Abuse victims attack bishop for comparing climate ignorance with Fritzl's incest crimes
Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent
Libby Purves: Another church leader puts his foot in it I Ruth Gledhill: Just how much more absurd can the CofE get?
Survivors of sex abuse by Christian clergy today responded with anger and shock to the Church of England bishop who said that everyone who failed to act on climate change was as guilty as Austrian child abuser Josef Fritzl.
Victims accused the bishop of being "facile and demeaning" towards Fritzl's daughter, who was kept in a cellar for 24 years, raped repeatedly and who had seven children by her own father.
The Bishop of Stafford, the Right Rev Gordon Mursell, an expert on Christian spirituality and near the bottom of the hierarchy of Anglican bishops, said that people who ignored global warming were, in effect, locking their children and grandchildren into a world without a future and throwing away the key.
Bishop Mursell, who spoke last year at a conference organised by the ultra-liberal Modern Churchpeople's Union, said in a pastoral newsletter to parishes that such people were "destroying the future of our children" and were "as guilty as" Fritzl.
The Bishop, whose comments come at the same time as the Church of England is publishing a new report complaining about the quality of its clergy, said that he was not accusing those who do nothing about global warming of being child abusers.
But he but said that shocking analogies were needed to force people to face up to the threat to the future of mankind.
In his pastoral letter, Bishop Mursell wrote: “Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck.
"In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is - we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key.
"We are right to be disgusted at these crimes. But mere disgust is too convenient. There are lessons for all of us to learn.”
Survivors condemned the Bishop and urged church leaders to take more action against abuse by clergy.
Margaret Kennedy, chair of Minister and Clergy Sex Abuse Survivors, an organisation that helps survivors of sex abuse by clergy, said: "It is with horror and shock that survivors sexually abused as children or as adults within Christian churches and by Christian clergy and ministers should hear their own bishop declare that perhaps buying oranges from South Africa is the equivalent to being locked into a dungeon and being raped repeatedly for 20 years by an evil father.
"In many respects it does not surprise us since all calls to Anglican bishops to recognise the sexual abuse, exploitation and rape of adult women by their clergy are consistently ignored.
"If he cannot see that sexual abuse of a vulnerable adult, or children by Fritzl and others are indeed the far greater criminal acts then we now know why Bishops across the land refuse to deal with sexual abuse by clergy of adults.
"Climate change is the responsibility of Governments who need the political will to change their pollution outputs. The comparison between global warming and vicious evil sexual abuse for 20 years is facile and demeaning to the victim, who suffers greatly.
"Since he now believes global warming is as evil as Joseph Fritzl's behaviour we would now wish to hear from the Bishop of Stafford on how he is going to tackle the evil of the ‘fritzls’ within the clergy ranks."
Academics also joined in the attack. Leading sociologist Frank Furedi, professor at Kent university and author of the book Invitation to Terror, accused the Bishop of demonising climate-change sceptics.
"The Bishop's linking of the crime of child abuse with scepticism about today's received wisdom on the climate exemplifies a new kind of demonology," he said in an article on Spiked. "History shows that crusades against heretics and demons havem a nasty habit of disorienting society, and undermining civilised and humanist behaviour."
Other organisations, however, expressed sympathy for the bishop.
Donald Findlater, director of research and development for the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, wich aims to safeguard children from child abuse, told The Birmingham Post: "On the face of it this is an outrageous and offensive statement by the Bishop of Stafford. But we know that sex offenders don’t care about or don’t notice the harm they cause to their victims. I understand why the bishop would then liken other individuals’ disregard for the harmful impact of their lifestyles on the environment, which will, sooner rather than later, harm the lives and futures of our children and of future generations."
This morning, Bishop Mursell defended himself on BBC Radio 4's Today programme. He said: "I don’t wish to shock people unnecessarily and I am in no way trying to imply that people who ignore climate change are child abusers - of course not.
"I am simply trying to use an analogy to get people to wake up to the consequences of what we are failing to do, because if we don’t there won’t be a future for our children either."
He added: “The problem with climate change is - as I heard Prince Charles arguing very eloquently a couple of weeks ago - that it is terribly hard to get people to see the seriousness of it, because the consequences are not faced just by the person failing to take action now."
He admitted that Fritzl was a revolting person and that it was hard to imagine a more "monstrous" crime.
