reaction in the air between nitrogen oxides and volatile organic compounds emitted by motor vehicles and industrial plants. Ozone levels are typically higher on sunny days in areas that have many vehicles or smoke-stack industries.

Global warming also could increase the number of days with weather conditions conducive to forming ozone, potentially causing air quality alerts earlier in the spring and later in the fall, the report says.

In addition to health problems, the report says global warming could lead to increased drought, more heavy downpours and flooding, and more frequent and intense heat waves and wildfires. Global warming could also cause a greater rise in sea level, more intense storms and harm to water resources, agriculture, wildlife and ecosystems, the report said.

CNN political correspondent Jessica Yellin contributed to this report.

All AboutU.S. Environmental Protection Agency • Environmental Protection • The White House Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/04/17/greenhouse.gas.hazard.epa/index.html

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.

Page 2 of 2Greenhouse gases pose health hazard, EPA says - CNN.com

4/20/2009http://cnn.site.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Greenhouse+gases+pose+health+...

January 11, 2009

Revealed: the environmental impact of Google searches Physicist Alex Wissner-Gross says that performing two Google searches uses up as much energy as boiling the kettle for a cup of tea

Jonathan Leake and Richard Woods

Click here for how to reduce the footprint of the Web

Performing two Google searches from a desktop computer can generate about the same amount of carbon dioxide as boiling a kettle for a cup of tea, according to new research.

While millions of people tap into Google without considering the environment, a typical search generates about 7g of CO2 Boiling a kettle generates about 15g. “Google operates huge data centres around the world that consume a great deal of power,” said Alex Wissner-Gross, a Harvard University physicist whose research on the environmental impact of computing is due out soon. “A Google search has a definite environmental impact.”

Google is secretive about its energy consumption and carbon footprint. It also refuses to divulge the locations of its data centres. However, with more than 200m internet searches estimated globally daily, the electricity consumption and greenhouse gas emissions caused by computers and the internet is provoking concern. A recent report by Gartner, the industry analysts, said the global IT industry generated as much greenhouse gas as the world’s airlines - about 2% of global CO2 emissions. “Data centres are among the most energy-intensive facilities imaginable,” said Evan Mills, a scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory in California. Banks of servers storing billions of web pages require power.

Though Google says it is in the forefront of green computing, its search engine generates high levels of CO2 because of the way it operates. When you type in a Google search for, say, “energy saving tips”, your request doesn’t go to just one server. It goes to several competing against each other.

It may even be sent to servers thousands of miles apart. Google’s infrastructure sends you data from whichever produces the answer fastest. The system minimises delays but raises energy consumption. Google has servers in the US, Europe, Japan and China.

Wissner-Gross has submitted his research for publication by the US Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers and has also set up a website www.CO2stats.com. “Google are very efficient but their primary concern is to make searches fast and that means they have a lot of extra capacity that burns energy,” he said.

Google said: “We are among the most efficient of all internet search providers.”

Wissner-Gross has also calculated the CO2 emissions caused by individual use of the internet. His research indicates that viewing a simple web page generates about 0.02g of CO2 per second. This rises tenfold to about 0.2g of CO2 a second when viewing a website with complex images, animations or videos.

A separate estimate from John Buckley, managing director of carbonfootprint.com, a British environmental consultancy, puts the CO2 emissions of a Google search at between 1g and 10g, depending on whether you have to start your PC or not. Simply running a PC generates between 40g and 80g per hour, he says. of CO2 Chris Goodall, author of Ten Technologies to Save the Planet, estimates the carbon emissions of a Google search at 7g to 10g (assuming 15 minutes’ computer use).

From The Sunday Times

Page 1 of 2Printer Friendly

1/10/2009http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece?print=yes...

Nicholas Carr, author of The Big Switch, Rewiring the World, has calculated that maintaining a character (known as an avatar) in the Second Life virtual reality game, requires 1,752 kilowatt hours of electricity per year. That is almost as much used by the average Brazilian.

“It’s not an unreasonable comparison,” said Liam Newcombe, an expert on data centres at the British Computer Society. “It tells us how much energy westerners use on entertainment versus the energy poverty in some countries.”

Though energy consumption by computers is growing - and the rate of growth is increasing - Newcombe argues that what matters most is the type of usage.

If your internet use is in place of more energy-intensive activities, such as driving your car to the shops, that’s good. But if it is adding activities and energy consumption that would not otherwise happen, that may pose problems.

Newcombe cites Second Life and Twitter, a rapidly growing website whose 3m users post millions of messages a month. Last week Stephen Fry, the TV presenter, was posting “tweets” from New Zealand, imparting such vital information as “Arrived in Queenstown. Hurrah. Full of bungy jumping and ‘activewear’ shops”, and “Honestly. NZ weather makes UK look stable and clement”.

Jonathan Ross was Twittering even more, with posts such as “Am going to muck out the pigs. It will be cold, but I’m not the type to go on about it” and “Am now back indoors and have put on fleecy tracksuit and two pairs of socks”. Ross also made various “tweets” trying to ascertain whether Jeremy Clarkson was a Twitter user or not. Yesterday the Top Gear presenter cleared up the matter, saying: “I am not a twit. And Jonathan Ross is.”

Such internet phenomena are not simply fun and hot air, Newcombe warns: the boom in such services has a carbon cost.

Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times, or place your advertisement. Times Online Services: Dating | Jobs | Property Search | Used Cars | Holidays | Births, Marriages, Deaths | Subscriptions News International associated websites: Globrix Property Search | Property Finder | Milkround Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd. This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.

Page 2 of 2Printer Friendly

1/10/2009http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/tech_and_web/article5489134.ece?print=yes...

FT Home > Companies > Columnists > World View

Politically inconvenient truth about electric cars By Paul Betts and Song Jung-a Published: December 11 2008 19:24 | Last updated: December 11 2008 19:24

President Nicolas Sarkozy would dearly like to end France’s rotating presidency of the European Union on a high note by brokering this week a deal on a grand European response to global warming and energy efficiency. The ultimate plan is to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 20 per cent with member states at the same time drawing their future energy needs from clean renewable sources by the same percentage amount. Under the circumstances, it is no surprise that the automobile industry has found itself at the heart of the climate change debate.

Indeed, Mr Sarkozy’s own government commissioned months ago one of France’s leading energy experts – Jean Syrota, the former French energy industry regulator – to draw up a report to analyse all the options for building cleaner and more efficient mass-market cars by 2030. The 129-page report was completed in September to coincide with the Paris motor show. But the government has continued to sit on it and seems reluctant to ever publish it.

Yet all those who have managed to glimpse at the document agree that it makes interesting reading. It concludes that there is not much future in the much vaunted developed of all electric-powered cars. Instead, it suggests that the traditional combustion engine powered by petrol, diesel, ethanol or new biofuels still offers the most realistic prospect of developing cleaner vehicles. Carbon emissions and fuel consumption could be cut by 30-40 per cent simply by improving the performance and efficiency of traditional engines and limiting the top speed to about 170km/hr. Even that is well above the average top speed restriction in Europe, with the notable exception of Germany. New so-called “stop and start” mechanisms can produce further 10 per cent reductions that can rise to 25-30 per cent in cities. Enhancements in car electronics as well as the development of more energy efficient tyres, such as Michelin’s new “energy saver” technology, are also expected to help reduce consumption and pollution.

Overall, the Syrota report says that adapting and improving conventional engines could enhance their efficiency by an average of 50 per cent. It also argues that new-generation hybrid cars combining conventional engines with electric propulsion could provide an interesting future alternative.

By combining electric batteries with conventional fuel-driven engines, cars could run on clean electricity for short urban trips while switching over to fuel on motorways. This would resolve one of the biggest problems facing all electric cars – the need to install costly battery recharging infrastructures.The report warns that the overall cost of an all-electric car remains unviable at around double that of a conventional vehicle. Battery technology is still unsatisfactory, severely limiting performance both in terms of range and speed. The electricity supply for these batteries would continue to come from mostly fossil sources.

The misgivings over the future of the electric car may explain why the French government appears to have spiked the report. It probably considers it politically incorrect, especially when some of Mr Sarkozy’s big business chums such as Vincent Bolloré and Serge Dassault are developing either electric cars and lobbying hard. Renault too has struck a deal with Israel to jointly develop a mass-market electric vehicle. To paraphrase Al Gore’s documentary on climate change, Paris may feel it is not the best of times to publicise the inconvenient truth about electric cars.

A clear line into S Korea

South Korea has finally taken a step forward to liberalising its much regulated telecoms market by lifting a technical requirement that has made it hard for foreign handset makers to break into the market. The Korea Communications Commission has said that adopting WIPI, a homegrown technology on which all local handset applications are based, will no longer be mandatory from next April.

The move will allow foreign players, who previously found it too expensive to produce handsets tailored for South Korea in line with the WIPI rule, a way into a market. Samsung and LG together control nearly 80 per cent of the market.

Nokia, global leader in the handset market, has been virtually absent in South Korea, and Apple, the US technology group, has kept its iPhone out of the market because of the WIPI rule. Motorola is also a minor competitor in South Korea with less than 5 per cent of the market.

South Korean telecom groups on Thursday welcomed the move, saying that the removal of one of the main barriers to foreign entry to the market would help widen choice for their customers.

Nokia is in talks with SK Telecom to provide the country’s biggest operator with handsets, while Apple is discussing with KTF, another local operator, to supply its next-generation iPhone.

RELATED SERVICES

FT Bespoke Forums UK annual reports Market research Growth companies Corporate subscriptions Luxury Travel brochures Analyst Research MBA-Direct.com FT Newspaper subscriptions FT Fine Wine Plan FT Diaries FT Bookshop FT Conferences FT Syndication services The Non-Executive Director

WORLD VIEWCOLUMNISTS

Page 1 of 2FT.com / Columnists / World View - Politically inconvenient truth about electric cars

12/13/2008http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/37f1f624-c7b0-11dd-b611-000077b07658.html?nclick_check...

Close

Freedom, not climate, is at risk By Vaclav Klaus Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

Ask President Klaus

Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer

your questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

COMMENT & ANALYSIS COMMENT

Page 1 of 2FT.com print article

6/14/2007http://www.ft.com/cms/s/9deb730a-19ca-11dc-99c5-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=73adc504-...

"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following: ■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures ■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided ■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants ■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority ■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour ■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction ■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The writer is President of the Czech Republic

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007



Close

Freedom, not climate, is at risk By Vaclav Klaus Published: June 13 2007 17:44 | Last updated: June 13 2007 17:44

We are living in strange times. One exceptionally warm winter is enough – irrespective of the fact that in the course of the 20th century the global temperature increased only by 0.6 per cent – for the environmentalists and their followers to suggest radical measures to do something about the weather, and to do it right now.

In the past year, Al Gore’s so-called “documentary” film was shown in cinemas worldwide, Britain’s – more or less Tony Blair’s – Stern report was published, the fourth report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was put together and the Group of Eight summit announced ambitions to do something about the weather. Rational and freedom-loving people have to respond. The dictates of political correctness are strict and only one permitted truth, not for the first time in human history, is imposed on us. Everything else is denounced.

The author Michael Crichton stated it clearly: “the greatest challenge facing mankind is the challenge of distinguishing reality from fantasy, truth from propaganda”. I feel the same way, because global warming hysteria has become a prime example of the truth versus propaganda problem. It requires courage to oppose the “established” truth, although a lot of people – including top-class scientists – see the issue of climate change entirely differently. They protest against the arrogance of those who advocate the global warming hypothesis and relate it to human activities.

As someone who lived under communism for most of his life, I feel obliged to say that I see the biggest threat to freedom, democracy, the market economy and prosperity now in ambitious environmentalism, not in communism. This ideology wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central (now global) planning.

The environmentalists ask for immediate political action because they do not believe in the long-term positive impact of economic growth and ignore both the technological progress that future generations will undoubtedly enjoy, and the proven fact that the higher the wealth of society, the higher is the quality of the environment. They are Malthusian pessimists.

The scientists should help us and take into consideration the political effects of their scientific opinions. They have an obligation to declare their political and value assumptions and how much they have affected their selection and interpretation of scientific evidence.

Does it make any sense to speak about warming of the Earth when we see it in the context of the evolution of our planet over hundreds of millions of years? Every child is taught at school about temperature variations, about the ice ages, about the much warmer climate in the Middle Ages. All of us have noticed that even during our life-time temperature changes occur (in both directions).

Due to advances in technology, increases in disposable wealth, the rationality of institutions and the ability of countries to organise themselves, the adaptability of human society has been radically increased. It will continue to increase and will solve any potential consequences of mild climate changes.

I agree with Professor Richard Lindzen from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, who said: “future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century’s developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age”.

Ask President Klaus

Is climate change just propaganda? Vaclav Klaus will answer

your questions in an online Q&A. Post a query now

COMMENT & ANALYSIS COMMENT



"FT" and "Financial Times" are trademarks of the Financial Times. Privacy policy | Terms © Copyright The Financial Times Ltd 2007.

The issue of global warming is more about social than natural sciences and more about man and his freedom than about tenths of a degree Celsius changes in average global temperature.

As a witness to today’s worldwide debate on climate change, I suggest the following: ■Small climate changes do not demand far-reaching restrictive measures ■Any suppression of freedom and democracy should be avoided ■Instead of organising people from above, let us allow everyone to live as he wants ■Let us resist the politicisation of science and oppose the term “scientific consensus”, which is always achieved only by a loud minority, never by a silent majority ■Instead of speaking about “the environment”, let us be attentive to it in our personal behaviour ■Let us be humble but confident in the spontaneous evolution of human society. Let us trust its rationality and not try to slow it down or divert it in any direction ■Let us not scare ourselves with catastrophic forecasts, or use them to defend and promote irrational interventions in human lives.

