BBC BLOGS - Richard Black's Earth Watch
IN ASSOCIATION WITH
« Previous | Main | Next »

Obama's 'green dream'

Richard Black | 12:16 UK time, Monday, 22 December 2008

Barack Obama's choice of words as he announced new officials for his climate and energy team at the weekend could hardly have been more pointed.

Success isn't just down to "ensuring the facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology," he said; "it's about listening to what our scientists have to say even when it's inconvenient - especially when it's inconvenient".

obamaap203.jpgIn other words; in contrast to my predecessor, I'll listen to the same scientists that Al Gore listens to, and I'll act on what they say.

In fact, by appointing scientists such as John Holdren to his inner circle - "one of the most passionate and persistent voices of our time about the growing threat of climate change" - the president-elect has ensured that some of those voices will be in his ear all the time.

Whatever your views on climate change, there's no doubt that the switch from the Bush to Obama administrations promises a massive seachange in environmental politics.

It could bring changes in all sorts of issues, including management of the oceans, a particular interest of Jane Lubchenco who comes in as head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). Some US fisheries are among the best managed in the world and spreading that sort of knowledge could restrain the free-for-all that still pertains in many of the world's fishing grounds.

But there's little doubt that the first significant action will occur in the arena of climate change.

Mr Bush is often referred to as a president who didn't accept that humans were changing the climate; but at least in public, he did, as long ago as 2001. His administration also endorsed two major reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001 and 2007 - the latter concluding it was "very likely" that human activities were changing the climate.

But he stopped short of endorsing strong domestic or international action to cut emissions. His administration pursued agreements through bodies such as the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development and Climate and the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation forum (Apec) that would have allowed emissions to rise.

At the Asia-Pacific Partnership's inaugural meeting in Sydney in 2006, Mr Bush's energy secretary Samuel Bodman said the private sector would solve the climate problem because industry heads cared about the future.

From 20 January, the approach will be radically different.

The domestic long-term climate goal of reducing emissions by 80% from 1990 levels by 2050 is ambitious and in line with IPCC science. But by 2050, Mr Obama will be long gone from office, and so what he manages to implement during the only four years he is assured of having in office is, perhaps, more pertinent.

If he follows through on the strategy he mapped out during his election campaign, the domestic measures we can expect to see over the next couple of years include:


  • establishment of a nationwide carbon market which will join up with other systems such as Europe's Emissions Trading System

  • mandated improvements in vehicle fuel efficiency (perhaps tied to a rescue package for the ailing US car industry)

  • "weatherization" of one million homes each year to save energy

  • an expansion in the use of renewable technologies and - perhaps - nuclear

Pledging is, of course, much easier than acting. Over the last month we have seen European leaders watering down their much-vaunted climate and energy package, and Australia (where Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has changed climate policy just as Mr Obama intends to) adopting emissions targets for 2020 well below the 25-40% range that the IPCC recommends - both in response to business pressures.

foodgetty203.jpgMr Obama will not be immune from similar pressures. The two key advantages he holds, I would suggest, are the traditional honeymoon that most change-espousing leaders enjoy when they enter office, and the fact that US energy efficiency is so poor that it should be possible to make some major fuel-saving improvements at minimal cost.

On the international scene, he has pledged to "re-engage" with the UN process, and that has been warmly welcomed in a number of capitals.

So far, all has been sweetness. But that is not guaranteed to continue.

Developing countries might say - indeed, did say at the recent UN climate talks in Poland - that they have been looking for US leadership on the issue.

But that doesn't necessarily mean they will be happy to follow where Mr Obama wants to lead them. At a news conference during the UN talks, John Kerry - a key ally - emphasised that the US will only approve a new global deal if major developing countries accept some form of restrictions on their own emissions.

Mr Kerry's words were generally written up in positive terms by the media. But putting on a more sceptical hat, there were hints of an uncompromising US that would, as it does on so many other issues, be attempting to set an agenda that the rest of the world should follow.

And this, I think, is the problem that may lie ahead for Mr Obama. Applauding his intention to lead is one thing; but it's entirely possible that the tight timescale of the UN climate process will quickly lead to a situation where the US is demanding - or being seen to demand - that developing countries must sign up to this or that, or there won't be a deal.

That's particularly true in the light of recent research showing that carbon cuts in developed countries alone cannot lead to the kind of global reductions that the IPCC believes are necessary to avoid "dangerous" climate change.

However fresh and fragrant Mr Obama wants to appear, the US is still the US, with an image formed over a much longer timespan than a single presidency.

In some capitals, it is still seen as the country that more than any other has developed economically on the back of carbon emissions that now threaten to wreak climatic carnage on the poor, and thus has no right to tell anyone else to do until it pays some penance for its history.

If governments are to agree a new global deal on climate change by the end of next year, the US is going to have to listen as well as to lead; and that, perhaps, ought to be the first piece of advice that Dr Holdren gives his new president.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 1:00pm on 22 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    My concern is this AGW nonsense has already gone to far.

    The growing number of scientists who are now prepared to voice their opposition to the AGW theory now outnumbers the number of scientists who actually authored the work of the IPCC. The "consensus" that global warming is man made is falling apart, but now we have the worlds most powerful politician will have a man like Holdren whispering in his ear and where the US leads the rest of the world will follow.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 1:09pm on 22 Dec 2008, phenry wrote:

    The belief that America reducing it's CO2 emissions is going to help poor people is both nonsensical and superstitious. If you want to help poor people, there are dozens of cost effective and meaningful ways to do that, as Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out.

    Instead of buying a hybrid, send $10,000 to provide clean drinking water in Africa.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 1:19pm on 22 Dec 2008, Douglas333 wrote:

    #1 CuckooToo

    IMHO it doesn't really matter whether climate change is man-made or not, the lower the impact we have on the Earth the better. Hey, call me a hippy...

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 1:31pm on 22 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    Douglas333

    IMHO you are not a hippy, you are just being sensible.

    I strongly believe we should lower our impact on the earth and use our dwindling resources wisely, but blaming man for climate change is not only ridiculous, but downright dangerous. All you have to do is look at eco-activists reponses to Al Gore et al call to arms - slashing tyres on 4x4's, threats to anybody who doesn't believe the new religion, Nuremburg style trials etc - to see that this religion is going to far.

    The more Hansen shrills about coal (his latest efforts about CO2 and climate sensitivity are simply wrong, but get media coverage), the more Mitchell refuses to hand over correspondance with the IPCC and the more Mann and Schimdt attack sceptics and refuse to publish sceptics comments on their blog, the more sceptical I become.

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 1:52pm on 22 Dec 2008, catie0501 wrote:

    have any of you read the IPCC's report?.....yikes....people who continue to reject mankinds effect on climate scare the bejezees out of me...and by the way, it would be nice if we could send $10,000 to the CONTINENT of Africa for standard of living improvement...but it would seem it's not so simple....ever wonder where all the aid goes?????? i'm not saying i have the answers...but let's not deny the real problems.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 1:55pm on 22 Dec 2008, Litty Kitter wrote:

    "Mr Bush is often referred to as a president who didn't accept that humans were changing the climate, which is a mistaken view."

    Is this really fact or the authors viewpoint? And quoting a politically edited work...come on people lets find out what the real science says and not what is politcally convenient.

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 2:04pm on 22 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    Catie,

    I have read the IPCC report and not just the summery - have you?

    The report is actually authored by fewer scientists than now have the courage to voice their opposition to the so-called consensus, many of whom have been IPCC authors / contributors themselves. The IPCC is a political organisation not a scientific one.

    With regards to Africa, in the past I have raised money for Africa, but over the last 25 years, considering the vast amount of money donated by people like you and me and given in grants / loans by governments throughout the world, could you tell me what exactly has improved in Africa?

    Give a man a fish and feed him for a day...

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 2:05pm on 22 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    LittyKitter

    "Is this really fact or the authors viewpoint? And quoting a politically edited work...come on people lets find out what the real science says and not what is politcally convenient."

    Best not to start with the IPCC offerings then ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 2:44pm on 22 Dec 2008, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:

    LittyKitter, I wasn't as clear as I should have been in the sentence you highlight - I'm not making any comment about climate science itself but about the Bush administration's publicly stated view of climate science. For clarity, I should have written:

    "Mr Bush is often referred to as a president who didn't accept that humans were changing the climate; but at least in public, he did -"

    - and I've gone back into the post to change it accordingly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 2:47pm on 22 Dec 2008, nirguna wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 11. At 3:12pm on 22 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    nirguna

    Could you please provide a link to your claim "All the scientist agree The number one way to save the planet "?

    Because I think that is the most idiotic statement I have ever seen. What about all the scientists who have done research into diet and have shown that a balanced diet is important for us? What about the evidence of your own teeth, why do you think we have canines and incisors?