Bishop Mursell said: "I think we have to try to find ways to get people to see the consequences of our failure to act on climate change. If we don’t face those, all I am saying is we are destroying the future of our children just as he did. Could you not argue that if there is no future for our children and grandchildren, we will have been guilty of committing the most appalling crimes as well?"
A Lichfield diocesan spokesman also defended the bishop. "Yes, at first glance, this does appear controversial but if people actually look at what he’s saying, he’s saying the actions are not the same but the motives are the same. The underlying cause behind a lot of these problems is this selfish nature; it is that sort of mindset that was being discussed.”
Mr Drake said climate change is an issue of concern throughout the Church of England. He said that although the bishop was not deliberately courting controversy, the publicity over his remarks had served to stimulate debate and attract attention to the issues he was discussing.
Comment: Has Spirituality join the ranks of the Global Warming gang?
The Sex-Global Warming connection should focus on the sustained success of sex: over-population as a source of Global Warming.
NASA Scientist: Put CEOs On Trial for Global-Warming Lies
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
The heads of major fossil-fuel companies who spread disinformation about global warming should be "tried for high crimes against humanity and nature," according to a leading climate scientist.
Dr. James Hansen, director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, sounded the alarm about global warming in testimony before a Senate subcommittee exactly 20 years ago.
He returned to the topic Monday with a speech at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., given to the Worldwatch Institute, before which he was called a hero by former Sen. Tim Wirth, D-Colo., who headed the 1988 hearing.
"Special interests have blocked the transition to our renewable energy future," Hansen writes in an opinion piece posted on the institute's Web site. "Instead of moving heavily into renewable energies, fossil fuel companies choose to spread doubt about global warming, just as tobacco companies discredited the link between smoking and cancer.
"Methods are sophisticated, including funding to help shape school textbook discussions of global warming," Hansen continues. "CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of the long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature."
Later in the day, Hansen appeared at an informal briefing on Capitol Hill with Rep. Ed Markey, D-Mass., head of the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming.
Hansen told reporters and members of the public that the world has long passed the "dangerous level" for greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and needs to get back to 1988 levels.
He said Earth's atmosphere can only stay this loaded with man-made carbon dioxide for a couple more decades without changes such as mass extinction, ecosystem collapse and dramatic sea level rises.
"We're toast if we don't get on a very different path," said Hansen, who is sometimes called the godfather of global warming science, told The Associated Press. "This is the last chance."
Asked by a reporter about the feasibility of putting corporate CEOs on trial, Hansen dodged the question, stressing instead the need to take stronger measures against global warming.
To cut emissions, Hansen said coal-fired power plants that don't capture carbon dioxide emissions shouldn't be used in the United States after 2025, and should be eliminated in the rest of the world by 2030.
That carbon-capture technology is still being developed and not yet cost efficient for power plants.
Burning fossil fuels like coal is the chief cause of man-made greenhouse gases. Hansen said the Earth's atmosphere has got to get back to a level of 350 parts of carbon dioxide per million. Last month, it was 10 percent higher: 386.7 parts per million.
Hansen said he'll testify on behalf of British protesters against new coal-fired power plants. Protesters have chained themselves to gates and equipment at sites of several proposed coal plants in England.
"The thing that I think is most important is to block coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the luncheon. "I'm not yet at the point of chaining myself but we somehow have to draw attention to this."
Frank Maisano, a spokesman for many U.S. utilities, including those trying to build new coal plants, said while Hansen has shown foresight as a scientist, his "stop them all approach is very simplistic" and shows that he is beyond his level of expertise.
The year of Hansen's original testimony was the world's hottest year on record. Since then, 14 years have been hotter, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.
"We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen said during his appearance at the National Press Club. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."
Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
Longtime global-warming skeptic Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., citing a recent poll, said in a statement, "Hansen, [former Vice President] Gore and the media have been trumpeting man-made climate doom since the 1980s. But Americans are not buying it."
But Rep. Markey said, "Dr. Hansen was right. Twenty years later, we recognize him as a climate prophet."
Comment: Finally, the American people are getting upset at lying experts! Dr. James Hansen should be evaluated in the same manner as the fossil-fuel CEOs.
Former Vice President Al Gore, who famously claimed to have invented the Internet, now denies -in the face of powerful evidence to the contrary- that he is in a position to make an immense fortune from global warming-mitigation efforts.
Ian Wilhelm, a Chronicle of Philanthropy reporter, asked the private equity firm Generation Investment Management LLP (GIM) to respond to my previous post about Gore’s global warming profiteering.
