Thanks for this, Joe. Have these guys even read the IPCC report?

 From the article:
“By the end of the (CO2) doubling i.e. 560 ppm (parts per million) 
expected slightly before (the year) 2100 -- assuming a business-as-usual 
continued growth of CO2 that has been linear for some time -- Schwartz 
and others would expect 0.4 C of extra warming only - a typical 
fluctuation that occurs within four months and certainly nothing that 
the politicians should pay attention to,” Motl explained."

IPCC says, under the same conditions, the likely range is 0.3-0.9 with a 
best estimate of 0.6 K (from av. 1980-1999 to av 2090-2099). This is 
within the same ballpark. Even taking the IPCC 6 scenarios, the lower 
limit of 4 of them is <2 K.

"Schwartz’s result is 63% lower than the IPCC’s estimate of 3oC for a 
doubling of CO2 (2.0–4.5oC, 2SD range)" This is purposefully misleading: 
the overall IPCC range is 1.1 - 4.4°C for the first 4 scenarios (2-6.4°C 
for the other 2, least likely, ones). The IPCC best estimates are 
respectively 1.8, 2.4, 2.4 and 2.8°C for the 4 most probable scenarios 
(3.4 and 4.0 for the other 2), so Schwartz's quoting 3.0°C loses him 
credibility.

However, that is not the full story. I maintain we have no right to 
pollute the planet and kill millions every year with that pollution and 
to overload expensive health services because of it. The only way we can 
stop that is to minimise the use of fossil fuels. But then politicians 
apparently care not a whit about that, do they? It is all grist to the 
economic mill to burn coal, oil and gas and have the private sector 
provide evermore expensive medical equipment to better diagnose the 
results of our folly.

I feel that this is an attempt of the "business as usual" lobby to tell 
lies to try and discredit the world's best 1500 scientists by quoting a 
single guy.

Brian

Joe Fjelstad wrote:
> The link below is to a blog by Marc Morano,  Communications Director for the 
> Senate Environment and Public Works Committee  (EPW) Chairman, U.S. Senator 
> James Inhofe ((R., Okla.) It has been picked  up and published by some 
> newsletters.  
>  
> It appears that this topic may be fast  becoming much more of a battle of 
> "sound bites" for public  consumption. 
>  
> Reminds me of a phase forced to memory  in my high school Latin class many 
> years ago 'Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?'  (Who will watch  the watchers?) I 
> guess it now holds true for both camps in the  building war of words. 
>  
> No matter who is right in the end  (which I may never live to see the 
> results), unless one makes a  living selling energy (or represents an oil 
> state...;-), in the big  picture, conserving energy, whenever possible, does no harm 
> either  way.   
>  
> Joe 
>  
> _http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecor
> d_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d0842fed8_ 
> (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=84e9e44a-802a-23ad-493a-b35d08
> 42fed8) 
> 
> 
> 
> ************************************** Get a sneak peek of the all-new AOL at 
> http://discover.aol.com/memed/aolcom30tour
> 
>