    Stop trying to force your unfounded beliefs on the rest of us please

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 3:38pm on 22 Dec 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:

    Cuckoo Too et al

    There is a some truth in what you are saying, in fact whatever view people are taking.

    I am probably be the main, but also innocent, villain of the peace. Not entirely my fault just the politicians and media shot off popularising 'climate change' based to a large degree on my original work. Misquote following misinterpretation, without reference to the original intention and context. Then of course there is the law of unintended consequences and as Prof Jay Forrester of systems dynamics fame said, in any complex

    Unfortunately even though climate change is supposed to be a 'scientific debate'. It appears that any 'celebrity' is an informed expert and allowed to lecture or advise the public, often completely wrongly.

    With many billions of lives at risk perhaps the missing back story would help with a greater understanding of the present situation.

    The story overview to inform to an acceptable degree would be about 1000-1500 words.

    Perhaps Richard could advise:

    1) Should I put the story here as a comment?

    2) Should I write it on my site and put a link here?

    or

    3) Would it be better for Richard to contact me and cover the story as an objective independent journalist?

    Celtic Lion

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 3:54pm on 22 Dec 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:

    Obama and Climate Change

    Though Obama has produced a 'Green initiative' both Obama and John McCain, and McCain's supporter Joe Lieberman were all (co) sponsors of the Climate Change Stewardship and Innovation Act.

    http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-280

    Whoever got in the chances were that climate change would appear somehow, it's not just an Obama thing.

    Celtic Lion

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 4:08pm on 22 Dec 2008, Beejay wrote:

    The next President of the United States has shown he has a serious lack of judgement when it comes to choosing his team that will deal with the myth of Global Warming being a man made function.
    If only politicians would look at scientific facts and not hysterical Green manipulated phony computer predictions by the likes of [Mann/Hansen/GISS/NASA/IPCC etc].

    Carbon Dioxide is not a poison to vegetation, the reverse in fact. Alternative energy sources will ruin most western economies if followed to the letter. Carbon Offset Trading is a Scam not a solution.
    The Al Gores of this world cannot/will not justify their propaganda. History will regard this era as another sad case of fantasy led illusions overriding reality. A few hard winters and power outages will be needed before the Greenie bigots accept the fact that Mother Nature rules and mankind fudges along in her wake.
    Do we smirk at Papal Indulgences, Fools Gold, Witches, Dragons and not expect future generations to smirk at today's so called Man made Climate Change/Global Warming?
    What is the difference in terms of mass hysteria induced by power crazy politicans/religious leaders then and now?

    Where is Al Gore's future 20 foot high sea level rise when the last two years have shown a small reversal?
    Take a look at CO2 Greenhouse stats on
    http://i301.photobucket.com/albums/nn77/aviate1138/Picture15-2.jpg
    See how increased CO2 has little or no effect on temperature? Most effective at low levels and almost none even if present figures were doubled or trebled. A simple fact ignored by the alarmists.
    About time the BBC became impartial in its Earth Watch pronouncements. What happened to the Kayak Man [Lewis Pugh] that was going to paddle to the North Pole? 600 miles away at the start and got no nearer and gave up - pathetic! But he found an ice flow and photographed all his flags and failed to mention his position or that his attempt had foundered before it began! Next time do it in a Tardis and see how the Victorians/Vikings/Chinese crossed the North West Passage in open waters - oh dear, so the Arctic has been ice free before? Before CO2 levels had started rising significantly? Maybe CO2 is not the catalyst for temperature variation [that might just be a series of interlinked natural cycles]?

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 4:20pm on 22 Dec 2008, Torstein87 wrote:

    Mr. Black tells us that the USA is "...still seen as the country that more than any other has developed economically on the back of carbon emissions that now threaten to wreak climatic carnage on the poor..."
    Perhaps so, but rightly so? The US could disappear tomorrow as if it had never existed, and fully 75% of the AGW "crisis" would still remain. In other words, if the sea level was rising 1 meter, it would only come up 75 cm; if atmospheric CO2 was to increase by another 65 ppm by the end of the century, it would only come ca. 49 ppm, etc. Would that make any substantive difference in all the projected impacts?
    A global problem will require a global solution ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 4:29pm on 22 Dec 2008, calcination wrote:

    Cuckoo two- please stop avoiding the issue, which is that you have no science backing your position. Global warming is happening, and is largely our fault. You see, I have read the IPCC report, and lots of other things, and they make far more sense than the alternatives, not to mention evidence...

    It is worth noting that Bush the first, way back in the early 90's, admitted that global warming was occuring and something should be done about it. Obama's picks suggest that something might actually get done, although Bush 2 is currently running through as much legislation as he can to de-rail things, so it wouldn't surprise me (or rather his handlers) manages to put something through which will hold things up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 5:20pm on 22 Dec 2008, Mike Mullen wrote:

    This is a failing of the Greens, too busy trying to persuade people of the 'moral' case for cutting CO2 emissions to advance the 'practical' case. As Obama mentioned in his speech even leaving aside global warming there are excellent reasons to promote new fuels, alternative energy, and energy efficiency.
    Dependence on oil makes the US economy vulnerable to shocks like the upward price spiral at the beginning of the year, it puts money in the pockets of regimes which are unfriendly to the USA or politically unstable, or both. Also the new industries created by green initiatives are needed to replace those that have become moribund. In short energy efficiency is a patriotic duty!

    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 7:43pm on 22 Dec 2008, shellmarioancic wrote:

    How ironical that the article talks about humans insatiable appetite for the resources is the leading cause of the global warming while at the same time have the photo of Obama in golf clothing playing golf! For the dimwits, think for a minute how much resources does the golf course take up.

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 7:54pm on 22 Dec 2008, BlooBoxChrome wrote:

    I find it strange that people should argue over something like climate change. I am not a scientist so I am not in a position to argue this. I do think however that it is a great incentive for us to do things in a better way.
    Today we are still in the fire age. To get anything done we just burn stuff. It seems all the major technological inventions happened ± 100 years ago. As I write this on my computer somewhere a huge pile of coal is being burned to make it possible.
    I can imagine a city where the vehicles are quite and smoke free. Imagine no more pollution because we utilize our resources more efficiently. What is wrong with striving for new technologies to make this possible?
    Some may argue that it would cost too much money, etc, etc. Money is not a problem. With a snap of the fingers we can pull mega billions out of a hat. Enough to solve pretty much all of our problems. Witness the current financial crisis and the vast sums of money available to bail out the greedy financial fools. It actually baffles me. Climate change and environmental degradation is a great incentive. Its time to move forward!

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 7:55pm on 22 Dec 2008, athena13005 wrote:

    Spouting about CO2 emissions just blows some peoples minds to the point they reject it just from misunderstanding it. Using a more common sense perspective like "Look at how disgustingly wasteful we are" could work, but common sense things don't seem to be common sense.

    Ok, we wonder why gas prices are so high (or were high), Look at how much plastic we waste. I bought online from Old Navy. Every single item of clothing had a plastic wrap around it. Every time I go to Walmart I have to peel off the plastic off the cardboard box. Now I think about how much plastic is wasted from common items I alone buy and many other people buy. It adds up and is astounding that people don't even think about changing waste policies, only auto emissions and fuel mileage. I take that back actually, we think about how to recycle the waste, but we unnecessarily consume so much that recycling and reprocessing barely makes a dent.

    I miss the reusable glass coke bottles from Belize. Sure they looked all scratched and 'unattractive', but they look a whole lot better than scattered along a roadside.

    I mean jeeze, bring back the milk man, you'd have one new job for every small town. (That was a too idealistic and nostalgic)

    But what scares me about the whole thing the most is that we are making such a huge deal about this that people are getting tired of hearing it. Remember 911 and how long people actually flew flags in rememberance? Yeah... It's a battle cry for now, but its like a fashion diet, we'll think it's cool, get tired of it, then gain all the weight back plus more.

    Common sense things are best. Turn off lights when not using them, recycle plastic bottles and paper when convenient, stop smoking cigarettes with filters that last nearly forever, so A you can die faster and therefore B not waste nearly as much medical bills for as extended a period of cigarette related illnesses. (a tad bit exaggerated)

    Also to veggie lover from before, that is an interesting point to make about how the meat industry is totally screwing with the environment. I agree, BUT, make sure your facts correllate with the issue bc you totally screwed up your argument with too many silly unrelated facts. Cows have gas, cows eat a lot, cows need space where trees could be, also cows screw up the lives of indigenous populations bc rich armed entrepreneurs take over their land for profit with these cows. Instead of being the new cool and doing the veggie diet, just cut down on meat consumption to drop the demand instead. I will admit I eat more dairy and beef than veggies though, I am a guilty American.

    And on a final note, I am so impressed with Germany and their efforts towards more efficient and practical environmentalism. I look forward to being a part of their society.

    Natalie

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 9:29pm on 22 Dec 2008, l4dbill wrote:

    Re #1

    That's a little unfair to environmentalists.

