TCS Daily


Questions for Al Gore

By Roy Spencer - May 25, 2006 12:00 AM

Dear Mr. Gore:

I have just seen your new movie, "An Inconvenient Truth," about the threat that global warming presents to humanity. I think you did a very good job of explaining global warming theory, and your presentation was effective. Please convey my compliments to your good friend, Laurie David, for a job well done.

As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back -- I have a few questions that occurred to me while watching the movie.

1) Why did you make it look like hurricanes, tornadoes, wildfires, floods, droughts, and ice calving off of glaciers and falling into the ocean, are only recent phenomena associated with global warming? You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster (like Katrina, which you highlighted in the movie). And as long as snow continues to fall on glaciers, they will continue to flow downhill toward the sea. Yet you made it look like these things wouldn't happen if it weren't for global warming. Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?

2) Why did you make it sound like all scientists agree that climate change is manmade and not natural? You mentioned a recent literature review study that supposedly found no peer-reviewed articles that attributed climate change to natural causes (a non-repeatable study which has since been refuted....I have a number of such articles in my office!) You also mentioned how important it is to listen to scientists when they warn us, yet surely you know that almost all past scientific predictions of gloom and doom have been wrong. How can we trust scientists' predictions now?

3) I know you still must feel bad about the last presidential election being stolen from you, but why did you have to make fun of Republican presidents (Reagan; both Bushes) for their views on global warming? The points you made in the movie might have had wider appeal if you did not alienate so many moviegoers in this manner.

4) Your presentation showing the past 650,000 years of atmospheric temperature and carbon dioxide reconstructions from ice cores was very effective. But I assume you know that some scientists view the CO2 increases as the result of, rather than the cause of, past temperature increases. It seems unlikely that CO2 variations have been the dominant cause of climate change for hundreds of thousands of years. And now that there is a new source of carbon dioxide emissions (people), those old relationships are probably not valid anymore. Why did you give no hint of these alternative views?

5) When you recounted your 6-year-old son's tragic accident that nearly killed him, I thought that you were going to make the point that, if you had lived in a poor country like China or India, your son would have probably died. But then you later held up these countries as model examples for their low greenhouse gas emissions, without mentioning that the only reason their emissions were so low was because people in those countries are so poor. I'm confused...do you really want us to live like the poor people in India and China?

6) There seems to be a lot of recent concern that more polar bears are drowning these days because of disappearing sea ice. I assume you know that polar bears have always migrated to land in late summer when sea ice naturally melts back, and then return to the ice when it re-freezes. Also, if this was really happening, why did the movie have to use a computer generated animation of the poor polar bear swimming around looking for ice? Haven't there been any actual observations of this happening? Also, temperature measurements in the arctic suggest that it was just as warm there in the 1930's...before most greenhouse gas emissions. Don't you ever wonder whether sea ice concentrations back then were low, too?

7) Why did you make it sound like simply signing on to the Kyoto Protocol to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions would be such a big step forward, when we already know it will have no measurable effect on global temperatures anyway? And even though it represents such a small emission reduction, the economic pain Kyoto causes means that almost no developed country will be meeting its emission reductions commitments under that treaty, as we are now witnessing in Europe.

8) At the end of the movie, you made it sound like we can mostly fix the global warming problem by conserving energy... you even claimed we can reduce our carbon emissions to zero. But I'm sure you know that this will only be possible with major technological advancements, including a probable return to nuclear power as an energy source. Why did you not mention this need for technological advancement and nuclear power? It is because that would support the current (Republican) Administration's view?

Mr. Gore, I think we can both agree that if it was relatively easy for mankind to stop emitting so much carbon dioxide, that we should do so. You are a very smart person, so I can't understand why you left so many important points unmentioned, and you made it sound so easy.

I wish you well in these efforts, and I hope that humanity will make the right choices based upon all of the information we have on the subject of global warming. I agree with you that global warming is indeed a "moral issue," and if we are to avoid doing more harm than good with misguided governmental policies, we will need more politicians to be educated on the issue.

Your "Good Friend,"

Dr. Roy W. Spencer
(aka 'Phil Jones')

Categories:

395 Comments

Let me speak for Al
Dear Phil... I mean Roy,

You have asked some very good questions, but they have all been asked before and answered quite satisfactorily, in my opinion. So we really don't need to discuss these issues anymore. The real important thing is: what if you are wrong? Can we really to destroy the world for our children simply because Roy Spencer doesn't think anything bad is going to happen? I don't know Roy, but I don't think I am willing to take that risk!

What do the rest of you think? Do we want to ignore the near unanimous voices of the really intelligent scientists who say we are headed for great calamities and embrace the overly simplistic musings of Dr. Spencer?

