Does Zenawi Belong in Copenhagen?

There has been much criticism of the appointment of Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi as the representative of some 52 African nations. The reason for this criticism is because of two main things - human rights abuse and a terrible environmental record.

First and foremost is Zenawi's involvement in the atrocities comitted in Gambela against the Anuaks in 2003 and 2005. These atrocities, according to Dr. Gregory Stanton, president of Genocide Watch, "fit the definitions of genocide and crimes against humanity"^[1]. New York Times reporter Douglas McGill says that Zenawi is "on par with Kim Jong Il of North Korea," and asks, "would [Jong Il] be recognized and even welcomed into the councils at Copenhagen? I don't think so."^[2]

Next comes Zenawi's environmental record, and let me tell you, it isn't pretty. From 1990 to 2005 under Zenawi's administration, Ethiopia lost 14% of its forest cover. That's approximately 2,114,000 hectares of deforested land. In addition to this, Zenawi has plans in place to lease additional land to multinational farmers at about 50 cents a year^[3]. But that's not all. In addition to massive deforestation, Ethiopia is forced into incredibly unsustainable farming practices. Because the land is owned by the state, and then is divided amongst families, the "plots become so tiny and the soil so exhausted that it cannot feed the families who work it - even in times of normal rainfall."^[4]

I ask you, should this genocidal, anti-environmental "prime minister" be given too much consideration at COP15? I would say no. The African nations need to find a new representative, and fast, if they want to show the world that they're serious about climate change prevention. At this point though, they may be stuck with what they've got.

Sources
1 - Genocide Watch calls UN to initiate action against Meles
2 - MinnPost - Africa nation representation at COP15 criticized (Video)
3 - Zenawi's Devious Ploy for the Copenhagen Climate Conference - Selam Beyene, Ph.D.
4 - Herald Scotland Oct 26, 2009


Note:
This post is also on Gather

Climate Change - Who Cares?

I think it's about time I wrote something of my own. Here goes.

Let us, for the moment, put aside any prejudices or arguments related to climate change and look at a different benefit of reducing global GHG emissions. Plain and simple - Neither I, nor many of my peers, want to grow up in a world that is being destroyed by pollution itself. Worldwide there are approximately 2.4 million deaths from causes that are directly attributable to air pollution. Of these, 1.5 million are due to indoor air pollution. That leaves 900,000 people a year actually dying of air pollution in the environment¹.

In addition to these deaths, there are of course non-lethal effects of pollution. One of the major diseases related to this sort of thing is chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Following the Great Smog of 1952 in London, during which huge amounts of built up pollutants hung over London, a study compared 293 London residents with 477 residents of Gloucester, Peterborough, and Norwich. The study showed that Londoners had much more severe respiratory symptoms of COPD and reduced lung function. It concluded that the most likely reason for this was the increased amount of pollution in London².

If these health related reasons aren't enough to convince you, there are economic reasons as well. A 2005 scientific study for the British Columbia Lung Association showed that a 1% improvement in ambient PM2.5 and ozone concentrations will produce a $29 million in annual savings in the region in 2010^{3, 4}.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are no bad consequences to developing green technologies. Some of them will likely even pay for themselves over time, and continue to provide profits afterwards. Please, don't make an argument over global warming a reason for not cleaning up our atmosphere. CO₂ is a pollutant, and it is up to us to reduce its presence in the atmosphere to more sustainable levels. If you support nothing else, at least support these efforts in Copenhagen.


Sources:
1. Estimated deaths & DALYs attributable to selected environmental risk factors, by WHO Member State, 2002
2. Holland WW, Reid DD. The urban factor in chronic bronchitis. Lancet. 1965;I:445-448.
3. Quoted from Wikipedia
4. 2005 BC Lung Association report on the valuation of health impacts from air quality in the Lower Fraser Valley airshed

CNN - Obama shifts schedule, will attend end of climate change summit

It seems Obama has changed his mind about appearing late in the conference and has decided to attend it near the end, around the same time as most of the other world leaders. This may not seem like a huge deal, but it's important because the timing of his appearance may have some effect upon negotiations. By appearing later he will possibly be able to add more weight to any decisions currently being debated, whereas if he appeared near the beginning these things may not have even come up yet. All in all I'd say this is a rather positive step and shows that Obama is at least somewhat serious about working toward significant legislation.

Washington (CNN) -- In a change of plans, President Obama will attend the end of an upcoming climate change summit in Copenhagen, Denmark, the White House said Friday.

