In addition to magnetic bracelets and shoe inserts to aid in healing and electrocution belts for weight loss, consumers looking to waste money on products with dubious medical claims can now blow their earnings on a watch that claims to protect your body from “electronic pollution” in the form of magnetic fields.
Wired News: A Watch Powered by Snake Oil
The Philip Stein Teslar watch contains a chip that works with the battery and coil to create a frequency that neutralizes the electromagnetic fields emanating from devices like cell phones, computers and radios, according to the company.
Research links electromagnetic fields with several health problems like headache, fatigue and memory loss, the company said. Those who wear the quartz watch allegedly sleep better, experience less stress and have improved concentration and more energy, it claims.
“It shields the body from these electromagnetic fields, and then the body can be more effective in taking care of itself and its immune system with those unwanted fields thrown off,” explained Ilonka Harezi, head of research for Teslar Inside, which manufactures the watch. “With us sticking cell phones to our heads, we need that protection,” Harezi said.
But others say the company’s claims are a bunch of bunk.
“There is not a chance in the world that (these types of devices) will do anything but lighten your wallet,” said John Moulder, a professor of radiation oncology at the Medical College of Wisconsin, who said he’s seen a slew of products that claim to do the same thing, including radio-frequency-proof lingerie.
Despite there being absolutely no scientific evidence that magnetic fields have any discernible effect on the body, and that’s something that has been studied extensively, the watches are being sold at such upscale stores as Bloomingdale’s New York and Royal Jewelers in Massachusetts for prices starting at $600 and going up to $2000 for one covered in diamonds. Needless to say, the watches are a hit among various celebrities and athletes and the clueless in general.
That’s it. I’m tired of being the only one who’s not making tons of money off of peoples’ stupidity and gullibility. I’m going to develop my own highly over-priced craptastic product with dubious medical claims that you don’t really need and start selling it to clueless idiots so I can be rich too. Perhaps it’s time I follow through on developing a patented Anti-Alien Anal Probe Ass Shield for people suffering from occasional alien anal probe syndrome. There certainly seems be enough of those people around judging from all the news items I read about it.
Link via Boing Boing.
Nevermind the thousands of Ph.D.s whose research has led to the conclusion that global warming is man-made.
The physics of the Teslar watch are quack, and the latest research in QM has not overturned anything that has been stated previously. Their whole foundation, only foundation, is placebo. Bullshit is still bullshit.
And no, The Secret has nothing on QM. The Doctor of Metaphysics title is bought and copyrighted. It’s a marketing tool. Welcome to the real world.
Ed, learn to say what you’ve got to say in as few comments as possible or I’m just going to start deleting them as comment spam.
That’s certainly true enough, but then they should only give up those established views of there is good reason to. Nothing presented by the folks you’ve cited so far really qualifies.
Holy crap, have you ever read a woo-woo book that you didn’t accept as Gospel?
Again simply “making it up” isn’t the only possible explanation. It’s entirely possible these people think their conclusions are correct and they’re just misinterpreting their findings or, more likely, engaging in flawed experiments. I don’t think every woo-woo practitioner is knowingly trying to deceive anyone, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t deceived.
And you haven’t burst my security bubble in the slightest.
I’ve read The Secret and it’s total nonsense. It amuses me to no end that anyone buys into at all, but then wishful thinking is always in fashion and a big money maker.
I’m no expert, but my grasp of Quantum Mechanics is better than the average person. Enough to know books like The Secret aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
I see a pattern with you now: Anything that has a scientific consensus is bullshit for you and anything espoused by woo-woo scientists is Gospel.
For someone with very little time you sure waste a lot of it posting multiple comments. Do you plan to submit your thesis broken up into five or six different papers and expect the panel to not be annoyed with you?
That would be amusing to watch.
Oh man. A global warming denier too. Tell us about crop circles, Ed. And Bigfoot. And if you liked cold fusion, what about N-Rays? I’m sure they’ve just been given a bad rap from the squares too.
Sure there was global warming for a little while, but only a complete idiot would think it was man-made after doing any basic research on BOTH sides of the argument. For starters, there has been NO global average temperature increase in over 8 years. There has, in fact, been a global average temperature DECREASE. There is also NO “greenhouse signature” in the atmosphere over the tropics, a mandatory condition if we were experiencing global warming due to the greenhouse effect. How about the opening of the northwest passage? Navigable by ship around both 1900 AND in the late forties(AGW?). The Antarctic currently averages about one third more ice than historic averages. But carbon dioxide drives climate temperature, right? Wrong. According to ice core samples, throughout the earth’s history carbon dioxide levels have always risen BEFORE temperatures increased, with temperature increase sometimes lagging by as much as 800 years. Also, the great poster-child for the AGW religious crusade, Mt. Kilimanjaro, is not experiencing any melting. The temperatures remain below freezing year-round. The ice is evaporating due to lack of precipitation. Weather patterns change. The only constant with the earth’s climate is CHANGE. Ever hear of the “dust bowl” of the thirties? Was that man-made global warming too?
I can tear apart anything you throw at me on the kooky Al Gore religion that is AGW. Let’s have it.
A new study using methods endorsed by the Al Gore crowd concludes that there is no “consensus” among scientists that man is contributing to global warming. Also can 31,000 scientists be wrong?
One of the most often cited pieces of evidence that man is causing global warming is a study by Naomi Oreskes that showed 75% of the examined scientific abstracts either explicitly or implicitly backed a view that man was contributing to global warming. This “consensus view” has been repeated ad nauseam, ad infinitum and is behind Al Gore’s “the case is closed” statements. The Naomi Oreskes study was based on a keyword search of a database of scientific studies. This keyword search found 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003. Of those 928 abstracts 75% explicitly or implicitly backed the “consensus view” of anthropogenic climate change (or man-made global warming).