In the post, I noted that Gore’s nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection plans to spend $300 million on an advertising campaign aimed at convincing the American public that they urgently need to embrace (economy-crippling) controls on carbon emissions and press politicians to act. Gore happens to be chairman and founder of GIM, a firm that invests money from institutions and wealthy investors in companies that are becoming environmentally-friendly, to use green parlance.
Wilhelm received what certainly seems like a snotty response. On behalf of Chairman Gore, GIM spokesman Richard Campbell said my statements were a “nonsense story.” Campbell said neither Gore nor any other members of GIM’s board will make a buck from the expansion of carbon trading. “To suggest then that they are somehow benefiting from the growth of this industry betrays a complete lack of knowledge of the carbon offset industry,” Campbell said.
But why on Earth wouldn’t Gore, as head of an investment firm focused on green products, want to make money from climate change mitigation efforts? It’s his job, and he is already deeply involved in the global warming business. He has enjoyed great success in business and made oodles of money for boldly seizing the initiative in a series of successful business ventures, including green ventures. He now has a net worth greater than $100 million. As Fast Company notes:
He has made an enormous amount of money and achieved positions of influence from technology to financial services to media. He and Tipper are even setting themselves up as angel investors for a few early-stage tech companies they believe in. In doing one end run after another around the status quo, he has created a new life: a perfect amalgam of environmental activism and a new type of capitalism in which there is more than one bottom line to consider, more than one master to serve.
Gore’s partner at GIM, David Blood, told MarketWatch last year that “we really are focused on delivering outstanding customer results for our clients. We’re also clear, avowed advocates on climate change or on sustainability.” The article also states that
Blood sees climate change creating an entirely new business stratum, he said, similar to that surrounding the so-called Internet economy — though he’d prefer that it bypass the latter’s bubble phase.
“If you think about the challenges the world faces over the next 25 years,” Blood said, “these factors will be integral to how business operates, and by extension how the media thinks about challenges, how civil society thinks about challenges, and how we all operate.”
The way Blood and Gore are talking, they sure sound like they plan to make a lot of money off global warming.
And let’s not forget that Gore now makes $175,000 a speech. Are people paying Gore not to talk about global warming in his speeches? He sure isn’t making that kind of money for his oratory by enthralling crowds with fascinating tales from his time as Vice President of the United States, an office a previous holder once described as not being worth “a bucket of warm p—.” By comparison, the rhetorical gifts of both Dan Quayle and Walter Mondale go for a more affordable $30,000 (per speech), or less.
Gore, who won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007 for his global warming Chicken Little routine, is the most famous environmental activist in the world. His (so-called) documentary, An Inconvenient Truth, won two Academy Awards and was one of the highest-grossing documentary movies of all time, earning $49.7 million at the box office.
Gore is also America’s most prominent advocate for legislated carbon emissions controls in the form of the so-called cap-and-trade system. In a cap-and-trade system, the government creates by fiat an artificial scarcity in the right to generate carbon emissions. The idea is that there would be a fixed quantity of carbon dioxide (CO2) production allowed and that businesses or industries that wanted to exceed their allowance (in order to do the things that make them money) would have to buy the unused portions of others’ allowances. These carbon credits could be traded on an exchange, as is currently done in Europe. When a financial instrument is traded in a market, people make money off it, whether directly or indirectly - investors, sellers, brokers, dealers, financial advisors - even investment executives like Al Gore.
As for carbon offsets, the U.S. market for such products and its attendant “feel-good hype” could be “as high as $100 million…up from next to nothing just a couple of years ago,” reports Business Week. If you consider that global warming only arrived on the scene as a major political issue relatively recently and that it may remain an issue for years, possibly decades, to come, it appears we are only at the beginning of what may turn out to be a long period of global warming consciousness-raising (to borrow a phrase from the left).
If CO2 limits become the law of the land –as John McCain, Hillary Clinton, and Barack Obama have all promised on the campaign trail– the market for carbon emissions rights will be huge as soon as the restrictions are signed into law. Of course the market for carbon offsets would probably grow exponentially.
There’s the article by Marc Gunther and Adam Lashinsky, “Al Gore’s next act: Planet-saving VC,” [VC stands for venture capitalist] that ran in Fortune on February 12, 2008. The subtitle is “The recovering politician is teaming with a legendary venture capitalist and bigtime moneyman to make over the $6 trillion global energy business.” The authors note that Gore has joined Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. That venture capital firm says right on its website’s homepage that:
KPCB is actively working with entrepreneurs to solve our climate crisis. To accelerate our solutions, Al Gore has joined KPCB as a Partner, and KPCB has formed an alliance with Gore’s Generation Investment Management. The combined network, expertise, vision and global reach of Gore, Generation and KPCB will help our entrepreneurs change the world.