"Based on his conversations with other leaders and the progress that has already been made to give momentum to negotiations, the president believes that continued U.S. leadership can be most productive through his participation at the end of the Copenhagen conference on December 18 rather than on December 9," said a statement from Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs.

» Read More...

Possible Articles

Articles to be read:

• In "Climategate's" wake, key Northwest climate scientist keeps looking skyward
• Al Gore meets with President Obama on climate change
• Political battle over climate change heats up as Obama calls for regulating greenhouse gases
• Climate change report calls for passenger tax on flights to reduce CO2
• Hot air in climate change debate: 2000s warmest decade ever
• COP15 Climate Summit Begins in Copenhagen
• NOAA Administrator Jane Lubchenco and Senior NOAA Climate Scientists Contribute to COP-15 Conference
• Pope Benedict XVI's Message for COP15

Wall Street Journal - The Science and Politics of Climate Change

Mike Hulme, one of those scientists with emails involved in "climategate", has written this article about the meaning of science and its involvement in political battlefields. No side is specifically taken but there definitely seems to be bias toward realism. I will not try to paraphrase this article, I strongly suggest that anyone and everyone read it.

I am a climate scientist who worked in the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in the 1990s. I have been reflecting on the bigger lessons to be learned from the stolen emails, some of which were mine. One thing the episode has made clear is that it has become difficult to disentangle political arguments about climate policies from scientific arguments about the evidence for man-made climate change and the confidence placed in predictions of future change. The quality of both political debate and scientific practice suffers as a consequence.

» Read More...

Science never writes closed textbooks. It does not offer us a holy scripture, infallible and complete.
-Mike Hulme

Chron - Climate-change industry shaken by e-mail scandal

Well, I decided it was about time for a post from the other side of the climate change "debate". Jonah Goldberg has written this article that seems to be an attempt at tearing apart the climate "industry" as he calls it. Several of his claims are ridiculous such as the idea that climate scientists are working on research for the sole purpose of getting grant money. What, then, is every other scientist involved in research working for? Oh, right, those are the people who would be perfectly willing to starve whilst working for free... One other example that sticks out in my mind is the comparison of the scientific climate consensus to the agreement that there must have been WMDs in Iraq. Thank you Jonah for that wonderful argument, also known as a non sequitar. Oh and finally, his dismissal of journalists who "aren't qualified to work through the climate data" and so "opt for the consensus". And so, I will leave you with this question: isn't he another of these unqualified journalists, who decides to disagree rather than agree with the professionals in the field?

By now you might have heard something about the scandal rocking the climate-change industry, though you can be forgiven if you haven't, since it hasn't gotten nearly the coverage it should. Computer hackers broke into the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in England and downloaded thousands of e-mails and other documents. The CRU is one of the world's leading global- warming data hubs, providing much of the number-crunching to global policymakers on climate change. And boy, can they crunch numbers.

» Read More...

Los Angeles Times - Google offers a glimpse of how climate change might affect California

Google seems to be working together with California to give a picture of global warming that anyone can see. So far it sounds cool, but unfortunately I've been unable to see any of the content due to internet problems. Can't wait 'til I get those sorted out. Anyway, you can view a bit more information (and a video tour guided by none other than the governator himself!) at California's CalADAPT page. The video runs through a tour of much of the climate change data added to google Earth for the California area, including projected ice pack size, wildfire risks and rising sea levels. Definitely worth the watching.

Researchers and policymakers have long rued that it’s hard to illustrate the perils of global warming when its most serious impacts won’t be visible for decades.

But thanks to the state Natural Resources Agency and Google, a graphic view of climate change’s potential effect on California -- based on scientific modeling -- is now just a mouse-click away.
Do you want to know if global warming will wipe out the Sierra snowpack before your great-great-grandchildren hit college?

Whether rising sea levels will obliterate landmarks in Baghdad by the Increasingly Deep Bay?
Whether your neighborhood will be safe from wildfires whipped by rising temperatures 76 years from now?

If Google Earth already lives in your computer, see for yourself in living color. Dodger fans take note: Much of the field at AT&T Park, where San Francisco Giants play, could someday be under five feet of water.

» Read More...

December 4^th - 11:19 PM:
Another article was released today by SFist. Nothing new, but I saw it and thought I may as well post it.

December 5^th - 5:17 PM:
A third article, this one from the Examiner in Minneapolis.

