Ridiculous Letter on Global Warming in the paper

[Dardedar]

DAR
Larry Woodall forwarded this LTE to me. I thought I would examine some of the claims in this thread.

***
Northwest Arkansas Times

Posted on Saturday, February 10, 2007

A little common sense

Let’s add a little common sense lucidity to the ongoing blitzkrieg about so-called “ man-made” climate change. Advocates of this theory are currently all aglow about a “ report ” from the United Nations telling us that the earth is doomed. It is imperative that we consider the source of this document. In the first place, it is not a “ scientific” study. The authors of the “report” were nothing but appointed bureaucrats whose careers and income were at stake should they come up with the “wrong” answer. To put it bluntly, the document is a fraud. A glimpse at the historic climate changes of earth can easily explain the natural phenomena that, today, is being touted as “ man-made” Consider these facts: • Today’s global warming began 18, 000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

• CO 2 (carbon dioxide ) in our atmosphere has been increasing for the last 18, 000 years.

• Earth’s temperature and CO 2 levels today have reached levels similar — but not equal to — a previous interglacial cycle of 120, 000-140, 000 years ago.

• Approximately 99. 72 percent of our “ greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes. This is comprised of mostly water vapor.

• Total human contributions to “ greenhouse” gases account for about 0. 28 percent of the “ greenhouse effect. ”

• Variations in sun activity are responsible for both variations in atmospheric CO 2 and atmospheric temperature. Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO 2 may be the “ effects” and our own sun the “ cause. ”

• Plants absorb CO 2 and emit oxygen as a waste product. Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO 2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant.

• Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Will this pleasant condition continue? Probably not. Now the terminology has changed to “ climate change, ” whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends the headlines can universally blame humans. Listen to Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhouse University, Halifax, Nova Scotia: “ Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a ) way to scare the public... and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are. ” Like always, when dealing with the United Nations, one needs to follow the money. Much of the blather on global warming coming from the United Nations is driven by greed. Since the climate will continue of its own accord to change, our resources may be better spent adapting to global cooling and global warming instead of crippling the world economy in order to achieve insignificant reductions in any global effects due to man-made additions. In fact, eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
Don A. Bright / Fayetteville

[Dardedar]

BRIGHT
A little common sense

Let’s add a little common sense lucidity to the ongoing blitzkrieg about so-called “ man-made” climate change. Advocates of this theory are currently all aglow about a “report” from the United Nations telling us that the earth is doomed.

DAR
This is misleading. From wiki:

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was established in 1988 by two United Nations organizations, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), to assess the risk of human-induced climate change, based mainly on peer reviewed and published scientific/technical literature."

The IPCC report represents the consensus of more than 2,500 leading scientists from more than 30 countries - including the United States.

"Doomed" is a loaded adjective. A rise in sea level causing the displacement of millions of people and the loss of drinking water due to absent glaciers (to name two likely future events) will be very serious consequences of global warming.

It is imperative that we consider the source of this document. In the first place, it is not a “scientific” study. The authors of the “report” were nothing but appointed bureaucrats whose careers and income were at stake should they come up with the “wrong” answer.

DAR
Assertion without evidence. These reports of the IPCC represent the work of thousands of scientists and expert reviewers. Does Bright know what a "scientific study" is? Bright gives not a drop of evidence that there is a right or wrong answer or that a greater reward follows with either "answer."

To put it bluntly, the document is a fraud.

DAR
No evidence for this claim whatsoever. Lets see if he tries to put forward some in the following.

A glimpse at the historic climate changes of earth can easily explain the natural phenomena that, today, is being touted as “ man-made”.

DAR
That's false. I can confidently quote the IPCC's latest findings on this knowing that if I need back it up there will be a very tall stack of scientific material supporting the claim. What does Don Bright have? He doesn't even pretend to back his claim up with anything other his mere say so.

From one of the main findings of the latest IPCC report:

"Most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations"

And:

"Global atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have increased markedly as a result of human activities since 1750 and now far exceed pre-industrial values over the last 650,000 years."

