Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Global Warming Confusion

Two stories are in the news today, and together they reflect the two sides of the global warming debate.

WorldNetDaily reported yesterday on scientists rejecting the global warming mantra.

More than 31,000 scientists across the U.S. – including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties – have signed a petition rejecting "global warming," the assumption that the human production of greenhouse gases is damaging Earth's climate.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate," the petition states. "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."

Petition Project actually was launched nearly 10 years ago, when the first few thousand signatures were assembled. Then, between 1999 and 2007, the list of signatures grew gradually without any special effort or campaign.

But now, a new effort has been conducted because of an "escalation of the claims of 'consensus,' release of the movie 'An Inconvenient Truth' by Mr. Al Gore, and related events," according to officials with the project.

In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.'s campaign to "vilify hydrocarbons," officials told WND.

"The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it," the organization noted.

On the other hand, there's a disturbed scientist in Australia who is on the verge of an apoplectic fit over global warming. The Age (Australia) reported the story today.

SCIENTIST Tim Flannery has proposed a radical solution to climate change which may change the colour of the sky.

But he said it may be necessary, as the "last barrier to climate collapse".

Professor Flannery said climate change was happening so quickly that mankind might need to pump sulphur into the atmosphere to survive. Australia's best-known expert on global warming has updated his climate forecast for the world, and it's much worse than he thought just three years ago.

He has called for a range of radical emergency measures.

The gas sulphur could be inserted into the earth's stratosphere to keep out the sun's rays and slow global warming, a process called global dimming.

"It would change the colour of the sky," Professor Flannery said. "It's the last resort that we have, it's the last barrier to a climate collapse.

"We need to be ready to start doing it in perhaps five years' time if we fail to achieve what we're trying to achieve."

The 2007 Australian of the Year said the sulphur could be dispersed above the earth's surface by adding it to jet fuel.

He conceded there were risks to global dimming via sulphur: "The consequences of doing that are unknown."

Unknown??? Can you say, "sulfuric acid rain"? That's like shooting somebody to cure him of his head cold.

But then again, Flannery doesn't believe global warming is the earthly equivalent of a cold.

Professor Flannery, who spoke at a business and sustainability conference yesterday in Parliament House, Canberra, said new science showed the world was much more susceptible to greenhouse gas emissions than had been thought eight years ago.

Regardless of what happened to future emissions, there was already far too much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, he said.

Cutting emissions was not enough. Mankind now had to take greenhouse gases out of the air. "The current burden of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere is in fact more than sufficient to cause catastrophic climate change," Professor Flannery said.

"Everything's going in the wrong direction at the moment; timelines are getting shorter, the amount of pollution in the atmosphere is growing. It's extremely urgent."

As well as the global dimming plan, Professor Flannery said carbon should be taken out of the air and converted into charcoal, then ploughed into farmers' fields.

Wealthy people should pay poor farmers in tropical zones to plant forests, possibly through a direct-purchase scheme like the eBay website.

And all conventional coal-fired power stations that did not have "clean coal" technology should be closed by 2030.

Capturing carbon emissions from coal-fired power stations and storing them underground was a good idea, Professor Flannery said.

That's one who is very much on the side of catastrophic global warming. Plus Al Gore, who isn't a scientist. Plus the UN, which wants to run the world. And 31,000 who say it's not catastrophic and certainly not worth destroying the economy of the world because of it.

Whose side do you want to be on?


paw said...

To qualify as a scientist for the purposes of The Petition Project you have to report that you have a BS degree or higher. I'd guess that you and Mallot qualify as scientists under that definition. Tens of millions of people fit that defintion of scientist. It's as pure a propaganda play as there is. 31,000 names (not people but names) claiming to have at least a Bachelor of Science degree (unverified), grinding their ax, touted as proof of something other than artful manipulation of public opinion and discourse - unsurprising, uninteresting, meaningless junk, recycled yet one more time by WND to advance an agenda.

SkyePuppy said...


