Debunking needed

http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner~y2009m8d18-Carbon-Dioxide-irrelevant-in-climate-debate-says-MIT-Scientist

Would appreciate any help in debunking this.
Thanks.

and have found that stuff he said previously has been debunked, but cannot find anything for this latest study of his.
Maybe it is too new.

I do see that he is paid by the oil industry.

What if he IS right?!?!? How many scientists have had their correct theories squashed by rabid debunkers?? Not to say theories shouldn't be questioned, as most scientists are wrong at some point(s) in their careers. That is how science works. Both sides pay their scientists to come up with specific end-point conclusions. I wonder how many studies get dumped because they don't reach their funders desired results.

I did my PhD research with funding from an industry group. They were researching a specific issue, and made no bones about what the result they would've liked to have seen. My major professor also had his own pet theories.

Ironically the results challenged both of their expectations. Although the funding org was an industry group, which is grounds for automatic dismissal by this board, I actually never received any pressure to come to a specific conclusion or suppress any data of my results. The worse it ever got was over semantics, not the actual results... and they were often right.

I'm not saying my situation was endemic amongst industry groups, but in my particular situation everything was above board.

In my case, what we were researching was in many ways proactive, so politicians and environmental groups weren't demanding answers now. Unfortunately, this is not the case with climate change. Scientists are people too and they are just as susceptible to money and power as the next guy, and they are competitive and protective of their areas of expertise. This is the worst environment for making rational scientific decisions.

Many people treat science and scientific "fact" with the mindset of a lawyer. Everything is black and white. You win or lose. A good scientist rarely feels comfortable that they've got the right answers.

Thankfully, there ARE some researchers who remain true to "scientific purity" and integrity. I'm sure there is a VERY fine line, as universities surely don't want to turn down grant monies. I'm also sure that some have purely political slants and wouldn't consider finding scientific truth that goes against those slants. Conclusions from data are often twisted and molded into the preferred political result, as well.

Daniel Donato proved that salvage logging kills some little trees but, conveniently left out some glaring details. If you don't cut some of those dead trees, they will still fall, just the same, killing those same small trees nonetheless. He also didn't analyze the fact that the next inevitable fire will burn with much higher intensity, killing those same trees, PLUS all the other trees that would have survived the logging. He also didn't mention the fact that ALL of his post-logging plots still were well stocked. Finally, the title of his study clearly reflected his desired outcome, despite the data (which was woefully narrow in scope). On a nationwide scale, anti-logging folks seized his published study as the "Holy Grail" against salvage logging and many academics were eager to jump on the peer review bandwagon, despite the serious problems with the study. Basing National policy on a 16 plot, one year, narrow study, is sheer lunacy.

The challenge is to find new things to study, which need results that cannot be dismissed. I would think that the ultimate disaster for a respected scientist is to have your study labeled as a sham, basically "dry-labbed" in exchange for political money (from either side!)

If you look back, politics and science have rarely had a tranquil coexistence.

You are interested in forests. There is plenty of turmoil in the politics that lead up to the creation of the national forest system a century ago, and the protection of forests in Europe the century before that. Forest protection has it's roots in protecting water supplies. We've known about this connection forever. In western Europe (France, Germany, Switzerland) a century before that there was a lot of intense debate about whether cutting forests increase or decrease water yields, and what effects deforestation has on extreme floods.

As it turns out today we still don't really have a good handle on it. We understand a lot, but there seems to be a lot of exceptions to the rules.

With regards to climate change. Although it's catching up, the science up until now has relied a lot on modeling. Models are fundamentally flawed for answering certain questions because there is no way to prove the assumptions of a model wrong from within the model... models are generally only tested for how well they fit the data, but a true structural analysis is rarely done. Thus, models can be right for the wrong reasons, and there can be significant problems with hypothesis testing.

People like models because they are deterministic and they give you a concrete answer (the lawyer types really latch onto this stuff). Thus arguments ensue on this and other boards. Howerver, there is a fundamental conflict in complex simulation models between parsimony and overparameterization, which magnify errors. There are serious errors with input data. Modelers tend to spend woefully little time talking about why their models might be wrong... and uncertainty certainly rarely gets discussed outside of conference rooms.

What does this mean to me? It means that I'm pretty sure climate change is happening. I am somewhat certain that issues A, B, or C are causing it. I am not very certain about relative influence assigned to A, B, or C... or that temperature is going to rise by X degrees.

I also think they there are a lot of things that are going to kill us all way before climate change gets us (although climate change could certainly exacerbate the issue that does get us).

Several years ago, Wyoming people decided to do a study about enhancing water flows and availability through radically-increased logging. I felt that even doing a test study on the possibility was pretty ridiculous. While I was positive there would be a significant measurable increase, I also felt that the cost to the land would be incredibly damaging. It seemed to me that they were setting up the idea of pitting human needs against the needs of the forest and the land. If it were up to me, I would have never even allowed the study to be done. I'm also sure that ranchers were looking for avenues to either increase or keep the same levels of grazing on those lands. I'm also sure that ranchers would use the study in court to continue their cheap grazing costs low.

Needless to say, I'm not a big fan of grazing, at all. (But, I do like a good steak!!....And am willing to pay extra for it when I deserve a rare luxury)

I do understand what you are saying about models. They seem to be necessary but they also seem to need to be discarded when they are seen to not describe reality very well, anymore. Reverse engineering also seems like it is possible, in the pursuit of making only the collection of desired data happen. One CAN design the study to ignore key data, meet the desired model and reaching the desired solution. I am not saying that many scientists actually do this but, it CAN happen. For example, if you ignore the solar cycles in climate change studies, that opens the door to all kinds of results.

is that they aren't reality; they're abstractions.

As Box said... "All models are wrong. Some models are useful".

While they may be useful and may provide insights, they have limitations. You should be careful any time they've got a ton of parameters, are being used to extrapolate way into the future, used to evaluate conditions outside their typical range. They certainly have problems being used to test hypotheses if they used under those conditions. They are great for guiding decisions for designing empirical studies.

You wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

You wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

From another post pushing the idea that money is pushing people to find arguments for climate change. GIVEN ALL THE MONEY LINED UP SEARCHING FOR ANTI CLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH - IF THAT PROPOSITION WERE TRUE THEN THERE WOULD BE MUCH MUCH MORE ANTICLIMATE CHANGE RESEARCH DELIVERED TO THESE SLEAZY BASTARDS.

But it isn't fucking true and you know it.

