Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries

[bigrebnc1775]

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change.

The generally accepted period over which a trend is said to be definitely climatic is 30 years.

Your signature is lie unless you have proof.

 

[PMZ]

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

I believe the NIPCC who are independent of Government, who are looking at all sides of possibilities, rather than picked by Governments IPCC who are only looking at one side and not looking for all evidence.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at Climate Change Reconsidered

I've been around for a long time and never heard of governmental science and non-governmental science and competitive science.

Why do you suppose it's around now and in the topic of climatology?

 

[PMZ]

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

I believe the NIPCC who are independent of Government, who are looking at all sides of possibilities, rather than picked by Governments IPCC who are only looking at one side and not looking for all evidence.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at Climate Change Reconsidered

I've been around for a long time and never heard of governmental science and non-governmental science and competitive science.

Why do you suppose it's around now and in the topic of climatology?

The Heartland Institute. The Koch Bros. Among the biggest beneficiaries of big oil. How very objective.

 

[flacaltenn]

I believe the NIPCC who are independent of Government, who are looking at all sides of possibilities, rather than picked by Governments IPCC who are only looking at one side and not looking for all evidence.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at Climate Change Reconsidered

I've been around for a long time and never heard of governmental science and non-governmental science and competitive science.

Why do you suppose it's around now and in the topic of climatology?

The Heartland Institute. The Koch Bros. Among the biggest beneficiaries of big oil. How very objective.

Were you napping a couple years when Govt Science clashed with General Science over the efficacy of Women doing self exams on their breasts and the utility of mammograms? There was certainly a vested Govt interest in lowering payments for preventation.. They pretty much got a smack down from the Medical communitee..

As for the Koch Bros. You mean the Dudes that PAY FOR the only real science show on TV? Nova says they are a major sponsor. Also have saved more lives than most politicians with all the Hospital Specialty wings named after them.. Built additions onto the Kennedy Center? Oh how evil is all that??

Damn --- they even kicked in money so the Cal Berkeley could do the BEST study on modern Temperature records.. How NON-objective of them..

You mean THOSE KOCH brothers??

 

[daveman]

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

Yes, you've already demonstrated your blind, slavish worship of the high priests.

The completely fucked-up thing is how proud of it you seem to be.

 

[Abraham3]

Your signature is lie unless you have proof.

What was that?

 

[Abraham3]

Yes, you've already demonstrated your blind, slavish worship of the high priests.

The completely fucked-up thing is how proud of it you seem to be.

Jeez, dude, you took the words right out of my mouth... Well, hell, they're cheap. Let's run 'em by one more time.

Yes, Dave, you've already demonstrated your blind, slavish worship of the high priests.

The completely fucked-up thing, Dave, is how proud of it you seem to be.

 

[Abraham3]

I believe the NIPCC who are independent of Government, who are looking at all sides of possibilities, rather than picked by Governments IPCC who are only looking at one side and not looking for all evidence.

Two weeks before the UN-IPCC released its report, an alternative report was released by the Nongovernmental Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). Unlike the UN-IPCC, NIPCC's charter is to investigate causes and consequences of climate change from all perspectives rather than just to search for a human impact on climate change. This NIPCC report, titled "Climate Change Reconsidered - II: Physical Science" contradicts many of the IPCC's findings. It is available online at Climate Change Reconsidered

Sourcewatch

Conference for Skeptics

The conference was described by Washington Post reporter, Juliet Eilperin, as "a sort of global warming doppelganger conference, where everything was reversed." At the event, skeptics unveiled their response to the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) report, edited by corporate-funded skeptic Fred Singer, argued that "recent climate change stems from natural causes." Eilperin notes that "while the IPCC enlisted several hundred scientists from more than 100 countries to work over five years to produce its series of reports, the NIPCC document is the work of 23 authors from 15 nations, some of them not scientists."[1]
The New York Times reports that while the Heartland conference "was largely framed around science ... when an organizer made an announcement asking all of the scientists in the large hall to move to the front for a group picture, 19 men did so." The conference invitation identified its goal as "to generate international media attention to the fact that many scientists believe forecasts of rapid warming and catastrophic events are not supported by sound science."[2]
The Heartland Institute offered "$1,000 to those willing to give a talk," and "a free weekend at the Marriott Marquis in Manhattan, including travel costs, to all elected officials wanting to attend," according to the RealClimate blog.[3]
Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change

