Jul 2, 2001

The big bang KURT LOFT of The Tampa Tribune

It was one of history's most violent explosions, a geologic belch felt 'round the world.

Today, 10 years after the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines, scientists still study the effects of this monster event, which offered valuable information about how volcanoes behave and their effects on land and atmosphere.

Pinatubo was an event of global scale. When the volcano blew its top in June 1991, it killed 270 people, made 250,000 homeless, destroyed two of the largest U.S. military bases in Asia, and obliterated much of the island of Luzon. The explosion injected into the air 20 million tons of sulfur dioxide, which reacted with water to form sulfuric acid droplets.

The most cataclysmic eruption in nearly a century changed the dynamics of the atmosphere and cooled temperatures around the world, says Chip Trepte, an atmospheric scientist at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Langley Research Center in Virginia.

``We learned that Pinatubo had a very strong effect on the atmosphere, and it lasted not for months but for several years,'' he says by telephone. ``It changed the circulation of the upper atmosphere and the amount of energy that reached Earth's surface. It also changed the way energy was released back out to space.''

SCIENTISTS USE Pinatubo as a model to study changes in the stratosphere, a layer of atmosphere extending from about 6 mile up to 30 miles up. At this altitude, there are no clouds to wash out pollutants, which can remain circling the globe for years and possibly decades.

Pinatubo created a hot cloud of gas 22 miles high - the ideal eruption, says Jerry Meehl, a climatologist with the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Colorado.

``Pinatubo is an important volcano in terms of the quality of observations and the way that data is used,'' he says. ``It was the best- observed volcanic eruption, in terms of climate effects, in history.''

Climatologists work with computer models, constantly adding new information to study the long- term changes in the atmosphere. Pinatubo added a burst that spiked that model, and scientists now can make comparisons that help them better understand natural and human influences on the environment.

``Volcanoes put a lot of stuff into the stratosphere that can produce global cooling, but we don't have a lot of good observations,'' Meehl adds. ``Pinatubo was a large explosion and produced a significant global climate effect, so we were able to get really good observations about what was spewed into the atmosphere. It's helped us reconstruct a history of past volcanoes that we can put into a [long- term] climate model.''

For geologists, Pinatubo also offered a wealth of scientific data. After the eruption, intense, heat- driven wind blew ash in all directions, blanketing the countryside with sand, silt, glass and larger pumice pebbles. This ash will effect the surrounding environment for decades, affecting vegetation, ground cover and water flow.

Geologists also learned from Pinatubo's interior, particularly how new magma, forced up from deep in the Earth's crust, can trigger a reaction in a dormant volcano. Scientists gleaned much about volcanic ``plumbing'' and the importance of this fresh magma on the overall system.

Still, questions remain. When will it erupt again? How intense might that eruption be? What is the cyclical nature of eruptions in general? Can other volcanoes behave like Pinatubo, and if so, why?

Pinatubo was much different from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington, which blew sideways. Its gaseous plume stayed relatively low. Pinatubo went up like a geyser.

``Pinatubo was huge,'' Trepte says. ``It went into both hemispheres and the debris moved over the globe very quickly. So we learned a lot about circulation patterns in the upper atmosphere. It's like putting a color dye in a sink or bathtub, so you can see how the fluid moves. Pinatubo created a laboratory for us where we could observe all these motions in the atmosphere.''

Here's a select look at what atmospheric scientists have learned a decade after the eruption:

-- Temporary global cooling. The massive aerosol cloud temporarily halted global warming, lowering global average temperatures by 0.5 degrees Celsius (about 1 degree Fahrenheit) through 1992.

-- A global pall of dust. Pinatubo pumped so much volcanic ash and gas into the upper reaches of the atmosphere that the normal levels of stratospheric aerosols increased by more than 20 times.

-- Ozone level drops. The protective ozone layer in the upper atmosphere weakened as a result of gases injected into the stratosphere. The ozone eventually recovered.

-- Change in weather. Climate models showed that Pinatubo produced a shift in wind patterns over the North Atlantic Ocean that lead to a warmer-than-usual winter in Europe in 1991-92.

-- Mud flows. Millions of tons of ash and rock that blanketed the flanks of Pinatubo created dangerous rivers of mud during the annual rainy season. These dangers have not gone away.

-- Swirling atmosphere. The eruption was a unique natural experiment that revealed atmospheric currents previously unseen by scientists. As satellites tracked volcanic gases moving around the globe, they documented movements passing from the lower troposphere into the stratosphere for the first time.

http://www.tampatrib.com/News/MGAE6799OOC.html

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), July 03, 2001

Answers

PREACH it, brother!

THIS will have the globalwarming freaks twitching and drooling for a while--HAH.

-- (oppose_the_EPA@hotmail.com), July 03, 2001.

The fact that the eruption of Mt. Pintubo had temporary cooling effects on the atmosphere has few or no implications for global warming. Take a moment and think about it.

The mechanism of the cooling was primarilly the ejection of dust into the atmosphere. The dust deflected a certain amount of solar energy away from the surface of the earth. In simple terms, it put a cloud between the ground and the sun. As that dust settled, it had less cooling effect. That took a few years.

The mechanism for global warming didn't go away during that time. The greenhouse gases are still there. Deforestation proceeds apace. Pinatubo provided a pause, not a reversal.

The only thing that 'drives me crazy' is the sloppy thinking of people who can't understand simple facts and who jump to conclusions based on little more than wishful thinking.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 03, 2001.

"The only thing that 'drives me crazy' is the sloppy thinking of people who can't understand simple facts and who jump to conclusions based on little more than wishful thinking. "

Like the extreme greenies, you mean?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 03, 2001.

Either "extreme", Buddy. What "drives me crazy" is that the people who are the most vehemently against anything even remotely resembling the CONCEPT of "global warming" are the ones who are screaming the loudest about people not taking "personal responsibility" for their actions. LOL.

Uh, yeah, you mean things like pollution?

An old "ad" comes to mind here: When you throw something away, where does it go?

I don't really have an opinion on this one way or the other, but I won't discount EITHER side of the theory debate, unlike those I mentioned above.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 03, 2001.

"Like the extreme greenies, you mean?" I try to do my thinking in terms of propositions, facts, and chains of reasoning, not in terms of labels.

Your approach leads to specious thinking like this:

Anyone who believes X is correct is an extreme greenie.
Anyone who is an extreme greenie is always wrong.
Mary believes X is correct.
Therefore Mary is always wrong.

The awkwardness comes in a bit later in this form:

I believe K is correct.
Mary believes K is correct.
Mary is always wrong.
Therefore I am wrong about K.

Of course, in real life, anyone who is capable of the first fallacy won't blink twice about ignoring such an inconvenient conclusion.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 03, 2001.

I'm not against the CONCEPT of global warming. I'm just against setting policy on the basis of a controversial THEORY such as global warming. Greens would have you believe that global warming is recognized as a fact by an overwhelming majority of the scientific community, which is far from true.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 03, 2001.

And "right-wingers" would have you believe that there is no chance at all of it being a plausible theory and that ANYONE who lends any credence to it is a "greenie".

Therein lies the OTHER extreme.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 03, 2001.

Lending credence to the global warming theory is not a problem. Like any other scientific theory, it is being debated by scientists who have the appropriate expertise. Making policy based on it, however, is politics--not science--and is green politics at that.

What I consider to be an "extreme greenie" are those who have latched on to the theory, called it fact, and are using it as part of their "natural", "organic", "new age", anti-capitalist, anti-globalization, general approach to everything.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 03, 2001.

But Buddy, you don't seem to hold the same animosity towards those of the extreme opposite beliefs. Or at least, you aren't addressing that part of the equation.

It would appear that it's only the "greenies" that bother you so because a few "rules" were enacted based on what YOU consider to be "junk science". Did it ever occur to you that the scientists to whom you "pledge allegiance" might be the ones preaching "junk science"? Have you ever considered who pays THOSE scientists for their "opinions"? It's not inherent to the "side" you don't like.

All I'm saying is that there are two sides to this issue, but all we ever hear about are the perceived "greenies" and how bad they are. But tell me, just how "bad" is it if something they are either directly or indirectly responsible for saves your health in some way?

If you don't like "organic", "new age", anti-capitalist, then don't buy it, don't pay attention to it. Great thing about this country; you have choices. BTW, "anti-globalization" isn't inherently a "left" thing. That particular bug is shared by the extreme right as well.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 03, 2001.