    The IPCC report by it's very nature can only be directly authored by a limited number of people, in that you can't have 100 people all writing the same page in a document.

    "A growing number of scientists who are now prepared to voice their opposition to the AGW theory" on the otherhand has no such constraint. Depending on how you define "scientist" you could easily find thousands of scientists. For example you could, as one such list has done, define anyone who has a BSc in a science related subject as a scientist even if they have done nothing in that area since they left uni. All they then have to do is sign a list 20 years later.

    The ease at making such lists can be seen in just how many there are. For example creationists have compiled a list of hundreds of "scientists" who publically voice theor opposition to evolution, and there is a list of hundreds of "scientists" announcing their skepticsm of the link between hiv and aids.




    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 9:49pm on 22 Dec 2008, Andy wrote:

    The thing that bugs me about the "it's all a scam", "you're all being lied to" brigade is that most of them have most likely arrived at this point-of-view courtesy of deliberately misleading programs such at The Great Global Warming Swindle. Someone is being lied to, certainly, but it isn't who they think.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 10:32pm on 22 Dec 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:

    When I was invited to the conference/ workshop to set up the new generation of earth system models, the scientific brief we were given, was this was to be be a 'blue sky' .

    As such I took along a method of modelling earth systems that I had devised which I was looking for the support to develop as a practical method.

    It was only when the speaker representing the funder (DEFRA) that that original brief appeared to change. They wanted the new generation of models to be compatibale with the previous Hadley centre models.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 11:10pm on 22 Dec 2008, miafrika wrote:

    We are going to learn the big lesson that combating Environmental Degradation is something that does not belong to
    LEADERSHIP and BUSINESS.

    These people will one day give up and feel totaly helpless in front of the DO A LOT and SEE NOTHING happening in return. Leaders are not used to this. They will regret they ever spoke the leadership stance ....

    Some propminent media environmentalist politicians are simply BRANDING themselves as the McDimples of the electric car and windmill .. eureka.

    Leaders would do best to desist from their stance and move out of the way volontarily.

    The systematic approach to a new world that is emerging will rightfully be done by an inspired group of few.

    Obama would do more to benefit the work of the quiet and the meek by concentrating on ridding all cities and communities of
    crime and constant murder.

    This planet is holding out patiently and will only react to the few like Mozart and Beethoven who will devise the symphony of magic. Like Leoanardo the Environment is heartbeat and the peace found in the the Tuscan Groves of the renaissance.

    Leaders of this modern day ... please admit to your affection to BRANDING ... we will forgive you ... but above all please SIT DOWN !

    The planet does not listen to you anyway ...

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 11:55pm on 22 Dec 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:

    #23 Sorry about that, hit the post instead of other window

    When I was invited to the conference/ workshop to set up the new generation of earth system models, the scientific brief we were given, was this was to be be a 'blue sky' approach.

    As such I took along a method of modelling earth systems that I had devised which I was looking for the support to develop as a practical method.

    It was only when the speaker representing the funder (DEFRA) that that original brief appeared to change. They wanted the new generation of models to be compatible with the previous Hadley Centre models. Which I believed was different to what I had been originally told

    (For any reading this who were at the conference at the DTI in December 2002, I was the delegate who stood up and challenged this brief of the funders.)

    I am not saying my system was better than the one which was used, that was part of the UNEP IPCC model.

    It was different I suppose as a PC and a Mac are. Not having access to the entire budget and accounts of the UK and UNEP IPCC models I can't really give an opinion on costs.

    Even if the alternative system was slightly more expensive, it was designed to do more. When I read blogs like this some comments are expressed over the climate models, which were running through my head 6 years ago.

    The intention now is to raise the resources to set up an independent model, based on the architecture I took to the conference 6 years ago.

    One important aspect is that independence, away from any political or corporate skew that could be imposed anywhere in the process. It should reflect what the earth is actually doing, unhindered by other considerations.

    This is related to #12 above. Some of the work derived from the model above was used to support the 'official' Government model without the media reporting or the public realising it was actually derived from the 'independent' model with added spin.

    #24 miafrika I have sympathy. Planets are complex living things. I sometimes reach despair when I hear 'environmentalist politicians' try to pretend they understand how the Earth works by saying 'green tax' and 'hybrid car'. For 7 years I have heard some speaking my words without admitting they never wrote them.

    When Richard advises on #12 more of the story will emerge.

    Celtic Lion

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 00:05am on 23 Dec 2008, PlanetThoughts wrote:

    I have read plenty of scientific reports, as well as the pseudo-analysis by climate deniers.

    There was similar vehemence against a new understanding when Earth was first stated as NOT being the center of the universe.

    Similarly, the idea that endless expansion of humankind is good and healthy must not be challenged, these people say. And then there is their "proof by assertion" that humankind can do no harm, such as causing the planet to heat up. What a harmful set of assumptions they are making!

    How many of them have analyzed the gas heat exchange equations and albedo equations in context of global climate change? Skimming the IPCC report does not qualify.

    Thank you to all those who are trying to avoid the worst climate and energy disaster scenarios, including Obama and his environment appointees.

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 00:20am on 23 Dec 2008, shellmarioancic wrote:

    When Clinton was leaving the office America was high on the SUVs, the humvees etc etc. When Bush is leaving the office Prius, Smart2 are the best selling cars and the Humvees are going extinct! I wonder how did this CHANGE happened? YES WE CAN!

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 04:19am on 23 Dec 2008, TJ wrote:

    Good people. Have you not heard and have you not seen; the earth is cooling and will be for the foreseeable future.
    Growing seasons will be shorter and crop yields will decline. People die in cold more than heat.
    We need our taxes and governments to start working on survival for cold in the coming decades. The poor will be the ones who will not survive and thy will be wiped out as quickly as with a plague.

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 07:21am on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    One of the most often quoted stats by the climate religion, is "2500 of the worlds leading scientists of the IPCC", and critcism of the so called deniers( I prefer realists) is that they are not scientists.

    People on this blog and elsewhere have tried to discredit the Senate minority report on the stature of the people who signed it.

    Take a look at this analysis of all the Working groups of IPCC and see how many of the 2500 are actually scientists.
    http://www.climate-resistance.org/2007/12/physician-heal-thyself.html

    Only 52 people produce the politicised summary for policy makers on which this religion is based.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 08:06am on 23 Dec 2008, Allmec wrote:

    Controversially I think I agree with most of you.

    We do impact the planet, but not as much as some would have us believe.

    We are a wasteful species, but starting to be more aware.

    Having watched the Al Gore stuff at one end of the spectrum and read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg at the other I honestly do not know which is the truth.

    But I do know they both believe.

    The certainty is that things are changing and we will have to adapt. Accepting who we are because of history isn't progress, learning from our history is.

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 09:37am on 23 Dec 2008, miafrika wrote:

    well thanks that every now and then I can hear people like Celtic Lion who wrote on this blog .... the solution will come from the hands of good people and since this planet only reacts to common HONEST sense, all that is CONTRIVED in this world will finally be shown off the field by a referee that never faulters ...... this planet is finally a round one and a confined one too ... and it does resemble a human organ in it's entirety...!!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 10:19am on 23 Dec 2008, JMcK wrote:

    You only have to look at CuckooToo's second post (post #4) to get an idea of how weak his argument is - he was a hair's breadth away from comparing eco-activists to Nazis ;)

    I've not once seen any legitimate research that suggests climate change is not a) happening or b) man-made. People who turn up on internet forums suggesting otherwise are possibly either a) so paranoid that the government is out to scam them/tax them that they'll believe this "Global Warming is a scam!" idea, or b) eager to seem smart by bucking the trend.

    As for #14 that claims that "increased CO2 has little or no effect on temperature" - you've just taken one "fact" and based all your argument on that. The climate is far too complicated for you to be able to pick out one isolated snippet of information and use that to prove/disprove man-made warming.

    If "increased CO2 has little or no effect on temperature", then how has the global mean temperate risen by around 0.7C since the Industrial Revolution? (no, it can't be explained by increased solar activity).

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 10:55am on 23 Dec 2008, Richard Black (BBC) wrote:

    KingCelticLion, please get in touch by email - richard.black-internet (at) bbc.co.uk

    timjenvey, there is a bit of confusion in some circles about temperature trends which I think stems from an oversimplistic reading of data. You can take a graph for the last decade, see that 2008 was colder than 1998, draw a straight line between them and deduce that the world is cooling. This is misleading for two reasons. Firstly, inter-annual variations are greatly influenced by the El Nino Southern Oscillation. 1998 saw strong El Nino conditions, making it warmer than it would otherwise have been; 2008 saw the opposite, strong La Nina conditions, which have lowered temperatures. If you're looking for a long-tern underlying trend - natural or man-made - you must subtract these short-term cycles. A second, but related, reason is that because other short-term factors can also affect temperatures, discerning a trend means using a smoothed graph. These graphs from the Hadley Centre plot annual data with red bars, and the trend with a smoothed blue line.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 12:22pm on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Richard,

    Quoting HadCrut data does not do you any favours, SM has shown plenty of examples of fiddled or distorted data, and they frquently refuse to answer FOI requests . Why would they do that ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 12:37pm on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    For anyone who wishes to read about refusing FOI requests here is the link.