The writer is President of the Czech Republic

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2007



The Internet home of:

SYMBOLLOOK-UP

HOME NEWS MARKETS MY PORTFOLIO TECHNOLOGY JOBS PERSONAL FINANCE LUXURY

Bush wants EPA action on greenhouse gases In response to Supreme Court ruling, president directs agencies to come up with plan to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

By Steve Hargreaves, CNNMoney.com staff writer May 14 2007: 6:26 PM EDT

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- President Bush said Tuesday he is directing the Environmental Protection Agency, and the departments of energy, transportation and agriculture, to develop steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2008, but he failed to call for a specific increase in fuel efficiency standards.

He said the directive came in response to a Supreme Court ruling last month saying the EPA has the authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, including carbon dioxide, from the transportation sector.

The EPA has previously refused to regulate carbon dioxide emissions, arguing that it did not have the authority to do so.

Twelve states and several environmental organizations had sued the EPA for failing to act on the issue.

Bush said the EPA's plan should center around his State of the Union proposal to replace 20 percent of the nation's gasoline use with alternative fuels over the next 10 years.

Bush said during his Monday press conference from the White House Rose Garden that fuel efficiency will also be part of this plan, although he stopped short of calling for specific increases in fuel efficiency standards.

"When it comes to the environment and energy, the American people expect common sense, and they expect action," he said.

In a press conference after Bush's announcement, heads of the four agencies said a draft of proposals should be available by the fall, with some becoming law by the end of 2008.

"We know that emissions contribute to climate change and this is a serious issue," said EPA Administrator Steve Johnson. "The Bush administration is taking the first steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars."

full coverageSpecial Report

Gas prices hit another record high

Oil rises toward $63 on gas supply concerns

4 gas-saving myths

In Georgia, fuel from the forest

Video More video

TR

A

S

A

J

Page 1 of 3Bush says he'll tackle greenhouse gases - May. 14, 2007

5/17/2007http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/news/economy/bush_gas/index.htm?section=money_em...

But specifics on what might be called for were in short supply, and the cabinet heads ducked repeated questions from reporters as to whether auto fuel efficiency standards would be raised.

Last week a Senate committee approved a bill raising Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to 35 miles per gallon by 2020 from the current 27.5 miles per gallon, with a 4 percent increase every year after 2020.

The auto industry lobbied hard against the bill, claiming it would be too expensive. Environmentalists said it isn't strict enough because it allows the mandates to be lifted they do prove too pricey.

But with the Democrats in control of Congress while energy issues and global warming are in the public spotlight, most experts see some type of increase in fuel efficiency standards in the future.

CAFE standards have remained basically unchanged for over two decades, and some say raising them is a key component in cutting gasoline demand, possibly bringing down record high gas prices.

6 ways to lower gas prices Passing the buck on fuel economy

SAVE | EMAIL | PRINT | | REPRINT

With gas prices back on the rise, who's getting all that cash? CNN's Joshua Levs reports. (May 12)Play video

More EconomyHoliday drivers shrug at record gas prices

Jobless claims post surprise fall

Housing: Still searching for a bottom

The Hot ListHow to deal with your crazy boss

5 portfolio time bombs

20 great employers for new grads

M$nw

DTw

R$qw

RCw

Page 2 of 3Bush says he'll tackle greenhouse gases - May. 14, 2007

5/17/2007http://money.cnn.com/2007/05/14/news/economy/bush_gas/index.htm?section=money_em...

Home World U.S. Weather Business Sports Analysis Politics Law Tech Science Health Entertainment O

Bush orders rules meant to curb greenhouse gases POSTED: 4:05 p.m. EDT, May 14, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush responded Monday to a Supreme Coordering federal agencies to find a way to begin regulating vehicle emissionshe leaves office.

In a Rose Garden announcement, Bush said he wanted to move ahead, penseparate legislative approaches. The new rules will "cut gasoline consumptiogreenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles," he said.

But the Bush executive order telling several agencies to finish the work by 2said they must take into account the views of the general public, the impact trules would have on safety, scientific knowledge, available technology and thBush's term ends January 20, 2009. (Watch Bush argue that reducing the U.S.dependence on foreign oil increase security )

"This is a complex legal and technical matter and it's going to take time to fuhe said.

The agencies involved include the departments of Transportation, AgriculturEnergy and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Last month, the Supreme Court rebuked the Bush administration for its inactglobal warming. In a 5-4 decision, it declared that carbon dioxide and other ggases qualify as air pollutants under the Clean Air Act and thus can be regulEPA.

The court also said that the "laundry list" of reasons the administration has gdeclining to do so are insufficient, and that the EPA must regulate carbon dio

President Bush Monday ordered the EPA and other agencies to implement regulations that would reduce greenhouse gases emissions from vehicles.

Member Center: Sign In | Register

Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular |

• President Bush orders new regulations to reduce vehicle emissions • Rules meant to lower greenhouse gas emissions due by 2008, Bush says• Supreme Court rules that greenhouse gases should be considered polluta• Democrats in Congress working on own plan to curb carbon dioxide emis

Adjust font

Women's Apparel Baby Registry Discount Travel Distance Learning

Refinance with Bad Credit Compare up to 4 free quotes. Serious refinance requests only. www.homeloanhelpline.com

Mortgage Rates Fall Again $430,000 Loan $1299/mo. Think you pay too much? Calculate new payment. www.LowerMyBills.com

Refinance and Save $1,000S $150,000 Mortgage for $483/month. Compare up to 4 free quotes. www.pickamortgage.com

ADVERTISER LINKS

Page 1 of 3Bush orders rules meant to curb greenhouse gases - CNN.com

5/17/2007http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/14/bush.greenhouse.gases.ap/index.html

leading gas linked to global warming, if it finds that it endangers public health

Democrats who control Congress have been pressuring the administration toit will comply with the high court's ruling and decide whether to regulate carbIt was unlikely they would be satisfied with the lengthy process laid out by th

Bush has said previously that he recognizes the serious environmental probcreated by such emissions and other so-called greenhouse gases. But he haagainst anything other than a voluntary approach, saying regulations could ueconomic activity.

White House favors market-based approach

There were few details immediately available about how the rules might lookHouse press secretary Tony Snow said Monday that the president's positionchanged.

"The market-based approach seems to work," Snow said. "The question is: dset up a mandatory system or do you try to set up an innovation-based systepresident prefers innovation."

The environmental group Environmental Defense said the effort "will fall far sfixing the climate problem" without mandatory caps on carbon emissions.

"Whether EPA will lead the fight against global warming or lead us to a hotteremains to be seen," said Environmental Defense President Fred Krupp. "It'sthis administration to join with the mainstream of American businesses and scap on carbon."

In his State of the Union address in January, Bush set a goal of reducing gasconsumption by 20 percent over 10 years. Under his plan, this would be accby increasing the use of alternative fuels to 35 billion gallons by 2017 and boefficiency standards in new vehicles.

The president said Monday that the agencies should use this so-called "20-ias a starting point for the new regulations, while saying he still wants Congreapprove the plan legislatively.

"When it comes to energy and the environment, the American people expectsense and they expect action," Bush said. "We're taking action by taking thetoward rules that will make our economy stronger, our environment cleaner anation more secure for generations to come."

Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material maypublished, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Next story in Politics Politics

Tools: Save | Print | E-mail | Most Popular | Feedback

Search Topic E-m

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

White House

Bush orders new emissions rule (5:08)

UN panel recommends climate change solutions (2:49)

Knowing your carbon footprint (2:25)

Browse/SearchVIDEO

Report: East Coast to get hotter Obama faults U.S. automakers Deal reached on climate report Climate experts: Emission reductions possible

RELATED

• Map: World fuel prices • Gallery: Alternative sources • Interactive: U.S. production • E-mail us: Your ideas • Special Report

SPECIAL REPORT

Page 2 of 3Bush orders rules meant to curb greenhouse gases - CNN.com

5/17/2007http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/05/14/bush.greenhouse.gases.ap/index.html

Posted by Marc Morano – [email protected] - 9:14 PM ET - May 15, 2007

Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now

Skeptics

Growing Number of Scientists Convert to Skeptics After Reviewing New Research

Following the U.S. Senate's vote today on a global warming measure (see today's AP article: Senate Defeats Climate Change Measure,) it is an opportune time to examine the recent and quite remarkable momentum shift taking place in climate science. Many former believers in catastrophic man-made global warming have recently reversed themselves and are now climate skeptics. The names included below are just a sampling of the prominent scientists who have spoken out recently to oppose former Vice President Al Gore, the United Nations and the media driven “consensus” on man-made global warming.

The list below is just the tip of the iceberg. A more detailed and comprehensive sampling of scientists who have only recently spoken out against climate hysteria will be forthcoming in a soon to be released U.S. Senate report. Please stay tuned to this website, as this new government report is set to redefine the current climate debate.

In the meantime, please review the list of scientists below and ask yourself why the media is missing one of the biggest stories in climate of 2007. Feel free to distribute the partial list of scientists who recently converted to skeptics to your local schools and universities. The voices of rank and file scientists opposing climate doomsayers can serve as a counter to the alarmism that children are being exposed to on a daily basis. (See Washington Post April 16, 2007 article about kids fearing of a “climactic Armageddon” ) The media's climate fear factor seemingly grows louder even as the latest science grows less and less alarming by the day. (See Der Spiegel May 7, 2007 article: Not the End of the World as We Know It ) It is also worth noting that the proponents of climate fears are increasingly attempting to suppress dissent by skeptic. (See UPI May 10, 2007 article: U.N. official says it's 'completely immoral' to doubt global warming fears )

Once Believers, Now Skeptics – ( Link to web version http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12&Region_id=&Issue_id= )

Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has authored more than 100 scientific articles and written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, converted from climate alarmist to skeptic in 2006. Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of

being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena. This fact is confirmed by mathematical meteorological theories. So, let us be cautious,” Allegre explained in a September 21, 2006 article in the French newspaper L'EXPRESS. The National Post in Canada also profiled Allegre on March 2, 2007, noting “Allegre has the highest environmental credentials. The author of early environmental books, he fought successful battles to protect the ozone layer from CFCs and public health from lead pollution.” Allegre now calls fears of a climate disaster "simplistic and obscuring the true dangers” mocks "the greenhouse-gas fanatics whose proclamations consist in denouncing man's role on the climate without doing anything about it except organizing conferences and preparing protocols that become dead letters." Allegre, a member of both the French and U.S. Academy of Sciences, had previously expressed concern about manmade global warming. "By burning fossil fuels, man enhanced the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Allegre wrote 20 years ago. In addition, Allegre was one of 1500 scientists who signed a November 18, 1992 letter titled “World Scientists' Warning to Humanity” in which the scientists warned that global warming’s “potential risks are very great.”

Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta recently reversed his view of man-made climate change and instead became a global warming skeptic. Wiskel was once such a big believer in man-made global warming that he set out to build a “Kyoto house” in honor of the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol which was signed in 1997. Wiskel wanted to prove that the Kyoto Protocol’s goals were achievable by people making small changes in their lives. But after further examining the science behind Kyoto, Wiskel reversed his scientific views completely and became such a strong skeptic that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.” A November 15, 2006 Edmonton Sun article explains Wiskel’s conversion while building his “Kyoto house”: “Instead, he said he realized global warming theory was full of holes and ‘red flags,’ and became convinced that humans are not responsible for rising temperatures.” Wiskel now says “the truth has to start somewhere.” Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years." Wiskel also said that global warming has gone "from a science to a religion” and noted that research money is being funneled into promoting climate alarmism instead of funding areas he considers more worthy. "If you funnel money into things that can't be changed, the money is not going into the places that it is needed,” he said.

Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, recanted his belief that manmade emissions were driving climate change. ""Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,” Shaviv said in February 2, 2007 Canadian National Post article. According to Shaviv, the C02 temperature link is

only “incriminating circumstantial evidence.” "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming" and "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist,” Shaviv noted pointing to the impact cosmic- rays have on the atmosphere. According to the National Post, Shaviv believes that even a doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere by 2100 "will not dramatically increase the global temperature." “Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant,” Shaviv explained. Shaviv also wrote on August 18, 2006 that a colleague of his believed that “CO2 should have a large effect on climate” so “he set out to reconstruct the phanerozoic temperature. He wanted to find the CO2 signature in the data, but since there was none, he slowly had to change his views.” Shaviv believes there will be more scientists converting to man-made global warming skepticism as they discover the dearth of evidence. “I think this is common to many of the scientists who think like us (that is, that CO2 is a secondary climate driver). Each one of us was working in his or her own niche. While working there, each one of us realized that things just don't add up to support the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) picture. So many had to change their views,” he wrote.

Mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government, recently detailed his conversion to a skeptic. “I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical,” Evans wrote in an April 30, 2007 blog. “But after 2000 the evidence for carbon emissions gradually got weaker -- better temperature data for the last century, more detailed ice core data, then laboratory evidence that cosmic rays precipitate low clouds,” Evans wrote. “As Lord Keynes famously said, ‘When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?’” he added. Evans noted how he benefited from man-made climate fears as a scientist. “And the political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990's, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too. I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn't believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; and there were international conferences full of such people. And we had political support, the ear of government, big budgets, and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet! But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence outlined above fell away or reversed,” Evans wrote. “The pre-2000 ice core data was the central evidence for believing that atmospheric carbon caused temperature increases. The new ice core data shows that past warmings were *not* initially caused by rises in atmospheric carbon, and says nothing about the strength of any amplification. This piece of evidence casts reasonable doubt that atmospheric carbon had any role in past warmings, while still allowing the possibility that it had a supporting role,” he added. “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more

entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics,” he concluded. (Evans bio link )

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I stated with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself,” Murty explained on August 17, 2006. “I switched to the other side in the early 1990's when Fisheries and Oceans Canada asked me to prepare a position paper and I started to look into the problem seriously,” Murty explained. Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

Botanist Dr. David Bellamy, a famed UK environmental campaigner, former lecturer at Durham University and host of a popular UK TV series on wildlife, recently converted into a skeptic after reviewing the science and now calls global warming fears "poppycock." According to a May 15, 2005 article in the UK Sunday Times, Bellamy said “global warming is largely a natural phenomenon. The world is wasting stupendous amounts of money on trying to fix something that can’t be fixed.” “The climate-change people have no proof for their claims. They have computer models which do not prove anything,” Bellamy added. Bellamy’s conversion on global warming did not come without a sacrifice as several environmental groups have ended their association with him because of his views on climate change. The severing of relations came despite Bellamy’s long activism for green campaigns. The UK Times reported Bellamy “won respect from hardline environmentalists with his campaigns to save Britain’s peat bogs and other endangered habitats. In Tasmania he was arrested when he tried to prevent loggers cutting down a rainforest.” Climate scientist Dr. Chris de Freitas of The University of Auckland, N.Z., also converted from a believer in man-made global warming to a skeptic. “At first I accepted that increases in human caused additions of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere would trigger changes in water vapor etc. and lead to dangerous ‘global warming,’ But with time and with the results of research, I formed the view that, although it makes for a good story, it is unlikely that the man-made changes are drivers of significant climate variation.” de Freitas wrote on August 17, 2006. “I accept there may be small changes. But I see the risk of anything serious to be minute,” he added. “One could reasonably argue that lack of evidence is not a good reason for complacency. But I believe the billions of dollars committed to GW research and lobbying for GW and for Kyoto treaties etc could be better spent on uncontroversial and very real environmental problems (such as air pollution, poor sanitation, provision of clean water and improved health services) that we know affect tens of millions of people,” de Freitas concluded. de Freitas was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “Significant

[scientific] advances have been made since the [Kyoto] protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases.”