U.S.News - Hacked E-mails Give Inhofe Fuel for Climate Change Debate

It seems that even the educated will rally behind a questionable source when faced with something they'd rather not believe. Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma (Republican of course) has been pushing for a complete investigation regarding these emails. Emails that were illegally obtained and contain no reliable information. Thankfully the news isn't all bad, there seem to be some efforts moving forward that may eventually place a bipartisan climate change bill before the senate.

A slew of hacked E-mail snippets are rolling around the Internet. Posted earlier this month, the E-mails were swiped from a server at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Norwich, England, and contain exchanges between several top climate scientists discussing, among other things, how to make their data appear more impressive for publication. Not surprisingly, climate change skeptics, ever on the lookout for a good story, are holding up the E-mails as support for their claims that climate science is being cooked.

This controversy is growing, as one might expect. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe, a longtime global warming skeptic and the top Republican on the Senate Environment Committee, is pushing for a full-blown investigation and has publicly said the E-mails should be a cautionary note as world leaders prepare to gather in Copenhagen next month for climate talks. Inhofe's supporters are now happily predicting that the controversy will also hurt efforts in the United States to pass a bill capping emissions from greenhouse gases, a major priority for top Democrats.

» Read More...

Fox News - Leaked E-mails Muddy Waters Ahead of Climate Change Conference

It seems those leaked emails are continuing to have an affect on the climate change debate, though as White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs says in this article "there's no real scientific basis for the dispute". Well, we'll see how this plays out, we can only hope that a few idiots with computers don't ruin it for all of us.

President Obama faces no easy task in uniting dozens of bickering nations toward the goal of tackling climate change at an international conference in Copenhagen next week. But as if that weren't hard enough, a slew of leaked e-mails in the run-up to the conference has only fueled global warming skeptics who say the cause is bunk.

The president announced last week that he would attend the United Nations meeting, in a bid to drive some manner of agreement to set new greenhouse gas emissions targets -- though a legally binding deal is unlikely.

But shortly before his announcement, hackers broke into the servers at the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia in Great Britain and posted e-mails in which scientists dismissed climate change skeptics, expressed concern about the lack of evidence to prove the threat of global warming and even made one reference to a plan to "hide the decline" in temperatures.

» Read More...

The New York Times - Obama Will Go to Copenhagen

It seems President Obama has finally agreed to go to Copenhagen on his way to Oslo to receive his Nobel Peace Prize. He may be announcing the United States' goals for Greenhouse Gas reductions but of course nothing is certain at this point.

President Obama will travel to Copenhagen next month for the United Nations meeting on climate change, a White House official confirmed Wednesday.

Mr. Obama, who had previously not committed to making an appearance at the summit, will deliver a speech on Dec. 9 en route to Oslo, where he will accept the Nobel Peace Prize on Dec. 10.

Mr. Obama had been under considerable pressure from other world leaders and environmental advocates...

» Read More...

Sustainable Products - Wooden Mouse

This isn't exactly an article, but I thought I'd post it anyway. Alest Rukov has created a new series of computer mouses that I think is rather interesting. These new mouses are made from sustainable rainforest wood and are truly works of art. Of course being hand made works of art with a custom circuit board the price range is from $1000 - 1300 USD (668 - 859 €). Nonetheless, these really are cool to look at and the idea of sustainable products working into the computer industry is a wonderful prospect.

» Read More...

The Guardian - Climate sceptics claim leaked emails are evidence of collusion among scientists

It would seem some computer hackers managed to break into the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit. The hackers got away with about 160MB of emails and skeptics are rallying around a few phrases found in them. One of the most prevalent quotes from a 1999 email is "I've just completed Mike's Nature [the science journal] trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie, from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith's to hide the decline." Keep in mind that none of this can be confirmed, nearly all the scientist's involved have been publishing peer-reviewed papers for years, and the context for these statements is unknown. It is highly unlikely anything from these emails means what it appears to.

Hundreds of private emails and documents allegedly exchanged between some of the world's leading climate scientists during the past 13 years have been stolen by hackers and leaked online, it emerged today [November 20].

» Read More...

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - What Now?

This is the final post in the series (so far at least) and gives you information on what you can do to help from home. I urge you to take their advice and contact your representatives at the COP15 conference. Tell them what you think should be done and maybe your voice will be heard.

Keep track of the treaty: Negotiators are working on a draft treaty—raising objections, making changes, and shaping the fate of the world. Keep track of it at 350.org/treaty-tracker.

Get to know the negotiators: Find out who will represent your country in Copenhagen and what they think. Adoptanegotiator.org has “trackers” from 11 countries following the meetings leading up to Copenhagen “so you can stay up to date and either support or put pressure on your country’s climate negotiator to aim for a safe and fair deal.”

