Kyoto Treaty Said Powerless To Stop Global Warming

[Stilgar]

"As you can see in this conference today, the broad spectrum of opinion is that you can't affect warming," said Patrick Michaels, a professor at University of Virginia and member of the U.N.-established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Nonetheless, Michaels said, people must understand that climate change is not as worrisome as they believe. In a recent paper posted on the University of Virginia's Web site, Michaels questions numbers presented by the IPCC on future temperature ranges worldwide, saying that predictions of a world with high temperatures and major floods from melting ice are exaggerated.

http://www.unwire.org/News/328_426_11304.asp

[Roy G Biv]

1. Interesting.

The first few responses in this thread on another message board are quite interesting. Basically, according to the articles, Earth's global warming is caused by the sun. And this is verified by the fact that as the Earth warms, MARS is also warming. Also, 30 years ago, everyone was predicting global COOLING, but it never happened. It appears as if the earth's temperature is ALWAYS either getting hotter OR getting colder, so the so-called "luddites" who want us to stop using energy will always have something to worry about:

http://www.mrcranky.com/movies/undercoverbrother/24.html

[sandlapper]

2. Nearly as interesting --

as the chattering class's fear of overpopulation, disease, flooding, etc. is the total absence of any discussion of that most potent of all "Greenhouse Gases", water vapour. Without dihydrogen monoxide vapour in the atmosphere earth would be mighty cold -- some -15 degrees Celsius. With it in the typical 2% to 3% concentrations that are present, the average is near +15 degrees Celsius.

[pmbryant]

7. Water vapor

Water vapor isn't being poured into the atmosphere at such a high rate as to increase its concentration 10-15% just over the last 40 years, as is the case with CO2.

And no one is proposing removing all the water vapor currently in the atmosphere, so the fact that without it the Earth would be quite chilly is not really relevant to the global warming debate. :-)

--Peter

EDIT: Added link to source for CO2 data

[sandlapper]

8. Where is the comparable data for H2O?

The simple answer is, there isn't any. Probably even more significant there isn't any data to support the modelers conclusion that CO2 is a well mixed gas in the atmosphere. There are however several sources to document the localized concentrations of significantly higher "domes" of both CO2 and H2O concentration over urban areas along with significant "heat islands".

[pmbryant]

6. That "Mars is warming" report is complete nonsense

It was based on a couple pictures that showed some ice feature shifting by a few meters from one Martian year to the next.

Kind of like saying Earth is rapidly entering an ice age because it is 50 degrees in San Antonio this December 15, while last December 15 it was 65 degrees (just to make up some numbers).

Pathetic really.

:eyes:

--Peter

[Buzz Clik]

3. When a scientist is paid to have an agenda...

...that scientist's credibility goes to zero.

As soon as I see that Michaels (Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute) is attached to any debate, my "ignore" switch kicks in. Perhaps we need people like him to balance the equally rabid whackos who inflate the impact of global warming, but I would prefer that scientific discussions be left in the hands of the experts and that paid pundits be more forthcoming in their affiliations.

[sandlapper]

4. What is more reliable about ---

the PEW Center, World Wildlife Federation, Greenpeace, NOAA, Goddard Space Science Center, and the myriad NGOs? They too have a political and social agenda. The real question is whether the facts are replicable and the analysis is logically consistent with the facts.

[Buzz Clik]

5. Exactly!

Your point is well taken that any group with a political agenda is susceptible to distorting the facts to fit their needs. (You left the Sierra Club out of your list, and they are equally guilty.)

If one is to be taken seriously as a scientist, then it is crucial to avoid even the slightest hint of bias. In that regard, Michaels simply doesn't care; he flaunts his agenda and is willing to say anything. He has been busted for telling a whopper to Congress -- knowingly and intentionally twisting the facts to discredit an opponent and further his cause. Michaels needs to be heard when he speaks because he represents a powerful lobby, but we cannot accept anything he says as science.

[sandlapper]

9. Your link gives me an error message --

I would like to see what the basis of your assertion that Michaels "simply doesn't care." Especially in light of the often repeated quote from Mr. Wirth essentially saying that a "scientist" is obligated to stretch the truth if the end is noble. I will, if you wish, provide the quote but I think you have read it more times than you wish already.

[Buzz Clik]

10. My apologies about the link...

try this -- it's a cached version from Google. The NASA server seems to be a little squirrely today.

My assertion that Michaels doens't care was intended to say he doesn't care about telling the truth to make his point; that kind of behavior is unethical and unacceptable.

Frankly, I really don't care who Mr. Wirth is. A scientist stretching the truth for a noble cause loses credibility immediately.