From earlier in this thread:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

Accusing the scientists working on climate change of bias to earn money is not only despicable it it idiotic. ALL THE FREAKING MONEY IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE ISSUE, Ya MORAN. If the the truth ws going to the highest bidder this conversation wouldn't be taking place because the groups below would have spent their hundreds of millions in advertising to just buy the "for sale" scientists you pricks seem to think populate the world of academics.

Your friend wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

and they are just as susceptible to money and power as the next guy."

Maybe, but "whore" is a better term for someone who deliberately advances a bogus cause for profit.

Speaking as someone who has had results that challenged certain aspects of conventional wisdom, science has an affinity for the status quo. No one knows everything, so there is a certain degree of a hive-mind going on.

There are scientists who are quite protective of their theories who are not motivated by money. They're motivated by their legacy, prestige, politics, or whatever.

It's pretty hard to get papers that buck the system published, unless they're earth-shatteringly innovative.


I'm not supporting the OP's scientist-in-question's results... My comments have been far more general. I will always challenge dismissing a result based solely on where the funding came from. If it was good enough for refereed publication in an ISI rated journal, then it has some sort of context.

Added

If it's published in a report from one of the funding organizations, then you have cause to question.

Also... it is generally incumbent on someone who finds a challenging result to explain why. A smart monkey does not do it by declaring all previous work irrelevant. In the case of my own experiment, I raised as many questions as I answered, and there were a ton of caveats.

You'll note, there's a big difference between "Start" and "The Internets"

High-five! Just say no to politicized science!

Earlier Foto wrote: "What if he IS right?!?!? How many scientists have had their correct theories squashed by rabid debunkers?? Not to say theories shouldn't be questioned, as most scientists are wrong at some point(s) in their careers. That is how science works. Both sides pay their scientists to come up with specific end-point conclusions. I wonder how many studies get dumped because they don't reach their funders desired results."

Perhaps you could clarify your meaning when you replied to this with: "Well said... <snip>...In my case, what we were researching was in many ways proactive, so politicians and environmental groups weren't demanding answers now. Unfortunately, this is not the case with climate change. Scientists are people too and they are just as susceptible to money and power as the next guy, and they are competitive and protective of their areas of expertise. This is the worst environment for making rational scientific decisions.


It is hard to read that as anything other than saying that climate science lacks validity because the scientists are selling their conclusions. You've taken legitimate comments about the day to day process of working in an academic environment, and merged them with the "for sale to the highest bidder" slant. Why? Do you think that or the crap about the vagaries of modeling are really relevant to the distribution of legitimate evidence across dozens of disciplines that overwhelmingly tell us we are looking down the barrel of a very large bore gun?

I mean, really, what the fuck is the purpose of your remarks if it isn't to attempt to plant false doubt about climate change in the mind of lay readers?

A) I can't speak for anyone else on this board.

B) I'm not trying to debunk climate change. And if you read my posts you'll see that I don't

C) I thought if anything my post might help a lay-person understand where disagreements about the science exist and why they might be there... hence my comments about models and uncertainty.

D) There are some flaws in the climate change science. So what? All science is flawed in some way. It doesn't tear the whole thing down, but it does require consideration when policy decisions are being made. If some controverting result exists, it exists. There is usually context.

E) It is bothersome when the only justification that seems required for debunking is funding sources. From the OP... "I need help debunking something"... Answer "Well obviously this science is full of crap because it came from so-and-so funded it".

That sort of justification is just as bad as people funding someone to find the result they want in my opinion. It's a lazy answer. The better answer is "This report puts that finding in context" or "That study has somewhat limited scope because it only considered the tropics"... whatever.

When virtually ALL of the "contradictory data" is a product of an extremely well FUNDED deliberate attempt to create the appearance of doubt where there is none.


Collectively there are more than $100,000,000,000,000 (one hundred trillion) in assets OWNED by people* who are seeking to preserve the value of those assets.

* http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=115&topic_id=206361&mesg_id=206620

Intentional or not, your words precisely serve the narrative crafted by this vast financial empire - a narrative that most definately WAS crafted to deceive.

That's all I'm saying.

If they're getting their research in an ISI refereed journal, then it's passing muster and "follow the money" is no longer valid.

If they're publishing it in their own publication, then funding is absolutely open for comment.

You persist in the false belief that this is an academic discussion. It isn't.

Take the article in the OP for example. It is a narrow discussion that has little to add to our actual base of knowledge regarding climate change. It is less than nothing in the academic discussion.

If, however, you google the author and title and follow the way that article is used by the think tanks funded by fossil fuel interests, then its real value as propaganda immediately emerges. Claiming that following the money is irrelevant to the body of work published by this individual and his ilk is exactly like that rotund scoundrel in the Wizard of Oz exhorting observers to "pay no attention to the the man behind the curtain".

You wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

is for you to call me Hitler. Do you kiss your Mother with THAT mouth!!!

Your response is to run with your tail between your legs.

You have repeatedly stated your belief that "following the money" supports your childish view of climate change. In fact, being "in the middle" is the position of people who 1) don't have the balls to take an actual position and 2) justify their lack of courage with nebulous claims like "I followed the money".

In fact, you haven't "followed the money" any more than you've questioned any of the other Heritage Foundation talking points you learned from Limpballs. If you had you'd have already known the information below and how absurd are Hannity's claims that Gore is in it for the money.

So we know a few things about you so far:
you are willing to make false statements to people at DU.
you haven't the courage to face being wrong or even to engage in an honest discussion that might challenge your beliefs.
you run from threats to your world view.

You wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944 /

*plonk*

They refer to a publication, which tells us Lindzen has published a paper:
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/co2_report_july_09.pdf

They also reference "Source: Lindzen & Choi (2009)" but, they don't give a real citation for the paper.

Here's a recent paper by Lindzen, but, honestly, there isn't much there.
http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2009/07/resisting-climate-hysteria

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2009/08/quick-comment-on-lindzen-and-choi.html?showComment=1250735815572
http://www.agu.org/journals/pip/gl/2009GL039628-pip.pdf

In my opinion, the reports of this paper seem to exaggerate its claims.

Much appreciated.

They basically turn journalists into trolls/provocateurs by paying them per comment.

For example:
Science and Public Policy Institute
From SourceWatch

The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI) is a global warming skeptics group which appears to primarily be the work of Robert Ferguson, its President.

(It is worth noting that in the late 1990's, George Carlo founded a group known as the "Science and Public Policy Institute" to work on issues such as electro-magnetic radiation and health issues. Approximately eight years later Ferguson founded his group with the identical name, oblivious to the existence of Carlo's group. Ferguson states that after registering his organization in Virginia he discovered that Carlo's group existed but by then his group had created the website and printed their stationery).<1>

The website of Ferguson's SPPI draws heavily on papers written by Christopher Monckton.