I don't know about you, but I happen to love my children and planet Earth, and I can no longer stand by in good conscious and watch it all destroyed. I think the animated polar bear drowning in my movie really says it all. We almost used a momma bear drowning with her cub, but that would have been too much to take. The point is, we all face a similar fate if we don't start sacrificing for our children.

Roy, dear friend, you may mean well with all your logic and reasoning, but what is all of that if you don't have compassion? If I had more time, I would invite you to join my entourage as we travel around the world in chartered jets and limos, and explain why it is so important for everyone to stop burning fossil fuels. I am sure we could make you look beyond the science and see the real people who need me... I mean us!

In the meantime, please stop asking your mean-spirited questions, for there are still some lost souls out there who think you might be making a valid point or two, when we all know that is impossible.

Your Friend,

Presid...I mean Compassionate Guy,

Al Gore

Only one question for Gore, et al ...
Someone needs to ask Gore (or any of his fellow travelers) the following question whenever he shows his face in public:

Mr. Gore, how far along are your plans for evacuating all of the worlds' low-lying coastal regions?

The perfect place to start is New Orleans, after all. Not one more dime should be spent on 'rebuilding' a New Orleans that is going to be entirely submerged in just a few short years. The place is mostly vacated now, so Gore and his wacko compatriots need to step up to the plate and demand that New Orleans be evacuated permanently.

That's assuming, of course, that they actually believe any of the hogwash they spout.

Words do not matter, only actions matter. If anyone in the world in a position of authority actually believed that the 'man-made greenhouse effect' has done irreversible damage and is going going to swamp and submerge coastlines worldwide in 30 years, then they would have already begun evacuating. How long do you think it would take to effectively relocate hundreds of millions of people around the world? Heck, it may already be too late.

But nary a peep. Because it's all rubbish, and they know it. Besides, you don't need to evacuate millions and millions of people from their homes if your only real goal is merely to destroy America's economy.

Until these clowns start actually moving people out of their homes and further inland, all of this talk of catastrophe is nothing but a fraud.

Here's a little story I learned a long time ago about how you can tell if someone really believes something when they say they do:

Years ago, a famous aerialist (tightrope walker) was walking a tightly strung cable between two skyscrapers in New York. He had crossed several times, pushing a wheelbarrow filled with bricks in front of him. It was quite a spectacle, reporters had gathered around, and it was a big story at the time. One instance, when the aerialist had crossed from the far building top to the the building where the reporters had gathered, he stopped and spoke to them.

'Do you think I can make it across with the wheelbarrow again?'

'You've already done it several times, yes, we think you can.' some replaied.

He asked again, 'But are you SURE I can do it again?'

The reporters became bolder with their predictions.

'Yes, we are sure. You can do it!' One reporter was even so bold as to say, 'I guarantee he can do it!'

The aerialist asked this particular bold reporter, 'You are certain I can cross over there and back again with this heavy wheelbarrow?'

'Of course I am. You've already proved you can do it. Yes, I believe you will be able to do it again, no problem.'

The aerialist replied, 'Terrific!', dumped all the bricks out of the wheelbarrow, and turned back to the reporter. 'Hop in!'

*******

This is how you can tell if someone really believes what they are claiming they believe.

If Gore really believed all this GWBS, he would be spending more time concerning himself with getting those millions of people to safety than on destroying our economy.

But hey, it's not like it's a surprise that a bunch of socialist moonbats have a problem with honesty.

Another Question for Al....
Good point, Wesley. Another question Mr. Gore needs to answer is why oh why hasn't he held a news conference to voice his strong support for Nuclear Power? Here is a major proven technology, embraced by much of the rest of the industrialized world (France, Japan, etc.) that emits no greenhouse gas at all. Nor does it spew mercury poisons, acid-rain precursors or cause black-lung disease, deaths due to mine cave-ins, stop salmon runs by blocking rivers or threaten the artic with oil spills. It just produces huge amounts of clean electric energy.

Maybe to gain acceptance by Gore and the other environemental wackos of like-mind, we simply need to announce that we will FORCE people to use nuclear power. Coersion and force are what appeals to the Left, so lets just force everyone to use this technology and we'll all be happy and we'll save the planet to boot.

A Disagreement
I disagree with the author on one point. ALgore is NOT a smart man. In fact, it is highly probable that his IQ approximately the number of letters in his last name. Anyone who has read "Earth in the Balance" and believed it is equivalently intellectually endowed. Assuming Gore did write it --- and I doubt that he really did, but gave his name to some other idiot's work --- he could have put the book up with a Grimm's Fairy Tale version of ecology, meteorology and related sciences. The errors are so blatant it's painful --- likewise this recent garbage effort.

Gee, I wonder if his son --- you know, the one who ALMOST died --- was named Checkers?

