More Gore

Here’s another incredibly persuasive, inspiring, and informative video from Al Gore. He’s such an excellent speaker and offers real analysis and solutions to the crisis of our time, climate change. This is the big one. There is no problem facing humanity today that approaches the seriousness and certainty of climate change left unchecked. Please watch this enlightening, empowering, and uplifting video. Watch for his analogy regarding tar sands and shale; it’s a classic.

TED: Al Gore: New thinking on the climate crisis — Note: I recommend downloading the mp4. I had problems trying to watch it on the web page. It’s under 100M. Your mileage may vary.

Remember, the extremely conservative estimate from the IPCC is for a billion climate refugees by 2050. Is there anyone out there that believes that the world economy can support such a disastrous occurrence? Is there anyone out there that thinks that this will not cause a serious and painful decline in human population? Is there anyone out there that thinks this would not cause global civilizational collapse?

We have the technology to solve this problem today. For the U.S. to do our part, we will experience a new economy based on sustainability. This will create whole new industries. This will create many new business opportunities. Already, Tesla Motors and Zap Car are preparing for the new economy, one in which they may displace the aging and dying U.S. auto manufacturers who whine to the government for aid rather than building cars that last and that people will want.

Already, vast solar arrays are beginning to be installed. New York City has a pilot project with working tidal turbines. People are installing pilot projects for wave power generators on the west coast. Wind is already cheaper than many existing power technologies and, though it faces objections from local politicians, is a technology whose cost of energy supply rivals that of our fossil fuel sources, even before the real costs of CO2 are calculated.

We must act quickly and decisively to fight climate change. For our survival, for our economy, for our way of life, and for our very lives, we must act now.

Advertisements

27 Responses to More Gore

  1. disinter says:

    One of the most influential scientists behind the theory that global warming has intensified recent hurricane activity says he will reconsider his stand.

    The hurricane expert, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, unveiled a novel technique for predicting future hurricane activity this week. The new work suggests that, even in a dramatically warming world, hurricane frequency and intensity may not substantially rise during the next two centuries.

    http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/tech/news/5693436.html

  2. disinter,

    That would be nice. Let’s hope he’s right. It doesn’t do a damn thing to help with the problem of planetary decline in food production. For the oceans in particular, remember that more oxygen dissolves in colder water. This is why the richest areas of the ocean are near the poles. As the oceans warm, the rich sections of the ocean will shrink as the cold area of the ocean does.

    On land, even without greater frequency and intensity of hurricanes, rain patterns will change. Some areas will get little or no rain and become deserts. Some will get so much rain that most or all of the topsoil will erode. Further, El Nino years will become more frequent. They are already far more frequent than the approximately every seven year occurrence that they used to be. As they get closer together, we will get more and more severe food shortages.

    So, I would hope that the report is correct and that hurricanes will not increase in frequency or intensity. However, we have so many severe effects of global warming to deal with that we must not ignore the very real threats of global warming. Instead, we must do everything we can with all urgency possible to reduce our carbon output and to attempt to adapt to the warming to which we are already committed.

    At present, even our best case scenarios are pretty horrific. Our worst case scenarios leave neither our civilization nor our species around for very long.

  3. disinter says:

    global temperatures, after flattening out, have in recent months shown a sharp fall, wholly unpredicted by those computer models on which the proponents of warming orthodoxy rely. This raises rather large question marks over whether the theory has actually got it right.

    http://tinyurl.com/52zxfo [ed. replaced with tinyurl]

  4. disinter says:

    The media and governmental hype over a danger from global warming that already is allegedly causing the polar icecaps to melt and threaten a global climate catastrophe, looks more and more like the political hype it is. This year to date, snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

    http://www.iraq-war.ru/article/161230

  5. disinter says:

    Given that nowadays pretty well every adverse development in the natural world is automatically attributed to global warming, perhaps the most surprising fact about it is that it is not, in fact, happening at all. The truth is that there has so far been no recorded global warming at all this century.