So, KPCB has hopped on Gore’s potentially very lucrative global warming bandwagon. Did Gore get involved with KPCB to not make money?
The Fortune article implies that GIM has invested in carbon trading companies: GIM “came across a small company engaged in carbon trading that [KPCB] is analyzing, and [KPCB] has shared intelligence about which startups could threaten the established companies in [GIM]’s portfolio.”
Gore has incredibly ambitious plans for the people of Earth. He wants to lead a revolution in how people and industry use energy and, in his own words, is calling for something “bigger than the Industrial Revolution and significantly faster.”
Gore proclaims: “What we are going to have to put in place is a combination of the Manhattan Project, the Apollo project, and the Marshall Plan, and scale it globally. It’d be promising too much to say we can do it on our own, but we intend to do our part.”
So, Gore flaunts his prowess as a savvy investor-entrepreneur by appearing in glossy business magazines, but when someone points out the obvious, that his business interests and environmentalist crusade overlap, he gets indignant?
(Note: A modified version of this entry has been posted to http:///NewsBusters.com Previously, a modified version of the original entry about Gore’s global warming profiteering was also posted to NewsBusters. For more information on Gore’s environmentalist business schemes, see “Al Gore’s Carbon Crusade: The Money and Connections Behind It,” by Deborah Corey Barnes, Foundation Watch, August 2007.)'''
The U.S. Senate recently rejected the proposed Climate Security Act, which would have required large manufacturers and utilities to substantially reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.
If this legislation had passed, many senators believed that it would have further increased our cost of living.
During the 20th century, carbon dioxide concentrations had been steadily increasing and now make up about 0.039 percent of our atmosphere. As a result, the total weight of biomass growing on our planet has increased.
Carbon dioxide is essential to life on our planet because the chlorophyll in our plants and trees utilizes solar energy to absorb the carbon and return the oxygen to the atmosphere.
There was significant global warming during the first 40 years of the 20th century. The warmest year was 1934. Earth then experienced substantial cooling between 1940 and 1975. Between 1975 and the year 2000, there was significant global warming. However, the latest satellite data have confirmed that there has been no warming of the atmosphere during the first eight years of the 21st century.
In addition, a new fleet of 3,000 free-drifting buoys deployed throughout the oceans of the world for the past five years have observed that there has been no warming of our planet's oceans during this five-year period.
Climate Realist Declaration Tops 1,100 Endorsers
Prominent Americans among those demanding an end to climate hysteria
By Tom Harris, 6/27/2008 7:00:19 AM
Ottawa, Canada, June 27, 2008 – Since its creation in March by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC), the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change has attracted signatories from 40 countries. Although ignored by most media and governments, endorsement for the Declaration has rained in from hundreds of climate experts and other scientists, as well as professional engineers, economists, policy experts, medical doctors and average citizens. The complete Declaration text, endorser lists and international media contacts for expert commentary, may be viewed at http://www.climatescienceinternational.org/media1.php
"The climate change declaration offers Americans of all backgrounds an opportunity to demonstrate that they are increasingly ill at ease with the wild forecasts of Al Gore, James Hansen and the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)," said Dr. J. Scott Armstrong, Professor of Marketing, The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. "Such skepticism is entirely appropriate.
In our research, we found that the forecasts in the latest IPCC Assessment Report are not the outcome of scientific procedures. They are merely the opinions of scientists transformed by mathematics and obscured by complex writing. Americans must realize that IPCC global warming forecasts have no more credence than saying that the planet will get colder."