The evidence for or against global warming is far from conclusive. So, in the face of uncertainity, how ought one proceed? If the United States signed the Kyoto Treaty, it would exchange some uncertain environmental benefit for some uncertain economic cost. (Of course, India and China are exempt and can pollute the environment as they are so inclined.) I think Julian Simon has a few interesting thoughts:

Julian Simon

The astute may remember Simon as winning a wager with long-time doomsayer Paul Erlich.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_orttega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 03, 2001.

"All I'm saying is that there are two sides to this issue, but all we ever hear about are the perceived "greenies" and how bad they are. "

If you mean all you hear from me is that, then I guess I see your point. However, if you read the popular press it is the greens who are presented in the best light and the other side of the issue gets ignored.

FWIW, I am far from a "right-winger." I'm a skeptic and a free-thinker. I have no particular allegiance to any political group. From where I sit, I see many Democrats calling themselves "greens" now simply because they perceive it as the cool or PC thing to be, not because they have any understanding of the complexity of the issues. On the other hand, many anti-aborionists hold that view because it is their religion's dogma. Those are both weak reasons for taking a stand.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 03, 2001.

Nice link there, Deck...er, Jose.

The way Simon puts it the global warming doomers (like acid rain) sounds much like the Y2K doomers. LOL!

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 03, 2001.

While I do not agree with Buddy's choice of words, I have observed environmentalism taking on a religious quality. Perhaps you are familiar with the excellent work by Stephen Landsburg? I have no quarrel with the application of science to environmental issues. The problem occurs when a prevailing philosophy (like the value of recycling) becomes dogma. One of the cornerstones of science is constant challenge of orthodoxy. Some environmentalists react quite poorly to this necessary scientific process. For them, conservation is a value system.

There may be two sides to an issue, but generally one or more sides are wrong. Science is not about respecting the tired notion that everyone is entitled to an "opinion," but discovering what opinions are scientifically valid.

Finally, everything has a cost, including the good intentions of the environmental community. Perhaps an environmental initiative will preserve my health, but it may also cost me (or society). One cannot consider the benefit and ignore the cost. Unfortunately, Americans do not have the luxury of avoiding the cost government's good intentions, unless you decline to pay your taxes.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 03, 2001.

"For them, conservation is a value system."

That is no different than, for others, consumption being a value system.

Science is very good at discovering the accuracy of falsifiable hypotheses. It is very bad at placing a value on following alternative courses of action.

Science can tell you the molecular structure of chlorine, which molecules it will bind with to form compounds, its relative toxicity to bacteria, fish and humans, its rates of decay or evaporation, and other quantifiable properties. But it can't tell you if if you ought to put it in the drinking water or if you ought to discharge it into a river as effluent from the process of bleaching paper products.

"The problem occurs when a prevailing philosophy (like the value of recycling) becomes dogma. One of the cornerstones of science is constant challenge of orthodoxy."

Science may challenge scientific orthodoxy, in the sense that any well-accepted theory is constantly tested and retested for weaknesses whenever new evidence is introduced.

In the case of global warming, new evidence is being introduced fast and furiously, so the trial is not over. But it is a trial in which the jury is very actively discussing the case with the lawyers, the judge and each other, forming and voicing opinions on the fly, based on evidence already heard.

I agree with you that recycling, per se, is not worth dogmatizing about, nor is it worth elevating to the status of a value in itself. It is only a means to an end. Science can tell us quite a bit about whether recycling can achieve that end, or if there is a simpler or more effective means to that end, but it cannot tell us if we do or do not value that end.

By calling environmentalism a religion, you seem to think you are somehow diminishing it, or devaluing it. Not in my view. On the whole, I find the values reflected in environmentalism to be no more 'religious' than the values reflected in mercantilism. Nor do I find environmental values unworthy.

The very fact that you choose this ground to attack from suggests to me that the real criticism you're making isn't that environmentalism "is a value system", but that it isn't your value system.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 03, 2001.

The article says Pinatubo's eruption thinned out the ozone layer, but then the ozone layer recovered. So why isn't it recovering around the holes?

-- helen (hot@the.farm.today), July 03, 2001.

"Every few years there is another major eruption, and it does affect global temps."

Mt. Pinatubo's eruption, according to the article was "one of history's most violent explosions" and "the most cataclysmic eruption in nearly a century".

This does not equate to a Pinatubo-like event "every few years", as you assert. If, by "major eruptions", you meant eruptions much smaller than Pinatubo, then, obviously you are also talking about climate effects much smaller than Pinatubo also.

I say you are wrong. I say you are uninformed. I say you are plucking a guess out of your hat and calling it a fact. I say you are a great example of someone who is who can't understand simple facts and who jump to conclusions based on little more than wishful thinking.

Now, prove me wrong by citing a valid source for this "fact" of yours.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 03, 2001.

Have a look at The effect of volcanic erutions and SOI on global temperatures. Mt Pinatabo was a big one.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 03, 2001.

I'd like to address the essay you cited, Jose. Since there were no readily-available links to his sources, my opinion here is based solely on that specific essay. This is quite long; I apologize.

Mr. Simon makes some very good points and raises some very pertinent issues. (One of the issues he briefly touched on which I believe pertains to BOTH sides of the global warming debate is the phenomenon of "group-think". This was a foundation of the Y2K debate; I don't see why you'd seemingly dismiss what Buddy wrote.) However, his entire argument against global warming seems to be based on nothing more than "the scientists have changed their minds".

Yes, well, the advance of science over time has been known to cause that particular phenomenon. He compares scientific studies from the 1970s with scientific studies from the 1980s and 1990s and is surprised to find they do, at times, contradict each other. Imagine that! And the specific examples he uses (to make his point that "scientists change their minds") completely contradict each other. Again, imagine that. Yet, he comes to his conclusion DESPITE his very own words: "The problem here . . . is that our planet contains many forces about which scientists as yet know very little, and which they can predict poorly if at all - for example, volcanic eruptions." And he then goes on to perfectly illustrate that scientists change their minds based on current data!!

For some odd reason, Mr. Simon appears to find something horribly wrong with this process, despite the fact that it does, over time, work quite well. Don't economists "change their minds" based on new data? Doesn't it work for them, too? And they do it considerably more often than scientists do.

I DO agree that one shouldn't necessarily make "policy" decisions based on few data; especially when that data conflicts. But sometimes (and this is not necessarily one of those "times") one doesn't need a ton of bricks to fall on one's head to see that one should probably move.

However, and despite any relevant points he began to make, it didn't take long to figure out Mr. Simon's bias in all this, and the following is a fairly accurate representation of that bias:

"And by the time the research is complete, many people have a stake in wanting the scientific truth not to be heard - advocacy organizations who gain public support from the alarm; and bureaucrats who have a stake in not being shown to have been in error, and who already have built some empire on the supposed problem."

Note the absence of any mention of the obvious **economic** benefits to **industry** in their very own "PR campaign" that global warming is a "false alarm". No mention of this is made anywhere in the essay.

Yes, why DON'T we talk about "empires built" based on "the supposed [LACK OF a] problem". (insert laughter here)

One would think that such a "scholarly" essay such as Mr. Simon's would examine ALL the evidence; would mention ALL the partisan benefits to both sides. Yet, there is none of that apparent in his essay.

[Aside: I'll just bet that if you asked the public, they'd tell you that they'd like a nice balance of profits and safety; neither at the expense of the other; and certainly neither extreme. Oh, sorry, that's the idealist in me. I shan't let that happen again.]

He states "scientific truth" as if it were his and his alone (read: his colleagues', upon whom he "relies"), with absolutely no consideration for the very basis upon which he's made his "argument": Scientists Change Their Minds With The Data. Seems like quite a contradiction to me.

So who "paid" Mr. Simon? Well, he may NOT have been "paid" as such, but a quick search shows Mr. Simon's background to be in business, advertising and economics, and he was a "Visiting Senior Fellow, Heritage Foundation". LOL. I'm shocked! Who better to reduce everything to a "cost-benefit analysis" with no consideration given to the potential consequences of one's actions (or inactions, as the case may be); no consideration beyond profit and loss statements? No bias there, eh, Jose?

Again, I wouldn't completely discount his argument based solely on his background OR his bias, but his argument alone is weak at best. And as I said above, I don't really have an opinion either way (I'll let the scientists sort it all out), but I don't simply dismiss one theory or the other based on science, let alone politics or (especially) economics.

