President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Kamala Harris

(R) Donald Trump

80%↑

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) V. Archuleta

98%

2%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Marshall Dawson

95%

5%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Hurd

(D) Adam Frisch

52%↑

48%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(D) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank

(D) River Gassen

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) John Fabbricatore

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen

(R) Sergei Matveyuk

90%

10%

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

50%

50%

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
April 09, 2007 07:47 PM UTC

Another reason to be skeptical of global warming, ethanol

  • 27 Comments
  • by: Another skeptic

An MIT scientist with no connections to the energy industry warns that the global warming scare talk is based on bad computer models than can’t even forecast next week’s  weather, much less what will happen 10 to 100 years from now.

Here’s the link to the Newsweek commentary:

http://www.msnbc.msn…

Richard S. Lindzen’s concluding graphs (read the whole thing):

Is there any point in pretending that CO2 increases will be catastrophic? Or could they be modest and on balance beneficial? India has warmed during the second half of the 20th century, and agricultural output has increased greatly. Infectious diseases like malaria are a matter not so much of temperature as poverty and public-health policies (like eliminating DDT). Exposure to cold is generally found to be both more dangerous and less comfortable.

Moreover, actions taken thus far to reduce emissions have already had negative consequences without improving our ability to adapt to climate change. An emphasis on ethanol, for instance, has led to angry protests against corn-price increases in Mexico, and forest clearing and habitat destruction in Southeast Asia. Carbon caps are likely to lead to increased prices, as well as corruption associated with permit trading. (Enron was a leading lobbyist for Kyoto because it had hoped to capitalize on emissions trading.) The alleged solutions have more potential for catastrophe than the putative problem. The conclusion of the late climate scientist Roger Revelle-Al Gore’s supposed mentor-is worth pondering: the evidence for global warming thus far doesn’t warrant any action unless it is justifiable on grounds that have nothing to do with climate.

Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. His research has always been funded exclusively by the U.S. government. He receives no funding from any energy companies.

Tweet
Share

Comments

27 thoughts on “Another reason to be skeptical of global warming, ethanol”

  3. An Inconvenient Truth. The startling photographs of drastic changes in the polar ice caps that cool the planet and effect the ocean currents, which also serve to regulate climate, will convince you.

    1. The empirical evidence (namely what’s already happened to date) combined with common sense (6 billion + people consuming hundreds of millions of tons of fuel every day, and that’s only going to keep increasing) ought to be evidence enough for reasonable people. It really doesn’t matter if the havoc wreaked by climate change becomes apparent this decade or 100 years from now – it’s coming and we need to change our ways NOW to mitigate the effects (if not head them off entirely, which is probably too late).

      1. You may be surprised, but I watched Al Gore’s movie this last weekend.  Regardless, there are two sides of each debate, and before I form an opinion, I want to research it myself, so it’s my view, not Al Gore’s or Rush Limbaugh’s.

        1. It’s those who refuse to look at the evidence that disturb me. Kudo’s Haners! In response to the previous poster, Michael Moore was sued for telling lies and was completely exonerated by a jury. Another Skeptic is just another stupid asshole.

          1. Aren’t you embarrassed to so blindly follow the global warming alarmists. I’ve done a lot of research on this topic and remain very skeptical about human’s contribution to global warming and our ability to do anything about it.

            1. If I was blind, I wouldn’t have been able to view with my own eyes the damage being done to the N. and S. pole ice caps. If I was blind, I wouldn’t have been able to see the pictures that so vividly depict changes to geographical areas, other than the caps, that have changed imeensely in the recent past. If I was blind, I couldn’t have read the scientific descriptions and value of the various layers of the atmosphere and how they protect us from harmful sun rays. Ever get a sunburn?

              Am I embarassed that I can see? No. Are you embarasses that you can’t see, though you’re not blind?