The conference resulted in the grandly titled communiqué 'The Manhattan Declaration on Climate Change'. A scientifically illiterate document largely containing opinion masquerading as fact. It disputes the greenhouse effect of CO2 , and disputes the consensus of scientists on climate change. It also claims "That human-caused climate change is not a global crisis." A position which should lead an enquiring mind to ask whether the Heartland Institute is ready to accept a naturally occurring global crisis exists . The document also boldly states "That adaptation as needed is massively more cost-effective than any attempted mitigation and that a focus on such mitigation will divert the attention and resources of governments away from addressing the real problems of their peoples." The promoting of adaptation over mitigation is not surprising although it should be noted no supporting evidence is offered and it is in stark contrast to the Stern Report which holds the opposite view and contains a great deal of evidence to support it. [4]
Speakers at the Conference

Joseph L. Bast, President, The Heartland Institute; "Conference Host"
David Archibald, Australian oil explorer and
Scott Armstrong, professor at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania,
Dennis Avery, a fellow at the Hudson Institute
Timothy Ball,Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP)
Robert Balling
E. Calvin Beisner
David Bellamy
Bob Carter
Donald J. Boudreaux
Sandy Liddy Bourne
Robert L. Bradley Jr.
William M. Briggs
H. Sterling Burnett,
John A. Charles, Jr., President and CEO of Cascade Policy Institute
Paul Chesser, director of Climate Strategies Watch, a project of the John Locke Foundation.
John Coleman,
Ralph Conner, local legislation manager for the Heartland Institute
Roy Cordato, vice president for research and resident scholar at the John Locke Foundation
Richard S. Courtney, a founding member of European Science and Environment Forum
Joseph D’Aleo,
David H. Douglass,
Paul Driessen, a senior fellow with the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow and Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise
John Dale Dunn,
Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Michael J. Economides
Michael R. Fox,
Dan Gainor, is the the T. Boone Pickens Fellow and vice president of the Business & Media Institute, a project of the by the conservative media watchdog group, the Media Research Center
Fred Goldberg
Stanley B. Goldenberg,
Robert Gordon, president of Responsible Resources
Vince Gray
William M. Gray
Kenneth P. Green, resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute.
Tom Harris, executive director of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project and the International Climate Science Coalition
Howard Hayden,
David Henderson
Donald Hertzmark
Art Horn
Christopher C. Horner
Craig D. Idso
Andrei Illarionov, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute
Roy Innis, national chairman and chief executive officer of the Congress of Racial Equality
Yuri A. Izrael
Zbigniew Jaworowski
Jim Johnston, Heartland Institute
Madhav Khandekar
Václav Klaus
David Legates,
Jay H. Lehr, senior fellow and science director of the Heartland Institute
Marlo Lewis Jr., senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Craig Loehle,
Leon Louw, executive director of the Free Market Foundation, South Africa
Howard Maccabee,
Ken Malloy
Jim Martin, president of the 60 Plus Association
Phelim McAleer,
Ann McElhinney,
Ross McKitrick
Owen McShane, chairman of the policy panel of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition and director of the Centre for Resource Management Studies
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute.
Fred Michel,
Steven J. Milloy
Ferenc Miskolczi
Barun S. Mitra, founder and director of the Liberty Institute
Lord Christopher Monckton
Marc Morano
Julian Morris, executive director of International Policy Network
Robert P. Murphy, an economist with the Institute for Energy Research
Iain Murray, senior fellow in energy, science and technology at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
Todd Myers, environmental director at the Washington Policy Center
James J. O'Brien,
Kendra Okonski, International Policy Network
Jim Ott
Tim Patterson
Benny Peiser
Andreas Prokoph
Richard W. Rahn, chairman of the Institute for Global Economic Growth and the Advisory Board of the European Center for Economic Growth
Paul Reiter,
Ronald J. Rychlak,
David W. Schnare is the senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Thomas Jefferson Institute for Public Policy
Joel Schwartz, visiting scholar at the American Enterprise Institute
Tom Segalstad,
Frederick Seitz, director emeritus of the Atlantic Legal Foundation
Russell Seitz,
Daniel R. Simmons, director of the Natural Resources Task Force at the American Legislative Exchange Council
S. Fred Singer, president of the Science and Environmental Policy Project
Tim Slagle,
Willie Soon, chief science adviser at the Science and Public Policy Institute
Douglas Southgate
Roy W. Spencer,
John Stossel,
Thomas Tanton is fellow in environmental studies at the Pacific Research Institute and an adjunct scholar at the Institute for Energy Research
George H. Taylor
James M. Taylor, managing editor of Environment & Climate News, a Heartland Institute newsletter
Mitch Taylor
David G. Tuerck
Paul Waggoner,
Anthony Watts
Gerd-Rainer Weber,
Miklos Zagoni
Co-Sponsors

Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan
Americans for Prosperity, United States
Americans for Tax Reform, United States
Asociacion de Consumidores Libres, Costa Rica
Association for Liberal Thinking, Turkey
Business & Media Institute, United States
Carbon Sense Coalition, Australia
Cascade Policy Institute, United States
Cathay Institute for Public Affairs, China
Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise, United States
Center for the Dissemination of Economic Knowledge, Venezuela
Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, United States
Center of the American Experiment, United States
Centro de Innovación y Desarrollo Humano, Uruguay
Centro de Investigaciones de Instituciones y Mercados de Argentina, Argentina
Citizens Alliance for Responsible Energy, United States
Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, United States
Competitive Enterprise Institute, United States
Congress of Racial Equality, United States
Discovery Institute, United States
Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, United States
Economic Thinking, United States
European Center for Economic Growth, United Kingdom
Freedom Foundation of Minnesota, United States
Free Enterprise Action Fund, United States
Free Market Foundation, South Africa
Frontiers of Freedom Institute, United States
Fundacion Atlas 1853, Argentina
Hayek Institute, Austria
Idea Channel, United States
The Independent Institute, United States
Institute of Public Affairs, Australia
Institut für Unternehmerische Freiheit, Germany
Instituto de Libre Empresa, Peru
Instituto Liberdade, Brazil
International Climate Science Coalition, Canada - Australia - New Zealand
International Policy Network, United Kingdom
Istituto Bruno Leoni, Italy
JunkScience.com, United States
Liberty Institute, India
Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong
John Locke Foundation, United States
George C. Marshall Institute, United States
Minimal Government Institute, Philippines
National Center for Policy Analysis, United States
New Zealand Business Roundtable, New Zealand
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, United States
Pacific Research Institute, United States
Property and Environment Research Center, United States
Science and Environmental Policy Project, United States
Science and Public Policy Institute, United States
Sovereignty International, United States
Conference Website

Website (original): http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm
Website current: http://climateconference.heartland.org/past-conferences/iccc1/

 

[PMZ]

I've been around for a long time and never heard of governmental science and non-governmental science and competitive science.

Why do you suppose it's around now and in the topic of climatology?

The Heartland Institute. The Koch Bros. Among the biggest beneficiaries of big oil. How very objective.

Were you napping a couple years when Govt Science clashed with General Science over the efficacy of Women doing self exams on their breasts and the utility of mammograms? There was certainly a vested Govt interest in lowering payments for preventation.. They pretty much got a smack down from the Medical communitee..