Now to your last entry.

"Environmentalism" isn't the only "dogma" here. Seems to me there are many who treat "unrestricted industry in the name of capitalism and/or the free market" as a "dogma". Need we revisit the damage in lives lost and property lost (and ultimately, profits lost) as a direct result of unrestricted industry? And such examples aren't "PR campaigns"; they're facts that are in the history books. Of course I'm not saying that this ALWAYS happens. But where do "lives lost" show up on your representative P&L?

Additionally, who's to say that either/or side in this "debate" is wrong? A "politican"? An "economist"? A dead Spanish philospher? Me? I don't think so. Seems to me both sides can be right in some ways, on some very important points, and are in this particular debate.

One can also not simply consider the "cost" regardless of the (lack of) benefits. Again, I'd be surprised if you didn't know that. I learned that in Economics 101 many years ago. Effects that may not immediately show up on a P&L can be devastating in the long run to a corporation, not to mention the odd "innocent bystander".

Neither politicians nor economists can debate a scientific issue based on anything more than *what they've read* (as it is for the rest of us mere mortals). All are entitled to their opinions and some (many?) "lay men" can even converse intelligently in a subject outside their particular fields, such as this one. Science can choose to ignore such opinions. Politicians LIVE by opinions. Economists -- well, where exactly do they fit in this scenario? If it's soley P&L, should such decisions be based in such a way? Or should consideration be given to ALL aspects?

Anyway -- this "debate" here is based on nothing more than the posters' political leanings, though at least one of us has expressed the notion that both sides may be "right". Are you willing to make such a bold statement, or do you hold fast to your very own "dogma"? Or will it be Door Number 3 -- it's only a "dogma" if it's a belief or a political leaning with which you disagree?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 03, 2001.

...at least one of us has expressed the notion that both sides may be "right".

I know you have expressed such a notion.

If the term "right" is taken to be a value judgement, then I am quite willing to agree that both sides may have different ideas of the moral implications of different courses of action.

Jose seems to be of the school that believes that whatever provides the greatest immediate prosperity for the greatest number of people is "right".

I am much closer to the position that maximizing immediate human benefits is "wrong", if it seems likely to lead to future impoverishment of a large percentage of humans. Furthermore, I use a fairly wide definition of what constitutes "wealth" or "impoverishment" - although I would tend to agree with Jose (if I understand his position correctly) that nothing can be considered as "wealth" if a human is not willing to pay some cost to obtain it.

As it happens, I am willing to pay a variety of costs to obtain the kinds of wealth that the environmentalists seem to value - such things as clean water, clean air, biological diversity, ecosystems that are functioning as "designed", and a sense that succeeding generations will have an opportunity to enjoy the earth and the good things in it in like wise as myself.

In order to derive these benefits I am willing to forego or to limit a fair number of opportunities that might increase my immediate wealth in terms of consumption of energy or mineral resources. I am willing to consider the impact my immediate pleasures might have on those who share the earth with me and those who will come after me. In short, I am willing to make sacrifices, to pay a price.

To a large extent, these are value judgements. They weigh the morality of one act against another. And it is easy to differ on what is moral and what is yet more moral. That's really what it comes down to. Not many humans are so callous as to say, apres moi les deluges.

I have heard the anti-environmental arguments. That greed is a surprisingly benificent regulator and the market will take care of every need. That present pain is certain and future benefit is uncertain, so we should think of the short run and let the future care for the future. That freedom is much more valuable than restraint and everyone has a right to destroy as much as he or she can control, because the only alternative is tyranny.

Yet, I still think that a modicum of self-denial, self-restraint and self-sacrifice are good things. Things to value. Things that may hurt very little today and may presently prove wiser and better than we can now properly calculate.

What is the true cost if we humans curb our appetites? What is the cost if we don't? Science can approach that answer, but ultimately it is a gamble. I am not the sort of person who would gamble the rent and food money. Not even if Jose tells me it is a sure bet.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 04, 2001.

Consumption is not a value system. Everyone engages in the consumption of resources. One cannot exist without consuming air, food, water, shelter, etc. The issue is that some environmentalists think we consume "too much."

Science, the scientific method and rationality can be applied to alternative courses of action. One can measure the impact, costs, benefits, risks of an action or a course of action. Science can most certainly tell us the benefits and risks of chlorine in potable water... or as waste water discharge.

One can say we "ought" to do this or we "ought" to do that. We can make these decisions based on the alignment of the planets, psychics or the roll of the bones. We can also make decision based on an objective analysis of the available information.

The problem, Nipper, is that many people have an idea of what we "ought" to do. I respectfully suggest you are one of these persons. Let us return to the Y2K doomsayers. They thought science was wonderful insofar as it supported their conclusion of a Y2K disaster. They conveniently rejected rational analysis when it did not produce the desired results.

I see the same dynamic in some environmentalists. Clear-cutting timber may be an environmentally sound practice. The problem: some environmentalists will reject clear-cutting on principle, not science. This is the religion of environmentalism.

I don't have a problem with people choosing to worship Gaia, old growth forests or the snail darter. A rational society, however, should make policy decisions based on reason, not faith. I think environmentalism grounded in science, openness and a willingness to question orthodoxy is a valuable addition to our body of thought. I wish more environmentalists shared this outlook.

As for global warming, we have some guesses, but nothing close to a definitive answer. So, what do we do in the face of uncertain information? Here's where we will diverge. If you are convinced global warming is a problem, I suggest you stop driving. Make changes in your personal lifestyle to minimize "greenhouse" gases. If you can convince others, they may join you. If I am not convinced and you readily the admit the issue is far from resolved, why should I change my behaviors? More importantly, why should you (or anyone) impose their opinion on me?

I readily concede that Mr. Simon may be biased. I am convinced you are equally biased. I note that you rarely include "both sides" in your essays, as you expect from Mr. Simon. Personally, I think Mr. Simon was playing the "devil's advocate" on global warming and never intended his essay as anything more than a thought piece.

And as for your familiar complaint about who "paid" Mr. Simon, it was the University of Maryland. He was a full professor of economics. Had you read his vitae, you would have noticed he was a well- respected economist with a wide range of published work (and, I imagine, sources of income).

Had you read his work, you would know that economists consider all costs and benefits. This is why they use the phrases "external costs" and "external benefits." This describes the costs outside the balance sheet, and has been used extensively to quantify workers injuries and deaths, pollution, even the loss of time due to traffic congestion.

As for my political leanings, Nipper, you are better advised to ask than assume. Having seen the abject failure of collectivism, I am not enthusiastic about environmentally-inclined socialism. On the other hand, I am aware of the excesses of capitalism. My real concern, Nipper, is good intentions, particularly yours. I value invididual liberty and will only accept limitations on this liberty when necessary. A "hunch" about global warming is not enough to convince me that government should dictate changes in my personal life. Follow your conscience, Nipper, but realize I have my own.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 04, 2001.

I love that temp map. Let the enviromaniacs (luv that word, too!) explain away the lowest global temp in 30 years! HAH HAH HAH.

HEE hee hee!

-- (no@ozone.damage.in.reality), July 04, 2001.

Good afternoon everyone. Here's an article that you might find interesting re: global warming. Opinions?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/06/010615071248.htm

Global Warming Natural, May End Within 20 Years, Says Ohio State University Researcher

COLUMBUS, Ohio -- Global warming is a natural geological process that could begin to reverse itself within 10 to 20 years, predicts an Ohio State University researcher.

The researcher suggests that atmospheric carbon dioxide -- often thought of as a key "greenhouse gas" -- is not the cause of global warming. The opposite is most likely to be true, according to Robert Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey Professor of Energy Conservation in Ohio State's Department of Mechanical Engineering. It is the rising global temperatures that are naturally increasing the levels of carbon dioxide, not the other way around, he says.

Essenhigh explains his position in a "viewpoint" article in the current issue of the journal Chemical Innovation, published by the American Chemical Society.

Many people blame global warming on carbon dioxide sent into the atmosphere from burning fossil fuels in man-made devices such as automobiles and power plants. Essenhigh believes these people fail to account for the much greater amount of carbon dioxide that enters -- and leaves -- the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle of water exchange from, and back into, the sea and vegetation.