Of course there has been a lot of criticism of this study in that it is not at all scientific even though its purpose is to review scientific studies. To begin with the keyword search only looked for “global climate change”, if your viewpoint doesn’t believe in global warming you may not use that term. Certain terminology is used by people if they have a certain viewpoint, other terms may be used if they have the opposite viewpoint. There were other studies that challenged the “consensus view” that showed as few as 30% of the studies supported the “anthropogenic climate change” view.
Since many of the studies found in Naomi Oreskes’ survey are now nearly 15 years old a new survey was done using the same techniques. By examining peer-reviewed papers published on the ISI Web of Science database medical researcher Dr. Klaus-Martin Schulte repeated Oreskes’ study. The new study found 528 papers that matched the search results for the period 2004 through February 2007. Of those only 7% gave an explicit endorsement of the “consensus view”. Extending the scope to those that gave either an explicit or implicit endorsement the study found 45% in support of the “consensus view”. Even more striking is that a majority (54%) now either reject the “consensus view” outright or are now neutral regarding anthropogenic climate change. You can read more regarding this new study at DailyTech.com.
Also refuting the “consensus view”, and almost never mentioned in the popular news media, was a petition signed by over 31,000 scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, against the Kyoto Protocol. The petition was sponsored by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Here is part of what these scientists signed their names to:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
This was not an anonymous survey, these scientists put their reputations on the line and put their name beside their opinion. You can read more about this at the Global Warming Petition. One needs to keep in mind the following regarding this petition:
* over 2/3rds of the signatories had advanced degrees,
* 2,660 were physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists
* 5,017 were scientists whose fields of specialization are in chemistry, biochemistry, biology, and other life sciences
Hardly a bunch of “flat earth” types as the global warming religious cult crowd likes to call anyone that dares to challenge their scientifically weak viewpoint that man is destroying the planet by causing global warming.
Typo:
“carbon dioxide levels have always risen BEFORE temperatures increased, with temperature increase sometimes lagging by as much as 800 years.”
Correction:
Fact: According to evidence provided by ice core samples, global temperature increases have always preceded increases in atmospheric Co2 levels, with Co2 increases sometimes lagging by as much as 800 years.
Anything that seems to defy widespread belief MUST be a hoax, right? I suppose you would claim that both Wim Hof and Lynne Cox are hoaxes. Lynne Cox can use her mind control to raise her core body temperature at least as high as 102.2 degrees in order to counteract the effects of cold environment. But that doesn’t make sense, so it must be fake.
That’s four comments in a row. Spam, troll, or a True Woo™?
Les, feel free to make good on your promise.
“That’s four comments in a row. Spam, troll, or a True Woo™?
Les, feel free to make good on your promise.”
——————————————————————-
Wow, you really set me straight. How wrong I was. Thanks for that profound enlightenment. I’m not sure what Les was promising, but I’m sure it will be no skin off my back.
Patnes, Les & elwedriddsche? What is this, some sort of lover’s triangle? Am I interrupting something between the three of you? BTW, I’m still waiting to hear what you have to say on AGW. But be forewarned. I’ve heard it all before & can give valid reasons why ANY bit of “evidence” is B.S.. Oh, and if what Les promised is CENSORSHIP, I’ll have a new email account in 2 minutes. Don’t fear the truth.
Point taken, but that would describe “global warming” as opposed to “global climate change”, which is something you’ve indicated is a constant.
If you’re right in your criticism of the original “study” then the results for this would be widely up for interpretation to begin with. Let’s roll with that, though:
31,000 scientists? The breakdown says:
A glorious example of bad math – that’s 7,677 (one quarter) of the 31,000 respondents were actually educated in the above fields, and of those, only those in the top have any strong, direct relation to the field (which, assuming linear distribution and two fields assignments to “other life sciences”, just to qualify the plural, means that 6/11ths of the responses are actually relevant. More than that, what’s “advanced”? 1/3 of the respondents didn’t even have “advanced” degrees. Did they have any degrees? Any qualifications at all?
Not clear, from what you’re telling me. It claims it was a replication of the previous study – was it, actually?
Lastly,
Keyword catastrophic – that the greenhouse gases are causing climate change is not disputed, even so.
“7,677 (one quarter) of the 31,000 respondents were actually educated in the above fields”
and
“just to qualify the plural, means that 6/11ths of the responses are actually relevant”
Irrelevant? A flawed conclusion considering that one does not need to major or hold a degree in a certain area of study to be qualified as as an expert, or even to be knowledgeable enough to intelligently debate subjects relevant to said field of study.
“I never let schooling get in the way of my education” -Mark Twain
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.
The current list of 31,072 petition signers includes 9,021 PhD; 6,961 MS; 2,240 MD and DVM; and 12,850 BS or equivalent academic degrees. Most of the MD and DVM signers also have underlying degrees in basic science.
All of the listed signers have formal educations in fields of specialization that suitably qualify them to evaluate the research data related to the petition statement. Many of the signers currently work in climatological, meteorological, atmospheric, environmental, geophysical, astronomical, and biological fields directly involved in the climate change controversy.
Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.
1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.
2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.
3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.
4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.
5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.
6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.
7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers’ educations.
Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)
1. Atmosphere (578)
I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)
2. Earth (2,148)
I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)
3. Environment (971)
I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)
Computers & Math (903)
1. Computer Science (217)
2. Math (686)
I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)
Physics & Aerospace (5,691)
1. Physics (5,106)
I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)
2. Aerospace (585)
I) Aerospace Engineering (585)
Chemistry (4,796)
1. Chemistry ( 3,156)
2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)
Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)
1. Biochemistry (768)
I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)
2. Biology (1,365)
I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)
3. Agriculture (791)
I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)
Medicine (3,069)
1. Medical Science (726)
2. Medicine (2,343)
General Engineering & General Science (9,992)
1. General Engineering (9,751)
I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)
2. General Science (241)
——————————————————————-
Letter From Frederick Seitz
The letter below is from Professor Frederick Seitz and has been circulated with the petition. Physicist Frederick Seitz was President of the US National Academy of Sciences and of Rockefeller University. He received the National Medal of Science, the Compton Award, the Franklin Medal, and numerous other awards, including honorary doctorates from 32 Universities around the world. In August 2007, Dr. Seitz reviewed and approved the article by Robinson, Robinson, and Soon that is circulated with the petition and gave his enthusiastic approval to the continuation of the Petition Project. A vigorous supporter of the Petition Project since its inception in 1998, Professor Seitz died on March 2nd, 2008.
“Enclosed is a twelve-page review of infotrmation on the subject of “global warming”, a petition in the form of a reply card, and a return envelope. Please consider these materials carefully.
The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil and natural gas and some other organic compounds.
This treatyis, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.
The proposed agreement wouldhave very negative effects upon the technology of nations thropughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries.
It is especially important for America to hear from its citizens who have the training necessary to evaluate the relevant data and offer sound advice.
We urge you to sign and return the enclosed petition card. If you would like more cards for use by your colleagues, these will be sent.”
-Frederick Seitz
Past President, National Ac ademy of Sciences, U.S.A.
President Emeritus, Rockefeller University
Read this, you might learn something other than your usual propaganda.
Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide
ARTHUR B. ROBINSON, NOAH E. ROBINSON, ANDWILLIE SOON
Oregon In stitute of Sci ence and Med icine, 2251 Dick George Road, Cave Junc tion, Or egon 97523 [artr@oism.org]
ABSTRACT A review of the research literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that in creases during the
20th and early 21st centuries have produced no deleterious effects upon Earth’s weather and climate. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly in creased plant growth. Predictions
of harmful climatic effects due to future in creases in hydrocarbon use and minor green house gases like CO2 do not conform to current experimental knowledge. The environmental effects of rapid expansion of the nuclear and hydrocarbon energy industries are discussed.
http://www.petitionproject.org/gwdatabase/GW_Article/GWReview_OISM150.pdf
And for that reason I’m equally unlikely to hurry that they are qualified – I’ve known many highly intelligent people believe patently false things.
For that matter, I know many people with Ph.D.s in Computer Science, and while they have their opinions on such things outside of their field, they are very clear that, inside of their field, there are several specializations that they do not see fit to comment on.
One went so far as to not describe himself as a computer expert, since his work in AI is only a single field in an immense field of study.
And this is an artificial field. Imagine the natural fields.
How many of these people actually have done work in environmental science, on the issues of climate change, who are qualified to speak on it? I’m not saying that other scientists can’t reasonably find flaws in existing literature. Nor am I saying that all such study should stay in-house. I am saying that I require the opinions of people to be grounded in the study of a subject to raise conclusions from it.
I do not require a scientist with a Ph.D. to tell me what color the sky is. As I stated before, a statement that went unacknowledged, I will gladly disprove any item of evidence that is meant to prove AGW. I have already done that above (in the comment I posted at 5:28pm) with a few of the more prominent arguments which were (mistakenly) meant to support the “theory” of AGW. Common sense shouldn’t require a degree. Mine doesn’t.
So basically you’re saying that you look for people who express ideas similar to your uneducated hunches, expert or not, and call that as your “scientific” basis for comparison with real experts. That’s wonderful, Ed.
Are there are any other fields your inexpert opinion, couched in deeply held reservations you’ve decided are “common sense”, that you believe trump years of dedicated scientific observation and education? Maybe you’ve got an opinion on how fluoride in the water is a government conspiracy, or something involving Blackhawk helicopters? UFOs? How about evolution being disproved by peanut butter and bananas?
By the way, did you know that OISM has only seven faculty members but takes no students? That their basic scientific background isn’t in meteorology or climate change at all? Here’s an article:
That’s a heckuva source, Ed. Say, how about you start linking to reputable German studies from the thirties proving the superiority of the Aryan race or something?
I’m warning you one last time, Ed. Get your nonsense out in one comment at a time or I will start deleting them as comment spam.
It would also help if you’d back up some of those wild claims with links to sources. You make a lot of claims and back them up with nothing.
Apparently Ed is unable to comprehend what a warning is so I’ve taken the liberty of deleting his last two comments.
Pathetic little prick has to resort to censorship. If you believe in censorship you’re in the wrong country, and few things would please me more than to personally show you the way out, but sadly it’s more effort than it would be worth(barely). Perhaps you ate lead paint chips as a child. That would definitely explain your situation. After all, lead pain WAS quite abundant back when you were a child. I was referring to 2 different unrelated subjects, hence the 2 different posts. Well, in any case you’re going to feel like the stupid ass that you are, you and your two little eunuchs that join you in your ignorant replies once it’s obvious to the rest of the population that the AGW “theory” is just as full of $#|+ as you are. But who’s to say when that will be, especially since your loony people are trying to blame the INCREASE in glacial mass on Mt Shasta in CA on AGW. They’ve got it covered from ALL angles! Now run along and be a good little compliant drone. Don’t forget to delete this message after you’ve finished reading it.
But Ed- don’t you know that eating lead paint chips is good for you? The same people who proved the effectiveness of the Teslar watch demonstrated the advanced states of consciousness that can be achieved after a few nibbles. The bad rap of lead paint is just a plot by the FDA, the FBI, the FAA, the FCC, and Big Pharma, to keep the truth from getting out. Toodleoo.