Meteorologist Dr. Reid Bryson, the founding chairman of the Department of Meteorology at University of Wisconsin (now the Department of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences, was pivotal in promoting the coming ice age scare of the 1970’s ( See Time Magazine’s 1974 article “Another Ice Age” citing Bryson: & see Newsweek’s 1975 article “The Cooling World” citing Bryson) has now converted into a leading global warming skeptic. In February 8, 2007 Bryson dismissed what he terms "sky is falling" man-made global warming fears. Bryson, was on the United Nations Global 500 Roll of Honor and was identified by the British Institute of Geographers as the most frequently cited climatologist in the world. “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?” Bryson told the May 2007 issue of Energy Cooperative News. “All this argument is the temperature going up or not, it’s absurd. 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,” Bryson said. “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide,” he added. “We cannot say what part of that warming was due to mankind's addition of ‘greenhouse gases’ until we consider the other possible factors, such as aerosols. The aerosol content of the atmosphere was measured during the past century, but to my knowledge this data was never used. We can say that the question of anthropogenic modification of the climate is an important question -- too important to ignore. However, it has now become a media free-for-all and a political issue more than a scientific problem,” Bryson explained in 2005.

Global warming author and economist Hans H.J. Labohm started out as a man-made global warming believer but he later switched his view after conducting climate research. Labohm wrote on August 19, 2006, “I started as a anthropogenic global warming believer, then I read the [UN’s IPCC] Summary for Policymakers and the research of prominent skeptics.” “After that, I changed my mind,” Labohn explained. Labohn co-authored the 2004 book “Man-Made Global Warming: Unraveling a Dogma,” with chemical engineer Dick Thoenes who was the former chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society. Labohm was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part, “’Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’”

Paleoclimatologist Tim Patterson, of Carlton University in Ottawa converted from believer in C02 driving the climate change to a skeptic. “I taught my students that CO2 was the prime driver of climate change,” Patterson wrote on April 30, 2007. Patterson said his “conversion” happened following his research on “the nature of paleo-commercial fish populations in the NE Pacific.” “[My conversion from believer to

climate skeptic] came about approximately 5-6 years ago when results began to come in from a major NSERC (Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada) Strategic Project Grant where I was PI (principle investigator),” Patterson explained. “Over the course of about a year, I switched allegiances,” he wrote. “As the proxy results began to come in, we were astounded to find that paleoclimatic and paleoproductivity records were full of cycles that corresponded to various sun-spot cycles. About that time, [geochemist] Jan Veizer and others began to publish reasonable hypotheses as to how solar signals could be amplified and control climate,” Patterson noted. Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.” Patterson now asserts that more and more scientists are converting to climate skeptics. "When I go to a scientific meeting, there's lots of opinion out there, there's lots of discussion (about climate change). I was at the Geological Society of America meeting in Philadelphia in the fall and I would say that people with my opinion were probably in the majority,” Patterson told the Winnipeg Sun on February 13, 2007. Patterson, who believes the sun is responsible for the recent warm up of the Earth, ridiculed the environmentalists and the media for not reporting the truth. "But if you listen to [Canadian environmental activist David] Suzuki and the media, it's like a tiger chasing its tail. They try to outdo each other and all the while proclaiming that the debate is over but it isn't -- come out to a scientific meeting sometime,” Patterson said. In a separate interview on April 26, 2007 with a Canadian newspaper, Patterson explained that the scientific proof favors skeptics. “I think the proof in the pudding, based on what (media and governments) are saying, (is) we're about three quarters of the way (to disaster) with the doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere," he said. “The world should be heating up like crazy by now, and it's not. The temperatures match very closely with the solar cycles."

Physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Radiological Protection in Warsaw, took a scientific journey from a believer of man-made climate change in the form of global cooling in the 1970’s all the way to converting to a skeptic of current predictions of catastrophic man-made global warming. “At the beginning of the 1970s I believed in man-made climate cooling, and therefore I started a study on the effects of industrial pollution on the global atmosphere, using glaciers as a history book on this pollution,” Dr. Jaworowski, wrote on August 17, 2006. “With the advent of man-made warming political correctness in the beginning of 1980s, I already had a lot of experience with polar and high altitude ice, and I have serious problems in accepting the reliability of ice core CO2 studies,” Jaworowski added. Jaworowski, who has published many papers on climate with a focus on CO2 measurements in ice cores, also dismissed the UN IPCC summary and questioned what the actual level of C02 was in the atmosphere in a March 16, 2007 report in EIR science entitled “CO2: The Greatest Scientific Scandal of Our Time.” “We thus find ourselves in the situation that the entire theory of man-made global warming—with its repercussions in science, and its important consequences for politics and the global economy—is based on ice core studies that provided a false picture of the atmospheric CO2 levels,” Jaworowski wrote. “For the past three decades, these well-known direct CO2 measurements, recently compiled and analyzed by Ernst-Georg Beck (Beck 2006a, Beck 2006b, Beck 2007), were completely ignored by climatologists—and

not because they were wrong. Indeed, these measurements were made by several Nobel Prize winners, using the techniques that are standard textbook procedures in chemistry, biochemistry, botany, hygiene, medicine, nutrition, and ecology. The only reason for rejection was that these measurements did not fit the hypothesis of anthropogenic climatic warming. I regard this as perhaps the greatest scientific scandal of our time,” Jaworowski wrote. “The hypothesis, in vogue in the 1970s, stating that emissions of industrial dust will soon induce the new Ice Age, seem now to be a conceited anthropocentric exaggeration, bringing into discredit the science of that time. The same fate awaits the present,” he added. Jaworowski believes that cosmic rays and solar activity are major drivers of the Earth’s climate. Jaworowski was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter urging withdrawal of Kyoto to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper which stated in part: "It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases."

Paleoclimatologist Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor of the Department of Earth Sciences at University of Ottawa, reversed his views on man-made climate change after further examining the evidence. “I used to agree with these dramatic warnings of climate disaster. I taught my students that most of the increase in temperature of the past century was due to human contribution of C02. The association seemed so clear and simple. Increases of greenhouse gases were driving us towards a climate catastrophe,” Clark said in a 2005 documentary "Climate Catastrophe Cancelled: What You're Not Being Told About the Science of Climate Change.” “However, a few years ago, I decided to look more closely at the science and it astonished me. In fact there is no evidence of humans being the cause. There is, however, overwhelming evidence of natural causes such as changes in the output of the sun. This has completely reversed my views on the Kyoto protocol,” Clark explained. “Actually, many other leading climate researchers also have serious concerns about the science underlying the [Kyoto] Protocol,” he added.

Environmental geochemist Dr. Jan Veizer, professor emeritus of University of Ottawa, converted from believer to skeptic after conducting scientific studies of climate history. “I simply accepted the (global warming) theory as given,” Veizer wrote on April 30, 2007 about predictions that increasing C02 in the atmosphere was leading to a climate catastrophe. “The final conversion came when I realized that the solar/cosmic ray connection gave far more consistent picture with climate, over many time scales, than did the CO2 scenario,” Veizer wrote. “It was the results of my work on past records, on geological time scales, that led me to realize the discrepancies with empirical observations. Trying to understand the background issues of modeling led to realization of the assumptions and uncertainties involved,” Veizer explained. “The past record strongly favors the solar/cosmic alternative as the principal climate driver,” he added. Veizer acknowledgez the Earth has been warming and he believes in the scientific value of climate modeling. “The major point where I diverge from the IPCC scenario is my belief that it underestimates the role of natural variability by proclaiming CO2 to be the only reasonable source of additional energy in the planetary balance. Such additional energy is needed to drive the climate. The point is that most of the temperature, in both

nature and models, arises from the greenhouse of water vapor (model language ‘positive water vapor feedback’,) Veizer wrote. “Thus to get more temperature, more water vapor is needed. This is achieved by speeding up the water cycle by inputting more energy into the system,” he continued. “Note that it is not CO2 that is in the models but its presumed energy equivalent (model language ‘prescribed CO2’). Yet, the models (and climate) would generate a more or less similar outcome regardless where this additional energy is coming from. This is why the solar/cosmic connection is so strongly opposed, because it can influence the global energy budget which, in turn, diminishes the need for an energy input from the CO2 greenhouse,” he wrote.

More to follow…

Related Links:

Senator Inhofe declares climate momentum shifting away from Gore (The Politico op ed)

Scientific Smackdown: Skeptics Voted The Clear Winners Against Global Warming Believers in Heated NYC Debate

Global Warming on Mars & Cosmic Ray Research Are Shattering Media Driven "Consensus’

Global Warming: The Momentum has Shifted to Climate Skeptics

Prominent French Scientist Reverses Belief in Global Warming - Now a Skeptic

Top Israeli Astrophysicist Recants His Belief in Manmade Global Warming - Now Says Sun Biggest Factor in Warming

Warming On Jupiter, Mars, Pluto, Neptune's Moon & Earth Linked to Increased Solar Activity, Scientists Say

Panel of Broadcast Meteorologists Reject Man-Made Global Warming Fears- Claim 95% of Weathermen Skeptical

MIT Climate Scientist Calls Fears of Global Warming 'Silly' - Equates Concerns to ‘Little Kids’ Attempting to "Scare Each Other"

Weather Channel TV Host Goes 'Political'- Stars in Global Warming Film Accusing U.S. Government of ‘Criminal Neglect’

Weather Channel Climate Expert Calls for Decertifying Global Warming Skeptics

ABC-TV Meteorologist: I Don't Know A Single Weatherman Who Believes 'Man-Made Global Warming Hype'

The Weather Channel Climate Expert Refuses to Retract Call for Decertification for Global Warming Skeptics

Senator Inhofe Announces Public Release Of "Skeptic’s Guide To Debunking Global Warming"

# # #

HOME NEWS WEATHER TRAFFIC HEALTH SPORTS LIGHTER SIDE USE IT! ON ABC13 AUTOS JOBS

Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill

TEXT SIZE: A A A A

Search

abc13.com Web Superpages.com

Go

Go

keyword enter city & state OR zi Go

Page 1 of 8abc13.com: Al Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth'? -- $30,000 utility bill

2/27/2007http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=nation_world&id=5072659

(2/27/07 - NASHVILLE, TN) - Back home in Tennessee, safely ensconced in his suburban Nashville home, Vice President Al Gore is no doubt basking in the Oscar awarded to "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary he inspired and in which he starred. But a local free-market think tank is trying to make that very home emblematic of what it deems Gore's environmental hypocrisy.

Related Links Get E-witness News News, video & alerts on your phone ABC13 E-lert

Also on ABC13.com: Send news tips | RSS | ABC13 E-lert | Info mentioned on air | Search abc13.com

Armed with Gore's utility bills for the last two years, the Tennessee Center for Policy Research charged Monday that the gas and electric bills for the former vice president's 20-room home and pool house devoured nearly 221,000 kilowatt-hours in 2006, more than 20 times the national average of 10,656 kilowatt-hours.

"If this were any other person with $30,000-a-year in utility bills, I wouldn't care," says the Center's 27-year-old president, Drew Johnson. "But he tells other people how to live and he's not following his own rules."

Scoffed a former Gore adviser in response: "I think what you're seeing here is the last gasp of the global warming skeptics. They've completely lost the debate on the issue so now they're just attacking their most effective opponent."

Kalee Kreider, a spokesperson for the Gores, did not dispute the Center's figures, taken as they were from public records. But she pointed out that both Al and Tipper Gore work out of their home and she argued that "the bottom line is that every family has a different carbon footprint. And what Vice President Gore has asked is for families to calculate that footprint and take steps to reduce and offset it."

A carbon footprint is a calculation of the CO2 fossil fuel emissions each person is responsible for, either directly because of his or her transportation and energy consumption or indirectly because of the manufacture and eventual breakdown of products he or she uses. (You can calculate your own carbon footprint on the website http://www.carbonfootprint.com/)

The vice president has done that, Kreider argues, and the family tries to offset that carbon footprint by purchasing their power through the local Green Power Switch program — electricity generated through renewable resources such as solar, wind, and methane gas, which create less waste and pollution. "In addition, they are in the midst of installing solar panels on their home, which will enable them to use less power," Kreider added. "They also use compact fluorescent bulbs and other energy efficiency measures and then they purchase offsets for their carbon emissions to bring their carbon footprint down to zero."

These efforts did little to impress Johnson. "I appreciate the solar panels," he said, "but he also has natural gas lanterns in his yard, a heated pool, and an electric gate. While I appreciate that he's switching out some light bulbs, he is not living the lifestyle that he advocates."



The Center claims that Nashville Electric Services records show the Gores in 2006 averaged a monthly electricity bill of $1,359 for using 18,414 kilowatt-hours, and $1,461 per month for using 16,200 kilowatt-hours in 2005. During that time, Nashville Gas Company billed the family an average of $536 a month for the main house and $544 for the pool house in 2006, and $640 for the main house and $525 for the pool house in 2005. That averages out to be $29,268 in gas and electric bills for the Gores in 2006, $31,512 in 2005.