LINK

Consider these facts: • Today’s global warming began 18,000 years ago as the earth started warming its way out of the Pleistocene Ice Age.

DAR
No source and the statement is nonsensical. You might as well say the earth started warming billions of years ago. The Pleistocene Ice Age is not relevant to todays claim. Extensive and rapid warming of the earth is occuring and the best science says we are 95% certain *most* of it is due to human action. There is obviously no precident for this during the history of the earth.

• CO 2 (carbon dioxide ) in our atmosphere has been increasing for the last 18,000 years.

DAR
Here is a little history of the rise and fall of C02 during the last 400,000 years:



Here is a little zoom in on what the chart looks like for the last 200 years:

• Earth’s temperature and CO 2 levels today have reached levels similar — but not equal to — a previous interglacial cycle of 120, 000-140, 000 years ago.

DAR
It's rather disturbing that this claim is not remotely true (even though it was a couple decades ago). See the above chart which shows just that in the last decade we have exceeded CO2 levels for the last 650,000 years. More importantly is the speed it is increasing. It would be nice if one could politely presume that Brights source is just two decades out of date. But he provides no source for his erroneous information.
As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reported in 2001:

"Although contemporary CO2 concentrations were exceeded during earlier geological epochs, present carbon dioxide levels are likely higher now than at any time during the past 20 million years."
source

• Approximately 99. 72 percent of our “greenhouse effect” is due to natural causes. This is comprised of mostly water vapor.

DAR
All global warming models of earth climate change, without exception, take into consideration and calculate for the effects of water vapor. This is a common GW Denier false claim.

The "99.72%" claim (no reference) would leave only .23 percent of the earth's increased temperature due to human causes. It's safe to say that no practicing climatologist on the planet believes this. It's also hard to imagine somewhat informed GW deniers not being embarrassed by this gross overstatement. Actually: "According to the scientific literature and climate experts, CO2 contributes anywhere from 9% to 30% to the overall greenhouse effect."

source

And consider:

"There is no climate model or climate textbook that does not discuss the role water vapor plays in the Greenhouse Effect. It is the strongest Greenhouse gas, contributing 66% to 85% to the overall effect when you include clouds, 36% - 66% for vapor alone. It is however, not considered as a climate "forcing" because the amount of H2O in the air varies basically as a function of temperature. If you artificially increase the level of H2O in the air, it rains out immediately (in terms of climate response times), similarily, due to the abundance of sea surface, if you somehow removed water from the air it would quickly be replaced through evaporation...

CO2 put into the air by burning fossil fuels, on the other hand, has an atmospheric lifetime of centuries before natural sinks will significantly absorb any excess from the air. This is plenty of time to have substantial and even longer lasting effects of the climate system."

More on this here.

• Total human contributions to “greenhouse” gases account for about 0. 28 percent of the “greenhouse effect.”

DAR
No source for this patently false claim. Consider:

"Despite its small concentration, CO2 is a very important component of Earth's atmosphere, because it absorbs infrared radiation at wavelengths of 4.26 µm (asymmetric stretching vibrational mode) and 14.99 µm (bending vibrational mode) and enhances the greenhouse effect."

And:
"Since the start of the Industrial Revolution, the atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased by approximately 110 µL/L or about 40%, most of it released since 1945. Monthly measurements taken at Mauna Loa[7] since 1958 show an increase from 316 µL/L in that year to 376 µL/L in 2003, an overall increase of 60 µL/L during the 44-year history of the measurements. Burning fossil fuels such as coal and petroleum is the leading cause of increased man-made CO2; deforestation is the second major cause."

source

• Variations in sun activity are responsible for both variations in atmospheric CO2 and atmospheric temperature.

DAR
This claim is palpable nonsense. In fact, according to Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeller at the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York: "there has been no effective change in any solar indices since about 1950..."

source

The scientific consensus on this point is more like this:

"solar contributions [are about] 10% or less for 1950-2000 and near 0% and about 10% in 1980-2000 using the PMOD and ACRIM data, respectively.

source

Two other sources:

"According to PMOD at the World Radiation Center there has been no increase in solar irradiance since at least 1978 when satellite observations began. This means that for the last thirty years, while the temperature has been rising fastest, the sun has shown no trend.

There has been work on reconstructing past trends in solar irradiance over the last century before satellite records were available. Acording to the Max Plank Institute there has been no increase in solar irradiance since around 1940."

source

Put another way, rising Earth temperatures and increasing CO2 may be the “effects” and our own sun the “cause.”

DAR
No reputable climatologist believes this and Bright doesn't even try to back up his claim with a source. See above regarding the carefully measured and documented effect of the Sun. As an article in the UK Observer noted in their descussion of the latest IPCC report:

"And in a specific rebuff to sceptics who still argue natural variation in the Sun's output is the real cause of climate change, the panel says mankind's industrial emissions have had five times more effect on the climate than any fluctuations in solar radiation."
source

• Plants absorb CO 2 and emit oxygen as a waste product.

DAR
This is simplistic and misleading. "Plants also emit CO2 during respiration, so it is only during growth stages that plants are net absorbers."

Humans and animals breathe oxygen and emit CO 2 as a waste product. Carbon dioxide is a nutrient, not a pollutant.

DAR
And humans and animals have evolved and adapted to breathe CO 2 at a little below current levels. The comparison with a "nutrient" is childish.

Consider:

"Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies and is between 0.03% (300 ppm) to 0.06% (600 ppm), depending on location and in exhaled air approximately 4.5%. When inhaled in high concentrations (greater than 5% by volume), it is immediately dangerous to the life and health of humans and other animals. The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an 8-hour work day is 0.5% (5000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues would be significantly less.

...Concentrations higher than 1000 ppm will cause discomfort in more than 20% of occupants, and the discomfort will increase with increasing CO2 concentration."

source

• Global climate cycles of warming and cooling have been natural phenomena for hundreds of thousands of years. We currently enjoy a warm Earth. Will this pleasant condition continue? Probably not. Now the terminology has changed to “climate change,” whereby no matter the direction of temperature trends the headlines can universally blame humans.

DAR
This is nonsense. We don't believe the earth is heating, and largely because of human influence, because of "the headlines." Sensible people believe climate change is a serious concern because of literally mountains of solid peer-reviewed science put together over decades.

Listen to Petr Chylek, professor of physics and atmospheric science at Dalhouse University, Halifax, Nova Scotia: “ Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a ) way to scare the public... and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are.”

DAR
The idea that all of the world's climatologists are in on some kind of greed based grand conspiracy to scare the public is really too absurd for comment. And as an article in The Guardian last week pointed out:

"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group [The American Enterprise Institute] funded by [Exxon] to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."

There is lots of money to be made supporting the Global Warming denial position, but very few real scientists, climatologists, are going for the money it seems. AEI has since dropped the offer.

Like always, when dealing with the United Nations, one needs to follow the money.

DAR
The United Nations is not a money making organization. They actually have a very small operating budget.

Much of the blather on global warming coming from the United Nations is driven by greed.

DAR
How greed is involved is not explained. Anyway, the science on global warming to be concerned about is coming from 2,500 scientists from 30 different countries. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme simply coordinate the efforts of the best scientists in the world.
While there is evidence that some pressure is being applied to influence what the scientists say on this matters, it is all coming from the Global Warming deniers. As MSNBC reported Jan 30:

"Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,” “global warming” or similar terms from communications about their work."
source

Since the climate will continue of its own accord to change, our resources may be better spent adapting to global cooling and global warming instead of crippling the world economy in order to achieve insignificant reductions in any global effects due to man-made additions.