    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4314

    For those who do not know SM, he is Steve McIntyre, a statistician who first discovered Hansens con trick with the "Hockey stick" , something which Hansen regularly tries to resurrect.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 2:00pm on 23 Dec 2008, l4dbill wrote:

    re #34:
    If HadCrut is fiddled can you explain why it shows an equal amount of warming over the past 30 years that exists in the satellite temperature records? Or are you claiming the satellite records are fiddled too?

    SM has not shown any significant error exists in any of the surface records, it's all rumor mill stuff. FOI requests are just a gambit to keep the rumors spilling over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 2:09pm on 23 Dec 2008, secretpcjunkie wrote:

    I am doubtful that humans are the cause of global warming (or whatever they call it now).
    Anyway whatever the cause experience tells me that politicians will debate and demand and fine and give grand speeches. and then they will do nothing unless it pulls taxes into the coffers.
    Just think back to the last year, we are being led down one path after the other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 2:36pm on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    re 36
    Although ERA-40 used a frozen data assimilation system, the time series of the background forecasts contains some breaks as well, mainly due to changes in the satellite observing system. It has been necessary to adjust the global mean background forecast temperatures before the radiosonde homogenization. After this step, homogeneity adjustments, which can be added to existing raw radiosonde observations, have been calculated for 1184 radiosonde records….

    It is essential to be aware of any inhomogeneities of the ERA-40 bg since these reduce the applicability of the ERA-40 bg as a reference. Inhomogeneities in the bg time series may be introduced by changes in the ERA-40 observation coverage, in the observation biases correction and in the overall observation quality. Apart from radiosondes mainly the satellite data are affected by changing biases

    The most prominent breaks evident in Figure 8 occured in January 1975, September 1976 and April 1986 are related to problems with the NOAA-4 and NOAA-9 satellites. Jumps in 1995/1997 coincide with end of NOAA-11, start/end of NOAA-14 (see also Christy and Norris 2006). At high altitudes the effects of insufficient bias correction of radiances from the stratospheric sounding unit (SSU), particularly in the early 1980s, are noticeable (see Haimberger 2005; Uppala et al. 2006). Trenberth and Smith (2006) have recently diagnosed a spurious break in ERA-40 temperature analyses related to the assimilation of MSU-3 radiances at the end of the NOAA-9 period. From below:
    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 6:49pm on 23 Dec 2008, Andy wrote:

    "Having watched the Al Gore stuff at one end of the spectrum and read The Skeptical Environmentalist by Lomborg at the other I honestly do not know which is the truth"

    This is a useful example of a 'false dichotomy' - a tool oft used by climate-deniers. The truth [probably] lies between but many issues in climate science are not "either A or B" but often "some of A and some of B". A classic example is the "thirty years ago scientists told us we were heading for the next ice age - why should we listen to them now?" Well there was nothing wrong with the 'imminent ice age' per se - it just didn't account for the enhanced greenhouse effect. The Milankovitch cycle of variation in solar energy peaked around 10,000 years ago so we should be getting colder now. Except that other things are also affecting the radiative balance of the climate system. We also have the effect of rising ocean temperatures on the CO2 sink - in the past this has caused CO2 to lag behind temperature but now it's leading courtesy of combustion of fossil fuels. Then factor in emissions of SO2 & sulphate aerosols which resulted in acid rain (bad) and reflection of solar radiation (combating CO2 warming). We cleaned up sulphur emissions to combat acid rain but surface solar irradiance has inevitably increased.

    Modelling our climate is a complicated problem towards which a lot of scientists are dedicating their expertise and hard work. It seems to me that many of the blogosphere skeptics are quite disrespectful in this regard, and display little knowledge of the scientific method to boot. Some skeptics certainly serve the useful purpose of keeping the climate modelling community 'on its toes' - Richard Lindzen being a prime example - although they should (in my view) be careful to avoid defining their careers as 'skeptic for the sake of it'. John Christy is an interesting example - someone who effectively created great political skepticism within the Bush administration by testifying before Congress that the [microwave] satellite record showed negligible warming. In reality, his original methodology was not reproducible and his subsequent reanalyses have shown a warming trend that has become much more in line with others. In so doing, Christy has gradually managed to adjust his scientific position whilst retaining his skeptic credentials.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 7:31pm on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    Re post 39
    For some reason , post 38 has not yet been moderated, I assume that the dear old beeb want to check the veracity of the information there( Don't bother, it has already been done)

    But , for all the warmists here , what is the year with the lowest sunspot activity ?

    A little clue :
    http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

    Now how many days is that ?

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 9:01pm on 23 Dec 2008, TJ wrote:

    To Richard Black (BBC) - re.#33
    I am pleased to hear that ocean currents and natural phenomena are now being considered.
    Several years ago CO2 was the only consideration and was the crux of Al Gore's message. It was predicted then that we would now have crossed over the tipping point of catastrophic global warming.
    From my layman perspective from a more historical angle: the earth has been warming for many 1000's of years since the last ice age (thank goodness) and the planet has enjoyed and flourished with many more times the current levels of CO2 than now (Vegetation anyway: I used to have a greenhouse and to get the CO2 levels up I filled it with the exhaust gases from a generator which greatly increased production. I had to keep the vents closed to stop the atmosphere stealing it away).
    Surely you can understand the skepticism with such a record. After all, you now acknowledge that natural phenomenon has a place. That is what skeptics were trying to bring into the discussion many years ago and were thanked by being branded deniers. I call this progress.
    We did not predict the last 10 years, why should we trust our forecasts for what will be in 2050 or even 2100? We need to keep the debate going and be ready for whatever our climate delivers and that includes the far more catastrophic consequences of even a little global cooling.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 9:08pm on 23 Dec 2008, KingCelticLion wrote:

    "#27. At 00:20am on 23 Dec 2008, shellmarioancic wrote:
    When Clinton was leaving the office America was high on the SUVs, the humvees etc etc. When Bush is leaving the office Prius, Smart2 are the best selling cars and the Humvees are going extinct! I wonder how did this CHANGE happened? YES WE CAN!"

    I admit that I might be considered extreme in my views regarding the environment and would be happy to be considered a deep ecologist. But also I have worked and studied as an engineer.

    last week I was researching hybrids as something didn't hang together. Not anywhere by anyone could I find one shred of evidence that they are any more energy efficient than conventional fossil fuel vehicles.

    It is not the 'price' per mile, but the life cycle cradle to grave, dust to dust audit.

    http://racfoundation.wordpress.com/2007/06/04/manufacturing-c02-to-be-added-to-car-energy-rating-systems/

    Think about it. A hybrid still has an engine, but also electric motor and all those extra batteries. All those heavy metals to be mined, processed and incorporated. So in energy terms 'costs' more to produce. Something that might not be recouped over the lifetime of the vehicle, due to the small margin on the 'cost' per miles.

    Hybrids could be the spawn of Satan, nothing more than a green fashionista marketing ploy to encourage people to get rid of cars with a lower overall resource footprint, just to boost an ailing economy, at the expense of the environment.

    A few years ago the mention of the mining of millions of tonnes of heavy metals, processing and the risk of contamination of the biosphere would have had environmentalists in an outrage. Now many see that as snugly, good and green in harmony with the planet. How people change their views.

    Beware that the true carbon and resource footprint of a hybrid isn't being hid in the manufacturing where few dare to venture.

    So has the Bush years just been a cynical marketing job?

    I will be researching this over the Christmas holiday for my site, but at present the equation looks like hybrid=spawn of satan.

    While working on this, better in every way than a hybrid. A real eco-warrior vehicle.

    [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

    Celtic Lion


    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 9:44pm on 23 Dec 2008, calcination wrote:

    Timjenvey- CO2 has never been the only consideration. However, in trying to educate and (stupidly) "sell" the idea of global warming, certain people such as Gore have gone on a great deal about CO2. There are a number of other man made greenhouse gases, such as methane (also available naturally) and halocarbons.

    If people went and read the scientific literature they would have gotten a more balanced picture. The internet makes doing so much easier, and I am glad to see how much information is making its way online, but it can be hard to come by.

    As for the last 10 years, you don't do climate predictions over a 10 year period, thus your point is irrelevant. Long term trends only need apply.

    ToughNeil- I don't see what you are talking about, care to explain?

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 11:09pm on 23 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    re43

    Do some research on line , as you say , there is a wealth of information out there !!