Almost Had Me Going . . .
Gosh -- I was girding myself to (hurriedly) post a quite scathing counter to your "reply," until I realised the sarcastic tone about halfway through. Touche -- I applaud your stance and its presentation.

Re: A Disagreement
>Assuming Gore did write it -

I'm pretty sure he wrote the first chapter. When I read the book, the use of the first person pronouns - "I", "me", "my" - was so amazing that I went back and counted them. The average was thirteen times per page! This is the work of someone who is monumentally conceited: i.e. Al Gore.

The rest of the book was probably written by Steven Schneider, who is famous for commenting on how to be "effective" in promoting global catastrophes: "Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest."

No Subject
As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back

HA!... I think that I saw something about this some years back on the discovery channel, and V.P. Al Gore was utterly tongue-tied after about two minutes worth of meteorological back-at-ya from the scientists that attended that hearing.

It was quite obvious that he didn't know who and what he was talking to or about... ;)

attaboy "Phil"

On the other hand, you're simply wrong when you say:

You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster...

Quite to the contrary, the facts on record are that meteorologists lied to congress after somebody sold-out to the construction loby in order to lower the building codes in Florida back in the mid 70's.

That was before Andrew hit and they raised the code right back up again after the ensuing peeling of unsecured roofs that flew off and destroyed everything in their path.

They intentionally misled everyone by saying that changes in the long-term weather pattern meant that there was no further threat of hurricanes hitting the coastal U.S. "in the foreseeable future".

It's on record that "the little guy" is now paying for somebody that got very rich or rewarded for lying.





The invisible post... II
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8034&fldIdMsg=23759


" As a climate scientist myself -- you might remember me...I'm the one you mistook for your "good friend," UK scientist Phil Jones during my congressional testimony some years back "


HA!... I think that I saw something about this some years back on the discovery channel, and V.P. Al Gore was utterly tongue-tied after about two minutes worth of meteorological back-at-ya from the scientists that attended that hearing.

It was quite obvious that he didn't know who and what he was talking to or about... ;)

attaboy "Phil"

~

On the other hand, you're simply wrong when you say:

" You surely know that hurricane experts have been warning congress for many years that the natural cycle in hurricanes would return some day, and that our built-up coastlines were ripe for a disaster... "


Quite to the contrary, the facts on record are that meteorologists lied to congress after somebody sold-out to the construction loby in order to lower the building codes in Florida back in the mid 70's.

That was before Andrew hit and they raised the code right back up again after the ensuing peeling of unsecured roofs that flew off and destroyed everything in their path.

They intentionally misled everyone by saying that changes in the long-term weather pattern meant that there was no further threat of hurricanes hitting the coastal U.S. "in the foreseeable future".

It's on record that "the little guy" is now paying for somebody that got very rich or rewarded for lying.

Good observation ---
You may be right --- I, me and my are all one-syllable words --- Algore can handle that.

Please, Al get the Dem nod in 2008...
OT--I'd pay money to see his mulit-media presentation in 2012 about what it's like to lose a presidential election twice.

The Melting Ice Age

NASA Mission Detects Significant Antarctic Ice Mass Loss
NASA, March 2, 2006

The first-ever gravity survey of the entire Antarctic ice sheet, conducted using data from the NASA/German Aerospace Center Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (Grace), concludes the ice sheet's mass has decreased significantly from 2002 to 2005.

Isabella Velicogna and John Wahr, both from the University of Colorado, Boulder, conducted the study. They demonstrated for the first time that Antarctica's ice sheet lost a significant amount of mass since 2002. The estimated mass loss was enough to raise global sea level about 1.2 millimeters (0.05 inches) during the survey period, or about 13% of the overall observed sea level rise for the same period. The researchers found Antarctica's ice sheet decreased by 152 (plus or minus 80) cubic kilometers of ice annually between April 2002 and August 2005...

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-028

----------------

Greenland Ice Loss Doubles in Past Decade, Raising Sea Level Faster
NASA, February 16, 2006

The loss of ice from Greenland doubled between 1996 and 2005, as its glaciers flowed faster into the ocean in response to a generally warmer climate, according to a NASA/University of Kansas study [published in the journal Science]...

From 1996 to 2000, widespread glacial acceleration was found at latitudes below 66 degrees north. This acceleration extended to 70 degrees north by 2005. The researchers estimated the ice mass loss resulting from enhanced glacier flow increased from 63 cubic kilometers in 1996 to 162 cubic kilometers in 2005. Combined with the increase in ice melt and in snow accumulation over that same time period, they determined the total ice loss from the ice sheet INCREASSD FROM 96 CUBIC KILOMETERS IN 1996 TO 220 CUBIC KILOMETERS IN 2005. To put this into perspective, a cubic kilometer is one trillion liters (approximately 264 billion gallons of water), about a quarter more than Los Angeles uses in one year.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2006-023

----------------

Satellites See a Double-Texas Sized Loss In Arctic Sea Ice
NASA, September 8, 2005

...Each year, during the month of September, the amount of sea ice floating in the Arctic Ocean is typically at its lowest amount for the entire year. This year, and all the way back to 2002, the amount of sea ice has been 20 percent less than the average amount seen normally between 1979 and 2000. Satellites helped scientists learn that there was about 502,000 SQUARE MILES LESS SEA ICE EACH SEPTEMBER SINCE 2001 than there typically was in previous Septembers...