It’s not censorship when the man says “Stop shitting in my house,” and you continue to do so. All he wants you to do is to shove your crazed rants into a single post so you don’t content spam the new comments section on a single thread. I know it’s hard to understand, just like the notion that there are good sources and bad sources, bad science and good science?
Trust me Ed, administrating a large blog with several thousand members is something that Les has plenty of experience in doing. See? That’s an expert opinion, while yours is uninformed and not expert? That’s what we’re talking about. When you get your own website that anyone bothers to come visit for your ray of sunshine you can tell them how they should post too. Pretty simple, huh?
By the way, one of the ads that showed up on this page led to a good series of articles on GW, by those radical hippie Al Gore-fetishists at the Financial Times.
Les, in one of those deleted comments, he invoked Hitler.
Godwin’s Law is in effect, and therefore he invalidates his entire argument. Let’s just leave him alone here and let him spin into the ground.
Sorry, Les, you don’t do a good Hitler. You can keep the mustache, but the beard has to go.
Ed Smith whines…
I haven’t censored you, Ed. I’ve punished you for not following the rules. There’s a difference. Your Free Speech rights haven’t been infringed as there are still thousands of other websites out there where you can go blather your nonsense on with no fear of my removing the comments. You even have the right to fork out the money to set up your own blog and then you can post whatever you want, short of perhaps child porn, without fear of anyone deleting your comments. You can let your love of Cut and Paste run rampant and have the right to determine who comments and who doesn’t.
Censorship? No, I simply exercised my rights as the owner and moderator of this blog. Had you managed to get it all out in one comment I would’ve let it stand for all to see. I’d rather folks know that there are whackjobs like you out there than let you hide behind the woodwork. You do more for the skeptical cause than anything I could ever write.
Oh my. Such tough talk on the Internet. Pardon me while I quake in my boots for a moment.
It’s very simple, Ed. My house, my rules. At the bottom of every comment there should be a “Edit Comment” link for at least 10 minutes that would allow you to go back and insert any last-minute thoughts you happen to come up with. I don’t mind multiple comments in a row when it ads something to the conversation, but when it’s all just stuff that could’ve been said at once in the main thread or doesn’t ad anything to the conversation—a lot of your multiples have just been personal attacks—then it gets old real fast.
There’s absolutely no reason they couldn’t have been in the same comment.
Thanks for making my point for me. And I have no reason to delete your last comment because you followed the rule.
I find it quite interesting how you have completely dodged anything related to the “items of evidence” in support of the “theory” of AGW. I have already stated why several of these points are wrong including the number one fatal flaw to the AGW argument, the fact that there is NO “greenhouse signature” over the tropics. I can go on and on. And remember kids, a fact is a fact, regardless of your personal opinion of the source.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/DavidEvansmissingsignature.pdf
Ed writes…
Unless, of course, the source has his facts wrong.
“Unless, of course, the source has his facts wrong.”
When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir? — John M. Keynes
I say something is incorrect and I say WHY I say so. You say something is incorrect and offer no explanation for it except “scientists say so”. Exactly what is it that they say? That their “computer model” predicts doom? Perhaps the utterly laughable and completely discredited “hockey stick graph”? These people might as well be “throwing the bones” to foretell our planet’s future(they might have a better chance of getting it right). And, just in case your state of denial prevented you from reading this article from the Financial Post Published: Saturday, August 30, 2008:
Why I recanted, by David Evans
‘There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming’
David Evans, Financial Post Published: Saturday, August 30, 2008
I devoted six years to carbon accounting when I built models for the Australian Greenhouse Office. I am the rocket scientist who wrote the carbon accounting model (FullCAM) that measures Australia’s compliance with the Kyoto Protocol, in the land use change and forestry sector.
FullCAM models carbon flows in plants, mulch, debris, soils and agricultural products, using inputs such as climate data, plant physiology and satellite data. I’ve been following the global warming debate closely for years.
When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty good: CO2 is a greenhouse gas; the old ice core data; no other suspects.
The evidence was not conclusive, but why wait until we were certain when it appeared we needed to act quickly? Soon governments and the scientific community were working together and lots of science research jobs were created. We scientists had political support, the ear of government, big budgets and we felt fairly important and useful (well, I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet.
But since 1999, new evidence has seriously weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause of global warming, and 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. As Lord Keynes famously said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.
What do you do, sir?”
There has not been a public debate about the causes of global warming and most of the public and our decision makers are not aware of the most basic salient facts:
1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most intensely. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10 km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
When the signature was found to be missing in 2007 (after the latest IPCC report), alarmists objected that maybe the readings of the radiosonde thermometers might not be accurate and maybe the hot spot was there but had gone undetected. Yet hundreds of radiosondes have given the same answer, so statistically it is not possible that they missed the hot spot.
Recently the alarmists have suggested we ignore the radiosonde thermometers, but instead take the radiosonde wind measurements, apply a theory about wind shear, and run the results through their computers to estimate the temperatures. They then say that the results show that we cannot rule out the presence of a hot spot. If you believe that you’d believe anything.
2. There is no evidence to support the idea that carbon emissions cause significant global warming. None. There is plenty of evidence that global warming has occurred, and theory suggests that carbon emissions should raise temperatures (though by how much is hotly disputed) but there are no observations by anyone that implicate carbon emissions as a significant cause of the recent global warming.
3. The satellites that measure the world’s temperature all say that the warming trend ended in 2001, and that the temperature has dropped about 0.6 degrees Celsius in the past year (to the temperature of 1980). Land-based temperature readings are corrupted by the “urban heat island” effect: urban areas encroaching on thermometer stations warm the micro-climate around the thermometer, due to vegetation changes, concrete, cars, houses. Satellite data is the only temperature data we can trust, but it only goes back to 1979. NASA reports only land-based data, and reports a modest warming trend and recent cooling. The other three global temperature records use a mix of satellite and land measurements, or satellite only, and they all show no warming since 2001 and a recent cooling.
