This is where Global Warming is headed

[project86]

I am just reading an article in SI that there is a microbiologist Peter Duesberg at University of California, insisting that HIV is harmless and all the nonsense to go with it, an AIDs denier And he teaches? At a university level?

Duesberg is a very interesting character. Read up on him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg

He is extremely highly educated, and made some major scientific discoveries back in the day. He has published in pretty much every major journal around (Science, Nature, Lancet, etc) His initial dispute about HIV causing AIDS was back in 1987 when a lot less was known about the topic. My impression is that he once had potentially valid objections, but has clung to his theory even though all the questions have been answered. Maybe he likes the notoriety?

In any case, as wacky as his HIV theory is, he is still a valid scientist, and still publishing other things in the journals. Scientific American recently said of him: "Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer."

So your statement that he is an "AIDS denier" is not really true, but it is a bit complicated as to what he really does believe. Aside from his wacky stance on HIV, he certainly does deserve to be teaching at a university level.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Duesberg is a very interesting character. Read up on him
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Duesberg

He is extremely highly educated, and made some major scientific discoveries back in the day. He has published in pretty much every major journal around (Science, Nature, Lancet, etc) His initial dispute about HIV causing AIDS was back in 1987 when a lot less was known about the topic. My impression is that he once had potentially valid objections, but has clung to his theory even though all the questions have been answered. Maybe he likes the notoriety?

In any case, as wacky as his HIV theory is, he is still a valid scientist, and still publishing other things in the journals. Scientific American recently said of him: "Thus, as wrong as Duesberg surely is about HIV, there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer."

So your statement that he is an "AIDS denier" is not really true, but it is a bit complicated as to what he really does believe. Aside from his wacky stance on HIV, he certainly does deserve to be teaching at a university level.

Well, he may be all those things but he is still an AIDS denier with HIV as recently as 2003 according to Holmgren/Zuma Press. We are a bit beyond the early days of HIV and AIDS, don't you think?
The point is that good scientists can have very bad ideas. Similar to micro biologists and ID, etc.

there is at least a chance that he is significantly right about cancer."


Is that a promising statement? Is that better than no chance at all, a little bit?
And, that article also states that his cancer stuff is still controversial. Lots of things have at least a chance. We'll see in time.

By the way, who wrote that article to wikipedia? there have been too many instances of misdirection in wikipedia and now it is hard to know what is good info or not.

 

[tbewick]

Hi Buckeye_Nut,

I've put this response together quite quickly, so I've just copy and pasted from some publications. There is a physical explanation for ice ages:

'There are various cycles in climate and the longest of those and the most important in some ways on a very long-term scale are the cycles of the ice ages. We get an ice age roughly every 100,000 years and we know what triggers ice ages; it is the variations of the earth's orbit round the sun, the variations of the eccentricity of the orbit, the variations in the tilt of the earth's orbit, and the variations of the time where the earth is closest to the sun which all vary from 100,000 years to 40,000 years to about 23,000 years. You can find all those periods within the climatic history of the last million years during which there have been around 10 ice ages...I mention the ice ages because there are people who say we are heading for another ice age so getting warmer is a good idea. The next ice age we know from astronomical data is due in something like 50,000 years' time, so it is not a concern on the timescale that even you politicians deal with!' [1]

As you stated, there is a problem with understanding natural climate variability. It is possible to make an estimate of how the climate will respond to increasing carbon dioxide levels by looking at how it has behaved in the past:

'The sensitivity of the climate system to a forcing is commonly expressed in terms of the global mean temperature change that would be expected after a time sufficiently long for both the atmosphere and ocean to come to equilibrium with the change in climate forcing... a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide (from the pre-Industrial value of 280 parts per million) in the global atmosphere causes a forcing of 4 watts per meter squared. The central value of the climate sensitivity to this change is a global average temperature increase of 3°C (5.4°F), but with a range from 1.5°C to 4.5°C (2.7 to 8.1°F) (based on climate system models: see section 4). The central value of 3°C is an amplification by a factor of 2.5 over the direct effect of 1.2°C (2.2°F). Well-documented climate changes during the history of Earth, especially the changes between the last major ice age (20,000 years ago) and the current warm period, imply that the climate sensitivity is near the 3°C value. However, the true climate sensitivity remains uncertain, in part because it is difficult to model the effect of cloud feedback. In particular, the magnitude and even the sign of the feedback can differ according to the composition, thickness, and altitude of the clouds, and some studies have suggested a lesser climate sensitivity. On the other hand, evidence from paleoclimate variations indicates that climate sensitivity could be higher than the above range, although perhaps only on longer time scales.' [2]

I think your point on warming being beneficial is true to some extent. There is, of course, great uncertainty with making economic assessments of climate change (the paper 'How much damage will climate change do?' [3] describes climate change impacts and is far more precise than this short description). For richer countries, climate change impacts are more likely to become negative overall with larger temperature increases. Even with small temperature increases, climate change will probably have net negative impacts with poorer countries.

'ABSTRACT. This paper examines the impact of climate change on rich and poor countries across the world. We measure two indices of the relative impact of climate across countries, impact per capita, and impact per GDP. These measures sum market impacts across the climate-sensitive economic sectors of each country. Both indices reveal that climate change will have serious distributional impact across countries, grouped by income per capita. We predict that poor countries will suffer the bulk of the damages from climate change. Although adaptation, wealth, and technology may influence distributional consequences across countries, we argue that the primary reason that poor countries are so vulnerable is their location. Countries in the low latitudes start with very high temperatures. Further warming pushes these countries ever further away from optimal temperatures for climate sensitive economic sectors.' [4]

'In contrast to human systems, the U.S. National Assessment makes a strong case that ecosystems are the most vulnerable to the projected rate and magnitude of climate change, in part because the available adaptation options are very limited... The impacts of these climate changes will be significant, but their nature and intensity will depend strongly on the region and timing of occurrence. At a national level, the direct economic impacts are likely to be modest. However, on a regional basis the level and extent of both beneficial and harmful impacts will grow. Some economic sectors may be transformed substantially and there may be significant regional transitions associated with shifts in agriculture and forestry.' [2]

[1] Sir John Houghton, edited testimony to the UK House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/12/5011802.htm
[2] 'Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions', National Research Council. p6-7, 20.
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/ClimateChangeScience.pdf
[3] Tol, R.S.J., S.Fankhauser, R.G. Richels and J.B. Smith (2000), 'How Much Damage Will Climate Change Do? Recent Estimates', FNU-2,Centre for Marine and Climate Research, Hamburg University, Hamburg.
http://www.fnu.zmaw.de/fileadmin/fnu-files/publication/working-papers/worldecon1.pdf
[4] 'The distributional impact of climate change on rich and poor countries', R. Mendelsohn, A. Dinar, L. Williams.
http://environment.yale.edu/posts/downloads/o-u/The_distributional_impact_of_climate_change.pdf

 

[stratman]

The best way to react to this situation is without being an alarmist, on either side of the political spectrum. When scientists, politicians, activists, become alarmists they lose credibility with the average person, the only one that benefits is the media and those with an agenda. Lay the facts that can be verified on the table, the rest is speculation, opinion and falsity have taken over when it comes to global warming. The problem is obvious, thanks to a few glory-seeking souls on both sides of the aisle the pot has been stirred to the point where the average person has lost confidence in the so-called experts. The only way this is going to be put to rest is when responsible persons with no political ax to grind step up to the plate and speak up the truthfully, plainly, clearly without opinions, agendas or motives to benefit themselves or their cause or organization, please enough said.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Though not without opinions or agendas, An Inconvenient Truth did speak clearly, responsibly, and truthfully.