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future

I have a new favorite in this series. This article is rife with quotations about how the world is going to be given into the hands of the younger generation, and we need to fight to make it a place worth living in.

To be young and aware is to know you’re being lied to; to know that a bright green future is possible; to know that we can reimagine the world, rebuild our cities, redesign our lives, retool our factories, distribute innovation and creativity and all live in a world that is not only better than the alternative, but much better than the world we have now.

That which is unsustainable cannot go on. Unsustainable things that are propped up too long snap and collapse suddenly. Our way of life is unsustainable. The sooner we transform our economy into one that can generate sustainable prosperity, the better off we’ll be, and with every passing day, the risks of catastrophe grow larger and more certain. We need change now.

These shouldn’t be radical statements; they’re all demonstrably true. Yet they cleave right down the middle of what is fast becoming the largest generation gap in at least 40 years, a growing split between people under 30 and people over 60.

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - Dispatches from the Future, Today

This is another interesting entry (they just keep getting better!) that asked several leaders of environmental organizations what they might be posting on their blogs in January after the conclusion of the conference. They all seem cautiously optimistic and everyone has their own version of events.

The conference is still a few months away, but we asked several activists to predict what they will be talking about after the conference wraps up. Here is what they think they’re going to be saying next January:

Richard Graves, founder of Fired Up Media, blogger for the TckTckTck campaign, and editor of ItsGettingHotinHere.org:

What surprised me was the startling diversity of groups, beyond environmentalists, that got involved—from youth groups to union leaders to the Dalai Lama to the Pope. People realized that this is bigger than polar bears and icebergs.

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - The Issues

This is my favorite of these installments so far. This post briefly describes many of the major issues that will be discussed in Copenhagen, and then gives a one sentence description of what should happen and what will most likely happen. It then grades each issue on its likelihood of being satisfactorily resolved in Copenhagen.

End Goal

The long-term goals of preserving a habitable planet will effectively be boiled down to a single number: the target concentration of CO² in the atmosphere, measured in parts per million. For the past few years, conventional wisdom has called for a target of 450 ppm. But the most recent science points to something more conservative: A 350 ppm ceiling is required if, as the NASA climatologist Jim Hansen puts it, “humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted.” More than 80 developing nations and small island nations support the 350 target, as do many international environmental, human rights, and justice organizations.

What should happen: 350 ppm.

What will happen: It depends on grassroots pressure.

Grade for Predicted Final Compromise: B

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

The New York Times - Obama Hobbled in Fight Against Global Warming

This article talks about how the US, or any other country, may not be able to agree to a as much of a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as was hoped. One of the reasons, at least so far as the US is concerned, is that congress may not be willing to budge on this matter. Anyway, go ahead and read the article, it's interesting.

WASHINGTON — President Obama came into office pledging to end eight years of American inaction on climate change under President George W. Bush, and all year he has promised that the United States would lead the way toward a global agreement in Copenhagen next month to address the warming planet.

But this weekend in Singapore, Mr. Obama was forced to acknowledge that a comprehensive climate deal was beyond reach this year. Instead, he and other world leaders agreed that they would work toward a more modest interim agreement with a promise to renew work toward a binding treaty next year.

» Read More...

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15

GOOD recently published a four eight part series on COP15. Here are the parts in order of publication. There are posts for each part, but for ease of browsing them I also created this one.

1. An Introduction (Source)
2. A Primer (Source)
3. The Players (Source)
4. The Treaty (Source)
5. The Issues (Source)
6. Dispatches from the Future, Today (Source)
7. The Fire this Time: Copenhagen and the War for the Future (Source)
8. Now What? (Source)

» Read More...

Update: A second batch of publications in this series was released on 11/17

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - The Treaty

A quick summary of the "ideal" COP15 treaty. As the quote says it was drafted by several international groups and experts from around the world. This is what would happen if wishes came true folks.

The Copenhagen Climate Treaty is a proposal for what an ideal vision of a COP15 agreement might look like. The treaty was drafted by Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, IndyACT (the league of independent activists), Germanwatch, the David Suzuki Foundation, the National Ecological Centre of Ukraine, and experts from around the world. The prospective document was distributed to negotiators from the 192 attending nations with the hope that it would influence what happens at the conference. Here is a summary of the key points...

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - The Players

The quoted text is everything on the page, but there is one thing missing - a nice graphic that lets you look at different countries and groups that will be attending the conference.