    The lack of sunspot activity has a direct correlation to the "climate"

    This is empirical data, not GIGO models, and relates to the Maunder minimum, if we are heading in that direction, as all the data supports, we are in far more danger than from a 2or 4 deg C temperature increase.

    The last time the sun was as inactive as it currently is, was 1912, and if this month carries on in the same vein, it will exceed that .

    CO2 is an excuse for taxation , nothing more.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 11:12pm on 23 Dec 2008, TJ wrote:

    calcination re #43:-

    I can only assume you mean Al Gore the Nobel Prize winner and climate guru to all our worlds leaders.

    Hmmmmm. Now you have me really worried.

    Can somebody tell Al he needs to broaden his approach. I hear he fires folks from office for such opinions.
    http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/controversies/happer.html
    Even if there is only slight connection its a worry.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 01:49am on 24 Dec 2008, Andy wrote:

    Neil: I write a paragraph on the 'false dichotomy' and you are kind enough to prove my point in your very next post, i.e. it's a tool oft used by climate deniers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 02:07am on 24 Dec 2008, l4dbill wrote:

    re #44:
    Sunspot activity has been about flat for the last 50 years while temperature has risen over the last 30. That's not a correlation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 03:29am on 24 Dec 2008, TJ wrote:

    calcination re #43:-

    Also, I totally agree with you that 10yrs is not a trend. However, this totally misses my point.

    These warming folks were telling us that we would be at the tipping point of catastrophic global warming by now. The current evidence points to a decline. The question raised is why should we not be skeptical about their predictions for the future.

    I apologize for not making clear.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 05:32am on 24 Dec 2008, dennisjunior1 wrote:

    Richard,
    I have to accept that Obama's dreams of a green "society"...

    ~Dennis

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 11:01am on 24 Dec 2008, calcination wrote:

    Neil #44- I4dbill has answered your (non-existent) point. Plus, there is still no evidence linking cosmic rays and climate. Besides, do cosmic rays cause the stratosphere to cool?

    Timjenvey- you have to make it clear whether you are talking about the science itself, or the public utterings of various people, some politicians, and less educated others. You see, you will get a slightly different picture depending on who you talk to, but as usual the best thing to do is go back to the science. Moreover, most of the mainstream view has had nothing to do with imminent catastrophe, and picking outliers to bolster your dislike of the topic does not bolster any case you might have against the science.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 11:10am on 24 Dec 2008, CuckooToo wrote:

    OK guys, there is no point trying to discuss global warming with true believers. At least go to www.climatedebatedaily.com and read both sides of the debate and then make up your minds.

    You could also try reading icecap and climate audit to get the alternative view and read realclimate to get Manns view. although don't try posting anything remotely against AGW because realclimate don't allow alternative views, unlike climateaudit who do.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 1:04pm on 24 Dec 2008, Burghermeister wrote:

    To all those involved in the process of developing a model involving so many complex processes and the related feedback mechanisms....thank you for your diligent work.

    As one involved in Infrared Thermography, I see things through a different lense....(literally a different wavelength) than the people who cannot "see" heat radiation from bodies. One simple principle is that C02, water vapor, and other more active insulating gasses cause great attenuation/blockage of radiated IR energy just as an overcoat does to warm the human body in cold ambient temperatures.
    (Witness how much less radiative cooling happens on a cloudy night compared to a "clear" night.)

    The basic effects are very intuitive to all who have experienced this.

    Reduced Albedo is a very real factor as any living in cold climes have seen, of the IR absorption effect on dirty snow.....it melts faster than "clean" snow due to greater absorption of radiated energy than reflectance of radiated energy.

    Considering that our nearest stars' output is in a relative current lull state, and our current data shows we are gaining warmth in spite....what would we be experiencing during periods of "normal" output?

    Considering only these three simple factors dealing with solar radiative energy balance, one can understand the delicate balance our climate blanket creates to maintain the level of comfort which all life forms have evolved to thrive in.

    More complicated factors continue to be understood such as critical inflection points,
    or tipping points.....and the unexpected consequences of tipping point are now seen as stored carbon reserves are liberated by thawing of previously frozen arctic tundra as the fringes move closer to the polar regions. These accelerated factors give more urgency to acting with greater expediency or face regenerative feedback mechanisms.

    Data also is available regarding acidification of the oceans and the effect on life forms which we eat....due to increased absorbed C02 into the ocean waters due to higher C02 atmospherics.

    Imagine the complexity of processes as we build on these simple model constructs with all the interactive feedbacks and critical points. Suddenly, we see a very interesting picture unfold.....showing us our future in relation to the easy life choices we have made for so long by burning our fuels of stored Carbon from ancient life forms .

    We as a human species need to improve the way we use and consume our precious resources to survive as a species....to mitigate our impact to the evolution of our planet. Efficient use of the energy we use to create a more highly evolved earth should be high on our priority list.


    President-elect Obama has appointed science/climate oriented individuals to move the US toward a more relevant view of our needed intelligent forward steps.
    (After 8 years of the equivalent of scientific dark ages, we can only improve. )
    Using technology to cleanly convert available sources and processes to clean, usable energy represents an evolutionary step we need to take.

    If we continue our pattern of locust like consumption and expansion, the future is less than optimistic for many living species on planet earth. This must be tackled on a global basis as we all share the resources of planet earth.....air, water, food, energy.
    (Making things better does no harm to all, and doing nothing takes a gamble with our future.)

    Now comes the time for making smart choices to make the future of our progeny brighter. May we live long and prosper...

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 8:06pm on 25 Dec 2008, Neil Hyde wrote:

    There are various comments on here, who cast criticism of some of the things I have posted on here. But the responses, further prove the warmists belief that "theirs" is the only "real" science out there.

    I'm sorry , I'm only a dumb aircraft engineer , if I based my work on similar flawed models to that which you base your beliefs, the hypocritical flights that you take to your climate change junkets would fall out of the sky!!

    Post 46 demonstrates that true believers are so blinkered , they cannot see anything other than their own self righteous point of view.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 1:22pm on 26 Dec 2008, Pancha Chandra wrote:

    It is high time the US walked in step with other nations on climate change. At long last we will have a President who will bring real change with meaningful environmental policies.What a leap for 'hope'. The inauguration of Obama will be a giant leap of hope for Americans as well as for citizens of the world at large. At long last the environment will be at centre stage. Obama is a godsend and along with Al Gore will reinvigorate the passionate search for a viable green environment. America has wasted precious time...

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 2:20pm on 03 Jan 2009, Rustigjongens wrote:

    Pancha_Chandra,

    Please refrain from spouting your pro-Obama rhetoric on this site, this site is about green issues, nothing to do with your hopes about Obama and his upcoming Presidency.

    And if you think the environment has not been centre stage for the last 5-10 years than you really need to get out more, or at least attempt to get some balance with your posts.

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 2:57pm on 07 Jan 2009, Andy wrote:

    Re: post 53

    I fail to see how my post (#46) does anything to illustrate that I am blinkered. The point I raised is essentially about logical argument. To reiterate, my argument against the "false dichotomy" is that many issues in climate science are not simply a matter of "either A or B". It is somewhat amusing to be accused of being blinkered by someone who seems to have twice ignored what I said.

    The trouble is that we're already all aboard the aircraft and it's flying on auto-pilot of unknown reliability. An imperfect model is still our best bet for figuring out whether or not we need to adjust the auto-pilot to avoid a crash. If there are factors that are not currently in the model then they should be included but it makes no sense to discard the parts of the model that are already there.

    Apologies for the late reply - Christmas happened and I've only just checked back.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 4:01pm on 27 Jan 2009, niceWillieMcDonald wrote:

    Report: The Truth about Global Warming-The Apocalypse
    In the future the only thing to eat will be other people
    By: Willie J. McDonald
    July-1983
    Non- Fiction