 

[Johnd]

the average person has lost confidence in the so-called experts.

I don't know what that means...and I certainly don't agree with the premise (that just because there is so much misinformation and/or varying viewpoints out there, that we should just stop listening...that's the lazy man's alternative).

I already know that I am not "average", , but only a fool doesn't listen to the experts, particularly when an overwhelming consensus is formed by those experts by way of empirical data.

 

[Rickster71]

Inconvenient Questions for Mr Gore

10 More "Inconvenient" Questions for Al Gore and His Fellow Man Made Global Warming Believers

By Gregg Jackson
09-14-07
1. Al, you asserted in your movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that 9 of the 10 hottest years on record occurred after 1995. According to NASA's most recent data, the ten hottest years on record in the U.S., beginning with the hottest year, are: 1934, 1998, 1921, 2006, 1931, 1999, 1953, 1990, 1938 and 1939. Not only is 1998 not the "hottest on record" as you claim in your "documentary," but only 4 of the "hottest years on record" occurred after 1995 -- quite a stretch from "9 out of 10." We also know that according to the U.S. National Climate Data Center, the world in 2006 was only .03 degrees Celsius warmer than it was in 2001 -- which is in the range of temperature error and not statistically significant. We now know that Michael Mann's infamous "hockey stick" theory purporting to demonstrate a sharp increase in "warming" in the 1990s has been debunked and discredited by the National Academy of Sciences and the U.N.'s IPCC. Why then do you still continue to cite the incorrect "9 out of 10" figure and debunked "hockey stick" figure?

2. Al, you claim in your movie, "A survey of more than 928 scientific papers in respected journals show 100 percent agreement (that man is responsible for global warming)." Is it not true however that this information that you cite in your movie was originally published in a non-peer reviewed essay section of Science Magazine by a social scientist from UCSD named Nancy Oreskes which was highly flawed and has been subsequently discredited in that only 13 (or 2%) of the 928 articles she cited as supporting the consensus view of anthropogenic global warming explicitly endorsed the "consensus view" and that several of the studies actually opposed it?



3. Al, you wrote your book "Earth in the Balance" and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" to begin a "debate" on global warming. Why is it that you consistently refuse to debate noted climatologists and other scientists who dispute many of your claims such as noted Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg, MIT professor of meteorology Richard S. Lindzen, and author of the "Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism" Christopher Horner?

4. Al, in your movie you show a picture of Lake Chad in Africa which has dried up and state, "Now we're beginning to see the impact (of global warming) in the real world." How do you justify your implication that man made global warming is responsible for the drying up of the lake when it is a fact that the lake has dried up many times in the past, the last time being 2,000 years ago (well before the introduction of SUVs or airplanes)? Why did you conveniently omit the fact in your movie that an enormous population explosion and overgrazing have contributed significantly to the lake drying up?

5. Al, in your movie you also attempt to demonstrate how global warming may lead to significant increases in infectious diseases. (You list 15 resurgent diseases including West Nile, Lyme, and Malaria.) Yet, Malaria for example, was much more prevalent in the "Little Ice Age" and in the 19th century when the earth was colder than it is today especially in non-tropical locations such as Scandinavia, Siberia, Scotland, and Canada. Even the Pasteur Institute's Paul Reiter, a malaria expert, doesn't believe global warming would have much of an impact on the spread of that disease. Aren't malaria and other vector borne diseases more the result of poverty than temperature?

6. While it is an empirical scientific fact that the earth's climate (temperature) is always naturally changing (increasing or decreasing), by claiming that the recent one half a degree Celsius increase in the earth's temperature over the last 100 years is due to human carbon emissions, isn't it you that is in "denial" of the axiomatic fact that the earth's warming (and cooling) are natural variations and not human induced?