...For the perennial ice to recover, sustained cooling is needed, especially during the summer period. THIS HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE OVER THE LAST 20 YEARS, as the satellite data show a warming trend in the Arctic, and it is not likely to be the case in the future, as climate models predict continued Arctic warming. Even if ice were to grow back in these areas, the new ice is often thinner and more susceptible to future melt, than the thick perennial ice that it replaces.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arcticice_decline.html

We've already disected that phony study
1) it was 3/12 years, not 3 years. Which gave a seasonal bias to the data. When that bias was removed, the so called ice loss also disappeared.

2) The method used for the survey is far from perfect.

3) Anyone who thinks 3 years is long enough to tell you anything is an idiot, and quite probably an AGW fanatic. (Was that redundant?)

A Pinch of Sand
Mark, that wasn't just one study -- but who needs ice when we can have sand?

Deserts Expanding With Jet Stream Shift
AP, May 25, 2006

Deserts in the American Southwest and around the globe are creeping toward heavily populated areas as the jet streams shift, researchers reported Thursday. The result: Areas already stressed by drought may get even drier.

Satellite measurements made from 1979 to 2005 show that the atmosphere in the subtropical regions both north and south of the equator is heating up. As the atmosphere warms, it bulges out at the altitudes where the northern and southern jet streams slip past like swift and massive rivers of air. That bulging has PSUHED BOTH JET STREAMS 70 MILES CLOSER TO EARTH'S POLES...

Additional creep could move Africa's Sahara Desert farther north, worsening drought conditions that are already a serious problem on that continent and bringing drier weather to the countries that ring the Mediterranean Sea.

The Mediterranean is one region that models consistently show drying in the future. That could be very much related to this pattern that we are seeing in the atmosphere," said Isaac Held, a senior research scientist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. He was not connected with the research.

In Europe, for example, that shift could mean less snow falling on the Alps in winter. That would be bad news for skiers, as well as for farmers and others who rely on rivers fed by snowmelt...

http://www.forbes.com/business/energy/feeds/ap/2006/05/25/ap2774089.html

If I were Al
I guess I would start with your first point:
"Also, since there are virtually no measures of severe weather showing a recent increase, I assume those graphs you showed actually represented damage increases, which are well known to be simply due to greater population and wealth. Is that right?"

I have to say Roy, have you been keeping up with the literature? Because you say something that is simply not true. There are peer review articles documenting increases in severe weather. You must have been off on extended holiday to write that there are NO measures showing increases. Let me provide a few to keep you up to date:


Did you happen to miss 2006, which had 28 tropical storms in the Atlantic?

Let's start with NOAA:
NOAA has concluded that warming sea temperatures are causing an increase in the intensity of hurricanes, and that this increase is in part man-made.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2622.htm

And this report surveys hurricanes globally:
http://www.met.psu.edu/dept/news/websteretal-Science05.pdf

And of course there is this report in Nature
ftp://texmex.mit.edu/pub/emanuel/PAPERS/NATURE03906.pdf

I am glad to see that you have more time for leisure!
Thanks,
Dan

why does Rhampton think this article proves anything
other than he is willing to fall for anything.

did you miss the rest of the story
While '06 was bad in the US, it was also a year with less than normal typhons.

why do any of you think that we can violate the ecobalance?
We're contributing members of, not the *orignators* of, the ecosystem that we *belong to*, so what level of human arrogance does it take to enable us to either, deny, or ignore that we are nothing more than thermodynamically relevant players in offsetting the onslaught of an impending 100,000 year long winter that's predicted by milankovitch models?

Like squirrils that instinctively bury nuts, only pure unadulterated human arrogance can enable you to believe that you are above the natural process.

Sorry, nature doesn't care what side of the fanatical bandwagon you're on.

How can we trust scientists' predictions now
Yes Roy why should we listen to you.

Equal Opposing Rhetoric
Derives the "theme" of reality:

As a result, neither side gets things all their way even though both sides *know* that their side is the "right" side, because some of the points of both sides are stronger than others.

Reationary liberals typically jump on short-range data as an indicator of impending doom and gloom, whereas overly zealous conservatives side with the idea that we have a higher moral right to take anything that the survival need drives us to want without consideration for the consequences that this has on the *rest* of nature.