Here is a small sample of the hundreds of Americans who have endorsed the Declaration:
Amesh A. Adalja, MD, Fellow, Division of Infectious Diseases, University of Pittsburgh, Butler, Pennsylvania
Syun-Ichi Akasofu, PhD, Professor of Physics, Emeritus and Founding Director, International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks, Alaska
John W. Bales, BA, MA, PhD (Mathematics, Modeling), Professor, Tuskegee University, Waverly, Alabama
Bruce Borders, PhD, Forest Biometrics, Warnell School of Forestry and Natural Resources, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Stephen Brown, PhD, Ground Penetrating Radar Glacier research, District Agriculture Agent Cooperative Extension Service University of Alaska
George V. Chilingar, PhD, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Dalcio K. Dacol, PhD (physics, University of California at Berkeley), physicist at the US Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
David Deming, PhD (Geophysics), Associate Professor, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Oklahoma, Norman, Oklahoma
David Douglass, PhD, Professor of Physics, University of Rochester, New York
Robert Durrenberger, PhD, former Arizona State Climatologist and President of the American Association of State Climatologists, Professor Emeritus of Geography, Arizona State University; Sun City, Arizona
Don J. Easterbrook, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington
Michael J. Economides, PhD, Professor, Cullen College of Engineering, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
Peter Friedman, PhD, Member, American Geophysical Union, Assistant professor of Mechanical Engineering, University of Massachusetts, Dartmouth, Massachusetts
Stanley B. Goldenberg, Research Meteorologist, NOAA, AOML/Hurricane Research Division, Miami, Florida
Allan Gotthelf, PhD, Visiting Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
William M. Gray, PhD, Professor Emeritus (Dept. of Atmospheric Science), Colorado State University, Head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Fort Collins, Colorado
Ross Hays, Atmospheric Scientist, NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility, Palestine, Texas
Ted Hinds, PhD (Physical Ecology), Quantitative empirical analyses regarding climatological, meteorological, and ecological responses to environmental stresses, consultant for USA EPA research on global climate change program. Senior Research Scientist, retired, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington
Stanley M. Howard, PhD (Metallurgical Engineering (chemical processing focus)), Professor of Materials and Metallurgical Engineering, South Dakota School of Mines and Technology, Rapid City, South Dakota
Kendall Johnson, PhD (Physics), Infrared Calibration Engineer, Space Synamics Laboratory, North Logan, Utah
Leonid Khilyuk, PhD, Professor of Engineering, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California
Joseph Kunc, PhD, Molecular Physics, Professor, University of Southern California, Los Angeles
John David Lewis, PhD, Research Scholar in History and Classics, Social Philosophy and Policy center, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio
Anthony R. Lupo, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Atmospheric Science, Department of Soil, Environmental, and Atmospheric Science, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri
Michael Monce, PhD (Physics), Atomic/Molecular; energy and environment, Prof. Physics, Connecticut College, New London, Connecticut
Todd Nesbit, PhD (economics), Assistant Professor of Economics, Penn State Erie, The Behrend College, Erie, Pennsylvania
James J. O'Brien, PhD, Emeritus Professor, Meteorology and Oceanography, Florida State University, Florida
Robert G. Roper, PhD, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Sciences, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
James Rust, PhD (Nuclear Engineering, Purdue University), MEng (Nuclear, MIT), BSc (Chemical, Purdue), Retired professor, Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia
Ronald J. Rychlak, JD, Professor of Law and Associate Dean for Academic Affairs, University of Mississippi School of Law, Oxford, Mississippi
Douglas Southgate, PhD, Professor of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
Gary Sharp, PhD, Scientific Director, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California
Charles Van Eaton, PhD (Economics), Public Policy, Distinguished Professor, Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee
The Manhattan Declaration concludes, “Attempts by governments to legislate costly regulations on industry and individual citizens to encourage CO2 reduction will slow development while having no appreciable impact on the future trajectory of global climate change. Such policies will markedly diminish future prosperity and so reduce the ability of societies to adapt to inevitable climate change, thereby increasing, not decreasing human suffering.”
"Just as the Manhattan Project was key to finally ending the Second World War, the Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change may one day be regarded as a critical catalyst that helped end today's climate hysteria," said ICSC Science Advisory Board member, Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland, Australia. "Protecting the natural world is crucially important and so environmental policy must be based on our best understanding of science and technology coupled with a realistic appreciation of the relevant economics and policy options. This is not happening in the climate debate."
Tom Harris is a spokesperson for this organization and can be reached at mailto:tom.harris@climatescienceinternational.net The ICSC is an association of scientists, economists and energy and policy experts working to promote better public understanding of climate change. ICSC provides an analysis of climate science and policy issues which, being independent of lobby groups and vested political interests, is an alternative to advice from the IPCC. ICSC thereby fosters rational, evidence-based, open discussion about all climate, and climate-related, issues.
Comment: Yes, why have we not read or heard of this Manhattan Declaration!