The press release from Johnson's group, an obscure conservative think tank founded by Johnson in 2004 when he was 24, was given splashy attention on the highly-trafficked Drudge Report Monday evening, and former Gore aides saw it as part of a piece, along with an Fox News Channel investigation from earlier this month of Gore's use of private planes in 2000. Last year, a seemingly amateurish Youtube video mocking the "An Inconvenient Truth" turned out to have been produced by slick Republican public relations firm called DCI, which just happens to have oil giant Exxon as a client.

"Considering that he spends an overwhelming majority of his time advocating on behalf of and trying to affect change on this issue, it's not surprising that people who have a vested interest in protecting the status quo would go after him," said the former Gore aide.

Kreider says she's confident that the Gores' utility bills will decrease. "They bought an older home and they're in the process of upgrading the home," she said. "Unfortunately that means an increase in energy use in order to have an overall decrease in energy use down the road."

Gore is not the only environmentalist associated with "An Inconvenient Truth" who has come under fire for personal habits -- and not all the criticism has come from the Right.

Writing in The Atlantic Monthly in 2004, liberal writer Eric Alterman criticized producer Laurie David for her use of private Gulfstream jets. David, he wrote "reviles the owners of SUVs as terrorist enablers, yet gives herself a pass when it comes to chartering one of the most wasteful uses of fossil-based fuels imaginable." New Republic writer Gregg Easterbrook followed up, computing that "one cross-country flight in a Gulfstream is the same, in terms of Persian-Gulf dependence and greenhouse-gas emissions, as if she drove a Hummer for an entire year."

In an interview in 2006, David told ABC News that she was limiting her use of private planes and was flying commercial far more frequently.

Copyright © 2007 ABC News Internet Ventures

ABC13 TRAFFIC CENTER

Live Traffic

Travel times Select a roadway in Houston and find out how long your

Live Traffic

Jam factor Check your commute's 'jam factor,' an up-to-the-minute report of conditions on your

Live Traffic

Your traffic Customize your traffic report and get daily updates on your



Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral Presidential candidate promotes carbon caps for business, but carbon 'offsets' for himself. By Dan Gainor The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow Business & Media Institute 3/20/2007 12:57:22 PM Call it “Dancing with the Stars”: Global Warming Edition. Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards showed his best dance moves trying to avoid questions about how energy efficient his 28,000-square-foot mansion really is and how much the power bill costs each month. The March 20 edition of CNN’s “American Morning” showed Edwards hyping global warming, promoting his energy plan that mandates carbon caps and claiming that his new mega-McMansion was actually being operated in a “carbon-neutral way.” He has recently declared his campaign “carbon neutral.” Edwards also avoided how he holds himself to one standard but wants to hold businesses to another. As anchor Miles O’Brien put it: “One of the keys to your plan is the so-called cap plan which would institute, as it suggests, caps on the amount of carbon dioxide industry can put into the environment.” But when it comes to Edwards’ own life, he doesn’t cap his carbon efforts, preferring instead carbon offsets. “We have committed to operate this house in a carbon-neutral way, which means in addition to using energy saving devices in the house itself, to the extent that doesn’t cover it, we’re going to purchase carbon credits on the market,” said Edwards. Such offsets have been big news lately as even the Oscars claimed they were “carbon neutral.” The March 26 issue of BusinessWeek questioned the nature of such offsets and said “some deals amount to little more than feel good hype.” Former Vice President Al Gore has received criticism for his own carbon offsets, though the media have been supportive. “If more people do it over time, it’s a good thing,” said reporter Russ Mitchell during the “Early Show” on CBS February 22. During the CNN preview of his new energy plan, Edwards called for both a cap on current carbon dioxide emissions and “reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 80 percent by the year 2050, which is aggressive but achievable.” When O’Brien asked him about jobs going overseas instead of new jobs being created in the United States, Edwards danced again. “Well, the reason first of all is the planet has to survive. So we have a pretty simple question to begin with.” His second point merely asked “How do we deal with this issue in a smart way” and moved into boilerplate about creating jobs. O’Brien asked about Edwards “getting Americans to conserve more.” Edwards responded with talk of conservation and then requirements. “One of the things that’s going to be required is for Americans to be willing to drive more fuel-efficient vehicles and to be willing to conserve and we want to help them do that.” When O’Brien asked specifically about his house, Edwards turned into a dancing king. Asked about the cost of energy for the home, Edwards tried several answers:

Page 1 of 2Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral

3/20/2007http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070320125451.aspx

“It’s actually not bad.” And followed that up with talk of how energy efficient the home was. “I’m not telling you. It’s actually, it’s actually not bad. It’s about three or four hundred dollars, the last one I saw.” Following that claim, Edwards backed off a bit and said “the power bill is several hundred dollars a month.”

Page 2 of 2Edwards Claims His Mega-Mansion is Carbon Neutral

3/20/2007http://www.businessandmedia.org/printer/2007/20070320125451.aspx

No change in political climate - The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007...

1 of 2 2/9/2007 10:46 AM

THIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTING

ELLEN GOODMAN

No change in political climateBy Ellen Goodman | February 9, 2007

On the day that the latest report on global warming was released, I went out and bought a light bulb. OK, an environmentally friendly, compact fluorescent light bulb.

No, I do not think that if everyone lit just one little compact fluorescent light bulb, what a bright world this would be. Even the Prius in our driveway doesn't do a whole lot to reduce my carbon footprint, which is roughly the size of the Yeti lurking in the (melting) Himalayas.

But it was either buying a light bulb or pulling the covers over my head. And it was too early in the day to reach for that kind of comforter.

By every measure, the U N 's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change raises the level of alarm. The fact of global warming is "unequivocal." The certainty of the human role is now somewhere over 90 percent. Which is about as certain as scientists ever get.

I would like to say we're at a point where global warming is impossible to deny. Let's just say that global warming deniers are now on a par with Holocaust deniers, though one denies the past and the other denies the present and future.

But light bulbs aside -- I now have three and counting -- I don't expect that this report will set off some vast political uprising. The sorry fact is that the rising world thermometer hasn't translated into political climate change in America.

The folks at the Pew Research Center clocking public attitudes show that global warming remains 20th on the annual list of 23 policy priorities. Below terrorism, of course, but also below tax cuts, crime, morality, and illegal immigration.

One reason is that while poles are melting and polar bears are swimming between ice floes, American politics has remained polarized. There are astonishing gaps between Republican science and Democratic science. Try these numbers: Only 23 percent of college-educated Republicans believe the warming is due to humans, while 75 percent of college-educated Democrats believe it.

This great divide comes from the science-be-damned-and-debunked attitude of the Bush administration and its favorite media outlets. The day of the report, Big Oil Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma actually described it as "ashining example of the corruption of science for political gain." Speaking of corruption of science, the American Enterprise Institute, which has gotten $1.6 million over the years from Exxon Mobil, offered $10,000 last summer to scientists who would counter the IPCC report.

But there are psychological as well as political reasons why global warming remains in the cool basement of priorities. It may be, paradoxically, that framing this issue in catastrophic terms ends up paralyzing instead of motivating us. Remember the Time magazine cover story: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried." The essential environmental narrative is a hair-raising consciousness-raising: This is your Earth. This is your Earth on carbon emissions.

This works for some. But a lot of social science research tells us something else. As Ross Gelbspan, author of "The Heat is On," says, "when people are confronted with an overwhelming threat and don't see a solution, it makes them feel impotent. So they shrug it off or go into deliberate denial."

Michael Shellenberger, co author of "The Death of Environmentalism," adds, "The dominant narrative of global warming has been that we're responsible and have to make changes or we're all going to die. It's tailor-made to ensure inaction."

So how many scientists does it take to change a light bulb?

American University's Matthew Nisbet is among those who see the importance of expanding the story beyondscientists. He is charting the reframing of climate change into a moral and religious issue -- see the greening of the evangelicals -- and into a corruption-of-science issue -- see big oil -- and an economic issue -- see the newer, greener technologies .

No change in political climate - The Boston Globe http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007...

2 of 2 2/9/2007 10:46 AM

In addition, maybe we can turn denial into planning. "If the weatherman says there's a 75 percent chance of rain, you take your umbrella," Shellenberger tells groups. Even people who clutched denial as their last, best hope can prepare, he says, for the next Katrina. Global warming preparation is both his antidote for helplessness and goad to collective action.

The report is grim stuff. Whatever we do today, we face long-range global problems with a short-term local attention span. We're no happier looking at this global thermostat than we are looking at the nuclear doomsday clock.

Can we change from debating global warming to preparing? Can we define the issue in ways that turn denial into action? In America what matters now isn't environmental science, but political science.

We are still waiting for the time when an election hinges on a candidate's plans for a changing climate. That's when the light bulb goes on.

Ellen Goodman's e-mail address is [email protected].

© Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

http://www.canadafreepress.com/phprint.php

1 of 4 2/6/2007 11:45 AM

Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide

Global Warming: The Cold, Hard Facts?

By Timothy Ball

Monday, February 5, 2007

Global Warming, as we think we know it, doesn't exist. And I am not the only one trying to make people open up their eyes and see the truth. But few listen, despite the fact that I was the first Canadian Ph.D. in Climatology and I have an extensive background in climatology, especially the reconstruction of past climates and the impact of climate change on human history and the human condition. Few listen, even though I have a Ph.D, (Doctor of Science) from the University of London, England and was a climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg. For some reason (actually for many), the World is not listening. Here is why.

What would happen if tomorrow we were told that, after all, the Earth is flat? It would probably be the most important piece of news in the media and would generate a lot of debate. So why is it that when scientists who have studied the Global Warming phenomenon for years say that humans are not the cause nobody listens? Why does no one acknowledge that the Emperor has no clothes on?

Believe it or not, Global Warming is not due to human contribution of Carbon Dioxide (CO2). This in fact is the greatest deception in the history of science. We are wasting time, energy and trillions of dollars while creating unnecessary fear and consternation over an issue with no scientific justification. For example, Environment Canada brags about spending $3.7 billion in the last five years dealing with climate change almost all on propaganda trying to defend an indefensible scientific position while at the same time closing weather stations and failing to meet legislated pollution targets.

No sensible person seeks conflict, especially with governments, but if we don't pursue the truth, we are lost as individuals and as a society. That is why I insist on saying that there is no evidence that we are, or could ever cause global climate change. And, recently, Yuri A. Izrael, Vice President of the United Nations sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) confirmed this statement. So how has the world come to believe that


2 of 4 2/6/2007 11:45 AM

something is wrong?

Maybe for the same reason we believed, 30 years ago, that global cooling was the biggest threat: a matter of faith. "It is a cold fact: the Global Cooling presents humankind with the most important social, political, and adaptive challenge we have had to deal with for ten thousand years. Your stake in the decisions we make concerning it is of ultimate importance; the survival of ourselves, our children, our species," wrote Lowell Ponte in 1976.

I was as opposed to the threats of impending doom global cooling engendered as I am to the threats made about Global Warming. Let me stress I am not denying the phenomenon has occurred. The world has warmed since 1680, the nadir of a cool period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) that has generally continued to the present. These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.

Since I obtained my doctorate in climatology from the University of London, Queen Mary College, England my career has spanned two climate cycles. Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. This proves that consensus is not a scientific fact. By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling.

No doubt passive acceptance yields less stress, fewer personal attacks and makes career progress easier. What I have experienced in my personal life during the last years makes me understand why most people choose not to speak out; job security and fear of reprisals. Even in University, where free speech and challenge to prevailing wisdoms are supposedly encouraged, academics remain silent.

I once received a three page letter that my lawyer defined as libellous, from an academic colleague, saying I had no right to say what I was saying, especially in public lectures. Sadly, my experience is that universities are the most dogmatic and oppressive places in our society. This becomes progressively worse as they receive more and more funding from governments that demand a particular viewpoint.

In another instance, I was accused by Canadian environmentalist David Suzuki of being paid by oil companies. That is a lie. Apparently he thinks if the fossil fuel companies pay you have an agenda. So if Greenpeace, Sierra Club or governments pay there is no agenda and only truth and enlightenment?

Personal attacks are difficult and shouldn't occur in a debate in a


3 of 4 2/6/2007 11:45 AM

civilized society. I can only consider them from what they imply. They usually indicate a person or group is losing the debate. In this case, they also indicate how political the entire Global Warming debate has become. Both underline the lack of or even contradictory nature of the evidence.

I am not alone in this journey against the prevalent myth. Several well-known names have also raised their voices. Michael Crichton,the scientist, writer and filmmaker is one of them. In his latest book, "State of Fear" he takes time to explain, often in surprising detail, the flawed science behind Global Warming and other imagined environmental crises.

Another cry in the wildenerness is Richard Lindzen's. He is anatmospheric physicist and a professor of meteorology at MIT, renowned for his research in dynamic meteorology - especially atmospheric waves. He is also a member of the National Academy of Sciences and has held positions at the University of Chicago, Harvard University and MIT. Linzen frequently speaks out against the notion that significant Global Warming is caused by humans. Yet nobody seems to listen.

I think it may be because most people don't understand the scientific method which Thomas Kuhn so skilfully and briefly set out in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." A scientist makes certain assumptions and then produces a theory which is only as valid as the assumptions. The theory of Global Warming assumes that CO2 is an atmospheric greenhouse gas and as it increases temperatures rise. It was then theorized that since humans were producing more CO2 than before, the temperature would inevitably rise. The theory was accepted before testing had started, and effectively became a law.

As Lindzen said many years ago: "the consensus was reached before the research had even begun." Now, any scientist who dares to question the prevailing wisdom is marginalized and called a sceptic, when in fact they are simply being good scientists. This has reached frightening levels with these scientists now being called climate change denier with all the holocaust connotations of that word. The normal scientific method is effectively being thwarted.