"Many scientists who have tried to mathematically determine the relationship between carbon dioxide and global temperature would appear to have vastly underestimated the significance of water in the atmosphere as a radiation-absorbing gas," Essenhigh argues. "If you ignore the water, you're going to get the wrong answer."

How could so many scientists miss out on this critical bit of information, as Essenhigh believes? He said a National Academy of Sciences report on carbon dioxide levels that was published in 1977 omitted information about water as a gas and identified it only as vapor, which means condensed water or cloud, which is at a much lower concentration in the atmosphere; and most subsequent investigations into this area evidently have built upon the pattern of that report.

For his hypothesis, Essenhigh examined data from various other sources, including measurements of ocean evaporation rates, man-made sources of carbon dioxide, and global temperature data for the last one million years.

He cites a 1995 report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a panel formed by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Programme in 1988 to assess the risk of human-induced climate change. In the report, the IPCC wrote that some 90 billion tons of carbon as carbon dioxide annually circulate between the earth's ocean and the atmosphere, and another 60 billion tons exchange between the vegetation and the atmosphere.

Compared to man-made sources' emission of about 5 to 6 billion tons per year, the natural sources would then account for more than 95 percent of all atmospheric carbon dioxide, Essenhigh said.

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

Some scientists believe that the human contribution to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, however small, is of a critical amount that could nonetheless upset Earth's environmental balance. But Essenhigh feels that, mathematically, that hypothesis hasn't been adequately substantiated.

Here's how Essenhigh sees the global temperature system working: As temperatures rise, the carbon dioxide equilibrium in the water changes, and this releases more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. According to this scenario, atmospheric carbon dioxide is then an indicator of rising temperatures -- not the driving force behind it.

Essenhigh attributes the current reported rise in global temperatures to a natural cycle of warming and cooling.

He examined data that Cambridge University geologists Nicholas Shackleton and Neil Opdyke reported in the journal Quaternary Research in 1973, which found that global temperatures have been oscillating steadily, with an average rising gradually, over the last one million years -- long before human industry began to release carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Opdyke is now at the University of Florida.

According to Shackleton and Opdyke's data, average global temperatures have risen less than one degree in the last million years, though the amplitude of the periodic oscillation has now risen in that time from about 5 degrees to about 10 degrees, with a period of about 100,000 years.

"Today, we are simply near a peak in the current cycle that started about 25,000 years ago," Essenhigh explained.

As to why highs and lows follow a 100,000 year cycle, the explanation Essenhigh uses is that the Arctic Ocean acts as a giant temperature regulator, an idea known as the "Arctic Ocean Model." This model first appeared over 30 years ago and is well presented in the 1974 book Weather Machine: How our weather works and why it is changing, by Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist magazine.

According to this model, when the Arctic Ocean is frozen over, as it is today, Essenhigh said, it prevents evaporation of water that would otherwise escape to the atmosphere and then return as snow. When there is less snow to replenish the Arctic ice cap, the cap may start to shrink. That could be the cause behind the retreat of the Arctic ice cap that scientists are documenting today, Essenhigh said.

As the ice cap melts, the earth warms, until the Arctic Ocean opens again. Once enough water is available by evaporation from the ocean into the atmosphere, snows can begin to replenish the ice cap. At that point, the Arctic ice begins to expand, the global temperature can then start to reverse, and the earth can start re-entry to a new ice age.

According to Essenhigh's estimations, Earth may reach a peak in the current temperature profile within the next 10 to 20 years, and then it could begin to cool into a new ice age.

Essenhigh knows that his scientific opinion is a minority one. As far as he knows, he's the only person who's linked global warming and carbon dioxide in this particular way. But he maintains his evaluations represent an improvement on those of the majority opinion, because they are logically rigorous and includes water vapor as a far more significant factor than in other studies.

"If there are flaws in these propositions, I'm listening," he wrote in his Chemical Innovation paper. "But if there are objections, let's have them with the numbers."

Editor's Note: The original news release can be found at http://www.osu.edu/researchnews/archive/nowarm.htm

Fair use, for educational purposes.

-- Deb Mc. (not@now.please), July 04, 2001.

I've seen that article before. Yet another reason for questioning global warming, which is considered by many as "common knowledge", but in reality is just a good example of group-think.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

True, Buddy, but the same can be said of the "global warming naysayers" who are ALSO absolutely positive they're right.

To "Jose":

You've either confused me with L.N., or have chosen to answer my post in with your response to his/hers. Whichever the case . . .

It seems that explicit statements are futile in a discussion with you, and that can be seen quite clearly from your response to -- well, I want to say your response was to what I've written, but that would be wrong. You've instead chosen to respond to what you think you know about me.

I am most decidedly "biased" in many things (as are you!), but this issue (global warming) is not one of them, and I have noted that a number of times on this very thread. As I also stated at the start of my response regarding Mr. Simon's essay, it was based on nothing more than THAT PARTICULAR ESSAY. I was under the (mistaken?) impression that the sentence, "Since there were no readily- available links to his sources, my opinion here is based solely on that specific essay", conveyed that rather well.

Yet you've chosen to ignore these (and other) facts.

Part of my problem (if you will) with Mr. Simon's essay is, in fact, his "bias", but not for the reasons you presume. The fact that he intimates his is a "scholarly essay", yet chooses to ignore the other side (and/or the obvious) does "bug" me. Again, I thought I was rather pointed in that clarification. If Mr. Simon was, indeed, acting as "devil's advocate", then I misunderstood his purpose. Quite possible for that to happen, especially when the essay does not state (anywhere) that "I'm playing devil's advocate here". Additionally (again, as I stated) I was responding ONLY to the essay YOU CITED. How on earth would I know whether or not he's playing devil's advocate?

But that wasn't my main complaint with the essay, and you either skipped that part, or chose to ignore it. I'll leave it to you to go back and re-read.

I would be surprised that you question my "familiar complaint about who 'paid' Mr. Simon" (yet another point you seem to have overlooked), but I'm not. This is a fairly standard tactic of your "debating style" -- redirecting the discussion to the poster instead of what's been written (hence the use of the word "familiar"). A question for you: Haven't you stated, on any number of occasions, that who "paid" for something was quite relevant because that determined the slant and (at times) the result? I'm sure I remember you stating that in this and other personae. I guess that only applies to issues with which you disagree, eh?

I read Mr. Simon's "vita". I noted his background. Did you miss that part, too? I have no need to read his work because my response (for the umpteenth time) was based solely on that particular essay. I assume that's why you cited it. I didn't respond to the thread you started with one of his letters to The Washington Post, nor did I reference it in my response here, did I?

I would say it's odd that you haven't addressed any point I've made regarding Mr. Simon's "argument", but it isn't really all that odd as I've seen you do this before (and not just the few times you've responded to me). It would appear that you prefer to craft your "argument" according to the poster's perceived background ("you know what you know") and use that as the basis for your response instead of replying to what was actually written.

Please don't waste any more of my time unless you can answer what is written, versus what you THINK you know.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2001.

True, Buddy, but the same can be said of the "global warming naysayers" who are ALSO absolutely positive they're right.

No, most of the so-called "global warming naysayers" simply point out that the facts don't support the Green conclusions.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

Deja vu! Wow sounds just like the Y2K debates. The greenies (doomers) say the end is near while the other side (global warming naysayers) say we need more info before we can conclude anything.

The other side isn't saying they are right! The other side is saying that more evidence is needed before they can conclude anything about global warming. However, the greenies are most definitely saying THEY are right. They teach our children these religious notions, march on "earth day", live in trees so the bad loggers won't cut them down, and use other fanatical methods to get their point across.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 05, 2001.

This is absurd. BOTH sides do exactly the same thing. "Most of the so-called [Greens] simply point out that the facts don't support the [nay-sayer] conclusions". BOTH sides have "facts" to back up their arguments. BOTH sides can produce an equal number of equally- qualified scientists along with an equal number of "scientific studies" to support their theories. (This is the main reason I have no opinion on this issue.) One may choose to believe only one set of facts, but that doesn't make the other set of facts any less valid.

You stated above that you are a "skeptic". Do you want to clarify that "skepticism"?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2001.

Much like Patricia, I sit on the fence on this Global Warning thing. Actually, that's a lie. I do think that Global Warning is real, only because I've read that in my Biology texts and been told that by my professors. I sit on the fence because I'm not an evangelist. I don't care if someone doesn't believe in Global Warning. There are many reasons why *I*, personally, choose to do things like limit my driving, increase my gas mileage, recycle, and support SOME programs financially that *I* think are important. I didn't even realize that the term tree hugger wasn't a figure of speech until someone posted about folks sitting in trees.