Good to see you again!

No, I wouldn't qualify. I have a BA in Psychology and won't be signing the petition.

Did you miss the part that said, "...including more than 9,000 Ph.D.s in fields such as atmospheric science, climatology, Earth science, environment and dozens of other specialties..."? Those aren't exactly basket weaving majors.

And are you on board with loading our atmosphere with sulfur? Does the academic credibility of Professor Flannery make his panic-driven solution more acceptable to you than the words of caution from the man-made warming skeptics?

There is enough debate among CLIMATE SPECIALISTS that the Goracle's statement, "Case closed," is just so much hot air. I posted a link to one such study showing more correlation to solar cycles than to CO2 in the atmosphere. The study is here. My post is here.

You complain about WND's agenda to... what? Throw skeptical water on the Wicked Witch of Global Warming? But where are your complaints on the MSM's agenda to shove Al Gore's view of global warming down our throats?

So far, I haven't found the Man-Made Global Warming Alarmists (MMGWA) to be convincing--at least not convincing enough that I'd want to put my future and the future of my children into their hands for the "cure."

Malott said...


I love this post!

I just hope that differences and past correspondence never diminishes your sense of my respect for you and the way you write!

God keep you, Skyepuppy!

Jacob said...

I'll have to admit that I don't give much of a crap either way with global warming (it's boring, get a new topic on which to waste bandwidth, mmkay?) but I saw the name Tim Flannery and it reminded me deliciously of the time he won the Australian of the Year Award. He totally dissed PM Howard on stage! PWN3D, comprehensively!

paw said...

I didn't miss that. Since we really don't know who has signed this thing and what their credentials are, it's probably equally as valid to say that "9000 people who claim to have PhD's in fields like English, Economics, and Pediatric Medicine…"

Also, there's a presumption that as long as *anyone* who claims to have a BS or higher in any discipline disagrees with the consensus of actual climate scientists, no consensus can be claimed. That's just not a reasonable standard once you look at it.

Finally, to this quote from WND "...if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition…" In 2002 the US awarded 2,620,894 post secondary degrees. Let's say that 2/3 of those graduates meet the petition's definition of "scientist" with a BS, MS, or PhD, and let's say that number has been about the same for the last ten years. Considering only that population (which is surely much, much smaller than the total number of people meeting the Petition's criteria), the signatories are seventeen one-hundredths of one percent. That is not a consensus and anyone who says so is being deliberately manipulative, relying on an ignorant audience.

I don't have time right now to address your other points.

paw said...

And thanks for the greeting - Happy belated birthday and best fishes and all that, ma chérie.

SkyePuppy said...


OK. I'll give you the point on the petition. It's self-reported and potentially unverified (I haven't verified if it's verified). But this petition isn't the only source of global warming dissent. Man-made global warming (MMGW) is not "case closed."

My bigger concern is for the sanity of the alarmists and the safety of the planet as a result of the "cures" they come up with. Last year I posted on the Big Four approaches at the time to stopping global warming. One of them involved large quantities of sulfur.

Here's the abstract of an analysis of the sulfur released into the atmosphere by the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo:

"The injection into the stratosphere of large quantities of sulfur during the June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo (Philippines) and the subsequent formation of sulfate aerosol particles have generated a number of perturbations in the atmosphere with potential effects on the Earth's climate. Changes in the solar and infrared radiation budget caused by the eruption should produce a cooling of the troposphere and a warming of the lower stratosphere. These changes could affect atmospheric circulation. In addition, heterogeneous chemical reactions on the surface of sulfate aerosol particles render the ozone molecules more vulnerable to atmospheric chlorine and hence to man-made chlorofluorocarbons." Source.

Do the scientists like Prof. Flannery even READ about the consequences of their proposals?

SkyePuppy said...


I love that you love my post! However, I’m not sure why you love this one in particular, since it's mostly copy-and-paste and not much of my own brilliance, but I’m not one to kick a gift horse in the mouth...