Meanwhile, politicians are being listened to, even though most of them have no knowledge or understanding of science, especially the science of climate and climate change. Hence, they are in no position to question a policy on climate change when it threatens the entire planet. Moreover, using fear and creating hysteria makes it very difficult to make calm rational decisions about issues needing attention.

Until you have challenged the prevailing wisdom you have no idea how nasty people can be. Until you have re-examined any issue in


4 of 4 2/6/2007 11:45 AM

an attempt to find out all the information, you cannot know how much misinformation exists in the supposed age of information.

I was greatly influenced several years ago by Aaron Wildavsky's book "Yes, but is it true?" The author taught political science at a New York University and realized how science was being influenced by and apparently misused by politics. He gave his graduate students an assignment to pursue the science behind a policy generated by a highly publicised environmental concern. To his and their surprise they found there was little scientific evidence, consensus and justification for the policy. You only realize the extent to which Wildavsky's findings occur when you ask the question he posed. Wildavsky's students did it in the safety of academia and with the excuse that it was an assignment. I havelearned it is a difficult question to ask in the real world, however I firmly believe it is the most important question to ask if we are to advance in the right direction.

Dr. Tim Ball, Chairman of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (www.nrsp.com), is a Victoria-based environmental

consultant and former climatology professor at the University ofWinnipeg. He can be reached at [email protected]

This page printed from: http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm

Powered by

California takes on global warming

SACRAMENTO, California (AP) -- California will impose broad caps on its greenhouse-gas emissions under a landmark plan that marks a clear break with the federal government and which backers hope will become a national model.

Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who helped assemble the plan, called Wednesday's agreement "an example for other states and nations to follow as the fight against climate change continues."

The plan came after weeks of difficult negotiations and was sent to the state Senate, which approved it late Wednesday with a 23-14 vote. If approved as expected by the Democrat-controlled Assembly, the bill would then go to the governor's desk.

"My main objective was getting a bill that the environmental community can champion around the country and say, 'California did this, and you should be too.' And we did that," said Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez, a Democrat.

25 percent cut by 2020

The bill requires the state's major industries -- such as utility plants, oil and gas refineries, and cement kilns -- to reduce their emissions carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases by an estimated 25 percent by 2020.

One of the key mechanisms designed to drive the reductions is a market program that will allow businesses to buy, sell and trade emission credits with other companies.

"Today it feels as if the whole world is watching, and I hope they are," said Ann Notthoff of the Natural Resources Defense Council, one of the environmental groups involved in the negotiations.

The agreement was announced simultaneously by the governor's office and Democratic leaders in the Senate and Assembly. It gives the governor a key environmental victory as he seeks re-election this fall.

The bill states that the California Air Resources Board -- an 11-member panel appointed by the governor -- must identify "market-based compliance mechanisms" that might be used as part of its plan to reach the cap.

Environmentalists praise bill

The cap was praised by environmentalists as a step toward fighting global climate change. It was criticized by some business leaders, who say it will increase their costs and force them to scale back their California operations.

•GOP Gov. Schwarzenegger, Democratic legislators agree on emission caps •Utilities, refineries, other major industries would have to reduce pollutants •Businesses could buy, sell or trade emission credits •California is world's 12th-largest emitter of greenhouse gasses

Page 1 of 2CNN.com - California takes on global warming - Aug 31, 2006

8/31/2006http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Calif...

Republicans blasted the bill, saying the bill would have little effect and make California an expensive place to do business. "This bill is the road to economic ruin for California," Sen. Dennis Hollingsworth said.

The nation's most populous state is the world's 12th largest emitter of greenhouse gases and could suffer dire consequences if global temperatures increase only a few degrees. (The process of global warming)

In the absence of federal action, much of the effort to combat climate change has been focused in the states. More than 100 climate-related bills have been held up in Congress, including one that calls for a national cap on greenhouse gas emissions.

State a leader in cutting auto emissions

California has led the country in reducing greenhouse gas emissions through its renewable energy policies and a 2004 law reducing tailpipe emissions from vehicles.

Ten other states are poised to enact California's auto rule, while more than 20 states have required utilities to eventually generate some power from renewable sources such as solar, wind and geothermal.

The bill includes a so-called "safety valve" sought by Schwarzenegger that would allow California's governor to delay the emission-cap mandate if the state is hit with a natural disaster, terrorist attack or some other emergency.

In addition to the emissions cap, California lawmakers voted to approve related global warming legislation. That bill would prohibit the state from entering long-term contracts with any out-of-state utility that fails to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. The bill passed by a 43-30 vote in the Assembly. It goes to the Senate for final approval.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/08/31/global.warming.ap/index.html


Page 2 of 2CNN.com - California takes on global warming - Aug 31, 2006

8/31/2006http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Calif...

LiveScience.com - Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different... http://www.livescience.com/environment/060713_global_warming.html

1 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

CGA-03 Analog Meter Geiger Counter

$249.99

Ace-150 Metal Detector

$179.00

e-Newsletter Sign Up

Amazing Images

RSS Feed

Discussion Board

Job Search

Log In

Register

Goldilocks and the GreenhouseWhat makes Earth habitable? This LiveScience original video explores the science of global warming and explains how, for now, conditions here are just right.

Global Warming or Just Hot Air? A Dozen Different ViewsBy Sara GoudarziLiveScience Staff Writerposted: 13 July 200610:42 am ET

Earth's temperature has increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) in the last century. Most of the warming in the last 50 years is attributed to human activities, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.

However, climate change hasgone from being a scientificactuality to a political wedgeissue, used as a cudgel byparties of all persuasions topoint fingers and score points.Consequently, many people,including scientists andpoliticians, can’t seem to arriveat agreement on the issue.

LiveScience recently reached out to several experts and visionaries for their views on this controversial topic and dug up published comments of others.

Here we present a spectrum of opinions and concerns ranging from the importance of climate change being "grossly exaggerated" to "If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed."

Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus at Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton University, in an email interview:

"Climate change is a real problem, partly caused by human activities, but its importance has been grossly exaggerated.

"It is far less important than other social problems such as poverty, infectious diseases, deforestation, extinction of species on land and in the sea, not to mention war, nuclear weapons and biological weapons.

"We do not know whether the observed climate changes are on balance good or bad for the health of the biosphere. And the effects ofatmospheric carbon dioxide as a fertilizer of plant growth are at least as important as its effects on climate."

, director of NASA'S Goddard Institute for Space Studies, in

You Get What You Pay ForAuthor Robert Roy BrittScience has always been funded by money. Researchers need to eat, and they often have to pay their assistants (although grad students typically make less than bloggers) and buy equipment and ...

Read More »

» CDC Studies Mystery Creepy-Crawly Disease» Bogus Mars Emails Circulate Again

Green Stocks are SoaringSee today's Eco-Friendly stock that could be tomorrow's big winner www.pennystockhunter.com

Mercury Disposal SystemsContain mercury from fluorescent bulbs w/ the MDS Lamp Bag Kit. www.nomerc.net

Kick the Oil HabitThe alternative energy campaign that Robert Redford's talking about KickTheOilHabit.org


2 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

NEW! LiveScience Blogs

LiveScience Reader Favorites

Amazing Images: Upload Your Cool Pictures Now and Vote!

The Biggest Popular Myths

Multimedia: Goldilocks and the Greenhouse

Gallery: Earth As Art

Gallery: Glaciers Before and After

Gallery: Endangered and Threatened Wildlife

Top 10: Emerging Environmental Technologies

an email interview:

"The argument about whether there is global warming isover. It is now clear that, for thirty years, we have been in astrong global warming trend at a rate of about 0.2 Celsius per decade for the past 30 years, [meaning] there has been 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.56 degrees Celsius) global warming in the past 30 years. The Earth is now at its warmest level in the period of instrumental data, that is, since the late 1800s."

Naomi Oreskes, associate professor of history and director of the Program in Science Studies at the University of California, San Diego in an editorial piece in The Washington Post in 2004:

"Many people have the impression that there is significant scientific disagreement about global climate change. It's time to lay that misapprehension to rest. There is a scientific consensus on the fact that Earth's climate is heating up and human activities are part of the reason. We need to stop repeating nonsense about the uncertainty of global warming and start talking seriously about the right approach to address it.

"The basic picture is clear, and some changes are already occurring. A new report by the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment—a consortium ofeight countries, including Russia and the United States—now confirms thatmajor changes are taking place in the Arctic, affecting both human andnon-human communities, as predicted by climate models."

William Gray, hurricane expert and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, in a 2005 interview with Discover magazine:

"I'm not disputing that there has been global warming. There was a lot of global warming in the 1930s and '40s, and then there was a slight global cooling from the middle '40s to the early '70s. And there has been warming since the middle '70s, especially in the last 10 years. But this is natural, due to ocean circulation changes and other factors. It is not human induced.

"Nearly all of my colleagues who have been around 40 or 50 years are skeptical as hell about this whole global-warming thing. But no one asks us. If you don't know anything about how the atmosphere functions, you will of course say, 'Look, greenhouse gases are going up, the globe is warming, they must be related.' Well, just because there are two associations, changing with the same sign, doesn't mean that one is causing the other."

Christine Rogers, senior research scientist, Harvard School of Public Health, Harvard University, in an email interview:

"The impacts of the changes the climate scientists are predicting are being tested in a number of systems. For plants, it seems that elevated levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] will increase plant biomass, water use efficiency, and reproductive effort. Some experiments have shown that this includes an increase in pollen production. Since some plants have pollen that is highly allergenic, this could mean increased exposure to allergens and an increase in illness for those who are pollen allergic.

"It remains to be seen whether this increased exposure will also cause an increase in the number of people with allergic disease."

Former Vice President Al Gore, in an opinion piece for Salon.com in 2005:

"The science is extremely clear: Global warming may not affect the frequency of hurricanes, but it makes the average hurricane stronger, magnifying its destructive power. In the years ahead, there will be more storms like Katrina, unless we change course.Indeed, we have had two more Category 5 stormssince Katrina—including Wilma, which before landfall was the strongest hurricane ever measured in the Atlantic.

"This summer, more than 200 cities in the United States broke all-time heat records.

"This summer, parts of India received recordrainfall—37 inches fell in Mumbai in 24 hours, killingmore than 1,000 people. The new extremes of wind


3 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

Magical Mountains: The Best of Your Images

101 Amazing Earth Facts

and rain are part of a larger pattern that also includes rapidly melting glaciers worldwide, increasing desertification, a global extinction crisis, the ravaging of ocean fisheries, and a growing range for disease 'vectors' like mosquitoes, ticks and many other carriers of viruses and bacteria harmful to people."

Paul Epstein, associate director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School, in an email interview:

"The most coherent explanation is that climate is changing because of burning of fossil fuels and felling forests. The health, environmental, and economic costs of inaction are rapidly becoming unmanageable. Stabilizing the climate will require a clean energy transition that will also benefit public health, improve energysecurity, and can become the engine of economic growth for this 21st century.

"We're seeing changes in asthma, heat wave deaths, and the spread of infectious diseases that are indicative of enormous changes affecting theenvironment. Climate and disease are stalking humans, wildlife, agriculture, forests, and marine habitat; which are our life support systems."

Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, in an editorial lastApril for The Wall Street Journal:

"To understand the misconceptions perpetuated about climate science and the climate of intimidation, one needs to grasp some of the complex underlying scientific issues. First, let's start where there is agreement. The public, press and policy makers have been repeatedly told that three claims have widespread scientific support: Global temperature has risen about a degree since the late 19th century; levels of CO2 [carbon dioxide] in the atmosphere have increasedby about 30 percent over the same period; and CO2 should contribute to future warming.

"These claims are true. However, what the public fails to grasp is that the claims neither constitute support for alarm nor establish man's responsibility for the small amount of warming that has occurred. In fact, those who make the most outlandish claims of alarm are actually demonstrating skepticism of the very science they say supports them. It isn't just that the alarmists are trumpeting model results that we know must be wrong. It is that they are trumpeting catastrophes that couldn't happen even if the models were right as justifying costly policies to try to prevent global warming."

David Archer, professor in the Department of the Geophysical Sciences from the University of Chicago, in an email interview:

"The warming of the past several decades has been faster and risen to higher temperatures in the past decades than has been seen in thousands of years. Rising CO2 [carbon dioxide] levels can easily explain the warming, but there is no alternative explanation that does not involve rising CO2 or predict further warming. Scientists have done their job, it is time now to confront the reality of human-induced climate change resulting from emission of CO2 from fossil fuel consumption."

Kurt M. Cuffey, professor of geography at the University of California in Berkeley, in an editorial for The San Francisco Chronicle in 2005.

"When we look at the complex environmental systems of our planet, from climate to the polar ice sheets, there will always be lingering uncertainties, and some surprises probably await us. But in the thorough and convincing rebuttal of the last contrary arguments, we have just witnessed a historically important validation of the scientific evidence for human causation of climate warming. And Katrina and the waning polar ice capsremind us how important this is.

"It is time for remaining skeptics to look at the tear-streaked faces of refugees from New Orleans, as well as the startling map of ice shrinkagearound the North Pole, and begin to plan for the future."

, professor of Natural Resources, Virginia Tech, State Climatologist for Virginia in an email interview:


4 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

"In climate science, we only have two things: data (the past) and models or hypotheses (the future). The data show us that distribution of warming since the mid-1970s is consistent with what one would expect from an enhanced carbon dioxide-related greenhouse effect. The ensemble behavior of our models is that, once this warming is initiated, it tends to take place at a constant (rather than an ever-increasing) rate. Indeed this has been the case for the last threedecades.

"Consequently we know, with considerable confidence, the rate of warming for the policy-foreseeable future, and it is about 0.85 degrees Celsius, [1.53 degrees Fahrenheit] per half-century. This is near the low end ofprojections made by the United Nations. However, there is no known suite of technologies that can affect this rate significantly, so the proper policy is to invest in the future rather than to waste money today in a futile attempt to significantly reduce warming."

Daniel Gilbert, professor of psychology at Harvard University in Op-Ed section of The Los Angeles Times earlier this month:

"Because we barely notice changes that happen gradually, we accept gradual changes that we would reject if they happened abruptly.