The issue of global warming rages on is some minds. Remarkably, there really hasn’t been much of a debate, not a serious science debate anyway. There have been shouting and screaming, predictions of doom, and the willingness to destroy our energy sources and our economy to “save the planet”. But as P.J. O’Rourke noted, there are a lot of people who would do anything to “save the planet”, except take a science course.
While there hasn’t been a true debate, there has been a hugely one-sided angry monologue, heaping scorn upon those who dare ask for evidence. The one side has been heavily funded by the government, foundations, and individual contributions. The so-called “warmers” have enjoyed the unstinting support of a scientifically illiterate media, the movie industry, and many institutions that have been on the receiving end of an estimated $5 billion annually for nearly 2 decades. That will buy a lot of supporters, Ph.Ds or not.
They have also received a great deal of support from the public school systems, many of which require the student viewing of the latest, mostly discredited, “warmists” scare stories. These are the organized educators of two generations of citizens who have been crippling the citizenry with declining math. and science skills. Too many educators regard the scare stories as received wisdom making the videos required viewing. Too few of the educators are apparently disposed to challenge the scare stories, utterly incapable of asking any hard questions, like “where is the evidence?”.
The world of science is moving quickly past these questionable events in an expanding universe of new evidence, which is showing that the current state of the global warming theory is in serious decline.
For example, the recent summary by Fred Singer and 22 expert contributors to “Nature, Not Human Activity, Rules the Climate” makes some extraordinary statements about computer models. (In addition to the many excellent contributors, this summary also contains 167 references to the scientific literature).
This is important since computer models are being improperly, yet extensively, used by state legislatures as the basis of policies for greenhouse gas mitigation, rather than using actual climate data taken from the real world. These statements include:
Computer models do not consider variations of irradiance and magnetic fields of the sun
Computer models do not accurately model the role of clouds
Computer models do not simulate a possible negative feedback from water vapor
Computer models do not explain many features of the Earth’s observed climate.
Computer models cannot produce reliable predictions of regional climate change
We must conclude that climate models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), do not accurately depict our chaotic, open-ended, climate system. They cannot make reliable predictions and should not be used to formulate government policy.
As Christopher Monckton recently admonished, “We must get the science right, or we will get the policy wrong”. Many states such as Hawaii and Washington are well along the way of doing just that.
As a Washington State citizen who was born, raised, and educated in Olympia, with very strong scientific credentials, I am disheartened to see the state, as a matter of policy, muzzle science, terminate debate, and pretend “the science has spoken”. I am also frightened that State leaders would rely so heavily on such dubious computer models to formulate state environmental policies. Atmospheric physicist Jim Peden recently observed “Climate modeling is not science, it is computerized tinkertoys”. This doesn’t inspire confidence or respect in our state officials to formulate the best policies they can. They clearly are not.
In fact, state sponsored repression of science is reminiscent of the sacking of the Library of Alexandria in ancient Egypt. It is reminiscent of the Burning of the Books of Nazi Germany in 1933. It is reminiscent of some of those killed in the “Killing Fields” of Cambodia for the sin of wearing glasses, the user being perceived as being capable of reading, and perhaps, even thinking, unapproved thoughts.
What is the state of Washington trying to hide, trying to accomplish by suppressing science? Stopping science when it is politically convenient? Why teach science if it going to be ignored? Yes, I am ashamed of this type of leadership in my state. There is nothing to be proud of in such repression.
As Dennis Avery recently said, “Let’s have a real debate of the climate evidence. We’ve heard enough from the computers.”
Michael R. Fox, Ph.D., a science and energy reporter for Hawaii Reporter and a science analyist for the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, is retired and now lives in Eastern Washington. He has nearly 40 years experience in the energy field. He has also taught chemistry and energy at the University level. His interest in the communications of science has led to several communications awards, hundreds of speeches, and many appearances on television and talk shows. He can be reached via email at mailto:mike@foxreport.org
Comment: Al Gore has brought discredit upon the Nobel Prize!
The Global Warming "consensus" is shattering right before our very eyes. Of course it was inevitable that this would happen. One agenda, one overzealous movement cannot control all of the science and all of the discourse forever, especially not when the facts start to lead people to the opposite conclusion. As Lord John Maynard Keynes, a British economist, once said, "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?" David Evans is a rocket scientist who served as a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office for 6 years. When he started in 1999, he bought into all the doomsday hype, and devoted himself to the study of the issue. By 2007, "the evidence was pretty conclusive that carbon played only a minor role and was not the main cause of the recent global warming."