When the United Nations holds its international get-togethers, countries are traditionally sorted into five regional groups: African states, Asian states, Eastern European states, Latin American and Caribbean states, and Western European and other states (incidentally probably the only time the United States gets listed as “other”).

In theory, these groupings give smaller countries a chance to speak as part of a louder, unified voice. In practice, though, the groupings have far less of an impact on negotiations than the preexisting alliances between different nations. These are some of the better-known examples.

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - A Primer

Basically a bit more background on COP15, what will be happening there and other seemingly random facts. Interesting, but not really all that important after the part titled "A brief history of carbon". Again, a very short read that does provide a little info about COP15.

Copenhagen, ho!

There’s a famous Danish proverb that roughly translates to, “He who is afraid of asking is ashamed of learning.” So, lest you get caught in a cycle of fear and shame in anticipation of the world’s convergence on Copenhagen, we offer this primer on all things COP15—and all things Copenhagen.

Point of Clarification: The COP in COP15 doesn’t stand for Copenhagen. It stands for Conference of the Parties, and it’s the 15th such event. You’re probably most familiar with COP8, which took place in Kyoto, Japan, in 1992.

When is it? December 7 to 18, 2009

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Good Magazine - The GOOD Guide to COP15 - An Introduction

A bit of basic background on COP15 - the Kyoto Protocol, what is hoped to be accomplished. It's very short (about 1/3 of it is posted here) but has a bit of useful information for those unfamiliar with what COP15 is.

The Most Important Meeting in History

In 1997, delegates from all over the world met in Japan to create a worldwide framework for reducing carbon emissions. The resulting treaty, which took effect in 2005, aimed to reduce global emissions by 5.2 percent below 1990 levels. Since then, the Kyoto Protocol has been the watchword of environmentalists everywhere—a shorthand for the kind of international cooperation needed to fight climate change (and a reminder of the U.S. Senate’s embarrassing refusal to get on board).

» Read More...

See the other parts of this series here

Afrique en ligne - Climate-vulnerable countries send SOS over climate change

Several countries that are in the most danger from potential adverse effects of global warming are calling for help from industrialized nations. They want money to help them develop in an environmentally friendly way. Not sure where the money will come from, but it sounds like a good use.

Ahead of the forthcoming climate change conference in Copenhagen, Denmark, the world's most climate-vulnerable countries have called on the developed countries to provide money amounting to at least 1.5 per cent of their gross domestic product to assist developing countries make their transition to a climate resilient low-carbon economy.

Bangladesh, Nepal, Vietnam, Kiribati, Barbados, The Maldive Island, Bhutan, Ghana, Rwanda, Kenya and Tanzania, popularly known as the V11, are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change but they are also among the lowest greenhouse gas emitters.

There are growing fears that some of them, like the Maldives, could disappear within a century.

» Read More...

Here's a video of the underwater cabinet meeting from the associated press.

Logical Fallacies Page

Just some definitions of logical fallacies that I find useful.

1. Absurdity (Ad Lapidem)

   Ad Lapidem (Latin: "throwing stones" or "by stonethrowing") is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity. The form of argument employed by such dismissals is the argumentum ad lapidem. (Source)

2. Ad Nauseam

   Ad nauseam is a Latin term used to describe an argument which has been continuing "to [the point of] nausea". For example, the sentence "This topic has been discussed ad nauseam" signifies that the topic in question has been discussed extensively and everyone involved in the discussion is sick and tired of it. (Source)

3. Non Sequitar

   Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premises. In a non sequitur, the conclusion can be either true or false, but the argument is fallacious because there is a disconnection between the premise and the conclusion. (Source)

4. Straw Man

   A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to "win" an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. (Source)

U.S.News - Conservation Group Sees a Win for Obama on Climate Change

It seems the WWF is rather optimistic about talks in Copenhagen. Maybe I'm just a glass half empty kind of guy because I don't think most of this is going to happen (but I sure wouldn't complain if it did!).

Despite pessimistic signs on Capitol Hill and internationally regarding action by the United States on climate change initiatives, the head of the World Wildlife Fund today predicted that the December climate summit in Copenhagen will draw up a framework for action that will prompt Congress to move on the critical issue. "It's time for us step up and play a leadership role," says Carter Roberts, CEO of the WWF, one of the first conservation groups in the nation to begin pushing for action to curb global warming.

Roberts held out hope that the Senate will send a signal to Copenhagen that the chamber is ready to act on the cap-and-trade legislation before it...

» Read More...