"Environmentalists despair that global warming is happening so fast. In fact, it isn't happening fast enough. If President Bush could jump in a time machine and experience a single day in 2056, he'd return to the present shocked and awed, prepared to do anything it took to solve the problem.

"The human brain is a remarkable device that was designed to rise to special occasions. We are the progeny of people who hunted and gathered, whose lives were brief and whose greatest threat was a man with a stick. When terrorists attack, we respond with crushing force and firm resolve, just as our ancestors would have. Global warming is a deadly threat precisely because it fails to trip the brain's alarm, leaving us soundly asleep in a burning bed.

"It remains to be seen whether we can learn to rise to new occasions."

More to Explore: The Controversy

VIDEO: Goldilocks and the GreenhouseGlobal Warming Differences Resolved Conflicting Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All MootBaffled Scientists Say Less Sunlight Reaching EarthScientists Clueless over Sun's Effect on EarthGreenhouse Gas Hits Record HighKey Argument for Global Warming Critics Evaporates

The Effects

Seas Rise More WildfiresDeserts to GrowGreenland Melts Ground CollapsesGlaciers DisappearAllergies Get WorseAnimal DNA ChangingAnimals Change BehaviorRivers Melt Sooner in SpringIncreased Plant ProductionHurricanes Get StrongerLakes Disappear

The Possibilities

More Rain but Less WaterIce-Free Arctic SummersOverwhelmed Storm DrainsWorst Mass Extinction EverA Chilled Planet

Strange Solutions

Space Ring to Shade EarthLonger Airline Flights

EnglandDestinations:

iExplore Medieval England & Lake District Extension


5 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

Sponsored LinksBP

BP has been selling biofuels in the U.S. for over 25 years. In 2005, BP fuels contained more than 575 million gallons ofbiofuels , eliminating about 1 million tons of CO2.

Science Fiction Book Club

Get 5 science fiction books for $1 each plus a FREE book with membership. We've got out-of-this-world reading at down-to-earth prices, including the latest fantasy, horror, comics and more!

Spider Cries Out While MatingNew Type of Volcano Pops UpNewfound Snake Anti-Venom is Already Inside YouScientist: Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global WarmingCosmic Dust Ruled Out in Ancient Global WarmingAnts Store Fat for Lean TimesEye Transmits to Brain at Ethernet SpeedA Brief History of Human Sex

> New Wallpaper: Spaceships

> Vote: The Best Space Movies

> Newfound Blob is Biggest Thing in the Universe

> Gallery: Unique Aircraft> VIDEO: Black Holes

Beat the Clock

Ads by Goooooogle Advertise on this site

An Inconvenient TruthNYTimes.com reviews Al Gore's controversial new filmwww.nytimes.com

Global WarmingJoin Chevron's Forum & Voice Your Opinion on Environmental Issues.www.WillYouJoinUs.com


6 of 7 7/28/2006 10:24 AM

Shark Fins and Human Arms Made from Same GenesProfessor Invents 'Ripeness' StickerGlobal Warming Critic for HireScientists Say Warming Triggers Pacific 'Dead Zone'Ancient Human Footprints Uncovered in AustraliaPraying Mantids Wise to Sexual Cannibalism RiskWhat Makes Sea Creatures Large or SmallHybrid Scooter Would Run on HydrogenA New Wave: Scientists Write on WaterAncient Psalms Found in Irish BogCache of Artifacts Found in Jamestown WellConstant Barking Drives Dogs Nuts, TooHonda to Sell Sleek Microjet in U.S.Buy Hot Sauce, Save an ElephantDiscovery Offers Hope to Chronic Pain SufferersNew Machine Promises Better Images of the HeartRevealing the Truth about Natural CuresBear Encounters Increase Across the WestRare Discovery: Fossilized Bone Marrow is 10 Million Years OldScientists Predict Bigger Gulf 'Dead Zone' This YearHuman Ancestors May Have Hit the Ground RunningTexas is Top Producer of Wind EnergyTotally Fake Recall: Buy Proof of Trips Not TakenEven Elephants Can't Move Mountains, So They Avoid ThemRobotic Surgeon Attacks Moving TumorsHow Cacti Survive: Surprising Strategies Quench ThirstThe Artifact Wars: Nations Battle Over Bits of HistoryTV Makes Learning Less EfficientSliding Cemetary: Now It's Really All DownhillNew Type of Sunscreen Approved for SaleEgypt to Move Famous Ramses Statue in CairoAn Idea That Just Might Fly

Powered by

Justices take up key environmental case WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Supreme Court agreed Monday to consider whether the Bush administration must regulate carbon dioxide to combat global warming, setting up what could be one of the court's most important decisions on the environment.

A dozen states, a number of cities and various environmental groups asked the court to take up the case after a divided lower court ruled against them.

They argue that the Environmental Protection Agency is obligated to limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor vehicles under the federal Clean Air Act because as the primary "greenhouse" gas causing a warming of the earth, carbon dioxide is a pollutant.

The administration maintains that carbon dioxide -- unlike other chemicals that must be controlled to assure healthy air -- is not a pollutant under the federal clean air law, and that even if it were the EPA has discretion over whether to regulate it.

A federal appeals court sided with the administration in a sharply divided ruling.

One judge said the EPA's refusal to regulate carbon dioxide was contrary to the clean air law; another said that even if the Clean Air Act gave the EPA authority over the heat-trapping chemical, the agency could choose not to use that authority; a third judge ruled against the suit because, he said, the plaintiffs had no standing because they hadn't proven harm.

Carbon dioxide, which is release when burning fossil fuels such as coal or gasoline, is the leading so-called "greenhouse" gas because as it drifts into the atmosphere it traps the earth's heat -- much like a greenhouse. Many scientists cite growing evidence that this pollution is warming the earth to a point of beginning to change global climate.

At the heart of the climate debate is whether carbon dioxide releases should be controlled by emission caps on power plants and requiring motor vehicles to become more fuel efficient, therefore burning less fuel and producing less carbon dioxide.

President Bush, when first running for president, expressed support for regulating carbon dioxide, but he reversed himself shortly after getting into office -- saying he was convinced that voluntary plans to curtail carbon were a better way to go and mandatory regulation would be too expensive for business.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. Find this article at: http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/26/scotus.environment.ap/index.html


Page 1 of 1CNN.com - Justices take up key environmental case - Jun 26, 2006

6/26/2006http://cnn.worldnews.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+Justi...

The Tempest http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/23/AR...

1 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

The TempestBy Joel AchenbachSunday, May 28, 2006; W08

As evidence mounts that humans are causing dangerous changes in Earth's climate, a handful of skeptics are providing some serious blowback

IT SHOULD BE GLORIOUS TO BE BILL GRAY, professor emeritus. He is often called the World's Most Famous Hurricane Expert. He's the guy who, every year, predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical storm season. He works on a country road leading into the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, in theatmospheric science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists. By rights, Bill Gray should be in deep clover, enjoying retirement, pausing only to collect the occasional lifetime achievement award.

He's a towering figure in his profession and in person. He's 6 feet 5 inches tall, handsome, with blue eyes and white hair combed straight back. He's still lanky, like the baseball player he used to be back at Woodrow Wilson High School in Washington in the 1940s. When he wears a suit, a dark shirt and tinted sunglasses, you can imagine him as a casino owner or a Hollywood mogul. In a room jammed with scientists, you'd probably notice him first.

He's loud. His laugh is gale force. His personality threatens to spill into the hallway and onto the chaparral. He can be very charming.

But he's also angry. He's outraged.

He recently had a public shouting match with one of his former students. It went on for 45 minutes.

He was supposed to debate another scientist at a weather conference, but the organizer found him to be too obstreperous, and disinvited him.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. He feels intellectually abandoned. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

"I am of the opinion that this is one of the greatest hoaxes ever perpetrated on the American people," he says when I visit him in his office on a sunny spring afternoon.

He has testified about this to the United States Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, doneeverything he could to get the message out. His scientific position relies heavily on what is known as the Argument From Authority. He's the authority.


2 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked damn hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some ofus older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby boomer, yuppie thing."

Gray believes in the obs. The observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again.

We sit in his office for 2 1/2 hours, until the sun drops behind the mountains, and when we're done he offers to keep talking until midnight. He is almost desperate to be heard. His time is short. He is 76 years old. He is howling in a maelstrom.

Parallel Earths

HUMAN BEINGS ARE PUMPING GREENHOUSE GASES INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, warming the planet in the process.

Since the dawn of the industrial era, atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen steadily from about 280 to about 380 parts per million. In the past century, the average surface temperature of Earth has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit. Much of that warming has been in the past three decades. Regional effects can be more dramatic: The Arctic is melting at an alarming rate. Arctic sea ice is 40 percent thinner than it was in the 1970s. Glaciers in Greenland are speeding up as they slide toward the sea. A recent report shows Antarctica losing as much as 36 cubic miles of ice a year.

The permafrost is melting across broad swaths of Alaska, Canada and Siberia. Tree-devouring beetles, common in the American Southwest, are suddenly ravaging the evergreen forests of British Columbia. Coral reefs are bleaching, scalded by overheated tropical waters. There appear to have been more strong hurricanes and cyclones in recent decades, Category 3 and higher -- such as Katrina.

The 1990s were the warmest decade on record. The year 1998 set the all-time mark. This decade is on its wayto setting a new standard, with a succession of scorchers. The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a global effort involving hundreds of climate scientists and the governments of 100 nations, projected in 2001 that, depending on the rate of greenhouse gas emissions and general climate sensitivities, the global average temperature would rise 2.5 to 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit between 1990 and 2100. Sea levels could rise just a few inches, or nearly three feet.

All of the above is part of the emerging, solidifying scientific consensus on global warming -- a consensus that raises the urgent political and economic issue of climate change. This isn't a theory anymore. This is happening now. Business as usual, many scientists say, could lead to a wildly destabilized climate for the first time since the dawn of human civilization.

But when you step into the realm of the skeptics, you find yourself on a parallel Earth.

It is a planet where global warming isn't happening -- or, if it is happening, isn't happening because of human beings. Or, if it is happening because of human beings, isn't going to be a big problem. And, even if it is a bigproblem, we can't realistically do anything about it other than adapt.

Certainly there's no consensus on global warming, they say. There is only abundant uncertainty. The IPCC process is a sham, a mechanism for turning vague scientific statements into headline-grabbing alarmism.


3 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

Drastic actions such as mandated cuts in carbon emissions would be imprudent. Alternative sources of energyare fine, they say, but let's not be naive. We are an energy-intensive civilization. To obtain the kind of energywe need, we must burn fossil fuels. We must emit carbon. That's the real world.

Since the late 1980s, when oil, gas, coal, auto and chemical companies formed the Global Climate Coalition, industries have poured millions of dollars into a campaign to discredit the emerging global warming consensus. The coalition disbanded a few years ago (some members recast themselves as "green"), but the skeptic community remains rambunctious. Many skeptics work in think tanks, such as the George C. Marshall Institute or the National Center for Policy Analysis. They have the ear of powerful leaders in the White House and on Capitol Hill. The skeptics helped scuttle any possibility that the United States would ratify the Kyoto treaty that would have committed the nation to cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (conservatives object to the treaty for, among other things, not requiring reductions by developing nations such as China and India).

In the world of the skeptics you'll come across Richard Lindzen, an MIT climate scientist who has steadfastlymaintained for years that clouds and water vapor will counteract the greenhouse emissions of human beings. You'll find S. Fred Singer, author of Hot Talk, Cold Science, who points to the positive side of the melting Arctic: "We spent 500 years looking for a Northwest Passage, and now we've got one." You'll quickly run across Pat Michaels, the University of Virginia climatologist and author of Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians and the Media . You might dip into TCSDaily.com, the online clearinghouse for anti-global-warming punditry. You'll meet the Cooler Heads Coalition and the Greening Earth Society.

The skeptics point to the global temperature graph for the past century. Notice how, after rising steadily in the early 20th century, in 1940 the temperature suddenly levels off. No -- it goes down! For the next 35 years! If the planet is getting steadily warmer due to Industrial Age greenhouse gases, why did it get cooler when industries began belching out carbon dioxide at full tilt at the start of World War II?

Now look at the ice in Antarctica: Getting thicker in places!

Sea level rise? It's actually dropping around certain islands in the Pacific and Indian oceans.

There are all these . . . anomalies.

The skeptics scoff at climate models. They're just computer programs. They have to interpret innumerable feedback loops, all the convective forces, the evaporation, the winds, the ocean currents, the changing albedo (reflectivity) of Earth's surface, on and on and on.

Bill Gray has a favorite diagram, taken from a 1985 climate model, showing little nodules in the center with such labels as "thermal inertia" and "net energy balance" and "latent heat flux" and "subsurface heat storage" and "absorbed heat radiation" and so on, and they are emitting arrows that curve and loop in all directions, bumping into yet more jargon, like "soil moisture" and "surface roughness" and "vertical wind" and "meltwater" and "volcanoes."

"It's a big can of worms!" Gray says. It's his favorite line.

The models can't even predict the weather in two weeks, much less 100 years, he says.

"They sit in this ivory tower, playing around, and they don't tell us if this is going to be a hot summer comingup. Why not? Because the models are no damn good!"

Gray says the recent rash of strong hurricanes is just part of a cycle. This is part of the broader skeptical message: Climate change is normal and natural. There was a Medieval Warm Period, for example, long


4 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

before Exxon Mobil existed.

Sterling Burnett, a skeptic who is a senior fellow at the National Center for Policy Analysis in Dallas, says that even if he's wrong about global warming, mandating cuts in carbon emissions would mean economic disaster for poor countries, and cost jobs in America: "I don't know any politician anywhere who is going to run on a platform of saying, 'I'm

going to put you out of work.'"

The skeptics don't have to win the argument, they just have to stay in the game, keep things stirred up and make sure the politicians don't pass any laws that have dangerous climate change as a premise. They're winning that battle. The Senate had hearings on climate change this spring but has put off action for now. The Bush administration is hoping for some kind of technological solution and won't commit itself to cuts in emissions.