    The world’s temperature rose about half a degree centigrade during the last quarter of the 20th century; but even the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research – part of Britain’s Met Office and a citadel of the current global warming orthodoxy – has now conceded that recorded temperature figures for the first seven years of the 21st century reveal there has been a standstill.

    […]

    So the new religion of global warming, however convenient it may be to the politicians, is not as harmless as it may appear. Indeed, the more one examines it, the more it resembles a Da Vinci Code of environmentalism. It is a great story, and a phenomenal bestseller. It contains a grain of truth – and a mountain of nonsense.

    http://tinyurl.com/5qx6yq [ed. replaced with tiny url]

  6. disinter says:

    No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours, an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=ae6GlcvBtldY&refer=home

  7. disinter says:

    Run for your lives! Buy more Al Gore books! Impose more regulation and taxes!

  8. disinter says:

    The problem is that the global warming cultists have created this food crisis with this lame-brained idea that we could divert farm lands from food production into making fuel for our cars and that this would be carbon-neutral on the theory that the plants absorb as much carbon as burning the fuel produces.

    This is, of course, not true. The promises of carbon-neutrality fail to take into account the emissions created by the processing used to convert the plant material into ethanol. But then the purveyors of panic seldom really thing these things all the way through, and as this last winter’s temperatures showed, the claim that the Earth faces catastrophic global warming lacks real scientific foundation. Yes, it is true that the scientists rich on grants to study global warming for the most part see a problem, but grant-driven science has created some notorious scarecrows in recent decades, including the Y2K bug (it didn’t happen), Bird Flu Pandemic (also not happening), and the loss of the Ozone Layer (turns out that hole over Antarctica has been there all along).

    These fashionable “scientific emergencies” are a great way for government to keep the public from looking at real issues, like how we got lied into a war, or whether our voting system is really honest. And for those in a position to exploit these pseudo-science public relations campaigns, a great deal of money can be made in a very short time. Right now there are warehouses filled with Bird Flu vaccine, purchased at taxpayer expense, which will most likely never be used (a good thing when you consider the problems with vaccines these days), and will sit there until they rot and get dumped into the landfills (and into the water supply). But the vaccine maker got their money, so who cares, right?

    Human-caused Global Warming is not science. It is a hoax, perpetuated by government that wants to give people something to fret about that does not endanger the oligarchy. along the way, GW ™ is used to justify greater control over the private lives of people, not to mention yet more taxes. GW is also loved by corporations eager to sell more products, many of which, like ethanol, actually give you LESS value while costing more money.

    And now the GW cult has brought about a disruption in the food supply. Not their problem, of course; they were only out to save the Earth, and those pesky useless eaters just get in the way with their cars and light bulbs and oth8ert icky human stuff! The globe is just much better off without them (or so says this “Aftermath” program on TV, which lauds how wonderful nature will come back after humans vanish).

    And again, this illustrates how the Global Warming Cult (industry) really wasn’t thinking globally. The goal was to sell ethanol, so that businessmen who don’t actually own oil wells can get into the fuel industry. Lobbying resulted in a mandated ethanol fuel and literally out of nothing, a whole new business was created out of thin air for the politically connected to leap into. Yet these people who claim to care so much about the Earth were oblivious to the fact that Earth is finite. That includes farmlands. In order to grow corn for fuel they must STOP growing corn for food. That doesn’t seem very globally aware thinking to me. But then again, maybe they just don;t really care. Because after all, the end result is that they are selling us a less powerful fuel for far more money. and that seems to be the American way of doing business these days.

    So, the ethanol gets sold, more emissions get poured into the air than before, and since ethanol contains less chemical energy than gas, you have to buy and burn MORE of it to go the same distance. And food shortages result, which drives up food prices, but hey, that’s someone ELSE’S problem; we’re just here to sell ethanol and get our chunk of the fuel economy pie!