The actual *trend* that you *necessarily* and bitterly end up sacrificing your ideals to, very obviously derives a more sane ecobalance of nature that is quite beyond the radically rightous belief systems of either ideologically motivated side of the cluelessness.

Diametrically opposing runaway tendencies that are independendly detrimental to life together serve to define the anthropic balance of nature that enables life to exist.

You have no real choice... period.

Feedback
Feedback may raise warming beyond previous estimates
American Geophysical Union, May 22, 2006

In a paper to be published on 26 May in Geophysical Research Letters, Marten Scheffer of Wageningen University in the Netherlands and colleagues at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in the United Kingdom use newly acquired ancient climate data to quantify the TWO-WAY PHENOMENON by which greenhouse gases not only contribute to higher temperatures, but are themselves INCREASED BY THE HIGHER TEMPERATURES. This higher concentration leads to still higher temperatures, in what scientists call a positive feedback loop.

The researchers achieved their breakthrough by interpreting the high-resolution data from polar ice cores and temperature reconstructions based on geological proxy data in a new way. Although the effect of greenhouse gases on temperature is well known, the REVERSE EFFECT IS USUALLY IGNORED. The latter has now been estimated through a correction of the past climate data, using a model of the greenhouse effect.

...As Marten Scheffer explains, "Although there are still significant uncertainties, our simple data-based approach is consistent with the latest climate-carbon cycle models, which suggest that global warming will be accelerated by the effects of climate change on the rate of carbon dioxide increase. In view of our findings, estimates of future warming that ignore these EFFECT MAY HAVE TO BE RAISED BY ABOUT 50%. We have, in fact, been conservative on several points. For instance, we do not account for the greenhouse effect of methane, which is also known to increase in warm periods."

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-05/agu-ggf051906.php

Re: Let me speak for al
Looks like al had a lot of company a couple of years back when he stood in a Snow Drift up to his butt proclaiming
"this is caused by Global Warming". He has been suffering from "FROST BITE OF THE BRAIN" ever since!

Nuk'em
When I hear someone like AG rant about the need to deal with CO2 induced global climate change I will begin taking them seriously when they also advocate replacing all of our coal fired power plants with nukes. This is the only proven technology that we can use right now to effect a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Until then, they are just another person with social and economic agenda disguised as environmentalism. Instead of doing something which would have a real impact on the problem we get bogus solutions such as Kyoto which everyone now knows is impossible to implement and it wouldn't do anything even if we did. Don't get me wrong. I'm not advocating for abandoning coal. I want to go on record here as being in favor of warming. Warm good. Cold Bad.

Because some of us...
actually need to see evidence of that we are thermodynamically relevant players in offsetting the onslaught of an impending 100,000 year long winter that's predicted by milankovitch models.

It's pretty simple really. You have this model and we are supposed to drop everything to appease it? I would rather not since no model to date accurate predicts climate change nor is there any evidence that this is nothing more than a natural process.

I guess nature doesn't care so much for your models either.

Nuk'em two...
Don't you find it interesting, Farmboy, that none of the Chicken Littles (We're Warming the Planet!!!...We're Warming the Planet!!!...)who have commented on this article have addressed the need to resuscitate nuclear power in this nation?

IF the planet is warming and IF that warming is due to human activity (two very big "IF's") then it seems clear that nuclear power should be given a major role in changing that alleged trend. Yet the Lefties who comment here, just like Al Gore, simply act as if nuclear power was never invented. It's not in their thinking. They'd rather ruin our economy, throw millions of people out of work, continue to degrade our environment with such non-solutions as the so-called "Kyoto Treaty" than admit they were wrong on nuclear power.

Until I see these "environmentalists" seriously revise their thinking on nuclear energy, I will not take their concerns about global warming seriously.


ecobalance
everything we do, from breathing, to eating, to swinging our arms, disturbs the ecobalance.
So unless you are willing to remove yourself from the ecosystem, your claims that we shouldn't distrub it ring hollow.

too bad the data shows just the opposite
The major feedbacks are all negative.

that's because they prefer fantasies
Rhampton has been telling us here and elsewhere that getting carbon out of our economy is easy and painless.
(That must explain why the European's have increased their carbon output, even while they have been the loudest in proclaiming the virtues of cutbacks.)

Post all of this you want…
It proves nothing. The shifting of the jet stream has not been shown to be caused by AGW so it isn't relavent. The shifting jet stream will move the deserts over time, not enlarge them. They will grow in one direction and shrink in the other. Climate history has shown that warmer=wetter and with less desertification. Increased desertification is an indication of a shift toward a colder climate.

Read a little climate history (and please go back a bit further than a few hundred or a few thousand years) and you will find the answers to many of the AGW questions.

It global warmings real? Yes.

Is it man caused? Not to a notable degree, no.