DAR
No supporting evidence is provided for the claim that the world's economy would be crippled if we took measures to deal with CO2 output or improved the effciency of our energy using devices. It may be true that we will have no other choice at this point than to deal with the higher temperatures and all of the problems this may cause. But this will no doubt cause tragic losses for the planet.

In fact, eliminating human activity altogether would have little impact on climate change.
Don A. Bright / Fayetteville

DAR
Again not a bit of supporting evidence for this claim, and of course it is purely a strawman fallacy to suggest that anyone is proposing "eliminating human activity altogether."

regards,

Darrel Henschell

[LaWood]

Excellent work Darrel.

Somewhere in these arguments it should be mentioned that human population is growing exponentially. I don't have numbers for the average human carbon-print but the human population has increased
from our first one billion in 1800 to 6.1 billion today. Projections for the next 100 years are not so dire, just a doubling of today's numbers and that may be too conservatively rosy since I see little abatement of the religio-rabbit mindsets of "go forth and multiply."
Our totalnutjobs in the Wht Hse will not allow the mention of birth control in any of U.S. aid programs, not even condums.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Thanks LaWood.

I am rather skeptical of population explosion arguments (although there are certainly places on the earth that are a cesspool and vastly over populated). I get Bob Park's e-newsletter and he addressed this a little in his latest issue:

***
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 9 Feb 07 Washington, DC

4. THE DOOMSDAY MACHINE: "ENFORCING" POPULATION LIMITATIONS?
Several readers last week took WN to task over the population
question. Should we force abortions, they ask, or jail parents,
or take even more stringent measures? That doesn't seem to be
necessary. Among affluent and educated nations, native-born
populations are stable or shrinking now. Their growth is almost
entirely by immigration. All that's needed is to remove our
legal obstacles to birth control, and raise the standard of
living and educational level of impoverished nations. That would
probably be enough. If not, reduce tax deductions and other
fecundity incentives. A few will still behave irresponsibly, but
society can tolerate them in the name of freedom as we do with
those who are environmentally insensitive.

Archives of What's New can be found at http://www.bobpark.org

[Doug]

BRIGHT
A little common sense

Let’s add a little common sense lucidity to the ongoing blitzkrieg about so-called “ man-made” climate change. Advocates of this theory are currently all aglow about a “report” from the United Nations telling us that the earth is doomed.

DAR
This is misleading. From wiki:

DOUG
Great roast. Are you going to try to send a copy to the dull Bright? Or better still, send a letter to the editor referencing your roast in a link.

[LaWood]

Dar:
I am rather skeptical of population explosion arguments"

That was not my point. The issue is human caused global warming. Our total carbon output is a quantitative thing hence it parallels the numbers of humans doing the carbon output. Note the large jump in Global fossil carbon emissions (1950-60) in the graph you reproduced above. Then note global population increase from 1950-1960 until present. I don't know if you call this a "population explosion" or not, but the rate has been exponential especially if you consider how many centuries it took for humanity to achieve its first 1 billion count in 1800 then to 6.1 billion heads today.

I have no idea of what an "optimal global population" would be. I doubt anyone does. I heard Buckminister Fuller say in 1969 that as societies become more industrialized their birth rates decline.

Just consider that most agri fertilizers are currently made from petro.
I don't know the equation of how many more barrels oil or cf of natural gas are consumed with each net addition of a million heads.

If I were younger and was investing for the long-term I would consider water treatment technologies or industries. I think you folks under 40 are gonna awaken one day and discover there is a severe shortage of potable water. I will likely be long-gone.

[Dardedar]

DAR
Okay, I see LaWood. I agree that our recent explosion in population (I would call it an explosion) will greatly exacerbate our efforts to modify our energy usage as we deal with GW.

I was in Los Angeles for two weeks recently. One relative we stayed with was a far rightwing nut job. He had O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior" by the reading chair and Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity and Michael "Weiner" Savage on the book shelf. He is in his early sixties and was quite honest about his position on global warming. He said he wouldn't be alive when it was a problem so he didn't see why he should care. Finally, an honest conservative.

D.

[LaWood]

Dar- your rightwing nut job relative, if he makes it to average age of 78 will see the effects of global warming, we are seeing it today and like population explosion, once it takes off it will become exponential because one change will beget another and so on. Likewise if he makes it to the aver age of 78 he will see a severe shortage of potable water. Even RWingnut, Congressman Boozman spoke about water shortages during his 2000 election and that was
7 years ago. Fortunately for you "younguns' who will inherit this area Okla will not allow damming of the Illinois River, so building some resevoirs up river from Beaver is the only option left to this area and that could prove to be too costly. Hence local growth has a built in limit even if they get a resevoir on Lee's Creek which I hope you younger folks raise hell about should such silliness be further considered.

The U.N. reported in 2001 that since 1950 we have dumped an additional 100,000 chemicals into Earth's water ways.
_

[Dardedar]

And that rightwing nut lives in CA where the water wars will be starting the soonest.

I thought of something else that supports your concern about population. As Bob Park says above, raising the standard of living tends to cure over population problems nicely but a populace living at a higher standard of living (i.e. US) uses vastly more energy. And currently a lot of dirty energy.

D.

[Doug]

If I were younger and was investing for the long-term I would consider water treatment technologies or industries. I think you folks under 40 are gonna awaken one day and discover there is a severe shortage of potable water. I will likely be long-gone.

DOUG
That shortage is already starting in some places in Africa and Asia. Lakes drying up.

Yes, water treatment technologies will need to really get going in the next decade.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

The only reason we haven't seen the water shortage problem already is that in the U.S we are mining our fossil water (major aquifers) at an even faster rate than we have our petroleum. When the Ogalala runs dry, our "breadbasket" will become a dustbowl again - permenantly this time, since the Ogalala structure is collapsing as the water is being removed and cannot be recharged.

As to people like the not-so-bright Bright, they are not just GW deniers, they are "the U.N. is going to take us over and make the U.S. just one more state in the one world government" people. They know nothing about how the U.N. actually works and would call you a liar if you told them. They are so manipulable - like clay - it's a wonder they don't melt in the summer. Just like the Rs have convinced their sheep that minimum wage will cost jobs and shut down businesses, that social security is doomed, and Saddam Hussain was responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks, they have convinced their sheep that the United Nations is the precursor to the evil "one world government" mentioned in some versions of Revelations. There's a 6-letter word for these folks you hear in old Warner Bros cartoons - suc-ker!

[Dardedar]

DAR
Still looking for Don Bright's email address. I found this picture of the Wayne Fincher "Militia of Washington County" group of which Don Bright is a supporter. Anyone know if he is in this cute picture?



Don't you feel safer knowing these guys are here to protect us from the government?

D.

[Doug]

Don't you feel safer knowing these guys are here to protect us from the government?D.

DOUG
At least the football players in Red Dawn were in shape. Sheesh.

[Barbara Fitzpatrick]

How good a shape to you have to be to shoot people? That's why they are so into guns - distance weapons almost as much fun as a video game. And no, I don't feel safe with those guys "protecting us from the government" - but then, I used to be married to a cop.

[LaWood]

Don Bright, <address removed>
someone can send him a postcard. Takes a day from Fayetteville.

Edited by Savonarola 20070213 1950: removed address

[Savonarola]

*glares at LaWood*

If a person cares to post his or her personal contact information on our forum, so be it, but we will not have people's personal information strewn about our website without their consent. That is simply unacceptable.

--Savonarola, Mod@Large

[Dardedar]

DAR
I didn't know it was a big deal. Anyone can google "Don Bright fayetteville" and what appears to be his mailing address pops up all over. He's hardly secretive about it. He runs the "The Wayne Fincher Defense Fund" from this address and that gets advertised widely no doubt. See the War on Guns Blogspot for instance.

D.