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/

  9. I’ll respond to disinter later. Obviously, it will take me some time to read all of this. Please stay tuned.

  10. disinter,

    I’m taking this one point at a time.

    disinter Says:
    April 14, 2008 at 12:59 edit

    global temperatures, after flattening out, have in recent months shown a sharp fall, wholly unpredicted by those computer models on which the proponents of warming orthodoxy rely. This raises rather large question marks over whether the theory has actually got it right.

    disinter Says:
    April 14, 2008 at 01:01 edit

    No day topped 31 degrees celsius (88 degrees fahrenheit) for the first time since 1956. Average daily sunshine totaled 6.7 hours, an hour less than normal and the lowest since 1991-92. The average maximum temperature was 25.2, the coolest since 1996-97.

    This is a La Niña year. They’re typically colder. The link is to an article in Reuters that cites some scientists who not only forecast the La Niña but also forecast that many non-scientists would mistake this as a sign that global warming is false. It isn’t.

    Note, the article linked in your first post is a political rather than a peer-reviewed scientific article and does not, as far as I can tell, reference any peer-reviewed scientific paper. Likewise, the second is also not a peer-reviewed paper. However, I note that the Bloomberg article’s author was at smart enough to note that it was a La Niña year and NOT draw any conclusion relating to climate change. Please remember that peer-review is extremely important when attempting to determine the veracity of scientific information. In general, a reputable publication citing a peer-reviewed article is almost as good as the original for us lay people. But, when no peer-reviewed publication is mentioned, that should be a red flag that any scientific conclusions are at least suspect.

    Further, to assume that warmer is better is unconscionable. Humans have survived colder times. We have not, as a species, survived warmer times.

    As the planet warms, the ocean, 70% of the earth’s surface, will be less productive. Look at where whales feed. Look at where the major fisheries industries are. They’re all in cold water. As the warm tropical water spreads to higher and higher latitudes, that will be a far smaller portion of our planet. And, with the planet being round (mostly round, it swells a bit in the middle), that means that the volume of productive highly oxygenated water will be reduced by a large factor. A billion people today rely on ocean fish for the bulk of their protein.

    Grain will also be produced in smaller quantity as the rainfall shifts away from current areas to new ones. Some will become deserts. Other areas will see such tremendous rainfall that the top soil washes away. Here are a few links about food production in light of global warming.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0403720101v1.pdf
    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=800320
    http://tinyurl.com/6a3vht

    More later as I read the rest of your posts …

  11. I may as well deal with this one now since it’s quick.

    disinter Says:
    April 14, 2008 at 01:02 edit

    Run for your lives! Buy more Al Gore books! Impose more regulation and taxes!

    Apparently you are unaware that the carbon tax Gore advocates is revenue neutral.

    http://www.carbontax.org/introduction/#no-tax-increase

    Still more responses to come.

  12. disinter says:

    Apparently you are unaware that the carbon tax Gore advocates is revenue neutral.

    You could make the same argument (robbing peter to pay paul) for all taxes. Theft is still theft. Taxes are still taxes.

  13. disinter says:

    Further, to assume that warmer is better is unconscionable. Humans have survived colder times. We have not, as a species, survived warmer times.

    It is a good thing the planet is cooling then.

  14. disinter,

    Re: Taxes. I’m not an anarchist. Apparently you are. Taxes are still taxes, yes. Government still needs some money to run. If you believe all taxes are theft then you are an anarchist. That’s fine. Nothing wrong with it. But, I doubt you’ll convince many people that a large scale society can run without some government.

    Re: Cooling planet. Obviously not to anyone with a little perspective and a graph or two. Further, the arguments that there will be cooling soon are all based on the incorrect assumption that the warming is purely or predominantly caused by increased solar radiation. Since the stratosphere is cooling and the surface temperature is rising, as noted in this video, complete with a cited peer reviewed source, that is obviously not the case.

    Increased solar radiation would warm the stratosphere and surface alike. GHG caused warming would be a blanket between the two keeping warmth at lower levels and cooling the higher stratosphere, exactly as is being seen. Therefore, increased solar radiation is not the cause of the observed warming.