    Apocalypse, and global warming are one in the same. Global Warming, and the apocalypse what ever you want to call it, can be stopped! Please read this report. In the name of God the world must listen to me, before it’s too late! Please do not trust the US government in this matter. Unlike the US government I don’t have any conflict of interest. I’m an expert on the subject of global warming. The American governmental scientists are knowingly lying to the world about global warming. Telling the world green house gases are causing global warming, so the oil companies can continue to pump crude oil. The truth will cause a world wide economic collapse, but the alternative is far worse. The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is decaying, in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun, and the moon’s obit around the earth is decaying, It’s moving away from the earth at 4-cm each year. Two leap seconds had to be added to the atomic clock, because the earth’s rotation has decrease in speed. Some scientists are saying the days will increase from 24 hours to 25 hours in a day. This is due to the sun’s light, and rays covering more, and more of the earth’s surface, and that’s due to the earth moving closer to it. Unfortunately, these trends will continue to worsen. I’ve studied this phenomenon since July-1983, warning people of the coming destruction, and death. People called me crazy at first. I understand the weather was normal at that time, but now the weather is beginning to support my findings. December- 2007: Houston, Texas is experiencing warm sunny winters, a record high of 81degrees. Eventually Houston’s winters will completely disappear, as time goes on.
    Houston, Texas (latitude- 29.75 north) is the perfect place to observe global warming, what’s occurring in Houston in the winter will occur with other country in Houston’s latitude-29.75 north, and 29.75 south of the equator during both of their prospective winter. South Africa (29 degrees south) is experiencing warmer, than usual warm winters, and tornadoes in winter, which is very unusual for that region. Houston’s winters are being replaced by warm sunny days, and that not normal for Houston, Texas. The sun is over the southern hemisphere now, and in the past the sun’s direct, and peripheral heat, and rays stayed within the southern hemisphere, away from the equator, and the outer edges of the polar ice caps. The sun is thousands of times larger, than earth. The earth has moved, so close to the sun that it’s peripheral rays, and heat has spread over the equator (latitude zero) from the southern hemisphere to the southern part of the northern hemisphere, where Houston, Texas is located, and the sun’s peripheral heat, and rays has spread over the outer edges of the south pole, and is melting the ice. The same thing will occur, when the sun reaches the northern hemisphere. The peripheral heat and rays will spread over the equator, and heat the northern part of the southern hemisphere, and melt the ice on the outer edges of the North Pole, Just ask the governments of Greenland, Iceland, and the city of Alaska-USA about their melting ice packs. Talk to the people of Venice Italy about their rising ocean.
    1 of 5
    This trend will continue, until all the ice in both polar ice caps is melted, and until winter no longer exist in both hemispheres. Back, and forth the sun will melting one polar ice cap at a time. The ice is melting faster in the summer months, faster than it can reform (build up ) in the winter months. There is enough ice in both polar ice caps to flood 85% of the existing land mass of this planet. The warmer the winters, the hotter the summers. The direct heat, and rays from the sun will intensify as the earth move closer, that’s the area of the earth the sun is stationed directly over. I grew up in Houston, Texas. I remember the hottest part of the day use to be 12:00 noon, now its 3:00 o’clock in the after noon.
    This is more evidence of earth’s orbit is decaying. December- 2007: The thunderstorms, and floods that occurred in the States of Oregon, And Washington State (latitude: 45-49 degree N.) was suppose to by a snowstorm, after all its winter, but the atmosphere was too warm to support a snowstorm, so a thunderstorm was created instead, the flooding was extraordinary. January-2008 tornadoes touch down in the mid-west of America (32 degrees 50.5’ N), causing death, and destruction in the millions of dollars. Febrary-2008 many tornadoes touched down, and killed dozens of people.
    The only different between a snow storms, and a thunderstorms is the temperature of the upper atmosphere. The position of the sun to the earth determines the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This is the type of weather that will dominate in the future, floods, and tornados during the winter months, when these storms are not suppose to develop. The weather will go from one extreme to the other, from flooding to droughts in various parts of the United States, and the world. Eventually the sun’s heat will dominate this planet’s weather. Food production will gradually come to a halt, because of the harsh weather. As I said in the past global warming has nothing to do with C02 gases, R-12 gases, CFC gases, a hole in the ozone, the sun going nova, methane gases leaking from the ocean’s floor, or green house gases, as you will see in the future. Global warming will not be reverse by ridding the atmosphere of these gases.
    Some of these gases have polluted the atmosphere since the industrial revolution in America, and Europe. In the early 20th century, before emission devices were installed on automobiles, and trucks the air in many cities was, so polluted it blotted out the sun, And cause breathing problems. There was no global temperature increase during this time period. Global warming is in its beginning stages, and will gradually get worse. It will not occur over night, and the winters will diminish gradually, over the decades. June-1978: I went to the mountains of Big Bear, California. I looked down on the city of Los Angles, California. The greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, trucks, and industrial activity was, so bad a very noticeable thick haze formed reducing visibility by 30%.There was no noticeable spike in temperature in Los Angeles, California, during that period. Carbon dioxide is poisonous to all mammals, including humans. If the levels of C02 gases are, so high why there haven’t been reports of carbon dioxide poisonings, such conditions require hospitalization. Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California has the dirtiest air ( greenhouse gases) in American, but not the highest temperatures in American. The state of Arizona, New Mexico, and Midland, Texas has the highest temperatures in America consistently, so the green house gas theory don’t make sense.


    2 of 5
    The reason the earth is moving closer to the sun the molten core of this planet is cooling, and that’s because it’s not getting enough crude oil (fuel). The oil companies drill into an oil well to extract the crude oil. These oil wells are actually self- pressurizing fuel cells, and over time the crude oil extraction process used by the oil companies releases the pressures needed to force the oil into the outer core. All oil wells (self pressurizing fuel cells) must be capped off, and the pressure within them brought back to normal, so the crude oil can be forced into the outer core. This will raise the temperature in the core, and strengthen the earth’s magnetic field, and push the earth away from the sun. The higher the temperature in the core the stronger the earth’s magnetic field, and the cooler the temperature in the core, the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The core is cooling, because it’s not getting the fuel (crude oil) it once did, before man discovered crude oil, and new uses for it.
    Everything that generates energy, or expends energy needs fuel, and the earth isn’t any different from any other machine. People, and animals derive their energy from food, plants derive their energy from water, and sun light, automobiles from gasoline (a crude oil derivative), and thunderstorm, snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes derive their energy from electro-magnetic energy generated by the earth itself, these storms are electro- magnetic phenomenon. The earth (a machine) generates a magnetic energy field from the inner core, and it is derived its energy from combustion of crude oil in its outer core. I was told by other scientist there’s not enough oxygen in the core for crude oil, and/or its components to combust. This is not true, the earth’s core residual temperature is between 5000 to 7000 degrees Celsius, and that’s hot enough to melt steel, and its hot enough to combust crude oil, and its components, when they come in contact with the core, despite of the lack of oxygen in the core. Besides one of the components of crude oil is oxygen.
    People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it’s invisible, and silent, you can’t feel it, or smell it. The magnetic field holds people, object, and the oceans to the surface of earth. It keeps the air we breathe from escaping into space. It protects life on this planet from the harshness, vacuum, poisonous gases, and radiation of the surrounding universe. It protects life on the surface of this planet from sun flares, and it locks the earth in orbit around the sun, locks the moon in orbit around the earth, and keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun, and moon. Contrary to popular belief the electro- magnetic energy in thunderstorms, winter storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes, etc. are not generated by sunspots, neither, sun flares, nor energy from deep space striking the earth’s magnetic field. The energy in these storms are generated by the earth’s magnetic field. The earth acts as a generator’s armature. The sun rotates the earth at one thousand miles per hour, the earth’s magnetic field brushes against the magnetic field of the surrounding universe. The electricity that’s generated is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, and dispersed throughout the earth’s atmosphere, where it gathers water from the atmosphere, and forms thunder storms, and from thunder storms into other weather phenomena, tornados, and hurricanes, etc. The electro- magnetic energy in a thunder storms can carry hundreds of million of gallon of water, and weigh hundreds of millions of metric tons.



    3 of 5
    That’s just some of the things earth’s magnetic field does. The earth is a machine, a self-contained biosphere designed specifically for our life form, and fueled by crude oil. These fuel cell (oil wells) can be re-pressurized by igniting the methane gases in them. In fuel cells thought to be empty, such as spindle top in Beaumont, Texas. It will be necessary to pump in a mixture of air, and methane gas, and ignite the mixture. The gas will expand, when ignited creating the necessary pressure to force the remaining oil into the core. These fuel cells extend for thousands of miles, from the upper crust down to the outer core of the planet, the oil companies can only drill less, than ten miles down.
    There are millions of gallons of crude oil remaining in these fuel cells, and they are located all around this planet for even heating of the core. Uneven heating of the core will result in a shift of the earth’s axes, and the earth has shifted on its axes by 15 degrees (As reported by NASA).
    Normalizing the flow of crude oil to the core will increase the temperature in the outer core, and the outer core heats the inner core, which generates the earth’s magnetic field. If the pressure in these fuel cells (oil wells/ reservoirs) were placed back to normal pressures, and left alone the temperatures in the outer core will stabilize. My report is the only way to save all life on this planet. More evidence that large quantities of crude oil are combusted, and sustain the high temperatures in the core, every conceivable by-product, and/or residue of crude oil is ejected from volcanoes all around this planet, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, the tremendous pressure in the core, and the dark smoke that’s ejected from volcanoes, etc. Volcanic eruptions in the past occurred more frequently, and they occurred in various parts around the planet, and were much more powerful, than present day eruptions.
    The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the outer core. There is a point of no return, because it will take decades to reheat the core back to normal temperatures. Volcanoes are the earth’s exhaust system, and the means by which the outer core rids itself of spent fuel, and volcanoes regulate the pressures in the outer core. volcanoes extends from the surface of the planet down to the outer core. Volcanic eruptions in the past were far more powerful, than volcanic eruptions in present days. This is more evidence the core is cooling. The higher the temperature in the core, the more frequent, the more wide spread, and the more powerful the eruptions. The cooler the temperature in the core, the less frequent, and the less violent, and the less wide spread the eruptions will occur. Many volcanoes are lying dormant, and haven’t erupted in many decades.
    Crude oil is capable of generating temperatures found in the core, after all crude oil is a hydro- carbon, and hydro-carbons are used to melt, and manufacture steel There are three types of hydro- carbons, crude oil (a liquid), methane (a gas), and coal (a solid). It’s sample, oil wells(crude oil reservoirs) are the earth’s fuel system, crude oil is fuel, the outer core is the engine (this where the fuel is burned, the inner core is the generator (it generates the magnetic field), and volcanoes are the core’s exhaust system ( where spent fuel- crude oil residue, excessive pressure, and debris is ejected). Like cars, trucks, airplanes, and rockets. The earth has a fuel system, engine, generator, and exhaust system, just like a car, airplane, or rocket. Car’s fuel systems, and engine generate torque, aircraft, and rocket’s fuel systems, and engines generates thrust, and the earth’s fuel system, and engine generates a magnetic field.
    4 of 5