Skeptical Science - Less than half of published scientists endorse global warming

My last post of the day, and hopefully my last from skeptical science for a little while at least, this one is all about Schulte's paper that states only a couple percent of published scientists actually back the global warming consensus.

Schulte's paper (going on DailyTech's account) places great emphasis on the fact that only one paper endorses 'catastrophic climate change'. This is a classic straw man argument. Oreskes' 2004 paper never refers to an imminent catastrophe. Neither do the IPCC nor do the Academies of Science from 11 countries that endorse the consensus position that most of the warming over the last 50 years is likely due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.

Even more fuss is made over the large percentage of neutral studies. Ironically, Oreskes emphasised the same point in 2004 when she published The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change...

» Read More...

Skeptical Science - There is no consensus

Have you heard about the lack of a consensus in climate change research? Well so had I, and I actually sort of believed it... well, until I discovered that those who don't agree are really only a couple percent when you look at people who really know what they're talking about.

The question of scientific consensus is posed in Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change (Doran 2009). The authors surveyed 3146 earth scientists, asking them the following survey question:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

What is most interesting is that the authors categorised the scientists based on their level of expertise in climate science. For example, those considered the most qualified were climate scientists who had more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years on the subject of climate change. The results are shown in Figure 1...

» Read More...

Skeptical Science - Solar activity & climate: is the sun causing global warming?

Another of the best arguments against human caused global warming out there - the sun is causing it. This article examines this claim and explains that no, the sun is not causing climate change (at least not now).

As supplier of almost all the energy in Earth's climate, the sun certainly has a strong influence on climate change. Consequently there have been many studies examining the link between solar variations and global temperatures.

The correlation between solar activity and temperature

The most commonly cited study by skeptics is a study by scientists from Finland and Germany that finds the sun has been more active in the last 60 years than anytime in the past 1150 years (Usoskin 2005). They also found temperatures closely correlate to solar activity.

» Read More...

Skeptical Science - CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?

This article deals with the graphs of CO2 lagging behind temperature by 800 - 1000 years according to studies of ice cores. If you didn't know, this is one of the big arguments against global warming because if CO2 changes based on Temperature, it can't possibly be affecting it, right?

Does temperature rise cause CO2 rise or the other way around? A common misconception is that you can only have one or the other. In actuality, the answer is both.

Milankovitch cycles - how increased temperature causes CO2 rise

Looking over past climate change, scientists have observed a cycle of ice ages separated by brief warm periods called interglacials. This pattern is due to Milankovitch cycles - gradual, regular changes in the earth's orbit and axis. While there are several different cycles, the dominant climate signal is the 100,000 year eccentricity cycle as the Earth's orbit changes from a more circular to a more elliptical orbit (Petit 1999, Shackleton 2000).

» Read More...

knoxnews - Ann McFeatters: Global warming falling victim of polarized politics

This article was posted October 31 over on knoxnews.com. It basically just talks about public belief in global warming beginning to wane in spite of ever increasing scientific evidence. Old news at this point.

Three years ago 77 percent of Americans believed the Earth was getting warmer. Today, despite more scientific evidence that global warming is a real threat, only 57 percent agree.

The poll of 1,500, taken by the reputable Pew Center for the People and the Press, also found that only 36 percent of those surveyed believe human activities are making the globe warmer and that it is a serious problem.

This is alarming. Not only do a lot of Americans not know what they are talking about but also the nation is becoming so polarized politically that common sense has become a victim.

» Read More...

Click here for Arvid Pasto's reply.

knoxnews - Global warming myth risks economic viability

This is an article in response to Ann McFeatters article on Halloween. It talks about how, unless real proof is given, we should not waste time and money on man-made global warming.

I take great issue with the Ann McFeatters column Oct. 31 on global warming.

In the column, she makes reference to a number of future terrible consequences of man-made global warming, such as higher Earth temperatures, increased incidences of floods, droughts, hurricanes and deaths.

Numerous scientific studies have been published within the last several years which cast serious doubt on man-made global warming and especially the consequences written about. In fact, the issues mentioned are subject to great suspicion and debate among scientists.

McFeatters then spends significant column space questioning the motives of scientists (like myself) who do not agree with the proposed global warming. It is not helpful to do this.

» Read More...

Arvid Pasto is a Ph.D. in Ceramics, making him more than qualified to voice an opinion on a question of global warming. (More on Pasto's qualifications). I would also just like to point out Pasto's comparison of weather (meteorology) and climate (climatology) which are two completely different things. For a description of each, you can look here.