My kids are environmentalists. They recycle, buy their meat at the butcher stand to avoid purchasing the meat in the styrofoam containers on display, and support the preservation of the rain forests. I hardly consider them fanatics. I agree with Patricia that there are fanatics on both sides of this issue.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

Hmmm...TWICE I spelled Global Warming as Global Warning. Was that a Freudian slip?

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

I am as anti-green as you can get. I coined the phrase "EARTH FIRST...we'll log the other planets later!"

SHOCKER: I recycle. WHY? My wallet. simple. straightforward. curbside recycling is free, trash pickup costs me. so I take a few extra seconds (if even that long) to throw my alum. in one colored bin, my paper into another, etc. I cut my garbage bill in half. Maybe more. simple.

If most people knew the truth behind the "global warming" religion, they would shit gold bricks. You want to talk about conspiracy! IT really picked up steam when DuPont patented R-134A. They needed to get R-12 (Freon) off the market, so they created the whole "ozone destruction" myth. within years, dupont was raking in the dough from sales of r134a, as well as the fringe benies of all their co-conspirators who were busy making new systems for it (cause it doesn't work with r-12)

It only gets more twisted from there. Do some research and you will find out that over 70% of what we call "pollution" comes from nature!

Good luck defeating the eviromaniac meme!

-- (chainsaw@em.down), July 05, 2001.

Anita, I have noted in the past that you have commented that the reason you believe global warming is real is because your biology proffessor believes it, and because you have read it in Biology texts. However climatoloy and meteorology are physical sciences as opposed to biological science.

I would like to enquire about the following:

Do your biology texts describe any experiments that can be carried out to determine the extent of GW if any?

Do they even describe the rate of natural CO2 production due to any changes in the earths temperature?

Do they describe any experiments to determine to determine if CO2 precedes or lags temperature changes?

Do they explain where you can obtain RAW surface temperature data?

Like you I also believe in conservation and protecting our environment, but I do it out of a genuine concern for the environment and not because of any perceived Global Warming.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 05, 2001.

Let me attempt to clarify my skepticism as it relates to this issue.

Global Warming is not a fact. It is a hypothesis which represents some scientists' best guess given the current data. That hypothesis is heavily dependent on computer models that are imperfect and do not take into account many variables which come into play in reality but are not included in the computer model. Some of the scientists working with these models, for whatever reason, are making extraordinary claims of the certainty of global warming despite the fact that they know their models are imperfect. A good scientist knows what he/she doesn't know, and does not make extraordinary claims with insufficient knowledge. Now, the public has picked up on the extraordinary claims without knowing the complexity of the issues behind those claims, not to mention the multitudes of entrepreneurs now marketing products based on some of the unproven Green claims much like the Y2K vendors tried to do. Thus, the issue has become political instead of scientific and has become a rallying point for the Green movement. (As an aside, did you know the D.C. Statehood party recently changed their name to the Green party, despite the fact that statehood for Washington, DC, has nothing to do with any Green issue.)

I am not skeptical about the possiblity of global warming (or cooling for that matter) existing. I am simply against the notion that it seems the general public is developing, namely that global warming is established fact and that drastic action is necessary to counteract it. This is a notion based on politics and a general Green and/or left-wing notion that we are somehow destroying our world.

Much of what the Kyoto Protocol tries to do fits nicely into the schemes of those who simply wish to weaken the strong industrial nations for totally unrelated political reasons.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

BOTH sides can produce an equal number of equally- qualified scientists along with an equal number of "scientific studies" to support their theories.

There isn't enough evidence yet to draw absolute conclusions about everything, but I think the above statement has become wrong. It seems the majority of people who would be considered "experts" in this debate are leaning towards the definite existance of global warming. I have not heard anything close to a consensus on what this means exactly to us or the planet, however.

The main driving force behind the "global warming: yes" side is the fact that climate models *predicted* global warming when emmissions reached certain levels, and now there's evidence that weather patterns are changing. The relationship may be coincidental, and the changes might be part of some larger natural cycle, but when relationships between predictive models and measurable evidence like that show up, scientists have a hard time ignoring them.

Like I said before, I predict the evidence will continue to mount up until it's undeniable to everyone except the people who *need* it to be false, for some personal or political reason.

Keeping an open mind is a good idea here, as always. If the facts and the majority of evidence are pointing towards a conclusion one way or the other, you should be able to adjust your viewpoint. If you fight the evidence to the bitter end, your personal agenda or your need to "be right" has clouded your judgement.

Corporate sponsorship of some of these studies that conclude "no global warming" should not be discounted, also, IMHO.

-- Bemused (and_amazed@you.people), July 05, 2001.

" The carbon dioxide-warming connection: cause and effect? It has become an article of faith that CO2 increases are the cause of the warmings marking the end of the ice ages observed in the climate record in the past million years. Now comes news from precise Antarctic ice-core data that while warmings and CO2 increases are indeed correlated, the CO2 increases lag the warmings by about 1,000 years. So much for the cause-effect relationship so dear to the hearts of global-warming promoters."

S. Fred Singer, an atmospheric physicist, is the president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project based in Fairfax. He is emeritus professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and former director of the U.S. Weather Satellite Service.

http://www.capitalismmagazine.com/1999/feb/environment.htm

-- Cave Man (caves@are.us), July 05, 2001.

I was answering Nipper, Patricia. I choose not to respond to your post directly because I found Nipper's essay more interesting. I actually know nothing about you, which is coincidentally, exactly what you know about me.

I provided Mr. Simon's essay, not as the definitive "science" on global warming, but as an interesting essay. When you provide conclusive data proving the theory of global warming, I will read with great interest. While not a climatologist by training, I understand global warming is an theory far from proven.

Neither Mr. Simon nor any author has to present "both" sides. In fact, global warming is a complex issue and cannot be neatly divided into two sides. The op-ed style of the article is far different than Mr. Simon's academic writings in the field of economics. It is, in the vernacular of journalism, a "thought" piece.

My comment about who "paid" whom was directed at Nipper, not you. As for my "standard" tactics, you seem confident that I have written under different names. I respectfully suggest you lack the evidence to draw this conclusion.

You also lack the evidence Mr. Simon's views on global warming are influenced by his association with the Heritage Foundation. Writing for a conservative think-tank is not de facto evidence of bias. Were Mr. Simon presenting the definitive scientific data on global warming, one could examine the data and analysis for evidence of bias. As it stands, he's just writing an opinion piece.

Finally, I am not surpised you feel my post neglected your arguments. It did. I copied Nipper's post into the "response" page and was focused on his issues. If I might offer a suggestion, read my responses. If your name appears in my comments, my response is meant for you. If not, draw the obvious conclusion.

As I suggested to Nipper, please feel free to live an environmentally sensitive lifestyle. Frankly, I do not care if others recycle, bicycle to work and donate heavily to the Sierra Club. What worries me is when people decide to impose their worries onto others via the government.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

Writing for a conservative think-tank is not de facto evidence of bias.

Good one Decker! now what was that you been blabbing about? global warming? Hahaha what a jerk.

Do get help someplace, on YOUR OWN TIME.

-- (goget@clue.net), July 05, 2001.

Buddy: Thanks for the clarification, but what you've described isn't "skepticism"; you believe one side's facts over the other's. Nothing wrong with that at all.

Jose: Well then. I stand corrected. I must have misread my words in your response to L.N. *I* was the one who raised the issue of who "paid" Mr. Simon; not Little Nipper. An honest mistake on my part in thinking that your response to that was directed towards me. I seem to remember being the one who responded to the essay you cited as well. No point in wasting any more of my time pointing out the errors in your latest.

I am ever so grateful for your disinterest, "Jose".

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2001.

I believe one side's facts over the others?

I don't see it that way. I see Greens jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the facts. The other side, if there is one, is the rest of us. The facts are the same no matter which side you are on.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

National Academy of Sciences tells Bush global warming is getting worse

-- Is (the@Academy."green"?), July 05, 2001.

Is the Academy green?

LOL!

Their report contained much doubt about global warming, despite the headlines which simplified it.