    The tremendous pressures ejected from volcanoes are due to the combustion of crude oil in the outer core. The gases in all hydrocarbons expand, when ignited, and will create pressure in an enclosed vessel, such as the core of this planet. There are two different diagnoses, but only one right solution. Please don’t close your mind to my findings. The one thing that frightens me the most is the lies the leading scientists are telling the world, and the world believes the thing these scientists are knowingly lying about. Once these scientists notice their plans to reverse global warming is failing. These scientist will come up with another explanation for global warming, and convince the world this time they got it right, and the world believe them. I say again eliminating green house gases will not reverse global warming, and/or stop the earth’s orbit around the sun from decaying.
    My solution is the only correct one. The leading scientists are wrong about everything, cleaning the air will not reverse global warming. Please keep an open mind. If we choose the wrong solution we will leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren a future that doesn’t exist, It will be a hellish existence. In the future the weather will be, so harsh it will be very difficult to grow plants, and to raise farm animals, what I’m trying to say is in the future the only thing left to eat will be other people. The leading scientist will think of another excuse for global warming, when they realize they are wrong, and their plans are not working. Please don’t let them do that, time is running out! If the earth past the point of no return, or if the core temperature drops below the flash point of crude oil, all is lost. Don’t focus on the fluctuation on the weather, and the temperature from year to year, focus on the weather trends, and the trends are its getting hotter, the ice in both polar ice caps are melting, and the oceans are rising. Global warming is in its beginning stages, we are not going to burn up over night. The heat from the sun will dominate earth’s weather slowly. Don’t just focus on your local weather focus on the world weather, and temperatures. It’s important you see the big picture. This is not the time to be superstitious. Global warming- the apocalypse is not cause by the wrath of God, Its cause by man’s ignorance, and greed. The crude oil extraction process is compromising this planet’s fuel system. There are three primary types of entities, the elements, living things, and machines. Rock, soil, and air are part of the elements, the earth, cars, airplanes, and electrical appliances fall under the category of machine, and trees, and animals fall under the category of living things, Can you see the difference? I prey you can.

    [Personal details removed by Moderator]


    5 of 5













































































































































    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 4:03pm on 27 Jan 2009, niceWillieMcDonald wrote:

    Dear sir,
    please help me to save the people on this planet. There less, than 150 years left
    Report: The Truth about Global Warming-The Apocalypse
    In the future the only thing to eat will be other people
    By: Willie J. McDonald
    July-1983
    Non- Fiction

    Apocalypse, and global warming are one in the same. Global Warming, and the apocalypse what ever you want to call it, can be stopped! Please read this report. In the name of God the world must listen to me, before it’s too late! Please do not trust the US government in this matter. Unlike the US government I don’t have any conflict of interest. I’m an expert on the subject of global warming. The American governmental scientists are knowingly lying to the world about global warming. Telling the world green house gases are causing global warming, so the oil companies can continue to pump crude oil. The truth will cause a world wide economic collapse, but the alternative is far worse. The real reason for global warming is the earth’s orbit around the sun is decaying, in other words the earth is moving closer to the sun, and the moon’s obit around the earth is decaying, It’s moving away from the earth at 4-cm each year. Two leap seconds had to be added to the atomic clock, because the earth’s rotation has decrease in speed. Some scientists are saying the days will increase from 24 hours to 25 hours in a day. This is due to the sun’s light, and rays covering more, and more of the earth’s surface, and that’s due to the earth moving closer to it. Unfortunately, these trends will continue to worsen. I’ve studied this phenomenon since July-1983, warning people of the coming destruction, and death. People called me crazy at first. I understand the weather was normal at that time, but now the weather is beginning to support my findings. December- 2007: Houston, Texas is experiencing warm sunny winters, a record high of 81degrees. Eventually Houston’s winters will completely disappear, as time goes on.
    Houston, Texas (latitude- 29.75 north) is the perfect place to observe global warming, what’s occurring in Houston in the winter will occur with other country in Houston’s latitude-29.75 north, and 29.75 south of the equator during both of their prospective winter. South Africa (29 degrees south) is experiencing warmer, than usual warm winters, and tornadoes in winter, which is very unusual for that region. Houston’s winters are being replaced by warm sunny days, and that not normal for Houston, Texas. The sun is over the southern hemisphere now, and in the past the sun’s direct, and peripheral heat, and rays stayed within the southern hemisphere, away from the equator, and the outer edges of the polar ice caps. The sun is thousands of times larger, than earth. The earth has moved, so close to the sun that it’s peripheral rays, and heat has spread over the equator (latitude zero) from the southern hemisphere to the southern part of the northern hemisphere, where Houston, Texas is located, and the sun’s peripheral heat, and rays has spread over the outer edges of the south pole, and is melting the ice. The same thing will occur, when the sun reaches the northern hemisphere. The peripheral heat and rays will spread over the equator, and heat the northern part of the southern hemisphere, and melt the ice on the outer edges of the North Pole, Just ask the governments of Greenland, Iceland, and the city of Alaska-USA about their melting ice packs. Talk to the people of Venice Italy about their rising ocean.
    1 of 5
    This trend will continue, until all the ice in both polar ice caps is melted, and until winter no longer exist in both hemispheres. Back, and forth the sun will melting one polar ice cap at a time. The ice is melting faster in the summer months, faster than it can reform (build up ) in the winter months. There is enough ice in both polar ice caps to flood 85% of the existing land mass of this planet. The warmer the winters, the hotter the summers. The direct heat, and rays from the sun will intensify as the earth move closer, that’s the area of the earth the sun is stationed directly over. I grew up in Houston, Texas. I remember the hottest part of the day use to be 12:00 noon, now its 3:00 o’clock in the after noon.
    This is more evidence of earth’s orbit is decaying. December- 2007: The thunderstorms, and floods that occurred in the States of Oregon, And Washington State (latitude: 45-49 degree N.) was suppose to by a snowstorm, after all its winter, but the atmosphere was too warm to support a snowstorm, so a thunderstorm was created instead, the flooding was extraordinary. January-2008 tornadoes touch down in the mid-west of America (32 degrees 50.5’ N), causing death, and destruction in the millions of dollars. Febrary-2008 many tornadoes touched down, and killed dozens of people.
    The only different between a snow storms, and a thunderstorms is the temperature of the upper atmosphere. The position of the sun to the earth determines the temperature of the upper atmosphere. This is the type of weather that will dominate in the future, floods, and tornados during the winter months, when these storms are not suppose to develop. The weather will go from one extreme to the other, from flooding to droughts in various parts of the United States, and the world. Eventually the sun’s heat will dominate this planet’s weather. Food production will gradually come to a halt, because of the harsh weather. As I said in the past global warming has nothing to do with C02 gases, R-12 gases, CFC gases, a hole in the ozone, the sun going nova, methane gases leaking from the ocean’s floor, or green house gases, as you will see in the future. Global warming will not be reverse by ridding the atmosphere of these gases.
    Some of these gases have polluted the atmosphere since the industrial revolution in America, and Europe. In the early 20th century, before emission devices were installed on automobiles, and trucks the air in many cities was, so polluted it blotted out the sun, And cause breathing problems. There was no global temperature increase during this time period. Global warming is in its beginning stages, and will gradually get worse. It will not occur over night, and the winters will diminish gradually, over the decades. June-1978: I went to the mountains of Big Bear, California. I looked down on the city of Los Angles, California. The greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, trucks, and industrial activity was, so bad a very noticeable thick haze formed reducing visibility by 30%.There was no noticeable spike in temperature in Los Angeles, California, during that period. Carbon dioxide is poisonous to all mammals, including humans. If the levels of C02 gases are, so high why there haven’t been reports of carbon dioxide poisonings, such conditions require hospitalization. Houston, Texas, and Los Angeles, California has the dirtiest air ( greenhouse gases) in American, but not the highest temperatures in American. The state of Arizona, New Mexico, and Midland, Texas has the highest temperatures in America consistently, so the green house gas theory don’t make sense.