Prior to founding SPPI in approximately mid-2007, Ferguson was the Executive Director of the Center for Science and Public Policy (CSPP), a project of the corporate-funded group, the Frontiers of Freedom Institute.

SPPI describes itself as "a nonprofit institute of research and education dedicated to sound public policy based on sound science." It also proclaims that it is "free from affiliation to any corporation or political party, we support the advancement of sensible public policies for energy and the environment rooted in rational science and economics. Only through science and factual information, separating reality from rhetoric, can legislators develop beneficial policies without unintended consequences that might threaten the life, liberty, and prosperity of the citizenry."<2>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Public_Policy_Institute



And:
Risk averse skeptics

In November 2004, climate change skeptic Richard Lindzen was quoted saying he'd be willing to bet that the earth's climate will be cooler in 20 years than it is today. When British climate researcher James Annan contacted him, however, Lindzen would only agree to take the bet if Annan offered a 50-to-1 payout. Subsequent offers of a wager were also refused by Pat Michaels, Chip Knappenberger, Piers Corbyn, Myron Ebell, Zbigniew Jaworowski, Sherwood Idso and William Kininmonth. At long last, however, Annan has persuaded Russian solar physicists Galina Mashnich and Vladimir Bashkirtsev to take a $10,000 bet. "There isn't much money in climate science and I'm still looking for that gold watch at retirement," Annan says. "A pay-off would be a nice top-up to my pension." <2>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Global_warming_skeptics

I was looking for something that rebutted the "science" of his article.

OK, didn't doubt that for a second. I was pointing you to the website as a resource for debunking in general. They do a good jub of tracking the astroturf groups, front organizations and disreputable think tanks.

I realize you want specific feedback on the paper, but that is usually somewhat slow in coming. It is also usually next to worthless because of the way the the discussion is conducted in the public square. If you are talking to a qualified scientist then you wouldn't need to "debunk" a journal article. Therefore I concluded (perhaps wrongly) that you were actually engaged in a political discussion.

In my experience, treating a political discussion as if it were a scientific discussion is usually a surefire way to accomplish nothing.

ETA: ClimateProgress has an up to date entry that cites a new study in Nature that casts doubt on the thrust of Lindzen's entire direction of thinking.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/07/24/science-deniers-lindzen-clouds-amplifying-positive-feedback-not-negative/

"In spite of all evidence to the contrary, the deniers/delayers/inactivists, led by MIT’s Richard Lindzen, have argued that negative feedbacks dominate the climate system. In particular, they have asserted that clouds are a negative feedback. A major new study in Science from “Observational and Model Evidence for Positive Low-Level Cloud Feedback” (subs. req’d) is thus a potentially huge — and worrisome — piece of research.

I’m in an all-day meeting, so I’m mainly going to reprint the study abstract, the accompanying Science news story, “Clouds Appear to Be Big, Bad Player in Global Warming” (subs. req’d), and the press release from the University of Miami’s Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences, who led the study (with the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, my old stomping ground snorkeling reef).

It is worth noting that the one climate model the researchers found was “particularly realistic” in modeling the cloud feedback, the Hadley Center’s HadGEM1, finds, “When carbon dioxide is doubled, the model warms the world by 4.4°C; the median of the models for a doubling is 3.1°C.” Considering that we are headed toward more than a tripling of CO2 concentrations this century, that is very, very worrisome...."

While I am not a denier, I am skeptical of both sides of this debate. To me, the answer lies somewhere in the middle but, I've been called a "low-down, dirty compromiser" before. With most of the public being skeptical, you're not going to convince them by "killing the messenger". Attack the enemy's science and not the person. Both sides only study what supports their "funders". It's all too easy to point fingers without using science to back up your beliefs. The IPCC certainly isn't the end-all and be-all of climate study. In fact, they ignore forests as big sources of GHG's. On the other hand, it's just plain crazy to dismiss the human component of climate change. Deadly crazy!

There are lunatics on both sides, clamoring for bucks to promote their slanted views. I wouldn't be surprised if scientists on both sides traded money and influence for their "peer votes". "Peer Review", in my opinion, has been marginalized and I have to question their integrity when they support flawed studies.

Only through unpoliticized studies can a most accurate set of models be produced. It would behoove Democrats to take the "high road" of scientific integrity and dismiss opposing opinions with the best science possible. Personally, I tend to believe the side which will financially benefit the least if their point of view is accepted. Better yet will be the complete de-politicalization of this issue but, that is probably impossible at this point of the "game".

I disagree, however. What I think is important to do is to make clear who the players in the discussion are. For the most part, by traditional academic standards, there is no debate on anthropogenic global warming. Just as there was no legitimate scientific debate on tobacco's harmful effects long before the tobacco industry gave up their well funded program to create the image that there was one.

I'm not suggesting "attack the messenger" although I'll admit that it could be initially interpreted that I am. What I do is to make clear that, in fact, the parties are involved in a political discussion to determine who the winners and losers of future government energy policy will be. The next step is to lay out tactics used to disguise political manifestos as science - beginning with the well known antics of the tobacco industry in the 79s and 80s. I lay out how affected industries encourage and fund academics willing to write narrowly accurate articles (so their professional reputation remains somewhat intact) that the think tanks and right wing media machine can then distort the significance of. For illustration Google "Lindzen Geophysical Research Letters" and look at the way the article is used in the first 10 hits. I then ridicule the idiots who are willing to be tools of the fossil fuel and minerals mining industries. You are apparently such a fool if, in spite of the appeals you make to follow science, you "think the answer lies somewhere in the middle." There is absolutely no scientific support for that position at all; climate change is now the most thoroughly researched subject in the history of humankind and the consensus is overwhelming. The only debate at this point is how bad will it be and how quickly will the problem escalate due to accelerating feedback mechanisms.

To claim that position on the heels of the appeal to science AND the claim that you "follow the money" is pure right wing bullshit.


The alternative to calling bullshit by its given name is nothing less than a dog chasing its tail because the 'denier' or 'skeptic' isn't qualified to evaluate either the original article or your treatment of the contents. Instead, as I said they are engaging in a political "debate" where if that specific point is met, the skeptic shifts to another bogus talking point provided in bulk by The Heritage Foundation et al; promptly forgetting the paper you spent 6 hours mastering as if it never even existed. At least, they forget it until the next time they want to goad a 'liberal' at which time they trot out exactly the same position they did before you invested all that time and effort.