Anyway, are you going to accept a single report from the NAS as the final word on any issue? There are lots of studies funded through the NAS that don't amount to much science.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

Any argument should be judged on its merits, not its proponents. It is intellectually shallow to simply dismiss an essay because the author is conservative, liberal, etc.

Currently, global warming is an unproven theory. If one finds the weight of evidence compelling, then they are free to adjust their personal behavior to save the planet. Unfortunately, some environmentalists are not content with this. They want to treat the theory of global warming as fact and mandate changes in the economy down to personal economic choices.

And lest I forget, thank you, Patricia, for your benign neglect. I only hope you practice the same restraint in the area of public policy.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

Malcolm: You want me to reread what I read last fall in my texts? I'm not opposed to doing that, but it might take a few days.

I agree with you, however, that I do what I do and my kids do what they do not because of a fear of global warming, [which I FINALLY spelled right...It was actually THREE times that I'd typed global warning previously] but of sheer environmental consciousness.

To that poster who recycles because it saves him/her money, I've never saved any money by recycling, although I know some folks in more rural areas who do. I DO save money by cutting down on my driving, saving chores in one area of town until I have enough to warrant the drive, etc.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), July 05, 2001.

LOL. Of course you "don't see it that way", Buddy. You don't even think there are two sides here!

With me being "in the middle" on this, and believing as I do that each theory has its merits and its myths, as well as appropriate supporting facts, where do I fit in your "only one side" scenario?

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2001.

Anyway, are you going to accept a single report from the NAS as the final word on any issue?

Should I accept the view of people with unknown credentials on the Internet such as Buddy?

-- Haven't made up (my@mind.yet), July 05, 2001.

"Jose", perhaps you could read what I wrote on this very thread. Then again, knowing what a task it is for you, having to read something that isn't quite up to your standards of "interesting", I'll re-print it here. Never let it be said I wasn't helpful.

"I DO agree that one shouldn't necessarily make "policy" decisions based on few data; especially when that data conflicts."

Something there you didn't quite understand? Now remember, *you* were the one who said you knew nothing about me, so it follows that you can only go by what I've written on this thread, yes?

Silly me; there's that "idealism" again. LOL.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 05, 2001.

It's really hard to imagine Clark AFB and Angeles City, Subic NS and Olongapo destroyed and covered in ash.

I remember driving by Pinatubo on my way back and forth to Manila. It was beautiful, majestic.

Weird.

-- (cin@cin.cin), July 05, 2001.

With me being "in the middle" on this, and believing as I do that each theory has its merits and its myths, as well as appropriate supporting facts, where do I fit in your "only one side" scenario?

I guess that makes you not a Green.

Speaking of green, I'm off on vacation for two weeks starting at close of business today, so I hope to see more greens than computer monitors in the next 14 days. LOL!

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 06, 2001.

Patricia, who cares what you have to say about anything?

"Please don't waste any more of my time unless you can answer what is written, versus what you THINK you know."

You continue to demand answers to your writings. Please just shut up! If you think you are "wasting your time", then just shut up. Otherwise I'd have to believe that you enjoy "wasting your time".

-- LOL (what@moron.who.does.not.know.anything), July 06, 2001.

I wish you would not take my lack of interest so personally, Patricia.

Simon points out that scientists are often guilty of "group think." Many scientific advances have come only after strong opposition from the defenders of the status quo. It is hard to find an original scientific thinker that was not excoriated by his or her peers.

Simon also observes the problem of premature conclusion. I really don't think Simon criticizes the self correcting nature of good science. I see his essay as more cautionary. Science is best served by patience and skepticism. This includes the science of economics.

As to your essay, what exactly is the "ton of bricks?" Are you suggesting the data on global warming are these "bricks" falling on our collective heads? If so, please provide your references.

Moving forward, you operate under the misconception that an valid essay need contain alternative viewpoints. This is simply not true. Many academic (and all editorial) writings focus on a single idea. Of course, one can cites the body of literature to reference the existing "argument," however, the point of most articles is to advance or dispell a particular notion.

I also see flaws in your logic involving the "economic benefits" to industry (not to mention the lack of proof of your accusation.) Absent government regulation, industry makes no more or less money because of an ongoing scientific debate. Government regulation always imposes economic costs, and these costs are passed onto the consumers. Consider the Kyoto treaty. Some nations are exempt, while the United States is not. The natural solution would be for businesses to export productive capacity (and pollution) to places like India and China. I fail to see how greenhouse gases generated in China have a different impact that those same gases generated in Indiana.

Simon does not claim omniscience or "the truth." In the absence of convincing data, he suggests patience. Is he biased? I don't know and neither do you. All you can do is speculate based on his work in the private sector. It's little more than an ad homimen attack. Better evidence of bias might be a blanket statement that everyone who has every worked for the Heritage Foundation is a business shill.

As for your protests against "unrestricted industry," please show me an example. Industry has always been more or less regulated, particularly in the 20th century. As to the success of the free market, I think the failures of collectivism are well documented. Some of Simon's best writings are about the successes of the market economy and how most measurable indices of quality of life have increased (in the free world) during the past few centuries.

Your assumption that economists only consider "book" profits and losses is badly flawed. Economists have done substantive work documenting the costs of discrimination and other social phenomena. I refer you to Gary Becker's Nobel Prize in economics as an excellent example.

Finally, I can reach no conclusion on global warming. As such, I do not want my personal economic freedoms limited by unsubstantiated environmental fears.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

Not personal, Jose; just repeating what you said. I don't read everything you write either. I doubt either of us will lose any sleep over it.

Save for a couple of points, we really don't disagree on this. But I did not see Simon's piece as "cautionary". I read it as being a "global warming: no" essay. Because there were no links to his references and because of the "slant" of the piece, there was no way to come to any other conclusion.

Again, (and I grow very tired of repeating myself here), neither his "bias" nor the "global warming: no" bother me. It's the way Simon reaches his conclusion that "bothers" me, if you will. Of course scientists change their minds. And doctors. And economists. And engineers. To use that as a basis for a "cautionary" piece, absolutely. No better way to illustrate that. But to use that as the sole basis in support of or against something invalidates the argument. There must be additional "evidence".

The Heritage Foundation is a conservative think tank. If you don't see any slant there, then there's nothing I can say.

The consequences of unrestricted industry . . . think turn of the century, and then during our lives, think chemical companies who do business in places like India where it is unrestricted and mostly unregulated.

The only thing I said about the free market was that some people treat "unrestricted industry in the name of capitalism and/or the free market" as a dogma -- and they do. I said nothing as to its success or failure. This is the second time that I've noticed you've raised the example of the "failure of collectivism" as an apparent defense of the "free market" into the discussion. One wonders why when no one else mentioned it.

You state that you "do not want [your] personal economic freedoms limited by unsubstantiated environmental fears". A tad dramatic, don't you think? Well, let's take the opposite of that: I don't want my LIFE limited by unrestricted industry based on slanted, paid- for, so-called "scientific studies". And my LIFE is worth much more than your "personal economic freedoms". I can do "drama" too. LOL.

You argue from the standpoint that I believe "global warming: yes", despite my repeated statements to the contrary. Again, you leave me no choice but to believe you are projecting something else into this discussion.

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com), July 06, 2001.

...BOTH sides do exactly the same thing. "Most of the so-called [Greens] simply point out that the facts don't support the [nay- sayer] conclusions". BOTH sides have "facts" to back up their arguments. BOTH sides can produce an equal number of equally- qualified scientists along with an equal number of "scientific studies" to support their theories.....

-- (PatriciaS@lasvegas.com)

Patricia, You are unfortunately mistaken in your views.

First, BOTH sides have "facts" to back up their arguments No one has been able to produce any "facts" that establish GW. The best that anyone can do is to refer to the results of model outputs. In other words "guesses" on whether or not GW exists. The draft IPCC report (TAR) listed 40 possible scenarios developed by climate scientists, but the Summary for Policy Makers (SPM), a political document and the only portion so far published, only mentioned the worst possible case.

Then BOTH sides can produce an equal number of equally- qualified scientists Read this report from last year which shows that the scientists involved in producing the IPCC report are themselves sceptical of its conclusions. Visit this site to find out about the ongoing debate between academics involved in the field.

You are right that studies are still progressing and that there is not yet any clear indication of any climate trends. The Northern hemisphere does appear to warming slightly, while the southern hemisphere is cooling slightly. The present trend appears to be an overall increasing temperature of 0.038 C per decade. Thus at the end of the current century average temperatures may be almost half a degree warmer than at present. However some studies suggest that we may be only 30 years away from the next mini ice age!