The skeptics have a final trump in the argument: Climate change is actually good. Growing seasons will be longer. Plants like carbon dioxide. Trees devour it. This demonized molecule, CO2, isn't some kind of toxin or contaminant or pollutant -- it's fertilizer.

The Free Market Solution: Zoos

AL GORE IS ABOUT TO COME ON THE BIG SCREEN. Fred Smith is eagerly awaiting the moment. We're at a media

preview of "An Inconvenient Truth," the documentary on Gore and global warming (it debuts this week in Washington). Smith is not exactly a Gore groupie. He is the head of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a factory for global warming skepticism.

CEI has 28 people on staff, "half a platoon," Smith likes to say. They're in the persuasion business, fighting for the free market. They lobby against government regulations of all kinds. Smith writes articles with titles such as "Eco-Socialism: Threat to Liberty Around the World." These promoters of capitalism don't really operate a commercial enterprise; like any think tank, CEI relies on donations from individuals, foundations and corporations. The most generous sponsors of last year's annual dinner at the Capital Hilton were the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, Exxon Mobil, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, and Pfizer. Other contributors included General Motors, the American Petroleum Institute, the American Plastics Council, the Chlorine Chemistry Council and Arch Coal.

Smith is short, stocky, bearded. He talks extremely fast and sprinkles his remarks with free market jargon, climate change lingo, historical references and various mysterious words that seem to come from a secret conservatives-only code book.

As we wait for the movie to start, I ask him how he would define his political beliefs. "Classical liberal," he says. He explains that civilization is a means for allowing individuals to liberate their energies and their genius -- an emergence from primitive, tribal, collectivist social arrangements. When humans switch from collectivism to private property, he says, "you have greater freedom of ideas." This prompts the thought that the federal government owns way too much land in the West. Much of it should be privatized, he says.

Including national parks? I ask.

"Probably wouldn't touch it for political reasons," he says.

The movie begins: Images of a river. Lush foliage. Gore's voice, almost sultry, rhapsodizes about nature. Then we see him take a stage in an auditorium. He is in a suit and tie and looks very much like a candidate


5 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

for political office.

"Maybe he is running," Smith says.

When Gore shows a big graph of rising CO2, Smith says, "That's a phony scale."

The film shows footage from Hurricane Katrina.

"It was a Category 3 hurricane," Smith says. Not the Cat 5, at landfall, you keep hearing about.

Gore reveals that insurance losses because of hurricanes have steadily climbed.

"That's just dishonest," Smith says. There are more beach houses and so on -- it's just an infrastructure issue.

Subsequent visits to the Competitive Enterprise Institute show Smith in his element. The think tank is a warren of offices lined with framed magazine advertisements from the 1950s and earlier. These are images ofthe Golden Age of American Commerce, when cars were like luxury liners and chemical companies bragged about their mosquito-annihilating concoctions.

"New Guinea is an island gripped in the vise of high, jagged mountain ranges . . . Choking entangling jungle is everywhere . . . In this appalling setting, aviation made an epic conquest." That's ad copy for the Socony-Vacuum oil company, later known as Mobil.

Smith loves this stuff. Those were the days! The message: Free enterprise brings people together and improves their lives. It was the Better Living Through Chemistry era. Smith points out an ad for Weyerhaeuser Timber showing clear-cut forests on a mountainside and two raccoons tussling with one another on the stump of a Douglas fir. Another photo, lower, shows a frame house. You can clearly see that cutting forests benefits people. Nowadays, environmentalists want the benefits without any of the pain. "It's all gain, no pain," Smith says.

We pass an asbestos ad.

"When I was a kid, this was called the miracle mineral," he says.

Although Smith can be rambling and digressive, he has a team of analysts who know the global warming topic inside and out and can quickly produce the latest nugget of potentially contradictory evidence (Greenland melted faster in the 1920s!). What rankles them most of all is the suggestion that global warming is a problem that must be fixed by the government, top down, through regulations. Let the free market work its genius, they say. Countries with thriving economies will, in the long run, be more adaptive to climate change and will find more technological solutions than countries that hamstring themselves by clamping down on greenhouse emissions.

Smith's office has a grand view of Farragut Square and the Washington Monument in the distance. A man named Chris Horner, general counsel of the Cooler Heads Coalition, joins us, as does, popping in and out, Marlo Lewis, a CEI policy analyst who works on climate change. They lapse several times into the Secret Code.

"Terrible toos," Horner says. I'm confused. He explains that it's shorthand for environmental doom and gloom.

"Terrible toos. Too many people, using too many resources."

Smith has a different equation: "Less people, less affluence, less technology: We call that death, poverty and


6 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

ignorance."

They believe the rise of carbon dioxide may be a symptom of global warming, not the cause. Look at the chart Gore used:

Didn't it look like the warming comes before the CO2 increase?

Lewis says the snows of Kilimanjaro have been in retreat since the 1880s. The climate there is not getting warmer, it's getting drier. Just won't snow.

They see economic growth as an all-purpose cure for environmental problems. Rich societies are environmentally resilient; poor societies have dirty power plants and sooty huts. Government regulations aren't necessary. I ask Lewis if he thinks the Clean Air Act is a good idea. "It depends," he

answers. There follows a complicated riff from Smith about common law property rights and English fishermen suing upstream polluters in the 19th century.

Smith takes an abrupt detour into the issue of endangered species. The solution is to let the private sector handle it. They should be privatized, like pets or livestock. Dogs, cats, chickens, pigs: These creatures won't ever go extinct.

I want to make sure I understand what he is saying, so I begin to ask a question: "For endangered species, people should --"

"-- own them," Smith says.

But isn't there a difference between animals that live in zoos and animals that live in the wild?

"Yes and no," Smith says. " 'Zoo' is a pejorative term that PETA has turned into an animal slavery community. A zoo is nothing more than an elaborate ark."

What's unnatural, Smith says, is wilderness. The so-called wilderness of early America used to be inhabited by Indians, and they changed their environment. "They burned down trees, they burned forests, they ran buffaloes over cliffs. They were not dancing with wolves," he says. "Wilderness is the least natural part of this planet."

Human beings, in his view, are not apart from nature but very much of it, and thus whatever human beings dois natural. Environmentalists view human activity as a blemish, and animal activity as noble and good. If Manhattan had been built by termites, environmentalists would make it a World Heritage Site, Smith says. If the Grand Canyon had been the result of coal mining, he says, "Al Gore would say, 'This is horrible.'"

Horner talks about baselines used in climate trends. Why start in 1860? That was the end of the Little Ice Age. Of course the world has warmed since then. That's cheating with the baseline. At one point Horner refers to the "cooling" since 1998 -- a record-breaking year with a major El Niño event in the Pacific. Headmits he is being disingenuous.

"We're playing the baseline game," Horner says.

And then -- I'm not even sure how it comes up -- Smith says we can solve the problem of gorillas being killedin Africa. They're caught in the middle of a civil war among African tribes. The solution: Evacuate them. Airlift them out, like soldiers caught behind enemy lines.

"We've got lots of land."


7 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

For the gorillas, he means.

"Build a Jurassic Park in Central

America."

Horner says that perhaps we are getting off track.

And Then There's Hitler

LET US BE HONEST about the intellectual culture of America in general: It has become almost impossible to have an intelligent discussion about anything.

Everything is a war now. This is the age of lethal verbal combat, where even scientific issues involving measurements and molecules are somehow supernaturally polarizing. The controversy about global warming resides all too perfectly at the collision point of environmentalism and free market capitalism. It's bound to benot only politicized but twisted, mangled and beaten senseless in the process. The divisive nature of global warming isn't helped by the fact that the most powerful global-warming skeptic (at least by reputation) is President Bush, and the loudest warnings come from Al Gore.

Human beings may be large of brain, but they are social animals, too, like wolves, and are prone to behave in packs. So when something like climate change comes up, the first thing people want to know is, whose side are you on? All those climatic variables and uncertainties and probabilities and "forcings" and "feedback loops," those cans of worms that Bill Gray talks about, get boiled down to their essence. Are you with us or against us?

Somehow Hitler keeps popping into the discussion. Gore draws a parallel between fighting global warming and fighting the Nazis. Novelist Michael Crichton, in State of Fear , ends with an appendix comparing the theory of global warming to the theory of eugenics -- the belief, prominently promoted by Nazis, that the gene pool of the human species was degenerating due to higher reproductive rates of "inferior" people. Both, he contends, are examples of junk science, supported by intellectual elites who will later conveniently forget they signed on to such craziness.

And Gray has no governor on his rhetoric. At one point during our meeting in Colorado he blurts out, "Gore believed in global warming almost as much as Hitler believed there was something wrong with the Jews."

When I opine that he is incendiary, he answers: "Yes, I am incendiary. But the other side is just as incendiary. The etiquette of science has long ago been thrown out the window."

In a media-saturated world, it's hard to get anyone's attention without cranking the volume. Time magazine recently declared that Earth looks like a planet that is sick (cover headline: "Be Worried. Be Very Worried"). Vanity Fair published a "worst-case scenario" photo illustration of Manhattan drowned by an 80-foot sea-level rise, the skyscrapers poking up from what has become part of the Atlantic Ocean. That's not inconceivable over the course of many centuries, but the scientific consensus (IPCC, 2001) is that by 2100 sea level will have risen somewhere between three and 34 inches from its 1990 level.

The news media -- always infatuated with doom (were it not for the obvious ramifications for ratings and circulation, the media would love to cover the End of the World) -- struggle to resist the most calamitous-sounding climate scenarios. Consider the January 2005 survey of thousands of climate change models that showed a very wide range of possibilities. One model at the very extreme had a worst-case-scenario warming of 11 degrees Celsius -- which is nearly 20 degrees Fahrenheit.

"The world is likely to heat up by an average of 11ºC by the end of the century, the biggest-ever study of


8 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

global warming showed yesterday," the London Evening Standard reported online. This would cause "a surgein sea levels threatening the lives of billions of people."

Wrong, but whatever.

The skeptics feed on alarmism. They love any sign that global warming is a case of mass hysteria. Someone like Myron Ebell, an analyst at CEI, freely admits that, as an advocate in a politicized battle, he tries to make "the best case against alarmism." Everyone, on both sides, is arguing like a lawyer these days, he says. "Whatis going on right now is a desperate last-ditch Battle of the Bulge type effort by the forces of darkness, which is relying heavily on the lockstep/groupthink scientific community."

The president's science adviser, John Marburger, thinks the politicized debate has made it almost impossible to talk sensibly about the issue. "There seems to be the general feeling that somehow the administration doesn't feel that climate change is happening," he says. "That's completely wrong." The administration just doesn't think the problem can be solved with the "magic wand" of regulation.

Marburger recently declined to go on "60 Minutes" to address allegations that

federal scientists were being muzzled and government reports rewritten by the White House to minimize concerns about global warming. "In general the public discourse on this has gotten completely off the track, and we're never going to straighten it out on '60 Minutes,'" Marburger says.

This issue forces Americans to sort through a great deal of science, technology and economics, all of it saturated in divisive politics. Many Americans haven't really tuned in. A Gallup poll in March showed that global warming is far down the list of concerns among Americans -- even when asked to rank their environmental worries. More Americans were worried about damage to the ozone layer. No doubt some people have the two issues confused. Both involve air, and emissions of some kind, and some worrisome global effect. But the ozone issue, while hardly solved, has at least been seriously addressed with a global ban on chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs).

Climate change takes place on time scales of decades and centuries. In a 24-hour information society, it is hard to keep the year 2100 in mind. But these changes are happening at a geologically rapid pace. For roughly the past 10,000 years, since the end of the last Ice Age, human beings have enjoyed a relatively stable, comfortable "interglacial" period, during which they've invented everything from agriculture to moon rockets. Nomadic bands of hunters and gatherers have given way to more than 6 billion people, largely urbanized and energy-hungry. Pressure on ecosystems is immense. Biologists warn of a "sixth extinction" -- the sixth mass extinction of species since the rise of multicellular organisms about 600 million years ago. Themost recent mass extinction, 65 million years ago, was apparently caused by a mountain-size object striking Earth. Human civilization, in this view, is like an asteroid hitting the planet.

The expansion of human civilization is an experiment on a global scale: What happens when a species obtains not only intelligence but technology? Do intelligent, technological species tend to survive for a long time -- or bring their environment crashing down around them?

The Hurricane Conference

BILL GRAY HAS THE HONOR of delivering the closing remarks at the National Hurricane Conference in Orlando. It's mid-April, and we're at a fancy hotel on International Drive, a main street for the tourist industrythat has sprouted from the orange groves and cow pastures of central Florida. Gray seems to be everywhere, constantly talking, popping out to the terrace by the pool to give TV interviews, holding forth without any hint of fatigue. He has three media assistants following him around. They are working under contract for TCSDaily, a Web site that is a nexus of anti-global-warming arguments.


9 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

They set up two news conferences. At both events, Gray gives his standard arguments about global warming, bracketing a dispassionate discussion of the upcoming tropical storm season by his young protege, Phil Klotzbach. The two are a sight to behold: Gray, the white-haired titan, thunderous, outraged, and Klotzbach, red-haired, freckled, very calm, very mild, looking so much younger than his 25 years.

"I think there's a lot of foolishness going on," Gray says as he stands before a bank of 10 TV cameras and a couple of dozen journalists.

Hurricanes aren't getting worse -- we're just in an uptick of a regular cycle. But the alarmists won't let anyonebelieve that.

"The world is boiling! It's getting worse and worse!" Gray shouts. "Hell is approaching."

He was a paperboy in Washington in the 1940s, he says. There were stories back then about global warming. But then it got cooler, for decades, and by the mid-1970s the story had changed, and scientists were warning of -- yes -- an Ice Age! Gray shows a slide of magazine covers in the mid-1970s (Science Digest, 1973; Newsweek, 1975) fretting about the Cooling World.

The core of Gray's argument is that the warming of the past decades is a natural cycle, driven by a global ocean circulation that manifests itself in the North Atlantic as the Gulf Stream. Warm water and cool water essentially rise and fall in a rhythm lasting decades. "I don't think this warming period of the last 30 years cankeep on going," he says. "It may warm another three, five, eight years, and then it will start to cool."