No, reasoned debate of the merit of the specific arguments is not only futile, it is counterproductive as it ultimately places a time burden on the truth that is totally missing on the side of the denier; thus over the long term discouraging the truth seeker from even engaging in such discussions. Which is the point of the strategy. These people deserve no more respect or accommodation than flat earthers, birthers or any other lunatic.

who want to join the debate, they HAVE to attack the messenger, because the science is far too complex to completely understand and explain. You can believe what you want and I will believe what I want. I was just stating the fact that the masses aren't convinced that "climate change" is all man-caused. Christopher Columbus was a skeptic by the popular belief and "consensus" of the times. How many people were killed for believing in the round world view?

Your belief of "you're either with us or against us" is rather Bush-like, and just as counterproductive. There is PLENTY of action we can do that is unanimously beneficial for our environment, which we aren't currently pursuing. People just aren't buying into "the sky is falling", ala Hansen. People also aren't buying into the idea that "a warmer world is GOOD", either. I choose to be in the middle.

Convince to me your side with science! Unpoliticized science!

See "http://www.google.com/search?q=Columbus+and+the+Flat+Earth+Myth">Columbus and the Flat Earth Myth." It goes along with one of my least favorite memes, "All cultures previous to ours were stupid/ignorant."

However, in general, I agree with you. Although I am "a believer" ad hominem attacks are not appropriate.

On the other hand, all sources are not equally credible. If a source has a history of producing papers which have been debunked by recognized authorities, I will tend to discount any future papers they may write.

and that wasn't an attack.....just a comparison. His "comparison" was just as similar, clearly implying "something" with "To claim that position on the heels of the appeal to science AND the claim that you "follow the money" is pure right wing bullshit."

My original post was an appeal to use non-political science. Apparently, that is simply impossible in this day and age.

On the other hand (to set up a parallel of sorts) I realize that there is no such thing as objective journalism. No author can write without a point of view, and journalists operate under editors, who pick and choose what stories to run, and how they will be run.

While (in theory) news is just the reporting of facts, you know that the same facts will tend to be reported differently on MS-NBC from the way they will be reported on FOX News. Some stories will be covered on one network, but not on the other. Some reporters know their stuff, and others do not.


Science (like news) should be objective, but…
http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/MED_2_1x_Review_Finds_Conflicts_of_Interest_in_Many_Cancer_Studies.asp


Are you willing to assume the pharmaceutical companies are the only ones who can buy favorable science?

"Are you willing to assume the pharmaceutical companies are the only ones who can buy favorable science?"

I'm also a big skeptic of them, as well. The idea that to remain healthy requires pills or that if you are sick, a pill will always fix you up, is being ingrained on our society. Not many scientists get big grants to research "natural remedies", especially if they aren't lucrative. Also, this parallel is politicized but, not in the same way with climate. With the health care crisis upon us, this issue will get very ugly when we DO go to universal health care.

So many debates are tainted with politics, and we need to overcome those slants to arrive at the best things for us and our planet. Some issues are even intertwined, further complicating solutions and resulting in "horse trading" by lawmakers, worsening the gridlock.

You are epitomizing what I wrote of: a politically motivated discussion conducted under the guise of an appeal to science. Since you are "in the middle" is absolutely, unequivocally clear that your beliefs have absolutely nothing to do with the science involved. I can say that with complete certainly since I *am* familiar with the actual state of the scientific debate.

Trying to convince you would progress exactly as I described and prove ultimately fruitless. If you want to be a tool of the people with trillions of dollars in fossil fuel assets on the line, then it is a free country and you are entitled to be such a fool. I just ask that you don't waste my time posing as some sort of fair minded, objective concerned citizen. It is abundantly clear that the roots of your concern with climate change is exactly the same as the nuclear contingent of the utility wing of the minerals mining companies - you are paying lip service because it serves your more immediate purpose of arguing for your preexisting cause. In this case it is a view of forestry management. I seriously doubt that climate change ever enters your consciousness when it isn't motivated by a selfish interest.

Now you may see something that wises you up sometime in the future, but it is unlikely to result from any attempt at suasion by an unknown on a message board.

NOW who is spouting the attacks, predjudice, partisan politics and outright hatred?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

How will you feel when your tactics fail you in Congress (as it is looking right now)?!? More and more of the public are being skeptical, mainly due to politics. All I was advising was a way to better convince the public of the problem(s) but, you're making it worse. Lindzen's study certainly "looks" legit on the surface and I'm not smart enough to debunk it (who is?!?!)

Have a nice WARM day (and life)!!

No attacks, predjudice, partisan politics or hatred (outright or otherwise). I'm simply calling bullshit by its given name, bullshit.
If I were calling a rose 'bullshit', then maybe you'd have a point. But you appeal to science in one breath and then reject it in the next; ergo it's bullshit.

I'm happy to discuss your real concern (forestry management) when I have something meaningful to add, or any other topic where there is room for real dialog, but I have zero interest in playing the wingnut game of "let's-see-how-much-of-your-time-I-can-waste-on-that-climate-change-crap".

about that closed-minded thing you have going. You're hurting your own cause by alienating those who are on the fence. You come off as an extremist and the public doesn't react well to that. We all need to be united under a scientific plan that works AND will be accepted by the public. No, you don't have to convince me but, I AM a representative sample of America and the world.

And, BTW, nice town hall rant....you learn quickly, grasshopper!

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

Get a clue.

You're going to have to give me a page number. Hell, they don't even have a chapter on forests. They consider the carbon stored in plant biomass to be part of a closed loop, neither adding or subtracting long-term carbon to our atmosphere. At least, that's how I understood it from a summary.

The truth is that both soils and biomass add bigtime GHG's through catastrophic wildfires to our atmosphere and the cooked soils and future vegetation cannot reacquire all the carbon and GHG's back for up to hundreds of years. (Yes, a peer reviewed study proves that in the Biscuit Fire.) The heat of 7000 degrees actually vaporizes soils, leaving the rest of it more rocky, less fertile, more compacted, hydrophobic and less productive. That piece of land cannot recover its previous carbon (and other GHG's) for decades, or even centuries.

The IPCC is clearly not up to speed on forest issues. This study simply means that the problem is worse than they thought.
Also, GHG's from forest fires generally aren't re-absorbed by forests very well, like CO2 is. I found the study to be fascinating, as I have seen the Biscuit Fire up close and personal. In fact, most of my career dealt with salvaging timber, instead of thinning projects. I've seen the ugly, intensely-damaging effects on the ground, in person.