What evidence is that, Mr. Evans?
The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None.
The satellites that measure the world's temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6C in the past year (to the temperature of 1980).
The new ice cores show that in the past six global warmings over the past half a million years, the temperature rises occurred on average 800 years before the accompanying rise in atmospheric carbon. Which says something important about which was cause and which was effect.
It's well worth your time, and shatters almost every myth about global warming you've ever heard.
I say almost, because there are a few topic he simply doesn't have time to get into. Like hurricanes, for example. Fortunately, there are other scientists around to pick up the slack:
Scientists Predict Global Warming Will Reduce Number and Intensity of Hurricanes
A staple of the Al Gore (more on him later) fear mongering platform has been to convince people that more global warming equals more, stronger hurricanes, tornadoes, droughts, floods, oppressive heat, frigid cold... Anything bad you can possibly think of, Al Gore would like to blame on Global Warming. So tell me, Al Gore: What do you have against kittens?
Global Warming Could Be Causing a Kitten Boom
Sure this is good fun, but it leads me to a more serious point. Al Gore and his Goracles have been spending a lot of time trying to convince us that more warming will inevitably lead to disaster. But isn't it just as likely that a warmer earth will actually be good, not only for humans, but for all life? In earth's history, warmer climates have invariably led to lush, full flora and thriving fauna, and colder climates, well...500 years ago, the Viking colonies on Greenland died out because the climate grew too cold to grow crops there. 230 years ago, New York Harbor froze over, letting people walk from Manhattan to Staten Island. Throughout history, cold has been worse for life, and heat has been better. Why has this suddenly changed now?
More Headlines" Fossil Suggests Antarctica Much Warmer in the Past
Lack of Global Warming Kills Fish
Arctic's Oil Could Meet World's Demands for Three Years
Most Egregious Claim of the Week:
Who else could it go to but the man himself? In a speech on July 17, Al Gore demanded that the United States, in the next 10 years, abandon all of the electricity generated by fossil fuels in favor of carbon-free renewable sources (wind, solar, geothermal etc.). Gore's demands are almost impossible and would be incredibly expensive to implement, but who cares about petty things like reality when "The survival of the United States of America as we know it is at risk...The future of human civilization is at stake." Gore's claims are becoming more and more hyperbolic as more and more Americans begin to realize just how absurd this global warming nonsense really is. In fact, it's entirely possibly that Al Gore himself realizes how absurd these claims really are. After all, he and his crew showed up for his speech on the environment in two Lincoln Towncars and an SUV, which were left idling with the AC cranked up for 20 minutes while he gave his speech. His mansion in Tennessee produces a carbon footprint 20 times the size of the average American home. In Gore's case, it really is do as he says, not as he does.
Comment: Can we recall the Nobel Prize? Or, is that inability the Inconvenient Truth?
Latest Science Debunks Hurricanes and Global Warming Link - August 31, 2008
By Marc Morano, 9/2/2008 12:06:56 AM
Before the media starts predictably linking Hurricane Gustav and Hannah to man-made global warming a sampling of a few of the most recent studies should easily silence such chatter. See below report.
1) July 25, 2008 - M.I.T. Scientists: Warming Will Actually Reduce Number of Hurricanes: American Meteorological Society report contradicts claim tropical activity increases due to climate change. http://www.businessandmedia.org/articles/2008/20080725183719.aspx
3) Prominent hurricane expert Kerry Emanuel reconsiders global warming's impact http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/t... Scientist refutes his own theory, finds warming does not increase hurricanes - Excerpt: Emanuel was not disappointed that the research seemed to undercut his old results. "One gets used to being mistaken, and we follow the evidence and sometimes the evidence is contradictory and then we have to sort it out." http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=909e4b84-eb40-4088-950e-e7ed8200e880
4) Another hurricane expert reconsiders view: Study says global warming not worsening hurricanes = Meteorologist Tom Knutson: http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/05/19/hurricanes-to-global-warming-link-blown-away Excerpt: What makes this study different is Knutson, a meteorologist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s fluid dynamics lab in Princeton, N.J. He has warned about the harmful effects of climate change and has even complained in the past about being censored by the Bush administration on past studies on the dangers of global warming. He said his new study, based on a computer model, argues “against the notion that we’ve already seen a really dramatic increase in Atlantic hurricane activity resulting from greenhouse warming.”