              Your lack of faith that we humans can’t positively effect climate change certainly give your name credibility. How can a self proclaimed skeptic be so certain of their doubts? (WARNING LABEL: This question may be too subtle, and may cause unnecessary brain damage.)

              There’s so much you don’t know, and frankly, you’re not paying me to be your teacher….so…good luck.

              1. As I listen to the arguements for and against Global warming, as of now I’m convinced that the truth lies somewhere in the middle.  I don’t get the sense that we are dooming ourselves to utter destruction, and I’m skeptical of the predictions offered by those who can’t accurately predict tomorrow’s forecast.  Likewise, I think that we do need to be careful as to what we put into the air, and some measures can’t be bad, even if the problem isn’t causing global warming. 

                What bugs me is the hypocracy (s/p?) of people like Gore, who is buying “carbon offsets” instead of cutting back.  What the hell kind of feel good measure is that?  Let’s not trade a pretend items because if there is a problem, Mr. Gore, we need to reduce not stay the same. 

                Like I said, I’m still researching it, and I’m sure that there is common sense common ground to be found on this issue.

                1. That is what I have been saying all along. Gore is a hypocrite. He uses more fuel and wastes more energy than I could ever dream of, yet he is hailed as a hero by the blind “sky is falling” crowd.
                  That is the sign of a class one hypocrite.
                  Do as I say but not as I do.

                  I have zero respect for him or the Mikey Moore’s of the left.
                  When they actually preach by action, instead of just words, the skeptical among us might actually respond respectfully.

              2. When I moved to the big city back in the early ’60s, coal dust and other pollutants had to be wiped off the window sills.

                Today, we have relatively clean air and water, thanks to environmental laws and regulations.

                But not all environmental regulations make sense in terms of public health or our economic well being.

                Extremism brings unintended consequences. Moderation usually does the job.

                The debate over global warming features the Pope Gore extremists and the moderate skeptics who are saying they see no credible proof that computer models being used to forecast humans’ impact on global warming are accurate.

                There seems to be a lot of data mining bias and manipulation of the data. And there are plenty of prominent scholars who are putting their reputations on the line by expressing their skepticism. Since I’m not a scientist nor a computer modeler, I am basing my skepticism on the skepticism of the prominent scientists, including the one that I linked to in the opening post.

                I am unwilling to join the church of global warming alarmism led by the self-promoting Pope Gore, long known for not only exaggeation (I invented the Internet), but outright lying.

                If you are a member of that church, it says a lot about you.

                1. He spouts his nonsense because he sees the world through his fairy tale “Gore is God” glasses.

                  Yesterday or the day before he told me he is in the top 10% income bracket in the country……….
                  Woo hoo. You betcha. I believe that shit.
                  I meant to thank him for paying 75% of all the income taxes taken in by the IRS. But then I thought…….nah.

  4. http://www.cbsnews.c…

    [snip]

    Mayewski is on the plateau to drill an ice core because, when ice is laid down, it captures everything in the air. Drilling down is drilling through time.

    “The ice cores are really the only way we have of demonstrating what greenhouse gas levels were like prior to their first measurement by humans,” he explains.

    By chemically analyzing the core, he can see what was in the air thousands of years ago. Back in Maine, Mayewski has a vault of hundreds of ice cores. He once led a team that drilled a glacier core two miles deep. He and his colleagues have found some of the most powerful evidence that man is changing the climate.

    What do ice cores tell him about greenhouse gases?

    “Now we know from the ice core record that the levels and the speed of rise are significantly, significantly greater than anything in the last 850,000 years,” Mayewski explains. “And the levels that we expect to get by the end of this century are going to be double what we have today.”

    Mayewski and his colleagues have timed the sudden rise in greenhouse gases to the start of the industrial revolution about 150 years ago. If, as expected, greenhouse gas pollution doubles by the end of the century, temperatures are predicted to rise four to six degrees.

    [snip]

  5. global warming is a good thing to this guy?  Excellent we can all look forward to longer more comfortable beach season than ever before!  YAY!

    He talks about the models not being able to predict next weeks weather.  Makes sense.  BUT he does he really think that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere being higher than it has been for over 650,000 years is not going to have an effect?  Does he think it is healthy for us to be breathing particulates in the amounts we are now?  Does change *ever* happen easily?

    Brilliant.  He critiques weather models and ignores everything else.

  6. and others who say they’re “skeptical” about climate change.

    I’ve post this point repeatedly and so far no one – no one! – has responded. I’m tempted to believe that the reason is that the skeptics do not know how to respond. So here’s another chance.

    The world’s population is somewhere around 6 billion and growing fast. As the population grows, so does our consumption of fossil fuels. I do not know precisely how much is consumed daily, but I’d bet at a minimum we’re looking at hundreds of millions of tons of coal and petroleum products are burned every single day. But even if that estimate is too high, it’s probably tens of millions of tons. Every single day. Think about that for a second.

    Now chew on this – it’s established fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and everyone knows that CO2 is produced every time anything in burned. So we’re producing a lot of CO2 every day.

    And one more fact – the world’s forests (especially tropical rainforests) are rapidly disappearing. Remember, it takes trees to convert CO2 back to oxygen, so as the trees disappear, so does the world’s capacity to convert CO2.

    Given these facts, is it really beyond likelyhood that human activity is a factor in climate change?

    I’m no alarmist. I know that climate models are new and that the variables are so many that precision is difficult to achieve. I know that the world has had many climate shifts since it first cooled off billions of years ago. But I repeat – is it really unbelievable that human activity is a factor this time?

    1. I just don’t know how much.  On the flip side, given how much output there is and has been, can our efforts really make much of a difference?  I heard one person say we only have then years to make dramatic changes in order to save ourselves.  If I buy a hybrid and recycle, can I save the planet?  And if everyone in America and Europe made significant changes, would that negate India and China’s output? Questions to ponder.

      1. Although none are easy to answer. I would say, since I see the “what about China and India” question all the time, that we shouldn’t base our internal policy decisions on their actions. Doing the right thing is doing the right thing. That said, we should exert pressure on China and India, as their biggest customer (trade partner), to do what they can too, and also share technology to improve that.

        As to buying a hybrid, why not just give up the car altogether? (Semi-joking.)

        1. I live on the Western Slope.  No decent public transporation, fifteen miles to the office, plus traveling around the state.  Nope, can’t ride a bike! 

          Global warming issue aside, cleaner technology is the right direction to go.  I can’t help but think that many health conditions are caused by poor air quality.

          1. I joke, or semi-joke, because the car has wrought so much damage while making life so much easier. It’s way too late to change that. Heck, I live in Denver but the bus lines stink (too infrequent) and can’t get me to where I need to go without at least two transfers. At least the light rail isn’t too far away…

            1. Humans have an impact, yes.  How much?  I don’t know.  Is cleaning things up the right way to go?  To an extent, yes.  But should we go to extremes?  No.  That’s where the controversy is…how far do we go?  We have to find the middle ground.

    2. Some time ago I linked to a number of articles that cast doubt on humans’ impact on global temperatures.

      Some mighty powerful scientists say humans don’t have much, if any, impact on global warming, and the computer models  that are being used to forecast global warming are highly suspect.

      1. I understand the point about computer models not being reliable. I choose to go with them as they tweak them more and more, but that’s beside the point. But unless they were coded in jargon I didn’t see anything so black and white as to say “humans don’t have much, if any, impact on global warming.” So if you could point that out again I’d appreciate it.

        However, if they can’t explain the record pace at which the global average temperature is rising with any credible alternate theories, I’ll likely dismiss their conclusions. After all, such a large human population consuming so much fuel is certainly something that has never happened in human history before. That alone makes it likely that we’re partially causing this to happen.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

59 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!