Man can not overcome the patterns of the cosmos and the earth itself, no matter how we try. The long term pattern is for further warming, with some cooling periods, until the next glacial advance. Nothing man can do will change that.

Economic Balance
Increasing CO2 to the highest level in the last 650,000 years -- within a couple of centuries -- has nothing to do with the natural cycles of the environment. The fact is that we can have global development, increased energy output AND reduce our CO2 emissions with out creating a economic catastrophe.

A better shade of green for Wall Street
The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2006

Goldman Sachs became the first global investment bank to adopt a comprehensive environmental policy that acknowledges the value of "ecosystem services" last December. This firm, founded in 1869, is one of the oldest and most influential investment banking firms pushing brave new forms of corporate social responsibility...

...OWNER OF MORE THAN A FEW FOSSIL-FUEL POWER PLANTS, Goldman Sachs agreed to publicly report on its efforts to reduce emissions contributing to global climate change while investing $1 billion in renewable energy and efficiency projects. It also plans to fund a new "Center For Environmental Markets" while broadening the application of social and environmental factors into loaning and investment activities.

Why should Wall Street be so concerned about global climate change? Munich Reinsurance, the world's largest reinsurance company, has PROJECTED LOSSES TO CLIMATE IMPACTS WILL APPROXIMATE $300 BILLION PER YEAR OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADEES. Given the intensifying impacts of an unstable climate, it is obvious to many financial leaders that the ultimate viability of the global economy depends on government intervention to promote the necessary changes in the world's energy infrastructures. If government fails to intervene, insurance losses and defaulted business loans are the ultimate outcome, leading to a very damaging shrinkage of markets for goods and services, especially in developing countries.

Interestingly enough, Goldman Sachs is now PRESSING THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION the Bush administration to adopt new public policies to respond to the global climate change threat ... There are now many actors on Wall Street recognizing that there is always opportunity where there is risk. Independent rating agencies such as Innovest have already developed risk profiles of multinational corporations based on the carbon content of their products, slowly shifting public and private investments from bad to good environmental corporate actors...

http://www.energybulletin.net/15336.html

Carbon 13
The C13 levels in the ocean tell us that half of the CO2 is man-made. I've posted that FACT many times before -- need I do it again?

Bjorn Lomborg
PowerPoint Politics
By James Pinkerton
TCS Daily, May 26, 2006

"Bjorn Lomborg, to cite one person who is a legitimate academic, is happy to concede that global warming is a problem, caused by human action, and is happy to consider steps to remediate that problem."

http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=052606C

Interesting...
that the AGW alarmists now use him as a supporter instead of a punching bag.

It gives us insight into Rhampton's use of sources. Notice that he leave out the part where Lomborg cites other things that are far more important to worry about than global warming:

>"However, Lomborg insists that we consider other problems, too, and establish a system of prioritization. Is global warming a more serious threat to well-being than global AIDS? Or global drinking water? And what of other global issues, from nuclear power to nuclear war?"

Fair and balanced Rhampton? I think not.

Not to mention...
the extreme hostility and professional black-listing that Lomborg has taken from AGW alarmists and his own government.

For those that like to question motivation this is a good time to consider those behind his statement.

Good, fine but your intro was nuts!
Did you read some true left-wingnut propaganda to come up with this - Increasing CO2 to the highest level in the last 650,000 years -- within a couple of centuries -- has nothing to do with the natural cycles of the environment. The fact is that we can have global development, increased energy output AND reduce our CO2 emissions with out creating a economic catastrophe.

There simply is not evidence of this at all. Studies show CO2 was up near or above this level during the midevial warming and Methane was notably higher.

When are guys like you going to get with the program. It would be nice if you knew what the science can prove, what is can give reasonably accurate evidence of, what is reasonable theory, what is pure speculation and what is hyperbola and scare tactics.

Overall, the science can prove the earth is on a warming trend, and a relatively mild one at that. Based on the history of the past 500 million years, 4 million years and 20,000 years, this is to be expected. Science can reasonably accurately say that the present trend began around 1850. They can produced a reasonable theory, based on the evidence, that man COULD BE contributing to this warming to a very small extent. They can, and are, speculating, without enough information to prove this, that reductions in man's output of GHG (mainly CO2) will slow, and could even reverse the trend slightly. Everything beyond that is pure hyperbola and junk science.