4. 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.
None of these points are controversial. The alarmist scientists agree with them, though they would dispute their relevance.
The last point was known and past dispute by 2003, yet Al Gore made his movie in 2005 and presented the ice cores as the sole reason for believing that carbon emissions cause global warming. In any other political context, our cynical and experienced press corps would surely have called this dishonest and widely questioned the politician’s assertion.
Until now, the global warming debate has merely been an academic matter of little interest. Now that it matters, we should debate the causes of global warming.
So far that debate has just consisted of a simple sleight of hand: show evidence of global warming, and while the audience is stunned at the implications, simply assert that it is due to carbon emissions.
In the minds of the audience, the evidence that global warming has occurred becomes conflated with the alleged cause, and the audience hasn’t noticed that the cause was merely asserted, not proved.
If there really was any evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming, don’t you think we would have heard all about it ad nauseam by now?
The world has spent $50-billion on global warming since 1990, and we have not found any actual evidence that carbon emissions cause global warming. Evidence consists of observations made by someone at some time that supports the idea that carbon emissions cause global warming. Computer models and theoretical calculations are not evidence, they are just theory.
What is going to happen over the next decade as global temperatures continue not to rise? The Australian Labor government is about to deliberately wreck the economy in order to reduce carbon emissions. If the reasons later turn out to be bogus, the electorate is not going to re-elect a Labor government for a long time. When it comes to light that the carbon scare was known to be bogus in 2008, the ALP is going to be regarded as criminally negligent or ideologically stupid for not having seen through it. And if the Liberals support the general thrust of their actions, they will be seen likewise.
The onus should be on those who want to change things to provide evidence for why the changes are necessary. The Australian public is eventually going to have to be told the evidence anyway, so it might as well be told before wrecking the economy. – David Evans was a consultant to the Australian Greenhouse Office from 1999 to 2005.
You do realize that posting an entire article like that is a copyright violation and could result it my having to delete it if the owners request that I do, right? I’m protected by the Safe Harbor provision, but I’d have to comply if asked.
You should really avoid posting entire articles and stick with snippets of the relevant points and a link back to the source.
Once again I come up empty on my challenge to others to provide compelling reasons as to why I should lend any credibility to the AGW “theory”. It’s the same every time, regardless of the forum. All the more reason not to buy into these “studies” that were funded by people who got the answers they wanted to get. A more prominent example of this kind of “scientific” manipulation is the Aspartame controversy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn5slnNB8h0
Ed, perhaps, if you wish to be presented the evidence, you should go somewhere where the access to the scientific literature and experts in related fields might be more clear.
Go to a university or college. Book an appointment to talk with someone doing research in the field. Present them your list of concerns in advance.
typing bastard in google and then asking around there – not the same.
He’s like a walking catalog of every conspiracy theory and new age woo-woo idea ever concocted.
He’s the poster child for idiocy.
I dunno about that – but he does seem somewhat counter-institutional. While I can hardly blame him for the attitude (there are plenty of institutions worth hating on), there’s definitely something majorly arbitrary about the whole process.
Thanks anyway, but I’ve read plenty of “information” from the proponents of AGW, and none of it stands up to the scrutiny of real-world evidence to the contrary. At least I provide legitimate reasons for my skepticism, whereas all the AGW cult people do is say “but thousands of scientists say so”. You even said yourself that no scientist is infallible, which is why I evaluate the information myself. I have done more than enough research to verify whether or not the “greenhouse signature” is over the tropics, or if it’s lack of presence even means anything. Everything points to its absence meaning no global greenhouse warming. And, as I have said before, the evidence against AGW is abundant, and only continues to grow.
“Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who has said it, not even if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense.”
-Buddha
Did I miss anything? No, doesn’t look it.
“Did I miss anything? No, doesn’t look it.”
If you never saw “An Inconvenient Truth” then you didn’t miss anything.
Mr. Woo is still around?
So the Philip Stein Teslar watch protects me from global warming?
Wait. Wat?
“So the Philip Stein Teslar watch protects me from global warming?
Wait. Wat?”
If that’s what it were meant to do, I would say it appears to be doing a damn good job. Still almost a week away from the official start of winter & the U.S. has already been hit by at least 3 major winter storms with another winter storm trailing behind the one that just hammered southern California. Much more of this “global warming” and were all going to freeze to death. Oh, and there are quite a number of people that need to get their facts straight on the “global warming” issue. Al gore tried to claim that 1998 was the hottest year on record and the 1990s was the hottest decade. This is incorrect: http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html
And the polar bear thing? Total B.S.:
http://blog.davidjanes.com/:entry:davidjanes-2006-11-19-0000/
Ed- are you also a Holocaust denier? An evolution denier? A 9/11 troother? I ask because these are phenomena that are similar to global warming in several respects: they are complex, not fully understood (nor ever likely to be), and fraught with emotion. In all these cases, there is a broad scientific consensus on what happened, or is happening, and in all these cases there is a vocal minority claiming that the majority is wrong.
Now, of course, science is not a democracy, and it has sometimes happened that the minority, in some cases just one person, has been proven right. Such a case is continental drift, first proposed by Alfred Wegener in 1911, and still controversial up through the sixties. But the phenomena I listed are different beasts: the underlying forces are pretty well understood (perhaps less so in the case of climatic change), and more importantly, the data confirming the majority opinion is voluminous and comes from many independent sources. So while there will always be riddles about, for instance, exactly why some buildings fell and others didn’t on 9/11, the basic facts are clear, and the troothers are just wrong.