  15. disinter says:

    If you believe all taxes are theft then you are an anarchist.

    Who said anything about all taxes? If I pay a user fee, a toll for example, I don’t think that is theft. That is voluntary. If you accept theft as being completely acceptable, may I come take whatever I like from your possession?

    But, I doubt you’ll convince many people that a large scale society can run without some government.

    Government doesn’t bother me. The fascist type does, though.

    Re: Cooling. Do you deny that the earth has had multiple warming and cooling periods, even BEFORE humans existed? You have bought into a hoax designed to increase taxes and regulation, and to decrease personal liberty.

  16. disinter,

    OK, so would you be OK with a user fee for dumping waste at a landfill? How about a user fee for dumping waste into the air?

    I freely admit that warming and cooling happened without humans. The worst mass extinction in our planet’s history happened because of non-anthropogenic global warming 250 MYA. (Read Under a Green Sky, details on my books page.)

    However, this time, the warming is indeed human caused. This is not a hoax. The hoax that you are buying into is funded by ExxonMobil. When the Kool-Aid smells like almonds, don’t drink it.

    Follow the money. It’s always about the money. Don’t try to claim that scientists have more money than ExxonMobil. They don’t. Don’t try to claim that there’s some conspiracy in peer-review. There are much bigger controversies fought much more strenuously on both sides in the peer-reviewed press. Why this one subject??!!?

    When you read about global warming being a hoax, first check for peer review. Then search for where the author gets funding.

    But, always, again and again and again, look for peer-review. It’s not perfect. But, it’s the best we’ve come up with for sorting through the bullshit. Try Google Scholar if you are unsure of how to find the real data.

  17. disinter says:

    OK, so would you be OK with a user fee for dumping waste at a landfill? How about a user fee for dumping waste into the air?

    What on earth does this red herring have to do with anything? What you seek is regulation, via taxes. There are other ways to regulate.

    Follow the money. It’s always about the money.

    I agree with you there.

    Don’t try to claim that scientists have more money than ExxonMobil.

    They may not work for ExxonMobil, but they certainly get funded by someone. That someone has an agenda and it isn’t to protect you, your rights or the environment.

    Don’t try to claim that there’s some conspiracy in peer-review.

    Why not? If it isn’t a conspiracy then it wouldn’t be a “peer” review, now would it?

  18. disinter says:

    Oops, tag missing. [ed. fixed]

  19. disinter says:

    Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit
    the science of global warming

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

    Let me guess, those 60 are all paid by Exxon and are conspiring to destroy the world?

  20. disinter says:

    Ask yourself why the corporate media is not covering things like this:

    “The Slingshot is one of those once-in-a-lifetime inventions that truly can save the world. It takes any contaminated source of water, even pure raw sewage, and blasts the water out of the source by vaporizing it, extracting it, and storing it. The contents that have been extracted from the water is deposited in a separate bin and can even be used as a combustible to power the engine!

    My favorite quote of Kamen’s is the following, “Not required are engineers, pipelines, epidemiologists, or microbiologists. You don’t need any -ologists. You don’t need any building permits, bribery, or buræucracies.” Sounds like my kinda guy…”

    http://justgetthere.us/blog/archives/Water,-Water-Everywhere-But-Not-a-Soul-to-Think.html

  21. BTW, disinter,

    I agree with you that food should never be converted to fuel. This puts food for the poor in competition with fuel for the rich as well as encouraging deforestation. The point you’re missing is that this is not something the environmentalists advocate.

    This is something dreamed up by our Global Warming Denier In Chief.

    Environmentalists know that corn ethanol is a worthless or worse endeavor. I think you should get the players straight on that one. Some environmentalists do believe that cellulosic ethanol can be of value. I think it depends on the source. As long as we do not grow anything to become ethanol, e.g. if it comes from corn cobs and stalks, I might be OK with it. However, I remain skeptical by default.

  22. disinter says:

    Environmentalists know that corn ethanol is a worthless or worse endeavor.