[Savonarola]

I didn't know it was a big deal. Anyone can google "Don Bright fayetteville" and what appears to be his mailing address pops up all over. He's hardly secretive about it.

Then let them Google. We don't need to be a repository for contact information, especially of those people who probably would jump at the opportunity to be pissy about it with us.

Considering how much effort I've put into fighting the ever-evolving bots and keeping this forum registration-optional such that personal information isn't even submitted, the least we can do is demonstrate elsewhere that we value personal privacy, even if some people don't.

[Hogeye]

The IPCC is a political entity, with some scientific input at the lowest levels, but intensively politicized by later writers and propagandists. The final draft is approved line by line by political appointees. You can read this on IPCC's own web page. Appealing to this political group as the final say on the matter as Darrel often does is dubious.

A glimpse at the historic climate changes of earth can easily explain the natural phenomena that, today, is being touted as “man-made”.

This is easily seen from the various renderings of paleo-climate. The MWP (Medieval Warm Period) was approximately as hot as today - and lasted much longer. And somehow the polar bears survived, the oceans did not rise, and the sky did not fall.

The fact is, no one knows how much of the late 20th century global warming is due to man-made factors, or which man-made factors - land use or greenhouse gasses. I thought Don's letter was pretty good.

Here's a good article about "The War on Climate Change."

Let Me Worry About Climate Change

It begins...

Does climate change caused by mankind even exist? My answer is "No." The idea is highly improbable. And I view its support by a panel of scientists as a fraud, notwithstanding the participation of those sincere scientists who have examined research and contributed to its interpretation. But the latter fraud pales by comparison with four far greater deceits: (1) That the world needs to wage a War on Climate Change; (2) that the states of the world should spearhead this war; (3) that the states of the world have the authority to prosecute such a war; and (4) that said states can wage such a war successfully.

The quixotic idea of a War on Climate Change is preposterous. Statesmen who cannot control their tempers, their verbal blunders, and their bedrooms, propose to control the world’s climate. Statesmen who cannot get through the night without having to relieve themselves, who cannot settle a dispute over a barren island, and who routinely lie, cheat, and steal, propose to unite in an effort to control the earth’s climate. Men who routinely unleash forces within society that are beyond their control, and who then try to control them with bombs, terrorism, napalm, mines, missiles, and issues of paper money, now propose to control the world’s climate over the next 100 years. What insanity is afflicting us? What impossible propaganda will we the people not sop up and place our faith in? Statesmen cannot stop engaging us in slaughtering each other in the multi-millions on behalf of their insane wars. And yet now they propose to get together to control the earth’s climate on our behalf? We are utter fools if we believe this claptrap. We are utter fools if we do not suspect that any cooperation they might cobble together is anything but designed to further their power over us.

[Dardedar]

The IPCC is a political entity, with some scientific input at the lowest levels,

DAR
That's just nonsense. As I posted in another thread:

"The Peer Review Process
The IPCC’s technical reports derive their credibility principally from an extensive, transparent, and iterative peer review process that, as mentioned above, is considered far more exhaustive than that associated with scientific journals. This is due to the number of reviewers, the breadth of their disciplinary backgrounds and scientific perspectives, and the inclusion of independent “review editors” who certify that all comments have been fairly considered and appropriately resolved by the authors."

So their peer-review process is even more stringent than normal. Of course anyone familiar with these groups and how this huge project is put together would already know this.

The final draft is approved line by line by political appointees.

DAR
Do you have any evidence for this claim?

I thought Don's letter was pretty good.

DAR
I bet you did! Lots of wornout claims and he doesn't, or can't, support or reference a single one of them. Lots to like there. And it can all be thoroughly debunked by a piano tuner in an hour.

Lew Rockwell:
Does climate change caused by mankind even exist? My answer is "No."

DAR
In making such an ignorant claim, poor Lew finds himself in disagreement with every working climatologist on the planet. Good source hogeye! Perfectly ridiculous.

D.