Starbuck

Can Man live with levels of CO2 that are less than 200 ppm. What is the breakdown of medical oxygen given to sick patients to help them breathe. What is the level of CO2 that the US Navy prefers for long term underwater excursions for submarines? What is the starvation level of CO2 for plants on earth?

http://marshall.org/video/100514-climate%E2%80%A6

Go to the end of this talk (during the question and answer section) and get the percentage of the actual number of physicists in the APS who actually believe in AGW even though the political move of the APS is to support the craze (10%).

AGW is just another politically correct notion conjured up by the far left whacks. Since Cohen and Happer are very good friends, I take their assumptions as being real.

Edit: you might also consider this http://www.probeinternational.org/UPennC%E2%80%A6

IPCC is a fraud. The interesting thing is that he picked it up from the pattern of the writing, not the science.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/04/09/lindzen-eart...

Here are the panelists. Everytime I watch this I have to chuckle. Union of Concerned Scientists, yea right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McsZ1U20W0M

http://buzz.yahoo.com/buzzlog/93533?fp=1

What I heard anyway.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/63191

Is there anything that can be said after reading this.

It seems that whenever anyone disagrees with these elites (liberals/socialists/alarmists) they are

immediately attacked on this site and the name calling starts or that a denier has misspelled a word, or whatever the attack may be. These elites who call them selves scientists (who are not) have and see only one truth and that is their truth in contrary to what a true scientist strives for.

This virtue of the elites are not apparent on this site and please open the link below on Keith Olbermann's appology to Brown after calling him a homophobe, racist and every name in the book because he won the race in NJ.

This I believe is the American socialist party. Most moderate democrats I know are appalled at the actions of the far left in their party and this is just but one example.

What say you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/23/keith-olb...

http://weeklystandard.com/articles/denial

From the Golden Gate Audubon Society site:

Conservation Issues

Every year, an estimated 75 to 110 Golden Eagles are killed by the wind turbines in the Altamont Pass Wind Resource Area (APWRA). Some lose their wings, others are decapitated, and still others are cut in half. The lethal turbines, numbering roughly 6,000, are arrayed across 50,000 acres of rolling hills in northeastern Alameda and southeastern Contra Costa counties. The APWRA, built in the 1980s, was one of the first wind energy sites in the U.S. At the time, no one knew how deadly the turbines could be for birds. Few would now deny, however, that Altamont Pass is probably the worst site ever chosen for a wind energy project. According to a 2004 California Energy Commission (CEC) report, as many as 380 Burrowing Owls (also a state-designated species of special concern), 300 Red-tailed Hawks, and 333 American Kestrels are killed every year. In all, as many as 4,700 birds die annually as a result of the wind turbines.

Pretty sad.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20100304/sc_li...

Antarcticaice is a warmer on this site frequently bloviating about loss of ice in Antarctica

and large amounts of calving. This guy however is only a glaciologist and not a climatologist so he

is not qualified to speak on the observations. That will what the warmers will opine to.

Science Editorial February 5, 2010

Ensuring Integrity in Science

HACKED ELECTRONIC RECORDS OF CLIMATE SCIENTISTS AT THE UNIVERSITY OF EAST ANGLIA’S CLIMATE

Research Unit (UEA/CRU) led to worldwide publicity during the December 2009 Copenhagen climate change convention. UEA is conducting a formal investigation to determine whether UEA scientists manipulated or suppressed data or otherwise acted unprofessionally. My reading of the vast scientific literature on climate change is that our understanding is undiminished by this incident; but it has raised concern about the standards of science and has damaged public trust in what scientists do.

In the wake of the UEA controversy, I have been contacted by many U.S. and world leaders in science, business, and government. Their assessments and those from various editorials, added to results from scattered public opinion polls, suggest that public opinion has moved toward the view that scientists often try to suppress alternative hypotheses and ideas and that scientists will withhold data and try to manipulate some aspects of peer review to prevent dissent. This view reflects the fragile nature of trust between science and society, demonstrating that the perceived misbehavior of even a few scientists can diminish the credibility of science as a whole.

What needs to be done? Two aspects need urgent attention: the general practice of science and the personal behaviors of scientists. The good news is that some efforts to address both issues have already begun. But now we must make further advances on both fronts. Clarity and transparency must be reinforced to build and maintain trust¬internal and external¬in science. Scientists are taught to describe experiments, data, and calculations fully so that other scientists can replicate the research. Last year, the Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy (COSEPUP) of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), National Academy of Engineering, and Institute of Medicine put forth a framework for dealing with research data,* emphasizing that “Research data, methods and other information integral to publicly reported results should be publicly accessible.” Some journals have established policies that require the sharing of materials and data. However, post-publication complaints regarding data sharing persist. Despite many efforts, the scientific

community has failed to uniformly integrate these standards into their practices.