Bernard T. Bormann, Peter S. Homann, Robyn L. Darbyshire, and Brett A. Morrissette. 2008. Intense forest wildfire sharply reduces mineral soil C and N: the first direct evidence. Can. J. For. Res. 38: 2771–2783 (2008).


Selected excerpts:

Abstract:

Direct evidence of the effects of intense wildfire on forest soil is rare because reliable prefire data are lacking. By chance, an established large-scale experiment was partially burned in the 2002 Biscuit fire in southwestern Oregon. About 200 grid points were sampled across seven burned and seven unburned stands before and after the fire. Fire-related soil changes — including losses of soil organic and inorganic matter — were so large that they became complicated to measure. The 51 Mg ha–1 of loose rocks on the soil surface after fire suggests erosion of 127 Mg ha–1 of fine mineral soil, some of which likely left in the fire plume. After accounting for structural changes and erosion with a comparable-layers approach, combined losses from the O horizon and mineral soil totaled 23 Mg C ha–1 and 690 kg N ha–1, of which 60% (C) and 57% (N) were lost from mineral horizons. Applying a fixed-depth calculation — commonly used in previous fire studies — that disregards structural changes and erosion led to underestimates of loss of nearly 50% for C and 25% for N. Although recent debate has centered on the effects of postwildfire forest management on wood, wildlife habitat, and fuels, this study indicates that more consideration should be given to the possible release of greenhouse gases and reduction of future forest productivity and CO2 uptake.

Introduction

Forest ecologists think of wildfire as an important natural process that regulates fuel accumulation and successional patterns across most western US forests (DeBano et al. 1998). Forest wildfires also have great societal consequences. Rural communities and firefighters are well aware of the dangers of high-intensity (high-temperature) large-scale fires. Given dry conditions and sufficient fuels, these fires can make their own weather, spread at alarming rates, and often become nearly unstoppable. The monetary and human costs of fighting such fires — loss of property, timber, wildlife habitat, water quality, C stocks, and other resource values, and remediation expenses — can be substantial (Neuenschwander et al. 2000; Dombeck 2001). The direct cost of fighting wildfires nationally in 2002 was $1.6 billion, with nearly a tenth of this budget spent on a single fire, reported on here, called the Biscuit complex fire, in southwestern Oregon, USA (Government Accounting Office 2004). …

Current understanding of the ecological effects of intense wildfire is severely limited by the lack of detailed knowledge of soils before wildfire. To date, only one study has reported effects of wildfire based on before and after soil sampling, but fire intensity was unknown (Murphy et al. 2006; Johnson et al. 2007). …

When the 2002 Biscuit fire serendipitously burned through part of a 150 ha Long-Term Ecosystem Productivity (LTEP) experiment (Bormann et al. 1994; Homann et al. 2008), we were given an opportunity to examine soil changes in paired pre- and post-wildfire samples. Because we had clear evidence that these plots had burned at high intensity, our objective was to determine the effects of high-intensity fire on the loss of soil C and N mass. Volumetric soil sampling, which has not been conducted in previous wildfire studies, allowed us to rigorously evaluate changes on a per-area basis. The parallel data from unburned stands provided important evidence on soil development that was not attributable to the fire. Having archived prefire samples also allowed us to reduce analytical biases. By combining these data, we provide an assessment of the potential effects of wildfire that is the most rigorous to date. Our assessment of soil physical and chemical changes provides unique information about the effects of high-intensity forest wildfire on soils and greenhouse-gas emissions, along with important implications for long-term productivity and future C sequestration. …

Results

The clearest effect of intense wildfire on our plots, which has also been widely noted across the Biscuit fire,2 was a substantial increase in the amount of near-surface rocks on the burned plots — there was 51 ± 8 M ha–1 (mean ± 95% CI) of loose rocks on the soil surface after the fire. (Fig. 5). …

The second notable effect of high-intensity fire was the major loss of soil organic matter at the soil surface that extended into the mineral soil, and corresponding losses of soil C and N. In the uppermost comparable layer 1 (the O horizon and mineral soil to 3.7 cm), soil C decreased by 19 ± 2 Mg ha–1 from the prefire sampling value in 1992 (Fig. 7 left side, Table 4 method 1). A small but significant (p <0.05) amount of C (2.5 Mg ha–1) was lost from the two deepest layers combined (4 and 5). If all C in the prefire O horizon (9 ± 1 Mg ha–1) was combusted, then 60% of the soil C loss came from mineral soil layers.

Soil N losses were also large, 547 ± 79 kg ha–1. No significant subsurface soil N losses were seen, but an increase of 40 ± 32 kg ha–1 was observed in layer 3. If all N in the prefire O horizon (226 ± 21 kg ha–1) was volatilized, then 57% of the soil N loss came from mineral soil layers. …

Discussion

Comparison to other studies

Our estimated loss of 23 Mg C ha–1 from organic and minerals soil layers is higher than most previous estimates. Our losses of 500 to 700 kg N ha–1 fell in the upper range of reported values. Comparing our results with others is challenging, however, given the variety of assumptions, sampling methods and depths, and analyses used. Uncertainties with these studies come from multiple sources and cloud our knowledge of the effects of intense fire on soils. Because of the lack of opportunities to directly measure soil changes before and after intense wildfire, researchers have had to rely on estimates obtained in retrospective studies or extrapolated from laboratory and lower-intensity prescribed fire studies. …

We cannot rule out a bias in retrospective studies because they assume that unburned areas can be used to represent the preburn conditions (Baird et al. 1999). Inherent differences between burned and unburned areas with respect to moisture, site conditions, and burn history can influence soil properties, as has been demonstrated for part of the Biscuit fire (Thompson et al. 2007). Different site histories confound interpretations and may lead to incorrect conclusions about soil dynamics (Yanai et al. 2003). …

Several mechanisms may explain the loose surface rocks after fire (Fig. 3): postfire erosion of fines, small-scale resorting of soil constituents, and atmospheric losses during the fire. Most of the soil organic matter in the O horizon was burned, and the products of combustion, including CO2 and volatilized nutrients, were exported as gas or smoke particles, leaving behind over seven times more rocks above the mineral soil surface. Losses of fine mineral soil from upper mineral soil layers are usually attributed to postfire waterdriven erosion, and our erosion-box estimates support this explanation to a point. Water-driven erosion for the 2003–2004 water year on burned soils in erosion boxes, placed across a range of slopes, averaged 57 m3 ha–1 compared with 0 m3 ha–1 on unburned soils. Below a 15 ha catchment with two burned LTEP stands, only a tiny fraction of the estimated 850 m3 of moving sediment (extrapolated from the erosion-box data) appeared in the ditches along logging roads. The export of the 127 Mg ha–1 of missing soil, estimated by the difference between pre- and post-fire soil sampling (Fig. 6) and extrapolated to this catchment, would be about 1900 m3 (assuming a sediment bulk density of 1 Mg m–3). The complex microtopography — partly created by windthrows, downed logs, tree trunks, and needles cast off after the fire — appeared to capture much of the moving soil. The fire also created soil voids — where decayed stumps and roots burned deeply into the soil — that filled over time. This vertical sorting mechanism does not appear to be responsible for the increase in the amount of surface rocks because we observed no corresponding drop in the
rock concentration at deeper soil layers (Fig. 5).