7. Al, you claimed in your movie that human induced global warming is melting the "Snows of Kilimanjaro." Yet, two of the most widely known peer reviewed studies regarding this topic attributes other more plausible causes for the melting of the glaciers. Thomas Mölg of the Tropical Glaciology Group from the Department of Geography at the University of Innsbruck in Austria authored a paper entitled "Solar-radiation-maintained glacier recession on Kilimanjaro drawn from combined ice-radiation geometry modeling," which was published in the Journal of Geophysical Research in 2003. Mölg concluded that his study "qualitatively demonstrates that solar radiation is the main climatic parameter maintaining modern glacier recession on Kilimanjaro summit, but also suggests that retreat on the inner ice cap margin might have been supported by a secondary energy source." In short, solar radiation was the primary driver of the Kilimanjaro glacial retreat. Additionally, two major articles on the subject appeared in the International Journal of Climatology and The Journal of Geophysical Research in 2004 which concluded that modern glacial retreat on Kilimanjaro resulted from a reduction in precipitation at the end of the 19th century -- not global warming. Other prominent climatologists have speculated that the most likely secondary cause was deforestation in the mountain's foothills which upset necessary conditions for glaciation. Can you cite any peer reviewed scientific studies that conclude that global warming is the primary cause of the Kilimanjaro glacial retreat?

8. A number of scientific studies have demonstrated that solar radiation has had a significant effect on climate in the past. In 1999, a paper in the journal Quaternary Science Reviews pointed this out. A team of Dutch and Russian scientists who authored the paper found that substantial increases in the carbon isotope coincided with global cooling events at about 850 B.C. and 1600 A.D. The latter date corresponds to the so-called Little Ice Age and indicates in general that climate reacts strongly to small changes in radiation. A recent Danish Meteorological Study demonstrated a correlation between sun spot activity and the earth's temperature which was almost identical. NASA data too has shown that solar activity correlates more closely with glacial temperatures than CO2 -- and that CO2 actually follows temperature increases. Based on these studies and others, doesn't it seem more plausible that natural variable solar activity -- not carbon emissions -- is the more likely cause of climate change?

9. We had been warned of a coming ice age in the 1920s, global warming in the 1930s, another imminent ice age in the 1970s, and now in 2007 global warming once again is said to be the most significant threat to civilization. Since every other apocalyptic prediction turned out to be false, why should this one be any different? Moreover, former European Commissioner for the Environment and current EU V.P. Margaret Wallstrom stated, "this is not a simple environmental issue (global warming) where you can see it as an issue where the scientists are not unanimous. This is about international relations; this is about economy, about trying to create a level playing field for big business throughout the world." Don't you agree with Wallstrom that this global warming issue is not really about the environment but more about "leveling the playing field for business" ( i.e. international wealth redistribution)?

10. To those such as Hillary Clinton who said, "The U.S. has not lead but fled on global warming" and should now "rejoin our allies at the negotiating table" I ask: Is it not a documented historical fact that your husband and former co-president Bill Clinton walked away from the Kyoto negotiating process when he disengaged from the global warming negotiations at the Hague in November of 2000? And isn't it also true that George W. Bush re-engaged in "talks?" Also, why did neither you nor your husband send the signed Kyoto Global Warming Treaty to the Democrat controlled Senate for ratification? You had 3 years to ratify the Kyoto Treaty. And why isn't your new Senate Democrat majority led by Senator Reid calling for ratification right now?

 

[Johnd]

I am not here for the purpose of, nor did I think this thread was about defending one of our "dead" ex-vice-presidents. I am interested in how some are not concerned (in fact, oblivious) about our environment. The environment, whilst discussed in political circles, is not a political entity...it is a human entity that we must "respect."

 

[stratman]

John its hard to "respect" when so much blatant misinformation is thrown around for the benefit of a few, people get tired of listening to conflicting reports of doomsday. I say get politics out of the way and let scientists without axes to grind lay down a concise and honest assesment without getting the politicians, the nuts, the media and organizations involved in the process. The problem is that GW has become big business (grants, carbon footprint sales, etc), once that happens the truth gets cloudy.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The problem is that GW has become big business (grants, carbon footprint sales, etc), once that happens the truth gets cloudy.