    2 of 5
    The reason the earth is moving closer to the sun the molten core of this planet is cooling, and that’s because it’s not getting enough crude oil (fuel). The oil companies drill into an oil well to extract the crude oil. These oil wells are actually self- pressurizing fuel cells, and over time the crude oil extraction process used by the oil companies releases the pressures needed to force the oil into the outer core. All oil wells (self pressurizing fuel cells) must be capped off, and the pressure within them brought back to normal, so the crude oil can be forced into the outer core. This will raise the temperature in the core, and strengthen the earth’s magnetic field, and push the earth away from the sun. The higher the temperature in the core the stronger the earth’s magnetic field, and the cooler the temperature in the core, the weaker the earth’s magnetic field. The core is cooling, because it’s not getting the fuel (crude oil) it once did, before man discovered crude oil, and new uses for it.
    Everything that generates energy, or expends energy needs fuel, and the earth isn’t any different from any other machine. People, and animals derive their energy from food, plants derive their energy from water, and sun light, automobiles from gasoline (a crude oil derivative), and thunderstorm, snowstorms, hurricanes, tornadoes derive their energy from electro-magnetic energy generated by the earth itself, these storms are electro- magnetic phenomenon. The earth (a machine) generates a magnetic energy field from the inner core, and it is derived its energy from combustion of crude oil in its outer core. I was told by other scientist there’s not enough oxygen in the core for crude oil, and/or its components to combust. This is not true, the earth’s core residual temperature is between 5000 to 7000 degrees Celsius, and that’s hot enough to melt steel, and its hot enough to combust crude oil, and its components, when they come in contact with the core, despite of the lack of oxygen in the core. Besides one of the components of crude oil is oxygen.
    People take the earth’s magnetic field for granted, because it’s invisible, and silent, you can’t feel it, or smell it. The magnetic field holds people, object, and the oceans to the surface of earth. It keeps the air we breathe from escaping into space. It protects life on this planet from the harshness, vacuum, poisonous gases, and radiation of the surrounding universe. It protects life on the surface of this planet from sun flares, and it locks the earth in orbit around the sun, locks the moon in orbit around the earth, and keeps the earth at a safe distance from the sun, and moon. Contrary to popular belief the electro- magnetic energy in thunderstorms, winter storms, hurricanes, and tornadoes, etc. are not generated by sunspots, neither, sun flares, nor energy from deep space striking the earth’s magnetic field. The energy in these storms are generated by the earth’s magnetic field. The earth acts as a generator’s armature. The sun rotates the earth at one thousand miles per hour, the earth’s magnetic field brushes against the magnetic field of the surrounding universe. The electricity that’s generated is trapped in the earth’s atmosphere, and dispersed throughout the earth’s atmosphere, where it gathers water from the atmosphere, and forms thunder storms, and from thunder storms into other weather phenomena, tornados, and hurricanes, etc. The electro- magnetic energy in a thunder storms can carry hundreds of million of gallon of water, and weigh hundreds of millions of metric tons.



    3 of 5
    That’s just some of the things earth’s magnetic field does. The earth is a machine, a self-contained biosphere designed specifically for our life form, and fueled by crude oil. These fuel cell (oil wells) can be re-pressurized by igniting the methane gases in them. In fuel cells thought to be empty, such as spindle top in Beaumont, Texas. It will be necessary to pump in a mixture of air, and methane gas, and ignite the mixture. The gas will expand, when ignited creating the necessary pressure to force the remaining oil into the core. These fuel cells extend for thousands of miles, from the upper crust down to the outer core of the planet, the oil companies can only drill less, than ten miles down.
    There are millions of gallons of crude oil remaining in these fuel cells, and they are located all around this planet for even heating of the core. Uneven heating of the core will result in a shift of the earth’s axes, and the earth has shifted on its axes by 15 degrees (As reported by NASA).
    Normalizing the flow of crude oil to the core will increase the temperature in the outer core, and the outer core heats the inner core, which generates the earth’s magnetic field. If the pressure in these fuel cells (oil wells/ reservoirs) were placed back to normal pressures, and left alone the temperatures in the outer core will stabilize. My report is the only way to save all life on this planet. More evidence that large quantities of crude oil are combusted, and sustain the high temperatures in the core, every conceivable by-product, and/or residue of crude oil is ejected from volcanoes all around this planet, carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, the tremendous pressure in the core, and the dark smoke that’s ejected from volcanoes, etc. Volcanic eruptions in the past occurred more frequently, and they occurred in various parts around the planet, and were much more powerful, than present day eruptions.
    The materials ejected from volcanoes originate from the outer core. There is a point of no return, because it will take decades to reheat the core back to normal temperatures. Volcanoes are the earth’s exhaust system, and the means by which the outer core rids itself of spent fuel, and volcanoes regulate the pressures in the outer core. volcanoes extends from the surface of the planet down to the outer core. Volcanic eruptions in the past were far more powerful, than volcanic eruptions in present days. This is more evidence the core is cooling. The higher the temperature in the core, the more frequent, the more wide spread, and the more powerful the eruptions. The cooler the temperature in the core, the less frequent, and the less violent, and the less wide spread the eruptions will occur. Many volcanoes are lying dormant, and haven’t erupted in many decades.
    Crude oil is capable of generating temperatures found in the core, after all crude oil is a hydro- carbon, and hydro-carbons are used to melt, and manufacture steel There are three types of hydro- carbons, crude oil (a liquid), methane (a gas), and coal (a solid). It’s sample, oil wells(crude oil reservoirs) are the earth’s fuel system, crude oil is fuel, the outer core is the engine (this where the fuel is burned, the inner core is the generator (it generates the magnetic field), and volcanoes are the core’s exhaust system ( where spent fuel- crude oil residue, excessive pressure, and debris is ejected). Like cars, trucks, airplanes, and rockets. The earth has a fuel system, engine, generator, and exhaust system, just like a car, airplane, or rocket. Car’s fuel systems, and engine generate torque, aircraft, and rocket’s fuel systems, and engines generates thrust, and the earth’s fuel system, and engine generates a magnetic field.
    4 of 5



    The tremendous pressures ejected from volcanoes are due to the combustion of crude oil in the outer core. The gases in all hydrocarbons expand, when ignited, and will create pressure in an enclosed vessel, such as the core of this planet. There are two different diagnoses, but only one right solution. Please don’t close your mind to my findings. The one thing that frightens me the most is the lies the leading scientists are telling the world, and the world believes the thing these scientists are knowingly lying about. Once these scientists notice their plans to reverse global warming is failing. These scientist will come up with another explanation for global warming, and convince the world this time they got it right, and the world believe them. I say again eliminating green house gases will not reverse global warming, and/or stop the earth’s orbit around the sun from decaying.
    My solution is the only correct one. The leading scientists are wrong about everything, cleaning the air will not reverse global warming. Please keep an open mind. If we choose the wrong solution we will leave our grandchildren and great grandchildren a future that doesn’t exist, It will be a hellish existence. In the future the weather will be, so harsh it will be very difficult to grow plants, and to raise farm animals, what I’m trying to say is in the future the only thing left to eat will be other people. The leading scientist will think of another excuse for global warming, when they realize they are wrong, and their plans are not working. Please don’t let them do that, time is running out! If the earth past the point of no return, or if the core temperature drops below the flash point of crude oil, all is lost. Don’t focus on the fluctuation on the weather, and the temperature from year to year, focus on the weather trends, and the trends are its getting hotter, the ice in both polar ice caps are melting, and the oceans are rising. Global warming is in its beginning stages, we are not going to burn up over night. The heat from the sun will dominate earth’s weather slowly. Don’t just focus on your local weather focus on the world weather, and temperatures. It’s important you see the big picture. This is not the time to be superstitious. Global warming- the apocalypse is not cause by the wrath of God, Its cause by man’s ignorance, and greed. The crude oil extraction process is compromising this planet’s fuel system. There are three primary types of entities, the elements, living things, and machines. Rock, soil, and air are part of the elements, the earth, cars, airplanes, and electrical appliances fall under the category of machine, and trees, and animals fall under the category of living things, Can you see the difference? I prey you can.

    Mr. Willie J. McDonald
    2601 Holman Street
    Houston, Texas 77004-USA
    832-889-2058
    Cdnld30@gmail.com wmcdonald65@yahoo.com


    5 of 5













































































































































    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.