As for the Koch Bros. You mean the Dudes that PAY FOR the only real science show on TV? Nova says they are a major sponsor. Also have saved more lives than most politicians with all the Hospital Specialty wings named after them.. Built additions onto the Kennedy Center? Oh how evil is all that??

Damn --- they even kicked in money so the Cal Berkeley could do the BEST study on modern Temperature records.. How NON-objective of them..

You mean THOSE KOCH brothers??

Those are the very ones. The ones that think that science can be bought to serve their interests. They think that their money entitles them to define reality. It doesn't.

 

[westwall]

It's easy to confuse weather for climate when you're an AGW cultist and you post strings of record high temps as "proof" of global warming.

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

They do?

 

[westwall]

I've been around for a long time and never heard of governmental science and non-governmental science and competitive science.

Why do you suppose it's around now and in the topic of climatology?

The Heartland Institute. The Koch Bros. Among the biggest beneficiaries of big oil. How very objective.

Were you napping a couple years when Govt Science clashed with General Science over the efficacy of Women doing self exams on their breasts and the utility of mammograms? There was certainly a vested Govt interest in lowering payments for preventation.. They pretty much got a smack down from the Medical communitee..

As for the Koch Bros. You mean the Dudes that PAY FOR the only real science show on TV? Nova says they are a major sponsor. Also have saved more lives than most politicians with all the Hospital Specialty wings named after them.. Built additions onto the Kennedy Center? Oh how evil is all that??

Damn --- they even kicked in money so the Cal Berkeley could do the BEST study on modern Temperature records.. How NON-objective of them..

You mean THOSE KOCH brothers??

Yep, those bastards! Donating to science and all that...

 

[PMZ]

The Heartland Institute. The Koch Bros. Among the biggest beneficiaries of big oil. How very objective.

Were you napping a couple years when Govt Science clashed with General Science over the efficacy of Women doing self exams on their breasts and the utility of mammograms? There was certainly a vested Govt interest in lowering payments for preventation.. They pretty much got a smack down from the Medical communitee..

As for the Koch Bros. You mean the Dudes that PAY FOR the only real science show on TV? Nova says they are a major sponsor. Also have saved more lives than most politicians with all the Hospital Specialty wings named after them.. Built additions onto the Kennedy Center? Oh how evil is all that??

Damn --- they even kicked in money so the Cal Berkeley could do the BEST study on modern Temperature records.. How NON-objective of them..

You mean THOSE KOCH brothers??

Yep, those bastards! Donating to science and all that...

Not donating to science. Trying to buy it.

 

[PMZ]

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

Yes, you've already demonstrated your blind, slavish worship of the high priests.

The completely fucked-up thing is how proud of it you seem to be.

I do worship truth and therefore science. You apparently worship politics as a way of getting your way.

Your choice.

 

[PMZ]

And in the relatively very short time we have been tracking and keeping records of global temperatures, I would bet a very nice steak dinner that there hasn't been a single 24 hour period in which several instances of record heat as well as record cold has not been recorded somewhere. I am guessing we will need to keep careful records for probably several hundred more years before record heat or cold becomes more of a rarity.

It seems to me that honorable climate science does not evaluate climate change on a few decades but recognizes that weather patterns vary widely from year to year, decade to decade, and century to century, none of which are any significant factor in overall climate change. And certainly honorable scientists don't make any conclusive declarations based on the 34 years that we have had satellite imaging. That isn't even a blink of an eyelash in overall climate history. However, the arctic sea ice appears to be returning at a record rate this winter, if we base the record on that 34 years, and ice continues to increase in Anartica.

As one scientist I read recently put it, if anthropogenic CO2 production is actually warming the planet, we might want to encourage a lot more of that to delay the next inevitable ice age.

There are not honorable and dishonorable scientists. For climate science, there are the IPCC scientists.

They define the current state of climate science.

You, not at all.

They do?

Absolutely.