5) Other scientists like Hurricane expert Dr. Bill Gray and Dr. Chris Landsea have steadfastly refuted the alleged warming hurricane link. See: http://www.bestandworst.com/v/112507.htm & http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/5789245.html
Excerpt: By suggesting a marked decrease in activity, the new work bolsters the views of Chris Landsea, science and operations officer at the National Hurricane Center, who has argued that the apparent recent increase in Atlantic storm counts is due solely to better observational tools — satellites and the like — which blanket coverage of the Atlantic hurricane basin. "After taking into account the changes in monitoring, the number of storms we're seeing now is on par with previous busy periods in the Atlantic," Landsea said.
6) A recent issue of Journal of Climate showing there is little or no evidence of an increase in hurricane numbers or intensity. Paper Excerpt: Little evidence was found that mean individual storm intensity has changed through time, but it is noted that the variability of intensity has certainly increased. Any increase in cumulative yearly storm intensity and potential destructiveness is therefore due to the increasing number of storms and not due to any increase in the intensity of individual storms. Full study here:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2007JCLI1871.1 - The paper was authored by Climate statistician Dr. William M. Briggs, who specializes in the statistics of forecast evaluation, serves on the American Meteorological Society's Probability and Statistics Committee and is an Associate Editor of Monthly Weather Review.
In addition, extreme weather and global warming have been refuted as well.
1) Climatologist dismisses extreme weather predictions due to man-made warming as ‘complete nonsense’ – By Hydro-climatologist Stewart Franks, an Associate Professor of Environmental Engineering at the University of Newcastle in Australia. (LINK http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23979327-5017586,00.html )
2) Another scientist dismisses fearmongers: Midwest Floods and ‘Completely Unjustified’ Climate Change Fear Mongering – June 22, 2008 - By Mike Smith is a certified consulting meteorologist and a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society He is CEO of WeatherData Services, Inc., an AccuWeather Company, based in Wichita.) (LINK http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/midwest-floods-and-unjustified-climate-change-fears )
3) U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) report shows Hurricanes declining, NO increases in drought, tornados, thunderstorms, heat-waves – June 20, 2008 – (LINK http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/3588 )
Al Gore Retracts False Claim in 'An Inconvenient Truth'
By GreenWatch America, 2/24/2009 9:08:29 AM
Global Warming advocates have made a habit of arguing that Global Warming not only will lead to more natural disasters, but actually has already done so. Climate realists, including this newsletter at times, have just as frequently pointed out that there is no evidence to support this claim. Well it seems our side has a new ally: Al Gore. That's right. The Goracle himself has removed a slide from his oft-rebutted PowerPoint presentation "An Inconvenient Truth" that contained a graph which purported to show an incredible spike in disasters in recent years. He culled the data from Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times explains:
"The graph, which was added to his talk last year, came just after a sequence of images of people from Iowa to South Australia struggling with drought, wildfire, flooding and other weather-related calamities. Mr. Gore described the pattern as a manifestation of human-driven climate change. "This is creating weather-related disasters that are completely unprecedented," he said. (The preceding link is to a video clip of that portion of the talk; go to 7th minute.)
"Now Mr. Gore is dropping the graph, his office said today. Here's why.
"Two days after the talk, Mr. Gore was sharply criticized for using the data to make a point about global warming by Roger A. Pielke, Jr., a political scientist focused on disaster trends and climate policy at the University of Colorado. Mr. Pielke noted that the Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters stressed in reports that a host of factors unrelated to climate caused the enormous rise in reported disasters."
In fact, this isn't the only bogus claim of Gore's recently debunked. Al Gore and United Nations General Secretary Ban Ki-Moon published an Op-Ed in The Financial Times last month that claimed that there are significantly more jobs to be found in the wind-energy industry than in the coal industry.
A related article claimed that there were 85,000 jobs in wind and just 81,000 in coal. But according to The Christian Science Monitor:
"...it's a bogus comparison. According to the wind energy report, those 85,000 jobs in wind power are as "varied as turbine component manufacturing, construction and installation of wind turbines, wind turbine operations and maintenance, legal and marketing services, and more." The 81,000 coal jobs counted by the Department of Energy are only miners. Their figure excludes those who haul the coal around the country, as well as those who work in coal power plants."
Using faulty statistics to support their position is not the behavior of a movement confident in their position. And how could they be confident, with global temperatures declining, arctic ice levels matching those from 30 years ago (more on that below) and the American public growing more and more resistant to their claims?
All times are GMT - 5 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