It is essential that the scientific community work urgently to make standards for analyzing, reporting, providing access to, and stewardship of research data operational, while also establishing when requests for data amount to harassment or are otherwise unreasonable. A major challenge is that acceptable and optimal standards will vary among scientific disciplines because of proprietary, privacy, national security, and cost limitations. Failure to make research data and related information accessible not only impedes science, it also breeds conflicts. Contention over paleoclimatic data was at the heart of the UEA/CRU e-mail exchanges. Beyond data handling, the relationship between science and society depends on the personal conduct of scientists in all that they do. Fortunately, an up-to-date guide to responsible conduct in research is now available,** and its standards should be energetically pursued throughout the scientific community.

Later this month, at the 2010 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) in San Diego, NAS and AAAS will lead a discussion of these important issues, examine points raised by the UEA/CRU situation, review best practices, and encourage scientists to develop standards for data access that work in their fields. The outcome of this special session must be explicit actions, as scientists must do much more now, and with urgency, to demonstrate that science is indeed self-correcting and worthy of the public’s trust.

– Ralph J. Cicerone

Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences.

*COSEPUP, Ensuring the Integrity, Accessibility and Stewardship of Research Data in the Digital Age (National Academies

Press, Washington, DC, 2009). **On Being a Scientist (National Academies Press, ed. 3, Washington, DC, 2009).

http://www.cal-span.org/cgi-bin/archive.php?owner=...

Really now! Based on this symposium on Friday, is there a consensus or is the agenda being brought forth just because some want it, never mind the economic costs and costs to human health in people losing their jobs and security. Yes, Arden Pope who is a proponent of diesel regs also states that there is a larger health risk to people when they lose their jobs.

AGW issue is same thing

Do you think the figures in this report or complilation is accurate. Given that these figures are older,

it is expected that today the internet with all of its computers, coolers, substations, servers take over 1 trillion kwh on a yearly basis.

Gore invented the internet, eh. Well here is the excess power usuage that has developed since the start of the computer revolution and if AGW is true, most likely the cause as it fits right in with the timeline alarmists proclaim about C02 emissions. And they blamed it on others.

http://uclue.com/index.php?xq=724

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/climategate-and-the-l...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/breaking-senator-barb...

By George F. Will

Sunday, February 21, 2010; A19

Science, many scientists say, has been restored to her rightful throne because progressives have regained power. Progressives, say progressives, emulate the cool detachment of scientific discourse. So hear the calm, collected voice of a scientist lavishly honored by progressives, Rajendra Pachauri.

He is chairman of the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which shared the 2007 version of the increasingly weird Nobel Peace Prize. Denouncing persons skeptical about the shrill certitudes of those who say global warming poses an imminent threat to the planet, he says:

"They are the same people who deny the link between smoking and cancer. They are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder -- and I hope they put it on their faces every day."

Do not judge him as harshly as he speaks of others. Nothing prepared him for the unnerving horror of encountering disagreement. Global warming alarmists, long cosseted by echoing media, manifest an interesting incongruity -- hysteria and name-calling accompanying serene assertions about the "settled science" of climate change. Were it settled, we would be spared the hyperbole that amounts to Ring Lardner's "Shut up, he explained."

The global warming industry, like Alexander in the famous children's story, is having a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad day. Actually, a bad three months, which began Nov. 19 with the publication of e-mails indicating attempts by scientists to massage data and suppress dissent in order to strengthen "evidence" of global warming.

But there already supposedly was a broad, deep and unassailable consensus. Strange.

Next came the failure of The World's Last -- We Really, Really Mean It -- Chance, a.k.a. the Copenhagen climate change summit. It was a nullity, and since then things have been getting worse for those trying to stampede the world into a spasm of prophylactic statism.

In 2007, before the economic downturn began enforcing seriousness and discouraging grandstanding, seven western U.S. states (and four Canadian provinces) decided to fix the planet on their own. California's Arnold Schwarzenegger intoned, "We cannot wait for the United States government to get its act together on the environment." The 11 jurisdictions formed what is now called the Western Climate Initiative to reduce greenhouse gas emissions starting in 2012.

Or not. Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer recently suspended her state's participation in what has not yet begun, and some Utah legislators are reportedly considering a similar action. Brewer worries, sensibly, that it would impose costs on businesses and consumers. She also ordered reconsideration of Arizona's strict vehicle emission rules, modeled on incorrigible California's, lest they raise the cost of new cars.

Last week, BP America, ConocoPhillips and Caterpillar, three early members of the 31-member U.S. Climate Action Partnership, said: Oh, never mind. They withdrew from USCAP. It is a coalition of corporations and global warming alarm groups that was formed in 2007 when carbon rationing legislation seemed inevitable and collaboration with the rationers seemed prudent. A spokesman for Conoco said: "We need to spend time addressing the issues that impact our shareholders and consumers." What a concept.

Global warming skeptics, too, have erred. They have said there has been no statistically significant warming for 10 years. Phil Jones, former director of Britain's Climatic Research Unit, source of the leaked documents, admits it has been 15 years. Small wonder that support for radical remedial action, sacrificing wealth and freedom to combat warming, is melting faster than the Himalayan glaciers that an IPCC report asserted, without serious scientific support, could disappear by 2035.