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 06, 2001.

Global Warming is a Capitalist scam to chain competition and open areas where few if anyone will have any power to make them "operate responsibily".

Dupes in all this are people worldwide who DO care about their environment. Folks who value clean air and water over bank entries. Folks who do not need "scientific data" to know absolutely there has to be a better way to get to point A, from B, than is currently the norm. A reality which Bush and Co like just the way it is.

-- (bushandclinton@twofaced.scum), July 06, 2001.

The report I linked to in my previous post has been archived. It is still there but you will have to read through 20 or 30 other reports to find it. so here it is , copied for all to read.

Skeptical Climate Scientists Unite against IPCC (5 June 2000)

(Abridged version of report on the Washington meeting from David Wojick, who is editor of `Electricity Daily')

Last week's summit of skeptical climate scientists had harsh words for the Third Assessment Report of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (Electricity Daily, May 26). The scientists unanimously claim that systematic errors and omissions, pervade the draft TAR.

A Capitol Hill crowd of about 150 heard the international group of scientists pour on the criticism. The IPCC is deliberately ignoring important science, and skewing what they do consider, the group says.

Several startling revelations came out at the meeting. Norway's Tom Segalstad reported that early ice core analyses found preindustrial carbon dioxide levels well over present amounts, indicating that there may not in fact be a significant CO2 increase at all. "But," Segalstad says, "these findings have been dropped from subsequent studies, beginning about 1985, perhaps because they are not politically correct."

Segalstad also noted that in order to get the "politically correct" low CO2 levels in the ice cores to link up properly with more recent atmospheric measurements, the age estimates had to be changed significantly. "They decided the air in the ice was 95 years younger than the ice it was in," he quips. Segalstad told Electricity Daily that he has been harassed and threatened in Norway for making such statements.

Prof. Fred Singer, who organized the summit, reported that tree ring data does not show any warming in the last century, contradicting the surface thermometer record.

Several speakers noted that there is no known way that the surface temperature can be rising while the atmospheric temperature, as measured by satellites, is not warming. "Greenhouse gas warming must first occur high in the air, not near the ground. In fact, atmospheric warming could increase evaporation and actually cool the surface, but we see none of that," American scientist Hugh Ellsaesser explains.

According to New Zealand's Vincent Gray, "The IPCC tries to prove that the satellite and balloon records are wrong. It is much more likely that these records are correct and the surface data are wrong." He added, "The increased surface temperatures in the record are mostly in cold climates in the dead of winter when we would expect the local heat effect to be most prominent."

Germany's Peter Dietze presented his own alternative model which he says incorporates many features ignored by the IPCC. According to Dietze the IPCC errors are so gross that a relatively simple model is sufficient to estimate their magnitude. "The IPCC's best guess for warming due to CO2 doubling is a factor of 4 to 6 too high," (See Dietze's paper here)

David Wojick, who chaired one of the panels, sums up the event saying "if these scientists are right, then the IPCC's errors and omissions are disgraceful." He notes that the 1000 page TAR itself, at the very end, says "In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-liner chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." Wojick quips that - "The IPCC should read its own last chapter."

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 06, 2001.

Every opinion piece has a "slant." This is the nature of writing one's opinion.

Simon's argument is valid insofar that a valid theory must be supported by the weight of evidence. Demonstrating that earlier theories, particularly in environmental science, have been disproven with time is a reasonable point. It is helpful to know that climatology is an imperfect science and that global warming is an unproven theory.

The real issue is how we act in the face of an unproven theory. Simon is not really arguing about global warming, but about the economic impacts of treating global warming as a real phenomena. Simon would not write this essay about the distinction of a subspecies of butterfly or the mating habits of the mongoose.

The Kyoto Protocol is a direct result of the theory of global warming. If the U.S. signed and complied with this treaty, there would be economic impacts. My concern is simple. The environmental movement wants to go well beyond encouraging changes in personal behavior and mandate significant limitations to personal economic freedoms. Why? To save us from the threat of global warming.

This is not the first environmental Chicken Little I have heard. Julian Simon capably dismantled Paul Erlich, a doomsayer since the 60s. Despite the gloomy prediction of environmentalists and groups like the Club of Rome, life has become better. The environment in the U.S. has become cleaner. Regulations like the Clean Air and Clean Water acts have helped. More importantly, people have become better informed and environmental responsibility has become a social standard. How many people do you see taking waste oil and dumping it into their backyard?

I am aware of the excesses of industry, but also of the benefits conferred to the general population. I cannot think of any leading economists who suggest there should be absolutely no regulation of industry. Most economic thinkers realize there are external costs and benefits. The difference is in how we address these inevitable market imperfections.

I mention failed collectivism because of the socialistic tendencies of the environmental community. Consider the American or European Green parties. The platforms are undeniably socialist. In my experience, the ardent environmentalists are not content with encouraging personal change, but using the force of government to impose their values on others.

As to your melodrama, there is no "unrestricted industry." The existence of industry does not limit your life. You need not buy a computer (produced by industry), or sit in your chair (produced by industry), or get hot under your collar (produced by industry). You are free to live without these conveniences. You are free not to work in a factory, tolerate poor working conditions or suffer under oppressive management. Industry is far more likely to save your life than take it. Let's end the industry of modern medicine for a time and see how quality of life is impacted. Perhaps you can state your disdain by refusing antibiotics or an MRI.

We enjoy these benefits, not because of government regulation, but because of the incentives of the market system. Is it perfect? Of course not. There are always trade-offs. Progess (or the lack thereof) always will have a cost that includes human life.

-- Jose Ortega y Gasset (j_ortega_y_gasset@hotmail.com), July 06, 2001.

Folks who do not need "scientific data" to know absolutely there has to be a better way to get to point A, from B, than is currently the norm.

This is the type of attitude to which I was referring whereby politics becomes more important in this issue then it should be.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 06, 2001.

WHAT issue Buddy? getting it yet?

-- (bushandclinton@twofaced.scum), July 06, 2001.

What issue? What issue do you think, you anonymous scum?

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 06, 2001.

I see Greens jumping to conclusions that aren't warranted by the facts. The other side, if there is one, is the rest of us. The facts are the same no matter which side you are on.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), July 05, 2001.

-- No issue (only@one.side), July 06, 2001.

Global warming, yes: http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/

Global warming, no: http://www.globalwarming.org/

-- The two sides (of@global.warming), July 07, 2001.

What we got now? Bout 6 billion people? 80% living in what we here would call poverty yet screwing their brains out because advances in food production allows it? Who's kidding who? Whatever impact humans have on global warming is not only locked in but will expand. Course we could kill a couple a billion, but, naw let's just debate reality and grunmble along pretending we're smarter than our nuts.

-- Carlos (riffraff@cybertime.net), July 07, 2001.

I am with you Carlos, but I failed. I only was able to exterminate a few odd million for ya, sorry, friend. You are right, why bicker, fire-up the ovens! is so much more efficient and a great timesaver.

-- (hitler@final.solution), July 07, 2001.

Use a figure of 7 billion. think you can fit everyone into the f%^in state of texas? yepps. with room to spare. at least a 1/2 acre apiece.

You freaks and your overpopulation bullsh*t.

-- (carlos@is.CT), July 08, 2001.

"You freaks and your overpopulation bullsh*t."

Sure, and the Sahara Desert could also hold all the world's human populaution with some elbow room to spare. So what?

What really matters is how much arable land there is. Even more important is how much arable land there is, if you take away irrigation pumped from underground aquifers. Sad to say, pumping underground water is much like pumping oil. You take it out and it doesn't grow back. It's not in the ground anymore.

I can just hear some idiot reactionary thinking, "Well, duh! Almost all the water you pump out of the earth to dump on crops goes right back into the atmospheric water cycle - ocean to clouds to rain - so nobody gets hurt. It's harmless."

Before anyone embarasses himself by posting this thought, once that water is returned from the aquifer to the atmospheric water cycle, you no longer have any control over where it falls as rain or snow. Most land that is irrigated by ground water doesn't get adequate rainfall. After you use up the ground water, it still doesn't get adequate rainfall.

Try growing crops without either irrigation or adequate rainfall. Good luck.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 09, 2001.

Solient Green

-- (who@needs.water), July 09, 2001.