Gray's crusade against global warming "hysteria" began in the early 1990s, when he saw enormous sums of federal research money going toward computer modeling rather than his kind of science, the old-fashioned stuff based on direct observation. Gray often cites the ascendancy of Gore to the vice presidency as the start of his own problems with federal funding. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) stopped giving him research grants. So did NASA. All the money was going to computer models. The field was going off on this wild tangent.

Numerical models can't predict the future, he says. They don't even pretend to predict the weather in the coming season -- "but they make predictions of 50 or 100 years from now and ask you to believe the Earth will get warmer."

The modelers are equation pushers.

"They haven't been down in the trenches, making forecasts and understanding stuff!"

The news media are self-interested.

"Media people are all out for Pulitzer Prizes!"

The IPCC is elitist.

"They don't talk to us! I've never been approached by the IPCC."

He spots a famous meteorologist in the back of the room. It's Neil Frank, former

director of the National Hurricane Center.

"Neil, have they ever approached you?"

"No," Frank answers.


10 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

A TV reporter asks Gray a key question: "What if you're wrong?"

"We can't do anything about it if I'm wrong. China and India are going to burn fossil fuels."

After Gray finishes, he gives more interviews. Frank, waiting in the wings, tells me he agrees with Gray.

"It's a hoax," he says. He says cutting carbon emissions would wind up hurting poor people. I ask if he thinks more CO2 in the air would be a good thing.

"Exactly! Maybe we're living in a carbon dioxide-starved world. We don't know."

Skeptics and Conspiracies

THE SKEPTICS DON'T AGREE with one another. They will privately distance themselves from other skeptics ("I think he's full of beans") while maintaining a certain public solidarity against the Forces of Fear. Pat Michaels, the U-Va. climatologist, doesn't even want to be called a skeptic.

"I believe in climate change caused by human beings," Michaels says. "What I'm skeptical about is the glib notion that it means the end of the world as we know it."

John Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says: "We're skeptical that the observations we see now are indicating catastrophic change. And we're skeptical of our capability to trulyunderstand the climate system, how it works, and so on, and therefore predict its evolution."

Of all the skeptics, MIT's Richard Lindzen probably has the most credibility among mainstream scientists, who acknowledge that he's doing serious research on the subject. Lindzen contends that water vapor and clouds, which will increase in a warmer world because of higher rates of evaporation, create "negative feedbacks" that counter the warming trend. "The only reason the models get such a big response is that, in models, the most important greenhouse substances, which are water vapor and clouds, act to take anything man does and make it worse," he says. Observations show otherwise, he says.

Lindzen argues that the climate models can't be right, because we've already raised CO2 and methane dramatically, and the planet simply hasn't warmed that much. But Isaac Held, a NOAA modeler, says Lindzen is jumping the gun, because the greenhouse gases take time -- decades, centuries -- to have their full impact. Indeed, we've already made a "commitment" to warming. We couldn't stop global warming at this point if we closed every factory and curbed every car. The mainstream argument is that we could minimize the increase, and reduce the risk of a dangerous, unstable, white-knuckle climate change.

Held studied under Lindzen years ago and considers him a friend and a smart scientist -- but highly contrarian.

"There're people like [Lindzen] in every field of science. There are always people in the fringes. They're attracted to the fringe . . . It may be as simple as, how do you prove you're smarter than everyone else? You don't do that by being part of the consensus," Held says.

The most vocal partisans in the climate change debate often describe their opponents as part of a conspiracy, of sorts. Both sides think the other side has a monetary or political incentive to skew the data. But there are people in this battle who fervently believe in what they say. Bill Gray says he takes no fossil-fuel money. He's simply sick and tired of squishy-minded hand-wringing equation-pushing computer jocks who've never flown into a hurricane!

Gray has his own conspiracy theory. He has made a list of 15 reasons for the global warming hysteria. The list includes the need to come up with an enemy after the end of the Cold War, and the desire among


11 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

scientists, government leaders and environmentalists to find a political cause that would enable them to "organize, propagandize, force conformity and exercise political influence. Big world government could best lead (and control) us to a better world!"

Gray admits that he has a dark take on human nature: "I have a demonic view on this."

The most notorious example of climate change conspiracy-mongering is in Crichton's State of Fear . The villain is the director of an environmental organization. He's in league with radical environmentalists who killpeople at the drop of a hat as part of a plot to trigger natural disasters that will somehow advance the theory of global warming. The novel's fans include the president of the United States, who met with Crichton in the White House.

There's a certain kind of skeptic who has no patience for the official consensus, especially if it has the imprimatur of a government, or worse, the United Nations. They focus on ambiguities and mysteries and things that just don't add up. They say the Official Story can't possibly be true, because it doesn't explain the [insert inexplicable data point here]. They set a high standard for reality -- it must never be fuzzy around the edges.

"They argue not as scientists but as lawyers," says Pieter Tans, who runs a lab at NOAA in Boulder, Colo., where he examines bottles of air taken from monitoring stations all over the planet. "When they argue, they pick one piece of the fabric of evidence and blow it up all out of proportion . . . Their purpose is to confuse, so that the public gets the idea that there is a raging scientific debate. There is no raging scientific debate."

Some of the anomalies cited by the skeptics go away over time. Remember that graph showing the world's temperature leveling off and actually cooling from 1940 to 1975, even as the industrial economies of the planet were going full blast? The mainstream climate scientists think one factor may have been air pollution -- aerosols pumped out by smokestacks, dimming sunlight before it reached the surface. In the early 1970s, governments passed air pollution controls, such as the Clean Air Act, that required scrubbers on smokestacks.The skies cleared. And the temperature has been racing upward ever since.

What about the Medieval Warm Period? If human industry causes warming, why were the Vikings sailing around the North Atlantic to godforsaken places like Greenland and setting up farming communities 1,000 years ago? Many scientists answer that the Medieval Warm Period wasn't a global phenomenon. You can't draw global conclusions from the experience of the North Atlantic.

"There is this misperception that global change is a spatially uniform and smooth in time process," says Kerry Emanuel, an atmospheric scientist at MIT. "In fact that's not true. There's all kind of variability. You can find places in the world where the temperature has gone down for the past 50 years. When you're lookingfor a signal in a very noisy record you do as much averaging as possible."

So what about all those fears, back in the 1970s, of a coming Ice Age? It was a minor issue among serious climate scientists. One paper commonly cited by skeptics as an example of Ice Age doomsaying merely stated that, absent any human-driven global warming, an Ice Age might return in 20,000 years.

The most famous anomaly, long cited by skeptics, was the satellite data. It didn't show the warming of the lower atmosphere.

It flatly contradicted the surface measurements. Earlier this month, the U.S. Climate Change Science Program announced that a re-analysis of the data resolved most of the discrepancy. Anomaly gone. Arch-skeptic Fred Singer says there's still some inconsistency, but the advocates of the consensus view of global warming feel vindicated. ("Game over," one environmentalist told The Washington Post.)

Scientists are argumentative by nature. They're supposed to be. They're supposed to attempt to disprove the


12 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

hypotheses and claims of their fellow scientists. Theories are hazed unmercifully. And when they emerge from that trial-by-skepticism, they are all the more respected.

Certain skeptics -- really, they're optimists -- have scored debate points by noting that prophesies of doom have often slammed into a wall of human resourcefulness. But you can't solve a problem if you spend decades failing to perceive it. Humans adapt best when worried.

Or at least not in denial.

Back in Orlando

Climate change is generating headlines almost daily -- (e.g., "Peril to Walrus Young Seen As Result of Melting Ice Shelf") -- but it is also abstruse in its specifics, so journalists rely on "experts" to tell them where the truth lies. Someone like Bill Gray seems to be a fully credentialed authority figure. But when you press him on his theory of how thermohaline circulation has caused recent warming of the planet and will soon cause cooling, he concedes that he hasn't published the idea in any peer-reviewed journal. He's working on it,he says.

The Web site Real Climate, run by a loose group of climate scientists, recently published a detailed refutationof Gray's theory, saying his claims about the ocean circulation lack evidence. The Web site criticized Gray for not adapting to the modern era of meteorology, "which demands hypotheses soundly grounded in quantitative and consistent physical formulations, not seat-of-the-pants flying."

The field has fully embraced numerical modeling, and Gray is increasingly on the fringe. His cranky skepticism has become a tired act among younger scientists. "It's sad," says Emanuel, who has vowed never again to debate Gray in public.

When I ask Gray who his intellectual soul mates are regarding global warming, he responds, "I have nobody really to talk to about this stuff."

That's not entirely true. He has many friends and colleagues, and the meteorologists tend to share his skeptical streak.

I ask if he has ever collaborated on a paper with Richard Lindzen. Gray says he hasn't. He looks a little pained.

"Lindzen, he's a hard guy to deal with," Gray says. "He doesn't think he can learn anything from me."

Which is correct. Lindzen says of Gray: "His knowledge of theory is frustratingly poor, but he knows more about hurricanes than anyone in the world. I regard him in his own peculiar way as a national resource."

In Orlando, the national resource has the honor of closing the hurricane conference with a speech. He and Klotzbach go through their usual routine. Gray talks of global warming foolishness, untrusty numerical models, underappreciated ocean circulation, overly dramatized CO2 increases, the crazy complexity of the weather.

"It becomes an absolute can of worms!"

He seems to be running out of steam just a little bit. He's given so many interviews, he might have lost a littlevelocity on his fastball. But everyone claps at the end. He throws in a final few words:

"Don't believe everything you read in the paper! This whole business about global warming --"


13 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

But he steps from the mike, and his final words are inaudible.

In 20 years, he likes to say, the world will have cooled, and everyone will know he was right all along. When that happens, he says, he hopes someone will put flowers on his grave.

Adapting to Uncertainty

Let us say a word in praise of uncertainty. It is a concession to an interesting and complicated planet that is full of surprises. The fog of uncertainty surrounding climate change is routinely cited as a reason to wait before making cuts in greenhouse emissions. But if we wait for that fog to break, we'll wait forever.

Isaac Held, the NOAA climate modeler, is the first to admit that the models aren't perfect. "Clouds are hard," he says. The models on his computer screen are incomprehensible to the untrained eye. But Held argues that the models are conservative. For global warming to be less of a problem than is currently anticipated, all the uncertainties would have to break, preferentially, toward the benign side of things.

Moreover, we don't even know all the things that we don't know. James Hansen, the prominent NASA scientist, points out that the models don't realistically include ice sheets and the biosphere -- all the plants and animals on Earth. The global climate surely has more surprises for us.

"Our models were not predicting the ozone hole in 1980 when it was discovered," Held says. Scientists are haunted by the realization that if CFCs had been made with a slightly different type of chemistry, they'd have destroyed much of the ozone layer over the entire planet.

Hansen thinks we have less than 10 years to make drastic cuts in greenhouse emissions, lest we reach a "tipping point" at which the climate will be out of our control. Hansen may be a step ahead of the consensus -- but that doesn't mean he's wrong. In the brutally hot summer of 1988, Hansen testified before Congress thatthe signal of global warming could already be detected amid the noise of natural climate variation. Many of his colleagues scoffed. They thought he'd gotten ahead of the hard data. Judy Curry, a Georgia Tech climate scientist, says: "I thought he was playing politics. But, damn it, he was right."

Curry, who believes the skeptics have mounted a "brilliant disinformation campaign," thinks climate change is being held to a different standard than other societal threats. The skeptics want every uncertainty nailed down before any action is taken.

"Why is that standard being applied to greenhouse warming and not to other risks, like terrorism or military risks or avian flu?" she asks.

Mainstream climate scientists readily accept that there is natural variation in the system. For example, greenhouse gases alone can't melt the Arctic at the alarming rate that has been observed recently. Americans sorting through this issue may feel constrained by all the unknowns. Perhaps they need to adapt to uncertainty, to see uncertainty as the norm, and not as a sign of scientific failure.

Or as an excuse to do nothing.

Our Friend CO2

Ten years ago, Fred Smith says, the Competitive Enterprise Institute had contributions from companies across the board in the petroleum industry. It still gets money from Exxon Mobil, the biggest and most hard-line oil company on the climate change issue, but many of its donors have stopped sending checks.

"They've joined the club."


14 of 14 6/1/2006 9:41 AM

The club of believers in global warming.

The executives don't understand "resource economics." They lack faith in the free market to solve these issues. And they go to cocktail parties and find out that everyone thinks they're criminals.

"Or their kids come home from school and say, 'Daddy, why are you killing the planet?'"

Smith never sounds morose, though. He's peppy. He thinks his side is still winning the debate. Look at the polls: Americans don't care about global warming.

He'd like to get people believing once again in good old-fashioned industrial activity. CEI has created a new public-service TV spot. Smith and several colleagues gather round as we watch it on a computer monitor. The ad begins with images of people picnicking in Central Park on a beautiful day. A child is shown blowingthe seeds of a dandelion. A woman's voice, confident, reassuring, says that all these people are creating something that's all around us:

"It's called carbon dioxide," she says, "CO2."

There's an image of an impoverished woman hacking the ground with a hand tool.

"The fuels that produce CO2 have freed us from a life of backbreaking labor."

We see kids jumping out of a minivan. There are politicians out there who want to label CO2 as a pollutant, the narrator says. We return to the child blowing the dandelion seeds.

"Carbon dioxide: They call it pollution. We call it life."

End of ad.

"It should always bring a tear to your eye," Fred Smith says, delighted.

Joel Achenbach is a Magazine staff writer. He will be fielding questions and comments about this article at 11 a.m. Tuesday at washingtonpost.com/liveonline.

© 2006 The Washington Post CompanyAds by Google

International RelationsStudy diplomacy, foreign policy, & more with an online degree.www.apus.edu/InternationalRelations

The Right College?Let us Find Right College for You. Don't Wait - Get Started Nowwww.Find-Your-School.org

Top Online UniversitesEarn your online degree now. Financial aid available. Free info.www.CampusFind.com

Scientists: Global warming to blame for big U.S....

Documents

Transcript of Scientists: Global warming to blame for big U.S....