Why should Wall Street be so concerned?
And what is the cost of Global Warming? Well, here's one economically derived opinion:

A better shade of green for Wall Street
The Christian Science Monitor, April 3, 2006

...Why should Wall Street be so concerned about global climate change? Munich Reinsurance, the world's largest reinsurance company, has PROJECTED LOSSES TO CLIMATE IMPACTS WILL APPROXIMATE $300 BILLION PER YEAR OVER THE NEXT TWO DECADEES. Given the intensifying impacts of an unstable climate, it is obvious to many financial leaders that the ultimate viability of the global economy depends on government intervention to promote the necessary changes in the world's energy infrastructures. If government fails to intervene, insurance losses and defaulted business loans are the ultimate outcome, leading to a very damaging shrinkage of markets for goods and services, especially in developing countries...

http://www.energybulletin.net/15336.html

WHOOOOOSH!!!
eh... the point was that we "distrub" it in exactly the manner that we're supposed to as contributing members, and you can't get above that fact... jack.

27% Higher
New evidence extends greenhouse gas record from ice cores by 50 percent, adding 210,000 years
AAAS, November 24, 2005

...EPICA is the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The new ice core, initially described in 2004, is from a site in East Antarctica known as EPICA Dome C. This work represents a long-term European research collaboration and appears in two studies and an accompanying "Perspective" article in the November 25, 2005 issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.

One study chronicles the stable relationship between climate and the carbon cycle during the Pleistocene (390,000 to 650,000 years before the present). The second one documents atmospheric methane and nitrous oxide levels over the same period. .

The analysis highlights the fact that today's rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is ALREADY 27% HIGHER THAN ITS HIGHEST RECORDED LEVEL DURING THE LAST 650,000 YEARS, said Science author Thomas Stocker of the Physics Institute of the University of Bern, in Bern, Switzerland, who serves as the corresponding author for both papers...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/aaft-nee111805.php

No Subject
You have this model and we are supposed to drop everything to appease it?

No, you don't have to drop anything, because you *will* appease it, regardless of what you want:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8034&fldIdMsg=23825

Swimming in a Toilet
We, as human beings, also excrete waste as part of nature's cycle. However as our numbers have increased, we can no longer rely upon the environment to recycle our wastes and thus we have water treatment plants. Even so, many beaches around the nation will be closed on any given day to too dangerously high fecal counts.

In short, humanity is powerful enough to overwhelm nature.

Wading in Waste
Scientific American, June 2006

According to a recent report by the Natural Resources Defense Council, in 2004 coastal states ordered 19,950 days of closures and pollution advisories affecting 1,234 ocean and freshwater beaches, or about one third of all the beaches regularly monitored by health officials. The total number of beach days covered by the regulatory actions was 9% higher than the total for 2003 (which, in turn, was 50% higher than the 2002 total, although that jump was partly caused by changes in federal monitoring rules). The reason for 85% of the closures and advisories was the detection of EXCESSIVE COUNTS OF FECAL BACTERIA IN THE BEACH WATERS...

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=
0003B364-B58B-146C-B2F983414B7F0000

So you think that we can willingly commit mass suicide?... nope
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8034&fldIdMsg=23825

to add to what Mark said…
The NOAA did not say that the increase is part "man-made", they said "and new climate model simulations suggest that human activity, such as increasing greenhouse gas emissions into the atmosphere, may contribute significantly to this warming."

Note the word M-A-Y. That isn't even getting into the vastly disputed "models" used as the source, nor the fact that these models simply "suggest" that "human activity…may".

The article basically says that, if AGW is happening, then it will be a reason for increased hurricane strength and frequency. That is a no brainer.

The NOAA is in no way saying that this is "absolutely" a man-caused phenomen; nor are they saying this is part of anything but a natural cycle in spite of your vivid imagination.

Why is it that people like you take studies that are underway and that are given out as theories and say they prove anything? Are you that desperate for AGW to be proven a big problem?

I strongly suggest you look into some climate history past the last thousand years, try the past 20,000, 4 million or 500 million. The see how they compare to the present. You might be surprised to find that there is no "hockey stick" evidence to show this present warming trend is anything but natural and well within the boundries of what has happened with the climate in the past.

Awesome!
This is great! Imagine an insurance company, from a Kyoto supporting country like Germany, sounding the alarm about the costs of global warming. Quite shocking.

Not to mention this:

http://www.munichre.com/

Go to Corporate and then go to Sustainability section. Now put that together with the fact they invest in and sell shares in socially responsible investments (SRI).

Now I am not one to question motivations. Oh no. But is it possible that these numbers, pulled out of their nether regions, are designed to induce the purchase of their SRIs? No. No the Germans wouldn't sink that low would they?

Got something else Rhampton? Your skills with the links is kicking you in the ass lately.

Mass Suicide?
I don't know what your last comment means or is in reference to. Please try again.

Is AIG AOK?
AIG Adopts Policy on Climate Change
Insurance Journal, May 17, 2006

...In a newly issued statement, American International Group said it "is actively seeking to incorporate environmental and climate change considerations across its businesses, focusing on the development of products and services to help AIG and its clients respond to the worldwide drive to cut greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions."