The same thing is true of evolution, the Holocaust, and global warming. While it is possible to cherry-pick anomalies from these complex phenomena, since such phenomena always toss up a great deal of noise, the general trends are obvious. And it’s revealing that all these hotly debated issues are ones that have a great deal of emotional (and sometimes financial) involvement: no one is getting as exercised about string theory or the fate of the Roman Empire, although these are also complex phenomena. It’s also revealing that many (if not most- I don’t know of any polls, but this would be an interesting area of investigation) of the people who are global-warming deniers are also troothers and evolution deniers.
About your links, Ed. The polar bear thing has practically no information content: no data, just anecdotes and opinions. And the “hottest year on record” link is a great example of cherry-picking: it hones in on one example of mistaken data collection in the U.S., and calls that a defenestration of all the world-wide data on global temperature rise. See here for the big picture. And your winter storms in the U.S. are also just cherry-picking: no one ever said that global warming meant that it would be getting warmer everywhere all the time. You can always find cold places if you look for them. But there are more places where it’s getting warmer: in pretty much all of Europe and Africa, for instance. If you want a particular counterexample to your American winter storms, I can provide an eyewitness account: the glaciers in Europe are melting at record speed. I’ve seen it myself.
I, too, would rather believe that global warming is not happening. I can understand why people want desperately to believe that it’s not true, especially the oil companies and people who drive big cars. It’s not going to be much fun dealing with it, and it’s going to be much less fun for our grandchildren. But unfortunately, we have to deal with it, one way or another. And the sooner we do something about it, the better.
Three major winter storms and yet here in Michigan, a place I recall there being quite a lot of snow this time of year, it was 41 degrees early morning Monday and there’s not a bit of snow to be found.
Not that that proves anything other than it was unseasonably warm here in Michigan while other states were in blizzard conditions, but the point is that a handful of exceptions doesn’t necessarily disprove the rule.
“the point is that a handful of exceptions doesn’t necessarily disprove the rule.”
A valid point, however, most of the AGW cultists, including Al Gore himself are constantly using isolated phenomenon to try and prove their cause. A few of which have already been widely accepted as having been incorrect. Turnabout is fair play.
————————-
“there is a broad scientific consensus on what happened, or is happening”
“If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
Einstein in response to a pamphlet titled 100 Authors Against Einstein.
The assertions of a man-made global warming crisis are opposed by some of the best scientific minds in the world. There is no “consensus” among scientists that man-made global warming is a crisis requiring government intervention.
Chemist and physicist Svante Arrhenius calculated, in 1896, that doubling atmospheric CO2 would increase temperatures 9 to 11°F. But by 1906 he had recalculated, and had written that “a decrease in the concentration of carbonic acid by half or a doubling would be equivalent to changes of temperature of -1.5 C or +1.6 C [-3°F or +3°F] respectively.” Advocates of man-made global warming cite the original figures in support of their political agendas, but they omit Arrhenius’s own corrections(For example, Steve Vanderheiden, Atmospheric Justice: A Political Theory of Climate Change (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).
In a minority report issued December 20, 2007, members of the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee reported that “Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming”(U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Minority Report, December 20, 2007, also for the Khandekar, Segalstad, and Gray quotations: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport.). Many of these scientists were expert reviewers for the UN IPCC—an Intergovernmental and not an Interscientific panel—which ignored their conclusions when they disagreed with the IPCC’s political mission.
Among the scientists making comments to the Senate committee:
IPCC 2007 expert reviewer Madhav Khandekar, a Canadian PhD meteorologist with over 45 years experience in climatology, meteorology and oceanography. He wrote: “To my dismay, IPCC authors ignored all my comments and suggestions for major changes in the FOD (First Order Draft) and sent me the SOD (Second Order Draft) with essentially the same text as the FOD. None of the authors of the chapter bothered to directly communicate with me (or with other expert reviewers with whom I communicate on a regular basis) on many issues that were raised in my review. This is not an acceptable scientific review process.”
IPCC expert reviewer and geochemist Dr. Tom V. Segalstad, professor and head of the Geological Museum at the University of Oslo; The theory that CO2 is a cause of global temperature change, he wrote, is “a search for a mythical CO2 sink to explain an immeasurable CO2 lifetime to fit a hypothetical CO2 computer model that purports to show that an impossible amount of fossil fuel burning is heating the atmosphere. It is all a fiction.”
Dr. Vincent Gray of New Zealand, an expert reviewer on drafts of the IPCC reports going back to 1990, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of “Climate Change.” “The [IPCC] ‘Summary for Policymakers’ might get a few readers, but the main purpose of the report is to provide a spurious scientific backup for the absurd claims of the worldwide environmentalist lobby that it has been established scientifically that increases in carbon dioxide are harmful to the climate. It just does not matter that this ain’t so.”
Lawrence Solomon, a Canadian columnist for the National Post, an environmentalist and opponent of nuclear and other power plants, wanted to know which scientists, if any, disagreed with prevailing views of climate change. He found many among the most respected names in their fields. They include Claude Allegre, a PhD in physics from the University of Paris, former director of the French National Scientific Research Center, the Department of Earth Sciences at the University of Paris, and the Paris Institut de Physique du Globe.(Solomon, Deniers, 9-21 (Wegman) and 200-02 (Allegre)). Allegre wrote for twenty years about the dangers of global warming. But, given the mounting evidence, including growing ice on Antarctica and the natural explanations for Kilimanjaro’s melting ice(a combination of sublimation and reduced precipitation), he has now changed his position to: “The cause of climate change is unknown.”