An intriguing alternative explanation for most of the missing fine soil is transport via the massive smoke plume. The elevation of the smoke column and the spread of the plume provide a plausible convective erosion process for off-site transport of substantial material. Large plumes of smoke, some more than 1500 km long, were visible most days during the months of the fire from the NASA MODIS satellite (Fig. 9). Fine soil particles have been detected in smoke (Palmer 1981; Samsonov et al. 2005), and wind speeds near the soil surface — driven by extremely strong vortices resulting from fire-driven atmospheric convection (Palmer 1981; Banta et al. 1992) — can carry smoke to the lower stratosphere (Trentmann et al. 2006). The possibility that a substantial mass of fine particles, including mineral soil, was transported high into the atmosphere raises questions about the effects of intense fire on radiation interception, water-droplet nuclei, and off-site terrestrial and ocean fertilization.

Implications of intense-fire-induced soil changes on climate, forest productivity, and management decisions

Many previous estimates of fire contributions to greenhouse gasses (e.g., Crutzen and Andreae 1990) are based on biomass combustion alone and fail to consider mineral soil losses. Although Campbell et al. (2007) considered soil C losses from the entire Biscuit fire, a concern about the lack of prefire soils data in their estimates is expressed in the range of their C-emission estimates, 0.7 to 1.2 Tg C for the portion of the fire with vegetation damage classes similar to those of our plots. If we extrapolate our results to this area of the Biscuit fire, the resulting soil C loss would be about 1.6 Tg and N loss about 45 Gg. Mineral soil (<4 mm) particulate losses (Fig. 6), extrapolated to the same area, sum to nearly 9 Tg.

Our soil C loss is greater than the high end of the estimates of Campbell et al. (2007); this discrepancy may be related to bias from their unburned controls or to our small sample of the Biscuit fire area. To the extent that our estimates might apply more broadly to other intense fires, climate models may need to be recalibrated to account for effects of intense fire, including fire-induced greenhouse gases and emissions of particulates.

The intensity of wildfires and magnitude of losses of fine soils and soil C and N have additional implications for soil fertility and subsequent rates of plant production and C sequestration. Soil C losses lead to increased bulk density and reduced soil water-holding capacity, cation-exchange capacity, and sources of energy for microbial communities. To the extent that soil N, soil C, and soil structure control productivity, these changes should result in major declines that will last as long as it takes to return to prefire conditions. …

Any potential loss in productivity is relevant to the US National Forest Management Act of 1976, where the Secretary of Agriculture is required, “through research and continuous monitoring, to ensure that management systems will not produce substantial and permanent impairment of the productivity of the land”. The US Endangered Species Act of 1973 is also relevant to the management of high-intensity fires, for example, in the case of the northern spotted owl that nests primarily in stands of large trees averaging only 32 large trees ha–1 (Hershey et al. 1998). When soils can no longer produce such trees, the area of suitable habitat that could redevelop after fire is also lessened.

Much of the recent debate has centered on the effects of postwildfire management on tree regeneration, wildlife habitat, and future fire risk (Donato et al. 2006; Newton et al. 2006; Shatford et al. 2007; Thompson et al. 2007). In light of the first direct evidence of major effects of intense wildfire on soils — based on extensive and detailed pre- and post-fire soil sampling — we think that soil changes, especially the potential loss of soil productivity and greenhousegas additions resulting from intense wildfire, deserve more consideration in this debate. In forests likely to be affected by future intense fire, preemptive reduction of intense-fire risks can be seen as a way to reduce losses of long-term productivity and lower additions of greenhouse gases. Preemptive strategies may include reducing fuels within stands but also improving fire-attack planning and preparation and changing the distribution of fuels across the landscape to reduce the size of future fires. Practices can include thinning and removing or redistributing residues and underburning.

In forests already affected by intense fire, amelioration to increase C sequestration, tree growth, and eventually late successional habitat should be strongly considered. Amelioration practices might include seeding or planting N2-fixing and other plants, fertilizing, and managing vegetation and fuels through time. To the extent that receipts from pre- and post-wildfire logging are the only means of paying for these practices, such logging should be balanced against other management objectives and concerns. Harvesting before and after fire to generate revenue, if done improperly, has the potential to harm soils, but this outcome needs to be weighed against the outcomes resulting from increased high-intensity fire and from not ameliorating after soils have been burned intensely.

The pdf doc search gives 39 hits for the word 'forest'.

By demonstrating an unwillingness to actually learn about the contents of a document you nonetheless freely criticize and a concurrent willingness to make phony excuses hide that unwillingness, do you suppose you have helped or hurt your case as a person who seeks to bring science into the discussion more forcefully?

they still don't talk about forest emissions and their impacts on our environment. They talk about land use changes and deforestation but, in a very simplistic kind of way. Yep, clearcut=bad DuuuuuuuuuHHH!!! However, absolutely NO mention in the entire document about fires!!







ZIP







ZILCH-O








NADA!!








Not even ONE instance of the word!!!

you take the discussion down a different path instead of responding to what I wrote. So in two concurrent posts we see you abandoning the methods of science that call for honest dialog.

The only reason I'm pressing this is to challenge your belief (and I think it is sincere) that you have arrived at your conclusions regarding climate change in a manner that reflects the tradition of open and honest debate which underpins our effort to organize and uncover knowledge with the scientific process.

You really haven't done anything to support your position on forestry management and GHG emissions except to post some interesting ideas that may or may not already be part of the GHG discussion. The IPCC report was published 4 years ago and is a review of work done prior to that, so it is certainly reasonable to think that newly uncovered factors aren't part of what went into that review. But look at your sneering attitude towards that potential lack.

The sneer is bad enough, but it is made worse by your lack of knowledge about what is actually in the report. While the specific findings you point to were published post-2005, the fact remains that a great deal of thought has gone into the consequences of land use in general and forest management in particular. Can you authoritatively say that the data in the study you post significantly alters the overall picture that has already emerged? Or is it possible that (just to pick an example off the top of my head) the number of fires that exceed the threshold of 7000 degrees or that the total amount of acreage burnt in such fires might be too low to make the consequent effects on GHG emissions something that would significantly change the IPCC results based on similar but different land use changes (ie forest lost to desert as a result of shifting rainfall patterns).

As I said the other day, your position on AGW is one that runs totally counter to the best science we have. So why should anyone have faith that your efforts to bring this issue to the front of discussion are motivated by respect for the science?

If you want to address climate change for selfish instead of altruistic motives, I really don't have a problem with that; we need all the allies we can get. But if you just want to manipulate people into supporting your agenda through a claim to concern over climate change, well it matters if you give the appearance that you will not work to do anything beyond what serves your agenda.

I really want an answer from you on one point:
You said much of your opinion is formed by "following the money", right?
Where do you see these economic motivations? and how do those observations affect your conclusions?

My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!

While the Biscuit Fire study is absolutely certain in its results, yes, it's easy to see that the results conclusions have been slanted to convince people of the Forest Service's desire to "make boards", supporting the timber industry. They really didn't need to include that but, it doesn't make the study wrong. Just politicized in the conclusions. However, it DOES solidify the fact that we need to manage both green and burned forests, to restore them, making them drought, insect and fire resistant. This clearly isn't the goal of Congress, the courts, both Administrations and the preservationists, who are in power right now. What good does it do to make new wilderness areas that are allowed, and even encouraged, to burn to a crisp a few years later?

Regarding effects on our atmosphere, one cannot say that fires have a negligible effect on climate change. Burning forests produce from 80 to 300 tons of GHG's for every acre. Last year's Trinity County (California) fires put out the equivalent pollution of 2 million cars operating for an entire year. Total fire costs for those fires are in the BILLIONS. Using the Biscuit study, applied to the tens of millions of acres burned since 2000, I'd say that is surely "significant" to the overall IPCC situation. They did mention that the forest situation was complex but, forest scientists have been talking about this disaster since the early 90's. Just because the IPCC couldn't precisely quantify parts per million and loss of carbon sequestration, that doesn't mean they should have minimized the clearly substantial effects of mega-firestorms and the massive "biological wildfires" of bark beetles. I, myself, (a college dropout) could have written an entire chapter on this, covering the topic much better than the IPCC. They chose to focus on tropical forests, and I'm NOT discounting their vulnerability, importance and value but, our own current disaster has been predicted for more than a decade and was highly-preventable (but politically-unpalatable). Now that we are past the tipping point, we are stuck with it. Now, all we have left is triage, and even that is being contested, despite the science.

I see, AND accept facts coming from both sides of the climate change debate. I also don't understand all of the research coming from both sides of the debate (who does?), and I have to admit that I can't choose which study is right and which study is wrong. The most plausible concept to believe is that BOTH sides have SOME truth and BOTH sides design studies to support their funders. The most plausible truth to me, is that it is somewhere in the middle. Like I said before, I tend to think that those deniers have more money behind them, so they are more suspect. However, there is much more political power at stake behind the other side. Both sides also don't want to see anyone in the middle ground. To some, us "compromisers" are even WORSE! One thing I am firmly behind the the conversion to clean power. I'm sure the conversion process will be painful to many but, it IS necessary.

What I find worse of all is the loss of integrity in powerful people. That is why I want to follow the science. Personally, since I'm retired, I have nothing to gain, but PLENTY to lose, financially-speaking. I am poor, and stand to get poorer. Maybe it's a good thing that men in my family tree don't live long. I guess I selfishly (and sincerely) want to save our forests, at least for the rest of my life. Is that such a bad thing?

You wrote:
"My claim is that BOTH sides fund studies that push the debate away from the middle. With so much at stake, monetarily AND politically, on both sides, I question the "science" on both sides. Many scientists are "kept" with big grants that come with big strings attached. If your study doesn't have a pre-determined result that supports the funders' views, it doesn't get funded. THAT is today's reality!"

"BOTH sides"?

What BOTH sides?

Where is the economic entity that is in any way comparable to the lists below:

Heard you ever heard of any of these folks that depend for their existence on selling the world 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum fuels each year?

EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION

CHEVRON CORPORATION

CONOCOPHILLIPS

KOCH INDUSTRIES INC

MARATHON OIL CORPORATION

SUNOCO INC

HESS CORPORATION

TESORO PETROLEUM CORP

ASHLAND INC

WESTERN REFINING, INC.

FRONTIER OIL CORPORATION

HOLLY CORPORATION

BIG WEST OIL LLC

CALUMET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS PARTNERS, LP

ARCH CHEMICALS, INC.

HEADWATERS INCORPORATED

VALERO LP

CARRIZO OIL & GAS, INC.



Or how about the ten largest direct CO2 emitters in US. How much do you think they made from the electricity obtained by burning (88%) of the 162,000,000 short tons of coal produced in the US in 2006?

1. American Electric Power - With 5 million customers in 11 states from Ohio to Texas, its biggest carbon emissions come from its Gavin coal plant in Cheshire, Ohio.

2. SOUTHERN - Has 4.3 million customers in the Southeast and owns the top three carbon-emitting power plants in the country: Scherer, in Juliet, Ga.; Miller in Quinton, Ala.; and Bowen in Cartersville, Ga.

3. (tie) AES CORP. - Has power plants from New York to California, with the worst emissions from its Petersburg, Ind., plant.

3. (tie) DUKE ENERGY - Serves 4 million customers in the Carolinas, Ohio, Kentucky, and Indiana. Its Gibson plant in Owensville, Ind., is the nation's fourth-largest carbon emissions source in the power sector.

5. TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY - The nation's largest public power company serves the 8.7 million residents of the Tennessee Valley. Its Cumberland City, Tenn., plant ranks eighth in the nation in CO2 emissions.

6. NRG ENERGY - A wholesale power producer that operates in deregulated electricity markets throughout the country, its W.A. Parish plant in Thompsons, Texas, is the nation's No. 5 carbon emissions source.

7. XCEL ENERGY - With 3.3 million customers in the West and Midwest, its largest carbon generator is its Sherburne County plant in Becker, Minn.
8. MIDAMERICAN ENERGY HOLDINGS - A Warren Buffett Berkshire Hathaway company, MidAmerican serves customers in Iowa, Illinois, and South Dakota, with its largest CO2 emissions from the Jim Bridger plant in Point Of Rocks, Wyo.

9. PROGRESS ENERGY - Based in Raleigh, N.C., its plant in Roxoboro, N.C., is its biggest emissions source.

10. DOMINION RESOURCES - Dominion is based in Virginia, with operations stretching into the Northeast and Midwest. Its biggest carbon emissions source is its Mount Storm, W.Va., plant.


Then we have the coal companies who mine and sell that 1,162,000,000 short tons of coal that was produced in the US in 2006. The current value for that coal is about $45/s.t. with a total value of $52.3 Billion dollars. In 2008 (when the global economy was giving us a glimpse of the future where China and India are competing for energy resources) for several months the price of coal soared to $150+/s.t. valuing US annual production at approximately $175 Billion.

Peabody Energy Corp
Rio Tinto Energy America
Arch Coal Inc
Foundation Coal Corp
CONSOL Energy Inc
Massey Energy Co
NACCO Industries Inc
Westmoreland Coal Co
Murray Energy Corp
Peter Kiewit Sons Inc
Energy Future Holdings Corp
Alliance Resource Operating Partners LP
Alpha Natural Resources LLC
Patriot Coal Corp
Intl Coal Group Inc (ICG)
Magnum Coal Co
BHP Billiton Ltd
Chevron Corp
PacifiCorp
Level 3 Communications
James River Coal Co
Trinity Coal Corp
Energy Coal Resources Inc
Walter Industries Inc
Wexford Capital LLC
Booth Energy Group
TECO Energy Inc
Western Fuels Association Inc
Rosebud Mining Co
Black Hills Corp


Now, consider that we identified the GHG emissions problem associated with fossil fuel emissions in the 1930s and we know that by 1965 it had been elevated to an issue of Presidential level concern since Johnson stated "This generation has altered the composition of the atmosphere on a global scale through...a steady increase in carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels." in a Special Message to Congress.

In 1992 the UN began to come together to take action to address the threat.

How do you suppose the above companies and those like them around the world reacted?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling the approximate 130 billion gallons of liquid petroleum products used each and every year and how much is at stake going forward?

Since 1992 how much has been made selling and burning coal? How much has been made selling the electricity from that coal?

Have you ever heard of the entity started in 1989 called The Global Climate Coalition? It's a group formed predominately by the companies on the above lists.


Do you think they aligned together on Climate Change to promote "better science" when the good science that was then being done just happened to go against their interests?

Or do you think they learned a lesson from the success the tobacco industry had in deliberately muddling the science related to the effects of tobacco smoke?


Now please, tell me where is the economic entity on "the other side" that is in any way comparable to this group?

Now, are you really a fair minded person?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427944/

http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/coal/page/coalnews/coalmar.html

or something like that, especially if you didn't bother to read the rest, where I explain myself. Feel free to ignore me!

Minds don't work well when they are closed.

Loser.

Failing for all of mankind. You'd rather people die than to budge on your failed agenda?? Your insults only add hot air to the atmosphere.

Plain and simple. If you had any intellectual honesty you'd admit you were wrong. Since you continue to make stupid claims, I'll continue to mock and ridicule you.

go all-out and compare me to Hitler, too?!?!?!?!?!?

Nice empty town hall tactics!!

We've drifted far away from the original topic and I apologize for that, tabatha. Carry on

The previous reply should have been directed at the goofy Twins fan. Sorry for the confusion.

I believe this is what you're looking for…
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg3/ar4-wg3-chapter9.pdf

You'll want to download the entire PDF, and perhaps some others from the same document.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/publications_ipcc_fourth_assessment_report_wg3_report_mitigation_of_climate_change.htm

Also of interest:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg2/ar4-wg2-chapter5.pdf

I appreciate your information and pleasant demeanor, despite a few differences between us. You are brave to publicly tolerate my, ummm, "alternative" behavior.

No one (that I know of) is denying that forests, especially tropical ones, are essential for us. However, the IPCC doesn't address MAJOR impacts from our own forests. Many factors combine together to result in a MAJOR contribution to climate change from agenda-driven policies, scientifically-ignorant opinions and legal gridlock, amongst others . For example, the lack of harvesting and longterm carbon sequestration from our own forests causes us to import wood from other forests, where there are few environmental rules and where forests take MUCH longer to grow back. Add to that the costs and emissions from transporting the wood for us to use, resulting in even MORE emissions, all told. NIMBYism is biting us in the butt.

"...to meet society’s needs for timber, fibre, and energy". Well, currently, our forests are HUGE sources of GHG's and clearly, the Democrats are promising more fires through "unstewardship", preferring to wall off vast forests and severely limiting options to the point of eliminating them. When all the old growth is burned and gone, many obstacles to overcutting will be gone, as well. Late successional reserves will no longer get those protections, as seen in the Biscuit Fire.

I'd like to know where the IPCC stands on the situation of OUR forests, INCLUDING currently-flawed political agenda. Vilsack talks about "restoration" but, that surely WON'T apply to Federal forests. In fact, the government would cetainly like to control management of all private forests, as well. I would be VERY worried if I lived near National Forest lands (which I do), because their Let-Burn fires consistently escape and burn private lands. Additionally, when the Feds burn private lands in backfires, they are exempted from any legal process to recover lost value and resources due to Let-Burn fires.

Luckily, the international community is much more progressive than the narrow views of US liberals. They value active management and prosper, while promoting excellent stewardship and healthy forest ecosystems. We will continue to have megafires and gridlock, as GHG's spew into our atmoshere as one of our biggest components of climate change.

Yes, we CAN incinerate forests, on purpose!!

Hopefully, the IPCC will focus on forest politics, regional differences and fire intensities with their next "upgrade".

This is from the same chapter (emphasis added by me):

Thanks - I needed a fast debunking article for someone who had e-mailed the article.

So, I guess I was not in any discussion, political and scientific.

But, I do appreciate your taking the time to reply. Much appreciated.

Thanks.

I've posted articles on E/E which use the UK spelling.

Brought up on South African/UK English and converted (mostly successfully) to US English.

…yet, for some reason, I often fall into UK spellings…

(Perhaps it has to do with books I read as a child.)

not really statistically sound. also, the Radiation from the sun has declined every year since http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation">2002

This does affect temps on the Earth.

But it's rediculous to use 5 or 6 years of data to declare a change in a 100 or so yr trend.