Global Warming 3

At 08:46 PM 3/12/2007, you wrote:

Facts?  Which facts?  The ones that bush’s anti-science corps makes up, or
the facts that 99 percent of the scientific community agrees with.

Joe,  don’t believe the hype.  99% of the scientific community does NOT believe in Global Warming caused by Man.  “Maybe” 99% (and I doubt that too) of the Scientific community believes that we might be going through a natural warming trend like the world has gone through countless times before.  However the VAST majority of actual Climatologists (as opposed to Botanists, Anthropologists, etc…) are in firm agreement that we do not have anywhere near enough data to draw any conclusions whatsoever.

Here is the text of an email that my Uncle Larry (a real Climatologist – not just playing one  on TV) responded to when he was interviewed on TV about this topic last July.

—————–

When you watch this video, just keep a couple of things in mind.  The first point is that this was a 10 second sound bite taken out of a 20 minute interview.  And on a subject she was told in advance, by the Director’s Office of Communications, not to ask me about as that isn’t the research I do.  The second thing to keep in mind is that my statement was taken out of context.

I am frequently interviewed by reporters.  Some of them are really good and some aren’t.  And some of them are just down right venal.  I have a mental list of reporters who are persona non grata with me.  Until this interview, there was only one name on that list.  Now there are two.

What I told her, before the 10 seconds she actually put on the air, was that it did look like it was getting warmer.  Was the only cause of this warming greenhouse gases produced by humans?  Maybe it is part of a long natural cycle?  Or might it be caused by the fact that over 95% of the
temperature sensors (thermometers) used in these studies are located at airports?  And conditions there have changed?

When we were kids, most of those airports were out past the edge of town.  They were mostly open fields with minimal amounts of paving for runways, taxiways, and parking ramps.  During busy periods, they might have 30 or 40 takeoffs and landings a day.  The planes would have two or have as many as 4 piston engines.

Now many of those airports are surrounded by development.  Most of their land is covered by concrete and asphalt.  50 to 60 takeoffs and landings an hour are not unusual.  The aircraft now have huge jet engines that produce vast quantities of super-heated gases.

Might that be at least part of what’s causing the warming?

If you look at the plot of temperature increases over the last 100 years, and compare it to both the increases in greenhouse gases and the increases in population, it looks to me as though it makes a better match with the population than the gases.

One example I point to here in San Diego is Mission Valley.

I have a copy of one of Dad’s photographs from the early 1950’s(?) posted on the wall of my office.  It shows Mission Valley looking northeast from the vicinity of the Serra Museum.  And what’s there? Dairy farms.  Lots of open space and damp, heat moderating pasture land. What’s there now?  Lots and lots of concrete and asphalt.  Thousands of buildings, all of which have air conditioners (and other equipment) that pump lots and lots of heat into the atmospheric boundary layer (the portion of the atmosphere in contact with the ground).

If the atmospheric conditions today were exactly the same as they were in 1950, does anyone believe that a thermometer near Mission San Diego would say the same thing today as it did then?  I doubt it.

Does that mean we should just ignore any problems with greenhouse gases? No, what I told the reporter (and Mari Payton did not mention) was that I wanted greenhouse gas emissions reduced, not just for possible climatic warming reasons, but because I have to breath that air.  And for esthetic reasons.

I told her that climate research had a broad spectrum of beliefs on human induced climate warming.  I told her that, at one end of the spectrum were the religious fanatics.  The climate is warming because of humans.  No question about it.  At the other end were the atheists. Climate warming is a natural cycle.  Humans are having no impact.  And then there’s scientists like me.  The agnostics.  We have yet to see any unequivocal evidence either way.  We’re not even sure it is warming significantly when you get away from the cities.

And we’re not going to see much research that might give us better insights since the people who approve research grants mostly come from the religious fanatic end of the spectrum.  There was some research done by satellite measurement that indicated that an important part of the atmosphere might not be warming.  In fact, it might have cooled slightly in the last 20 years.

There was a lot of controversy over those results.  The atheists were really happy.  The fanatics screamed.  Then the science team announced that there was a slight bias in their records.  When you adjusted for that bias, it definitely showed the atmosphere was warming.  Was the instrument error real?  Or was the science team just protecting their funding?

I really do wish I knew.

Larry
——————-

My point is that it is much better to err on the side of caution than to
throw caution to the wind.

No problem with erring.  The problem is letting the theory of “Global Warming” become some kind of mantra that leads to other unintended consequenses.  Like Corn for example.  We need corn to feed ourselves and livestock.  We don’t “need” sugar to the same extent.  Brazil which is energy self sufficint with ethanol uses sugar.  Seems to me we should to.  Sugar cane, sugar beets.  Help the environment.  The only upside to using corn would be that the sweetners in soda and other candies will become more expensive.  Maybe people will buy less, consume less and therefore weigh less.  But of course you still have the issue of poor mexicans protesting because the cost of tortillas have doubled.  Like I said before we have those mini florescent blubs.  They cost more to buy but use less energy and give off less heat.  Less heat inside means the A/C has less items putting heat into the room.  We do other stuff too but NOT because of a believe that it will cause an iceberg to not melt.

This administration is about nothing but greed.  It is what motivates
everything they do, be it this stupid war for oil or the idiotic tax cuts
for the rich while the rest of the country is going down the pooper.

Again you are letting BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) color your view.  The Clinton Administration was far dirtier greed wise than this one has been.  Count the number of people in both administrations that have gone to jail.  Bush is almost through two full terms and so far only one guys has been convicted and that was for not telling the truth about something that was not a crime to begin with.  PS.  I actually worked overseas for a three-lettered agency decidely NOT attached to the Embassy if you catch my drift.  So I do know what the law is on outing an Agent.

As for the tax cuts.  Again the revenue to the Treasury doesn’t lie.  You cut taxes and revenues go up.  Don’t believe me?  Gov. Janet campaigned against Matt Salmon that she would have to raise taxes to pay for the Alt Fuels nonsense.  Salmon said no cut taxes instead.  Well the state is in surplus and were taxes raised?  NOPE.  They were cut and revenue went up.  Same thing happened under Kennedy, Reagan and now Bush II.

Again just look at the CBO numbers and you have to admit that the Deficit has been cut in half.

If Congress would just keep spending at a level to keep pace with inflation and knock off the Earmark and Pork spending the deficit would almost disappear overnight.

Without have to pay the measly percentage that is paid on debt service we could apply that to all kinds of social feel good spending.  Too bad that politicans of both parties are too blind to see this.

But these jerks don’t care about the future because they are convinced that
Armageddon is about to happen and they are apparently doing all they can to
make it so.

You are coonfusing Bush with Armandinejad, the President of Iran.  He believes that the 12 Imam will be returning soon and that is what will usher in Armageddon.  That is why he is pushing for a Nuclear Weapons program.

http://www.iranian.ws/cgi-bin/iran_news/exec/view.cgi/13/10945

If I misinterpreted your stance, I apologize, but at you at least know my
opinion on that.