Jones also says that if during what is called the Medieval Warm Period (circa 800-1300) global temperatures may have been warmer than today's, that would change the debate. Indeed it would. It would complicate the task of indicting contemporary civilization for today's supposedly unprecedented temperatures.

Last week, Todd Stern, America's special envoy for climate change -- yes, there is one; and people wonder where to begin cutting government -- warned that those interested in "undermining action on climate change" will seize on "whatever tidbit they can find." Tidbits like specious science, and the absence of warming?

It is tempting to say, only half in jest, that Stern's portfolio violates the First Amendment, which forbids government from undertaking the establishment of religion. A religion is what the faith in catastrophic man-made global warming has become. It is now a tissue of assertions impervious to evidence, assertions that everything, including a historic blizzard, supposedly confirms and nothing, not even the absence of warming, can falsify.

georgewill@washpost.com

California's AB32 is this states answer to the national cap n trade legislation and as it goes now, the initiative action will pass and the legislation will be delayed per the poll data. More and more people are abandoning the AGW issue as they learn more about it. We expect a heavy fight from the liberals in the Silicon Valley area and they have already promised the biggest fight in over 50 yeas on our proposition.

We also have 254 members of the APS joining in and many professors you all know from MIT and Princeton.

How do we use Lord Monckton to fight the ultra liberal's agenda on the left coast?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/02/19/north-americ...

Not even 30 inches of snow falling on Washington has discredited claims of "global warming," the belief that human activity is appreciably warming our planet. Of course, a single snowstorm does not disprove global warming. Weather is not the same as climate. But even after a decade of unexpectedly cool temperatures, global-warming alarmists still show no skepticism. Skepticism is a core value of science.

In "1984," George Orwell wrote about Big Brother (government) being so powerful that it can persuade people to believe things contrary to their senses. It even can convince them that two plus two is not equal to four.

Eventually the truth will out. When global warming finally is recognized as the world's greatest political hoax, those discredited will not be the perpetrators.

The perpetrators are politicians and traditional media. After the credibility bubble bursts, the same politicians and media will continue to influence what the public is told. They will effectively claim that they never misled anyone. The fall guy will be science.

Lost in the confusion will be the distinction between science and the scientific community.

The scientific community has largely abandoned science. It has degenerated into little more than just another lobbying group seeking advancement for its members.

The scientific community gets it right when the stakes are unimportant. It effectively opposed such anti-scientific nonsense as creationism. If the religious zealots had won, children would be told that the Old Testament described things that really happened. Not good - but it would do little harm and certainly would not harm the world's economies.

How starkly the vigorous opposition to creationism contrasts with the community's near silence in response to the anti-scientific nonsense coming from the likes of Al Gore. Worse than silence, in all too many cases, the community has been an enthusiastic participant in an orgy of unreason. It has been an orgy lubricated by almost limitless opportunities to grab influence, physical resources and cool cash.

Galileo Galilei, the father of experimental science, was convicted of a crime in 1633 for stating "that the Earth is not at the center of the universe, and it moves." This contradicted the then-prevailing belief, supported by most highly credentialed astronomers of the day. His sentence was house arrest until his death in 1642.

Galileo was treated more leniently than earlier pioneer Giordano Bruno, who was burned at the stake in 1600 for similar crimes.

Then, it was fear of the unknown that threatened intellectual freedom. Today, it is governments and international bodies. While they do not execute or imprison heretics, they still wield enormous power.

"Climate of Fear. Global-warming alarmists intimidate dissenting scientists into silence" was the headline on a column in the Wall Street Journal by Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Mr. Lindzen writes, "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their grant funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves libeled as industry stooges, scientific hacks or worse. Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science that supposedly is their basis."

It is easy to create the illusion of consensus when those who disagree are silenced.

It is not known what the majority of scientists think about global warming, not that it matters all that much. Science is not about counting votes. However, I can offer an anecdotal observation.

I am a scientist, while my wife is a professor of art history. Her colleagues generally think all scientists support Mr. Gore - after all, they have been so informed by such authoritative sources as the New York Times. My fellow doctorate-holding science colleagues generally share my conclusion: The claim that human activity has appreciably warmed our planet is the greatest political hoax ever.

Many specific actions supported by global-warming alarmists are admirable. We ought to pollute less and transfer less wealth to Middle Eastern oil-producing tyrannies. These issues should be addressed on their merits. They have little to do with global temperature.

To do sensible things for irrational reasons just validates irrationality. And who can tell what future horrors will be justified by irrationality?

When the global-warming hoax eventually collapses, the victim will be science. When science suffers, we all suffer.

Leonard Evans has a doctorate in physics from Oxford University and is a member of the National Academy of Engineering. He has authored more than 100 peer-reviewed papers on many scientific subjects.