    Good. I could of swore it was perpetuated by the Gore cult… sorry.

  23. dis,

    You’ve gotta cut back on the caffeine, cocaine, crystal meth, amphetamines, or whatever. I thought I was bad. I can’t keep up the pace. Give me a bit of time to respond, please.

    OK, so would you be OK with a user fee for dumping waste at a landfill? How about a user fee for dumping waste into the air?

    What on earth does this red herring have to do with anything? What you seek is regulation, via taxes. There are other ways to regulate.

    Really? Ones that work? Not really. How would you do it? Could you really just say “sorry, your coal plant can only emit N tons of CO2”? Overnight? Be realistic. Market forces such as taxes or cap and trade create profit incentives for innovative companies to find the ways to make it happen. If you have another scheme, maybe I’d support that. But, the only two mechanisms being seriously suggested are tax or cap and trade.

    Don’t try to claim that scientists have more money than ExxonMobil.

    They may not work for ExxonMobil, but they certainly get funded by someone. That someone has an agenda and it isn’t to protect you, your rights or the environment.

    Exactly. They are not funded by ExxonMobil. And, they do get funded by a variety of sources. ExxonMobil is also hiring huge numbers of scientists and is offering a bounty for anyone who can legitimately claim that global warming is false and get their papers published. But, they keep failing despite the deep pockets. That should be proof to you that at least the vast majority of current data supports global warming. Deeper pockets are failing to make their point in any peer reviewed publication. (OK that’s not true. One got published … in a Neurological journal.)

  24. disinter Says:
    April 14, 2008 at 03:31 edit

    Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit
    the science of global warming

    http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

    Let me guess, those 60 are all paid by Exxon and are conspiring to destroy the world?

    I’m checking the ExxonMobil connection. While I’m at it, why not post a link or five to some peer reviewed publications of the signatories that contradict the underlying data of global warming. Remember, we’re not looking for controversy in the local effects. We’re looking for a controversy over whether global warming is real or is human caused.

    Be back in a bit with my results. I’ll be curious to see your results as well. Google scholar may help. Go to it. It’s your claim that this is real.

  25. Here’s a fun game. Here are the 60 scientists listed on that letter. Geek that I am, I made an emacs macro to create links to search for their names on Google Scholar. Click a few at random. See how much each of them has published on climate science in the last 10 years. Let me know your results. So far, I’ve tried a few and gotten mostly non-climate-science results. Where they had climate science publications, I have not yet seen any controversial ones disputing climate change in any way. I’ll keep trying. You should too.

    Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
    Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia’s National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
    Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
    Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
    Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
    Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
    Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
    Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
    Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
    Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
    Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
    Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
    Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
    Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
    Dr./Cdr.M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
    Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
    Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
    Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
    Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
    Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
    Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.
    Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
    Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
    Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
    Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
    Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
    Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
    Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
    Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
    Dr. Nils-Axel M Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
    Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
    Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
    Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
    Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
    Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
    Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change 2001,” Wellington, N.Z.
    Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
    Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
    Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
    Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
    Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
    Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
    Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
    Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
    Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
    Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.
    Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
    Dr. Wibjn University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
    Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
    Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

  26. So far, I found one scientist who looked legit and really did get a paper published. It was this guy:

    Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.

    Of course, I soon found that he has ties to globalwarming.org, a known ExxonMobil website.

    Here are the docs. Are you starting to see why I think that the money always goes back to ExxonMobil?

    http://tinyurl.com/4z7u23
    http://tinyurl.com/4hqakj

    BTW, you can probably tell just by looking at the globalwarming.org site that they’re far from neutral on the subject.

    http://www.globalwarming.org/about

    Of course, several of their supporting orgs are also listed as known ExxonMobil bought orgs.

    Here’s a really detailed report about Exxon’s history of fighting science every step of the way.

    http://www.foe.co.uk/resource/reports/exxons_climate_footprint.pdf

    And now it’s time for me to wait for a bit and give you a chance to respond.

  27. double your gas mileage…

    Double your gas mileage with this fantastic conversion system….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: