Steve
By coincidence, I received yesterday a copy of Al Gore's An Inconvenient
Truth. I watched it last night (first time I had seen it). Let me say
that I'm far from being a Gore fan and the film had errors and
irrelevancies in it, some unscientific and emotional (cf. his sister's
death etc.). There were politicojournalistic exaggerations and
politicoshowmanship in it. However, his basic message was, I believe 98%
correct, if you took away the trimmings, without which it would not have
been a success.
There was one passage I didn't know about, albeit it is not
substantiated. I found the following on a transcript:
"Isn't there a disagreement among scientists about whether the problem
is real or not? Actually, not really. There was a massive study of every
scientific peer reviewed article written on global warming in the last
ten years. They took a big sample of 10 percent, 928 articles. And you
know the number of those that disagreed with the scientific consensus
that we're causing global warming and that is a serious problem out of
the 928: Zero. The misconception that there is disagreement about the
science has been deliberately created by a relatively small number of
people. One of their internal memos leaked and here is what it said
according to the press. Their objective is to reposition global warming
as a theory rather than fact. This has happened before. after the
Surgeon General's report. One of their memos leaked 4 years ago. They
said, "Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of creating a
controversy in the public's mind." But have they succeeded? You'll
remember that there were 928 peer reviewed articles. Zero percent
disagreed with the consensus. There was another study of all the
articles in the popular press. Over the last fourteen years they listed
a sample of 636. More than half of them said, "Well, we are not sure. It
could be a problem, may not be a problem." So no wonder people are
confused."
He went on about an EPA memo trafficked by the White House Presidential
environment policy chief. The "modifications", written by him, a
non-scientist hired from the American Petroleum Institute refuted the
scientific data, but this was leaked. "So this fellow resigned a few
days later. The day after he resigned he went to work for Exxon-Mobil."
So you see where I come from, when I believe that the petroleum
companies are responible for much of the disinformation.
Now, I agree that nothing I have mentioned in this post has been
substantiated but, if it is fact, it should be pretty convincing.
Brian
Steve Gregory wrote:
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Ross McKitrick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:20 AM
> To: Steve Gregory
> Subject: Re: FW: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>
>
> Dear Steve
>
> Thank you for your note. The Fraser Institute did not receive any money
> from any firms, certainly not Exxon or any others listed by Mr Ellis,
> for the ISPM. (As for that, what people don't understand is that all the
> climate policy proposals before the US government right now will be a
> financial boon to major fossil energy producers if passed. Cap and trade
> as configured in those proposals is simply a legalized cartel with the
> scarcity rents (in this case emission permits) handed to the incumbent
> firms. Energy firms are not out there fighting against climate policy,
> they are lobbying for cap and trade). In any case, the Fraser Institute
> did not seek or get any funding from any firms--energy or otherwise--for
> this project.
>
> The ISPM is not, as he suggests, a summary of the IPCC Summary for
> Policymakers. It is a summary of the Second Order Draft of the full IPCC
> Working Group I report as it stood in June 2006, at the close of
> scientific review. We used this as the best estimate of the final
> wording of the full IPCC report, which is due out in early May. We
> explain this in the ISPM.
>
> We also explain that the statement of Overall Conclusions represents the
> views of the writing team. Judgments about whether climate changes are
> good or bad are not mere emotion. The IPCC report devotes many pages to
> discussions of things like storms, extreme weather, precipitation, heat
> waves, sea levels, etc, because these are the things people worry about
> in connection with climate change. Ambiguity about trends in these
> things implies ambiguity about whether potential problems or benefits
> will arise.
>
> The "90%" probability statement was arrived at by a vote among
> bureaucrats at a meeting in Paris. I would not put much emphasis on the
> specific number: different studies, different methods and different
> assumptions imply very different numbers. The IPCC relies heavily on a
> single model-based methodology. The discussion of this is in the
> detection and attribution chapter in the IPCC report, which we summarize
> in detail in the ISPM.
>
> The kinds of policies put forward to address CO2 emissions are different
> from those that address air pollution, and to some extent are rivals.
> This is especially true in 3rd World settings, where the main health
> threat is indoor air pollution from burning wood and dung in open indoor
> fires. The first step to improving air pollution for most of the poor
> people in the world is creating an electricity grid with
> fossil-generated power. I have a short magazine article about this at:
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/particles.pdf. So the decision
> about climate policy can't be subsumed under general air pollution
> policy. Choices do have to be made. One of the main motivations behind
> the ISPM is to get interested people to read the full IPCC report
> itself, not merely the SPM published in Paris in February. The more
> people grapple with the details, in all their complexity, the more
> likely we will be in a position to make sound policy choices.
>
> Yours truly,
>
>
> Dr. Ross McKitrick
> - Associate Professor and Director of Graduate Studies
> - Department of Economics
> - University of Guelph
> - 519-824-4120 x52532
> - http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/ross.html
>
>
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>
> Dear Doctor McKitrick,
>
> First I would like to introduce myself, my name is Steve Gregory
> and I
> am a Production Engineer for an electronics comapany in Tulsa,
> Oklahoma
> called OAI Electronics.
>
> I belong to a email forum that is hosted by the IPC (Institute
> for
> Printed Circuits) called Environet, which discusses
> environmental issues
> as they relate to our industry. We occasionally get into other
> environmental topics as well, as you can read in the exchange
> below.
>
> I was wondering if you could comment on Brian Ellis's reply.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Steve Gregory
> Production Engineer
> OAI Electronics
> 6960 East 12th Street
> Tulsa, Oklahoma 74112
>
> (918) 836-9077
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian Ellis [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 6:10 AM
> To: Environmental Issues; Steve Gregory
> Subject: Re: [EN] Global Warming, another point of view...
>
> Firstly, let me quote the last sentence of the ES:
> "Consequently, there will remain an unavoidable element of
> uncertainty
> as to the extent that humans are contributing to future climate
> change,
> and indeed whether or not such change is a good or bad thing."
>
> The IPCC report allows "an unavoidable element of uncertainty"
> by
> equating "very likely" to a 90 percentile probability.
> Furthermore, it
> quotes the ranges of different scenarios. It is therefore "very
> likely"
> than a part of the climate change, but not all of it, is
> anthropogenic.
> This is therefore not contradictory.
>
> Whether or not it is a good or bad thing depends on where you
> are. It is
> very personal and such a statement has NO place in what is
> purported to
> be a purely scientific assessment. When I see emotional
> interpretations,
> then credibility flies out the window.
>
> Then, when I see "Our work is financed by tax-deductible
> contributions
> from thousands of individuals, organizations, and foundations."
> without
> names, I think of Exxon-Mobil, Shell, BP, Total and their
> offshoots etc.
>
> as being possible major contributors. Who bites the hand that
> feeds
> them? Compare this with
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2004399,00.html
>
> Yes, there are still many naysayers. I await, with impatience,
> the full
> IPCC scientific report which, hopefully, will be published next
> month.
> Until that comes out, we have no yardstick by which to measure
> the
> veracity of the modelling (and neither have the writers of this
> report,
> which is based essentially on a 20 page summary, not the ~500
> pages of
> the full report).
>
> Finally, whether climate change is partially anthropogenic or
> not - and
> I believe it is from all the evidence I have seen - there is an
> even
> more compelling reason to cut down on using fossil fuels: public
> health.
>
> I'm sure I've touched on this before, but see here
>
> http://www.cypenv.org/worldenv/files/climate_change.htm#Public%20health
> if you wish to know more.
>
> Brian
>
> Steve Gregory wrote:
>
>
> I was given the link below to read, and it credibly
> dicusses another
> point of view about "global warming". I cannot just
> dismiss this
>
>
> paper.
>
>
> It seems well supported by some prominent researchers
> and is backed-up
>
>
>
>
>
> by data. I just wonder what some of you think?
>
> -Steve Gregory-
>
> http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/ISPM.pdf
>
>
>
>
>
>
|