If republicans would simply admit "We only care about what is good for big business in the short term, we don't give a damn about the environment.", I could accept that. That is a valid political position (albeit not one I agree with.)
What bothers me is that they try to pretend like they do care. This is a bit like Stalin claiming to be concerned about human rights.

 

[Johnd]

John its hard to "respect" when so much blatant misinformation is thrown around for the benefit of a few, people get tired of listening to conflicting reports of doomsday.

Perhaps for some...not for me. I can conveniently shelve the politicking where it belongs, and still do my small part for, and not against the environment.

I say get politics out of the way and let scientists without axes to grind lay down a concise and honest assesment without getting the politicians, the nuts, the media and organizations involved in the process.

Yes, but the environment will always be a political issue.

The problem is that GW has become big business (grants, carbon footprint sales, etc), once that happens the truth gets cloudy.

Again, not for me. The truth is always there. One may just have to sift and winnow through all the "stuff" a little bit more to get to it these days.

 

[stratman]

That's an asinine comment John, please, do you think that Republicans are the only ones beholden to big business? You can't be that naive. All the major corporations donate to both parties, that's an old dog argument.

 

[Johnd]

That's an asinine comment John, please, do you think that Republicans are the only ones beholden to big business? You can't be that naive. All the major corporations donate to both parties, that's an old dog argument.

Ouch. Have a little more caffeine Neanderthal. Where did I write that "Republicans are the only ones beholden to big business"?

 

[stratman]

By singling out republicans. An accurate rendition would have been "politicians on both parties need to admit." No insult intended.

 

[Johnd]

By singling out republicans. An accurate rendition would have been "politicians on both parties need to admit." No insult intended.

Again...wake up. I did not single out Republicans. I was simply responding to your post by way of paraphrasing. My response was actually universal.

As a side not, I've never voted for the party (except the Primary), or along party lines. I always vote for the man!

 

[stratman]

I have held countless conversations with friends and people in "get-togethers" and my un-scientific observation has been that the majority are ill informed, apathetic and have a disdain for scientists, especially if they're involved with the weather, usual comment I hear: "bah!, they can't get tomorrow's weather prediction right and they presume to know what's going happen in 10 years." This I've heard in just about every conversation where the environment gets mentioned. These are normal everyday people who have been hammered by the incessant conflictive reports spouted by the media, politicians and scientists.

 

[Johnd]

I have held countless conversations with friends and people in "get-togethers" and my un-scientific observation has been that the majority are ill informed, apathetic and have a disdain for scientists, especially if they're involved with the weather, usual comment I hear: "bah!, they can't get tomorrow's weather prediction right and they presume to know what's going happen in 10 years." This I've heard in just about every conversation where the environment gets mentioned. These are normal everyday people who have been hammered by the incessant conflictive reports spouted by the media, politicians and scientists.

Perhaps. But let me state that no one "knows" what is going to happen tomorrow, let alone ten years from now. I'm no longer sure that the sun is going to rise at all tomorrow, let alone rise in the East.

And I'm of the opinion that even "normal, everyday people" can do their part with the environment everyday.

Recycle most everything that can be.
Use all energy reources wisely, and not wastefully.
Protect our natural resources, and the environment as a whole.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

By singling out republicans. An accurate rendition would have been "politicians on both parties need to admit." No insult intended.

Actually, Strat, I was the one who singled out Republicans. Not John.

 

[Johnd]

Actually, Strat, I was the one who singled out Republicans. Not John.

Thank you Joe. I was waiting for Strat to pickup on that. Peace out.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

FWIW, I admit that there is no shortage of corruption and wrongdoing on both sides of the political fence. I just happen to think Republicans are worse. (One rarely finds angels in politics.)