MAn this little doggie is ignorant. the US alone has the land (AND resources, butthead) to feed the world. JUST the US.

Where the hell do you think underground water comes from? the underground water fairy? jeez you are stupid.

Try visiting the dry croppers sometime, doofus. grow crops without any irrigation. use little rainfall, and moisture from the ground.

next time, do a little research before you shoot your ignorant mouth off.

-- (extreme@greens.SUCK), July 09, 2001.

Dear extreme, you are welcome to add your body's water to my garden. Rainfall isn't enough, even though I'm using mulch.

-- helen (spit@it.too), July 09, 2001.

Thanks extreme. I thought that was pretty stupid. When a well runs dry, then we have no more water. boo hoo

The earth is a very good water filter. It has worked that way for hundreds of millions of years. But these damn farmers will destroy the underground water supply and then where will we go for our water?????

-- solutions (for@our.water.shortage), July 09, 2001.

the US alone has the land (AND resources, butthead) to feed the world. JUST the US.

I am rather inclined to believe that if you took all of Asia, Europe, Africa, Australia, South America, Canada, Mexico and Central America out of food production, there would be some detectable shortfall in feeding 6+ billion people... don't you think?

Before I will accept this 'fact', you will need to back this up with something other than your say-so. Among other things, your data should include the number of calories per person per day and the source of those calories - for example, would that diet include any meat?

Thanks. I look forward to your proving you weren't blowing smoke out of both ends.

Where the hell do you think underground water comes from? the underground water fairy?

I would be fascinated to hear your explanation for the water tables dropping in areas where ground-water irrigation is practised.

You see, it doesn't matter that underground water is replenished from surface water. What matters is the differential between the rate at which the water is pumped and the rate the water is replenished.

Try this simple experiment at home. Get a bucket that holds ten gallons. Poke a hole in the bottom so that 1 gallon of water runs out of the hole each minute. Plug the hole and fill the bucket. Put a hose into the bucket that is running at the rate of 2 fluid oz. per minute. Now pull the plug.

What happens to the water in the bucket?

Try visiting the dry croppers sometime, doofus. grow crops without any irrigation. use little rainfall, and moisture from the ground.

Try visiting irrigators sometime. Ask them how much their yield would drop if they didn't irrigate. In much of America west of the hundredth meridian, their answer would be, "Without irrigation, my land would go back to being a desert."

My point wasn't that crops can't be grown without irrigation, but that if you take away irrigation the world will produce a lot less food than it does today. Luckily, most irrigation is surface water irrigation, not ground water irrigation. Still, about 10% of the world's total food production relies on mining ground water. And the water tables continue to drop.

Go back to sleep. Chances are you won't ever starve. It will be some kid in a Third World country. And even then, no one will blame overpopulation. It will be drought or famine or disease or inefficient relief aid or something else.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 09, 2001.

Hey stupid fuckers -- how about explain how we can contain nuclear waste for 250,000 years.

Thanks assholes, I'll be waiting.

-- green my ass (common sense@is.more.like.it), July 09, 2001.

Green my ass, we're sitting on the biggest nuclear weapon. It's called mother earth. Go get some education you fuckin' liberals.

-- What (stupid@people.those.libs), July 10, 2001.

To all tree-hugging, frog-licking, shrub-screwing, bleeding heart liberals on this thread.....F O.

If you think I'm doing your homework for you lil doggie, think again. *I* have the answer, your assignment is to get your own info and DO THE F'ING RESEARCH.

-- (get@life.extreme.greens), July 12, 2001.

Global warming much worse than predicted, say scientists

The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of several hundred of the world's most distinguished meteorologists, including many Americans, is a substantial slap in the face for US President George Bush, whose unilateral abrogation of Kyoto has thrown the international effort to counter global warming into chaos. It comes on the eve of first big meeting, held in Bonn next week, to try to repair the treaty.

The president cited doubts about the science of climate change as the reason why he would not impose on the American economy the cuts in industrial gases which Kyoto requires – and which the US signed up to at the original treaty agreement in 1997.

But yesterday the IPCC scientists gave their unqualified support to the view that global warming is real. Furthermore, they said, since their last report was published six years ago, they found they had vastly underestimated the rate at which global temperatures are rising. They now believe they will rise by as much as 5.8C by the end of this century, almost twice the increase predicted in their 1995 report.

-- (Doing@the.research), July 12, 2001.

"*I* have the answer"

Then it will be no trouble at all for you to answer my question about why water tables are dropping in areas where ground water irrigation is practised.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 12, 2001.

"...your assignment is to get your own info and DO THE F'ING RESEARCH."

Actually, it was you who made the claim that:

"the US alone has the land (AND resources, butthead) to feed the world. JUST the US."

The burden of proving this claim is true is yours. Although I understand why you would love to push this burden off onto your readers, it still belongs to you. Then again, since you *have* the answer, backing up your claim should be a piece of cake.

Go fetch.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), July 12, 2001.

Doing@the.research,

Your link points to a report about a report that IS NOT AVAILABLE. The IPCC Third Assessment Report (TAR) that was supposed to be released immediately after the failed Hague conference is still not available. You do not at any stage refer to any actual data.

The claim that The report, from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), made up of several hundred of the world's most distinguished meteorologists is incorrect. The data was collected by around 3000 scientists from around the world, some of whom are meteorologists. (I might add that some data I personally prepared on snow accumulation was included). It was then debated by hundreds of delegates to the IPCC, some of whom are scientists (including two personal friends of mine). The TAR was prepared which showed a range of potential scenarios, from a negative temperature change to the figure of 5.6 C increase that is commonly discussed. Instead of the report being released, a Summary for Policy Makers (SPM) was released, and this is the only report made public. The SPM was authored by 20 people

(Here are the 20 lead authors listed by the UN IPCC -- Co- ordinating Lead Authors: D.L. Albritton (USA), L.G. Meira Filho (Brazil).

Lead Authors: U. Cubasch (Germany), X. Dai (China), Y. Ding (China), D.J. Griggs (UK), B. Hewitson (South Africa), J.T. Houghton (UK), I. Isaksen (Norway), T. Karl (USA), M. McFarland (USA), V.P. Meleshko (Russia), J.F.B. Mitchell (UK), M. Noguer (UK), B.S. Nyenzi (Tanzania), M. Oppenheimer (USA), J.E. Penner (USA), S. Pollonais (Trinidad and Tobago), T. Stocker (Switzerland), K.E. Trenberth (USA).)

So, Doing@the.research, How about doing some real research on the issue instead of just snipping part of a report on a report about a report that no-one can even get a copy of.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 13, 2001.

I believe the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change -- Climate Change 2001 -- can be found here.

http://www.ipcc.ch/

-- (Doing@the.research), July 13, 2001.

NEW

IPCC Third Assessment Report - Climate Change 2001

Three Working Group contributions available now!

-- (yep@it's.there), July 13, 2001.

No, the full report is not there. The SPM is, as is a TS (technical summary). But sorry, the TAR is still not available.

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 13, 2001.

From this report, here are a few statements that put the IPCC into perspective.

"July 12, 2001 Posted: 12:43 PM EDT (1643 GMT)

LONDON, England (CNN) -- A new report which paints a pessimistic future for the world's climate has been dismissed as "scaremongering" by some experts...."

"But some experts, including historical climatologists, say a study of temperatures over hundreds or even thousands of years show that what is regarded as global warming is in fact a "blip" of nature"

"Professor Philip Stott, from the Bio-Geography Department at the University of London, told CNN that the report's findings amounted to "scaremongering" and was a "last-ditch" attempt by the supporters of Kyoto to present the "very, very worst estimates" before the Bonn summit. "This is just hype and I find it deeply depressing by what I see is a misuse of science.

"There are many scenarios as to what could happen -- over 40 -- ranging from cooling to intense warming, and the bottom line is that we do not have an idea of what the climate is doing at the moment.

"There is hysteria about this in Europe and this is a last ditch attempt to get the U.S., Japan and Australia back on board (the Kyoto agreement). "

"Piers Corbyn of Weather Action, a UK-based company that provides long-term forecasts to UK industry, said the report offered "wild statements" and "misplaced alarmism."

Corbyn, who provides forecast based on solar activity, said he believed temperatures would get cooler rather than warmer."

-- Malcolm Taylor (taylorm@es.co.nz), July 13, 2001.

Thank you Malcolm!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), July 13, 2001.