A study by Philip Mote of the University of Washington in the United States and Georg Kaser of the University of Innsbruck in Austria also concludes that the shrinking of Kilimanjaro’s ice cap is not directly due to rising temperature but rather to decreased precipitation. In May 2008 The Tanzanian Minister for Natural Resources, Ms Shamsa Mwangunga, said that contrary to reports that the ice caps were decreasing owing to effects of global warming, indications were that the snow cover on Africa’s highest mountain were now increasing.
“Among the signs of more snow is the decrease in temperatures in areas surrounding the mountain, heavy rainfall this year and increased precipitation and spring water flow on the slopes of the mountain,” she pointed out.
She said reports that the ice caps at the 5,895 metres high mountain would disappear in the next 20 years were overblown because there were signs that the snow cover had increased in recent years.
One hundred scientists made their objections to the man-made global warming hypothesis known in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, about the UN Climate conference in Bali, December, 2007(Don’t Fight, Adapt,” letter from 100 scientists to UN Secretary General, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002. List of signatories, http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164004). Signers include:
* William J.R. Alexander, PhD, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa; Member, UN Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
* Bjarne Andresen, PhD, physicist, Professor, The Niels Bohr Institute, University of Copenhagen, Denmark
* Geoff L. Austin, PhD, FNZIP, FRSNZ, Professor, Dept. of Physics, University of Auckland, New Zealand
* Richard S. Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, IPCC expert reviewer, winner of the American Meteorologuical Society’s Meisinger and Charney Awards, and the American Geophysical Union’s Macelwane Award.
* Dan Carruthers, M.Sc., wildlife biology consultant specializing in animal ecology in Arctic and Subarctic regions, Alberta
* R.M. Carter, PhD, Professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia
* Ian D. Clark, PhD, Professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa
* Richard S. Courtney, PhD, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
Other scientists opposed the the AGW “theory” include Dr. Patrick J. Michaels(considered by Nature magazine to be the most popular lecturer in the nation on the subject of global warming(http://www.cato.org/people/patrick-michaels)). Dr. Patrick J. Michaels is senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute and professor of environmental sciences at University of Virginia(http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9340), Dr. Reid Bryson, PhD, DSc, DEngr, Senior Scientist, Center for Climatic Research; and Emeritus Professor of Meteorology, of Geography, and of Environmental Studies at the University of Wisconsin, who is known as the “Father of American Climatology” and Dr. Timothy Ball, professor of Climatology and the first Canadian PhD in Climatology, who wrote in a Cambridge Conference Network letter:
“At no point in the geologic record is there any correlation between CO2 and temperature. The ice core record shows exactly the opposite, temperature changes before CO2. The 20th century record shows no correlation between human produced CO2 and climate. Since 1998 the world has cooled slightly while CO2 levels apparently continue to increase.”
————————-
“The polar bear thing has practically no information
content: no data, just anecdotes and opinions.”
Yes, it’s the opinion of Dr. Mitchell Taylor, Polar Bear Biologist,Department of the Environment, Government of Nunavut, Igloolik, Nunavut. One might try to arge that there are many scientinsts with conflicting “opinion” about the polar bear “issue”. Cue famous Einstein quote: “If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
Polar bear population numbers are higher than at any point in the 20th century(http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14207).
Andrew Derocher of the World Conservation Union, and a professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta in Edmonton said that some polar bear-related evidence of the damaging effect of global warming was misplaced. Contrary to concern over a celebrated photograph of a bear and its cub floating on a tiny iceberg, the animals often travel in that way, he said.
“Bears will often hang out on glacier ice or large pieces of multi-year ice,” he said.
Just because they show you a picture of a Polar Bear Cub stranded on a floating sheet of ice doesn’t mean they are endangered. After all Polar Bears have been tracked swimming up to 62 miles continuously, and some up to 200 miles:http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2008/jun/05/animalwelfare.animalbehaviour
The image of four dead polar bears (allegedly drowned by melting ice, but actually killed by an Arctic storm) was used to foster a deep-seated fear of global catastrophe, in order to empower a political agenda. Once the image had its emotional impact—fear—the facts became irrelevant. This is not science—it is propaganda.
—————————
The Greenland AGW promoting propaganda:
Al Gore has frequently dramatized various events, usually weather-related, in order to instill fear of climate change. He uses a photo of a river in the Greenland ice, with the text “These photos from Greenland illustrate some of the dramatic changes taking place on the ice there.” But in 1953 arctic explorer R. H. Katz published a photo of the same kind of river in the ice on Greenland’s Adolf Hoels Glacier. Katz had also noted the ebb and flow of temperature levels: “We had expected to find a warmer climate, and the temperatures reported by Hgygaard and Mehren in 1931 had been much higher than on our trip.”
The evidence from Greenland’s natural history shows Gore’s dramatization to be another distortion concocted for a political purpose. This is not science—it is propaganda.
In early 2007 the New York Times published an article about the discovery of land off western Greenland, so-called “Warming Island,” which they alleged was covered with ice for thousands of years, until unprecedented warming in the 21st century melted the ice. But Ernst Hofer had published a book in 1957 showing this same area of Greenland devoid of ice. The person who recently “discovered” Warming Island tries to claim that because the map from the 1957 book excludes another nearby island, that means the author must have been wrong about Warming Island. This makes no more sense than claiming that because an artist inadvertantly forgets to include a tree in his painting, that means the rock he included probably doen’t really exist. Another doom-mongering claim has collapsed after examination.
————————
Fact: The earth’s global average temperatures have not risen in 10 years.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/table.html
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm
—————————
Proponents of man-made global warming, especially political figures, discuss man-made global warming as if it were a fact no longer requiring proof. They reject out of hand evidence to the contrary, and dismiss those who disagree as “flat-earthers,” “heretics” or “deniers.” This makes man-made global warming a dogma. There is no reasonable excuse for freezing either our understanding or our laws based on this dogma.