"Climate change is increasingly recognized as an ongoing, significant global environmental problem with potential risks to the global economy and ecology, and to human health and wellbeing," the statement continued. "AIG recognizes the scientific consensus that climate change is a reality and is likely in large part the result of human activities that have led to increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the earth's atmosphere. At the same time, market-based environmental policies and potential new investments provide business opportunities for AIG to address the problem. We will pursue these new opportunities where we have the expertise and capacity to do so in ways that mutually benefit AIG, its shareholders, employees, customers, and the global community."

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2006/05/17/68491.htm

How about American Investors?
Investors Turn Up Heat on Insurers to Disclose Risk from Climate Change
Insurance Journal, December 1, 2005

Citing the risks that they say insurance companies face from losses and financial risks associated with climate change, 20 U.S. investors led by several state treasurers urged 30 of the largest publicly-held insurance companies in North America to disclose their financial exposure from climate change and steps they are taking to reduce those financial impacts.

The investors, who COLLECTIVELY CONTROL MORE THAN $800 BILLION IN ASSETS, co-signed letters sent requesting that the climate risk reports be completed and shared with investors by August 2006. The reports should address the multiple types of risk and opportunity that insurers face in regard to climate change, including physical loss, legal and investment risks, as well as opportunities for new markets and products in a changing economic environment, according to the group.

The investor request comes on the heels of devastating back-to-back hurricane seasons in the U.S. that caused a record $30 billion in insured losses in 2004 and as much as $60 billion in insured losses from Hurricane Katrina alone in 2005...

http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2005/12/01/62669.htm

publicity stunt
And just how has Goldman Sachs managed to pull off something that every European country has admitted that they can't do?

I'm only going to say this until I get something to post... ;)
Tlaloc said:
" actually need to see evidence of that we are thermodynamically relevant players in offsetting the onslaught of an impending 100,000 year long winter that's predicted by milankovitch models. "


This is proven by the fact that we are no longer suffering from the ***cumulatively runaway*** effects that show up in the historical spectographical data and it will remain proven for as long as we manage to stave-off the global scale glaciation that is *expected*.


Tlaloc said:
" It's pretty simple really. You have this model and we are supposed to drop everything to appease it? "


No, you can keep making all the noise that you'd like:
http://www.tcsdaily.com/discussionForum.aspx?fldIdTopic=8034&fldIdMsg=23825


Tlaloc said:
" I would rather not since no model to date accurate predicts climate change nor is there any evidence that this is nothing more than a natural process. "


Very good. Now, don't exclude our *current* input with the pattern and you've got yourself a *real* natural explanation.


Tlaloc said:
" I guess nature doesn't care so much for your models either. "


Every last one of the anthropic coincidence is ecobalanced between diametrically opposing runaway tendencies in the exact same manner, all the way up through the standard model of particle physics and the structure of the universe itself, so I guess that nature says that I have no choice and that you're at least half wrong for as long as you remain prejudicially oriented to either side.

Oh, let me up!
I must give in to your incredible sourcing! You know, the sources that are ALL INSURANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE TRYING TO SELL YOU "ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS" INVESTMENTS!

It seems like you've bought it too.

Does it ever occur to you that using insurance companies, that intend to make billions off of AGW fear mongering, is counter-productive to your stance?

You are still looking like a fool Rhampton. Remember that when you are in a hole that you should stop digging.

Maybe we need to back up?
"i" said"
"eh... the point was that we "distrub" it in exactly the manner that we're supposed to as contributing members, and you can't get above that fact... jack."

Okay, don't assume that the points that you make don't have an effect that contributes to the manner that we disturb the process, and this includes developing more efficient and cleaner means for processing waste.

This doesn't mean that *some* of a bad thing isn't good for us, so it won't be *as* clean as you might like, but that's not what's required in order for us to survive.

... and somehow that makes my point... ;)

An excellent example of bullshit
"historical spectrographic data" does not show any results in a google search. Good try.

>"Diametrically opposing runaway tendencies"

This is great. Lets throw theoretical physics into the fray shall we? It would seem that this theory your parroting is basically mental masturbation that says that the laws of physics are fixed by the experiment rather than predicted by the theory. That nothing is really proven through experimentation because of the anthropic element of it. Quite circular and quite despised by many other scientists.

So you chime into a AGW debate with a theory that is equally contentious amongst the science community? You must be a genius!

>"Very good. Now, don't exclude our *current* input with the pattern and you've got yourself a *real* natural explanation."

I didn't exclude anything. No model accurately shows human influence nor can it predict any climatic change accurately. The full extent of human impact, or non-impact, is not known or even accurately guessed at. Your statement is an attempt to make you appear smarter than you actually are.

I do like theoretical physics but right now the grown-ups are talking about physics in this small part of the multiverse m'kay?

TCS Daily Archives