Perhaps Pål Brekke said it best, “Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time.”
Based on the conclusions of many scientists and the reasons they offer for those conclusions, there is no basis for assuming the truth of an “imminent global climate catastrophe” caused by human action.
Ed, you have fallen into the same trap that many of the regulars, here, have. You are trying to get people to change their minds with facts, when their minds are already made up. In the case of the regulars, they bring up facts to try to change religious fundamentalists. When people have emotional or political investment in a point of view, it becomes very difficult to get them to open their minds and eyes. Lots of luck, however.
Both sides of the argument have done this.
You’re giving Mr. Woo too much of a benefit of doubt. He’s not here to change anybody’s mind.
That’s an odd comment in this particular thread. How can you tell that the woowoos are also religious fundies? In any case, trying to change their minds is Quixotery, pure and simple. It suffices to point out where they’re wrong if they’re sufficiently interesting.
Yes, Ed, as I said, there is a vocal minority who contest global warming. I can quote plenty of scientists who contest evolution, too. Fact is, that the consensus among scientists is that global warming is happening, and that it’s largely man-made. I’m sorry, but I’ll take their word against yours.
Believe me, leguru, I’d much rather believe that there is no global warming: it makes me feel guilty about what we’ve done to the planet our grandchildren will inherit, and it requires action, some of it uncomfortable. I suspect most people don’t want to face global warming for the same reasons, and of course there are those who stand to lose money if they take it seriously.
Of course, there are political and economical motivations on the other side as well. But while I’m willing to grant that the political motivations for believing in global warming are probably just as tendentious as those of their opponents, the economic motivations are incommensurable. If you stack up the salaries of the CEO’s of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth against those of Shell and Standard Oil, I wonder what you would find? That alone should make one suspicious about the objectivity of global warming denial.
And meanwhile, Ed, you haven’t answered my questions: what is your position on the Holocaust, evolution, and 9/11? I’d appreciate a reply so I can continue my poll. Thanks.
More importantly though, Ed’s sources kind of suck. Biologists weighing in on meteorology as if they were experts? Dead Big Tobacco lobbyists? Right Wing Think Tanks from Dallas proclaiming “facts” about polar bear populations? If someone were really going to make a good effort to prolong a debate they’d at least have the courtesy of finding a collection of sources that didn’t have holes you could park a truck in.
I sat on the fence for a long while, until I finally decided that most of the measures being discussed for slowing down global warming made fairly good sense no matter what the exact mechanism of the warming actually proved to be, or the extent of the warming. That and guys like Ed’s massively shallow understanding of things like basic middle school thermodynamics, with localized variations in systems and the way things actually heat up when ice is involved, only served to seal the deal.
In the end though, isn’t burning coal cleaner a good idea anyways? Isn’t finding a way to reduce the amount of greenhouse gas we pollute the atmosphere with a good idea anyway? Is there some ethical problem with using green, sustainable materials as opposed to, I dunno, insulating your house with asbestos and spraying your petunias with DDT?
I don’t like animals and I’m not much for nature, truly I’ve got no use for much of the “spirit” of tree hugging. OTOH, I’m all for cleaning up after yourself and not making a mess. I think it takes a special kind of narcissistic masochist to shit all over their personal space and then complain when someone else steps up to try to clean it up.
MM asks…
Yes, they are good ideas. Above and beyond the possibility that they cause global climate change there’s the simple fact that elevated pollution levels increase health problems for thousands of people.For example cleaner coal would reduce asthma attacks and other respiratory problems and reduce the amount of toxic mercury in the environment.
Re:“Ed, you have fallen into the same trap that many of the regulars, here, have. You are trying to get people to change their minds with facts, when their minds are already made up. In the case of the regulars, they bring up facts to try to change religious fundamentalists. When people have emotional or political investment in a point of view, it becomes very difficult to get them to open their minds and eyes. Lots of luck, however.”
You have an excellent point. Most AGW followers behave in the same manner as if it were a religion they are following. There is almost zero chance of swaying someone from their religion. I will admit, however, that I have swayed a couple people to open their eyes to the real situation regarding the earth’s climate. There are thinkers and there are followers.
———————————————
To: “MisterMook”
Re: “most of the measures being discussed for slowing down global warming made fairly
good sense”
Good technology which is environmentally friendly does not need government to shove it down the throats of the people in order for it to succeed. If it is good technology it can succeed on its own in the FREE MARKET, regardless of any “oil company” conspiracies. If it requires government shoving it down our throats, then it’s not technology worth having. There is currently no technology being offered up that can replace “traditional” energies in the immediate future(next 1-5+ years), without being disastrous to the economies of many nations. A very bad gamble considering the massive lack of understanding of influences on global climate(See: ice core samples).
-“OTOH, I’m all for cleaning up
after yourself and not making a mess.”
Agreed. But without strangling government “mandates” based on very weak “science”. For example, I get very annoyed when hiking in the forest and see trash people just threw down on the trail, which I then pick up and carry out myself. I also have no desire to suck exhaust if I’m out walking or cycling.
-“Yes, they are good ideas. Above and beyond the possibility that they cause
global climate change there’s the simple fact that elevated pollution
levels increase health problems for thousands of people.For example cleaner
coal would reduce asthma attacks and other respiratory problems and reduce
the amount of toxic mercury in the environment.”
Again, I agree, but like I said above, I do not agree with government shoving absurd “solutions” down our throats for the sake of benefiting their buddies running the “green” companies.
Ed writes…
Right, because those “green” companies have all the power in Washington unlike, say, the Oil Industry which has to subsist on government subsidies just to survive.